By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - How can the GOP be argued to be pro-life instead of merely pro-birth, at best?

thranx on 21 August 2012
richardhutnik said:

Ok, this is the following, if I go with the GOP priorities on welfare, and the political views of the GOP on abortion issue:

* No abortions, period.  Rape (incest as a subset of rape) is not an excuse to terminate the life of a child.

* It is not the role of the government to provide any form of welfare to anyone, outside of the elderly.  The Federal government has no place providing any sort of prenatal care for women either.  

Combining these two policies, the following is a reality: Women who got pregnant due to being raped will get no help from the government to help bring the child to birth, or to help care for the child afterwards.   Heck, the government isn't even going to fund adoption support either.

So, how exactly can anyone, like the GOP, have a policy where women are forced to give birth on the one had, and also provide no resources to enable them to do that?  How exactly is that pro-life?  At best, it is a weak form of pro-birth, AT BEST... but there is no indication of that even be supported.  It is a case of back-alley birthings... and I guess the newborn gets put in a dumpster and abandoned.  But then again, maybe seeing this, the state can step in and put the woman in prison for considering this.  So, maybe the best policy would be to put women who are raped in prison.  They would at least get some health care.

 


Just because they don't feel the government should be doling out welfare does not mean they themelves do not care. It mearly means they don't want the government being the ones to do it. Perhaps they feel their church is better at distributin welfare and helping people or tha they themselves want to help people. Aren't republicans known for donationg more of their money to charity that democrats?



Around the Network
thranx on 21 August 2012
makingmusic476 said:
kain_kusanagi said:
richardhutnik said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Really? Not only are you exaggerating, but you aren't looking at it from the right perspective. If unborn babies are humans then killing them is murder. The US government outlaws murder for obvious reasons. Welfare has nothing to do with the outlaw of killing. Your argument is pure straw man.

The argument has to be do with calling oneself "pro-life".  How can you argue the scenario I described is anything pro-life at all?  Welfare has to do with the case of being a party of life, which is what the GOP claims.

Good grief man. Let's forget for one second that most republicans are conservatives and conservatives prefer to donate to charities rather than pay taxes that go to wasteful welfare programs. Let's forget about that for one sec ok. Oh and while we are at it let's forget that what the republican party wants is to stop public money from being used for abortion more than an outright ban on all reasons for abortion. Ok so we've forgotten about all that. Now lets' talk about the government's role. It is supposed to uphold the constitution, protect our borders, and enforce the law. None of that has anything to do with abortion/healthcare or welfare.

None of us have a god given right to be taken care of by the government nor do we have a god given right to a free abortion paid for by people who don't like abortion. That's the rub man. People don't want their money going to something they consider to be the murder of babies. They would rather give their money to charities that do a better job of helping people in need then the government does. Ok, you can remember that other stuff now.

Find me a charity or group of charities that can provide a social safety net as comprehensively and equitably as government.

Leaving things up to charities is far too YMMV, as it can vary wildly based on location, not to mention charities can (not saying they do in any significant numbers, just that they can) discriminate based on lifestyle, race, and so on.

The catholic church. Is the best in my opinion, but alomst any church i know of will help people in need. Wether they are christians helping jews/muslims or vice versa.

 

Also the government socail net is not that great. Since they have stepped in i believe poverty has gotten worse not better. So if anything its best left in the hands of private charities. I believe kasz usaully has links to that info. perhaps he will post in here.



ninetailschris on 21 August 2012
thranx said:
makingmusic476 said:
kain_kusanagi said:
richardhutnik said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Really? Not only are you exaggerating, but you aren't looking at it from the right perspective. If unborn babies are humans then killing them is murder. The US government outlaws murder for obvious reasons. Welfare has nothing to do with the outlaw of killing. Your argument is pure straw man.

The argument has to be do with calling oneself "pro-life".  How can you argue the scenario I described is anything pro-life at all?  Welfare has to do with the case of being a party of life, which is what the GOP claims.

Good grief man. Let's forget for one second that most republicans are conservatives and conservatives prefer to donate to charities rather than pay taxes that go to wasteful welfare programs. Let's forget about that for one sec ok. Oh and while we are at it let's forget that what the republican party wants is to stop public money from being used for abortion more than an outright ban on all reasons for abortion. Ok so we've forgotten about all that. Now lets' talk about the government's role. It is supposed to uphold the constitution, protect our borders, and enforce the law. None of that has anything to do with abortion/healthcare or welfare.

None of us have a god given right to be taken care of by the government nor do we have a god given right to a free abortion paid for by people who don't like abortion. That's the rub man. People don't want their money going to something they consider to be the murder of babies. They would rather give their money to charities that do a better job of helping people in need then the government does. Ok, you can remember that other stuff now.

Find me a charity or group of charities that can provide a social safety net as comprehensively and equitably as government.

Leaving things up to charities is far too YMMV, as it can vary wildly based on location, not to mention charities can (not saying they do in any significant numbers, just that they can) discriminate based on lifestyle, race, and so on.

The catholic church. Is the best in my opinion, but alomst any church i know of will help people in need. Wether they are christians helping jews/muslims or vice versa.

 

Also the government socail net is not that great. Since they have stepped in i believe poverty has gotten worse not better. So if anything its best left in the hands of private charities. I believe kasz usaully has links to that info. perhaps he will post in here.


Most people on welfare survive by the churches near me. They give food and help with free babysitting. It's amazing stuff I have nothing but respect for churches like that.

NEVER ONCE SEEN CHURCHES NEAR ME REJECT ANYONE. 

Amen.



"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max

thranx on 21 August 2012
ninetailschris said:
thranx said:
makingmusic476 said:
kain_kusanagi said:
richardhutnik said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Really? Not only are you exaggerating, but you aren't looking at it from the right perspective. If unborn babies are humans then killing them is murder. The US government outlaws murder for obvious reasons. Welfare has nothing to do with the outlaw of killing. Your argument is pure straw man.

The argument has to be do with calling oneself "pro-life".  How can you argue the scenario I described is anything pro-life at all?  Welfare has to do with the case of being a party of life, which is what the GOP claims.

Good grief man. Let's forget for one second that most republicans are conservatives and conservatives prefer to donate to charities rather than pay taxes that go to wasteful welfare programs. Let's forget about that for one sec ok. Oh and while we are at it let's forget that what the republican party wants is to stop public money from being used for abortion more than an outright ban on all reasons for abortion. Ok so we've forgotten about all that. Now lets' talk about the government's role. It is supposed to uphold the constitution, protect our borders, and enforce the law. None of that has anything to do with abortion/healthcare or welfare.

None of us have a god given right to be taken care of by the government nor do we have a god given right to a free abortion paid for by people who don't like abortion. That's the rub man. People don't want their money going to something they consider to be the murder of babies. They would rather give their money to charities that do a better job of helping people in need then the government does. Ok, you can remember that other stuff now.

Find me a charity or group of charities that can provide a social safety net as comprehensively and equitably as government.

Leaving things up to charities is far too YMMV, as it can vary wildly based on location, not to mention charities can (not saying they do in any significant numbers, just that they can) discriminate based on lifestyle, race, and so on.

The catholic church. Is the best in my opinion, but alomst any church i know of will help people in need. Wether they are christians helping jews/muslims or vice versa.

 

Also the government socail net is not that great. Since they have stepped in i believe poverty has gotten worse not better. So if anything its best left in the hands of private charities. I believe kasz usaully has links to that info. perhaps he will post in here.


Most people on welfare survive by the churches near me. They give food and help with free babysitting. It's amazing stuff I have nothing but respect for churches like that.

NEVER ONCE SEEN CHURCHES NEAR ME REJECT ANYONE. 

Amen.

Yea same here.  They have helped my family and we dont attend church. I have also seen them help many others. and not only that they offer some knowledge on how to better your life not just throw money at you like th government. I think people forget that before government welfare that churches, citizens, and organizitons filled that need.



gergroy on 21 August 2012
richardhutnik said:
gergroy said:
I think you are exaggerating quite a bit with your argument here. Now, I don't agree with outlawing abortion so I'm not going to defend it. However, if abortion isn't an option then I would think most women would just go through adoption agencies, I don't think you would find many women dumping babies in dumpsters. When couples adopt, they also agree to pay for all the healthcare related to the birth of the child.

So, yeah... a bit of an exaggeration.

I could show example after example of the GOP slashing funding to social programs.  I would like you to show where the GOP would support any sort of funding to make this so.

Here is the GOP platform on abortion, where they speak of a pro-life agenda:

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

What they offer is a salute:

 

Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services.

 

 

Besides a salute, I would like you to find details of what their pro-life agenda is, beyond it being pro-birth.

 

It certainly doesn't seem to involve funding for family planning:

http://www.socrei.org/House_Subcommittee_Eliminates_Title_X_Funding/

 

And about actually funding prenatal care?  Well, it looks like that is cut to:

http://gonzalez.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=553&Itemid=4

 

And more cuts:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/02/09/173778/gop-war-on-babies/

 

Again, what is this "Pro-life agenda" the GOP has?

did you even read my post? because your response doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said...



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 21 August 2012
thranx said:
richardhutnik said:

Ok, this is the following, if I go with the GOP priorities on welfare, and the political views of the GOP on abortion issue:

* No abortions, period.  Rape (incest as a subset of rape) is not an excuse to terminate the life of a child.

* It is not the role of the government to provide any form of welfare to anyone, outside of the elderly.  The Federal government has no place providing any sort of prenatal care for women either.  

Combining these two policies, the following is a reality: Women who got pregnant due to being raped will get no help from the government to help bring the child to birth, or to help care for the child afterwards.   Heck, the government isn't even going to fund adoption support either.

So, how exactly can anyone, like the GOP, have a policy where women are forced to give birth on the one had, and also provide no resources to enable them to do that?  How exactly is that pro-life?  At best, it is a weak form of pro-birth, AT BEST... but there is no indication of that even be supported.  It is a case of back-alley birthings... and I guess the newborn gets put in a dumpster and abandoned.  But then again, maybe seeing this, the state can step in and put the woman in prison for considering this.  So, maybe the best policy would be to put women who are raped in prison.  They would at least get some health care.

 


Just because they don't feel the government should be doling out welfare does not mean they themelves do not care. It mearly means they don't want the government being the ones to do it. Perhaps they feel their church is better at distributin welfare and helping people or tha they themselves want to help people. Aren't republicans known for donationg more of their money to charity that democrats?

And you also believe in a complete and total ban on abortion, even in the case of rape?  If so, defend the view that you support this view, of forcing a woman to give birth, but then proving no support in the process.

If you don't support this, or aren't Republican, then what I wrote on really wouldn't apply to yourself and you are more than free to say NO WELFARE.  At least you are consistent.



killerzX on 21 August 2012
richardhutnik said:
thranx said:
richardhutnik said:

Ok, this is the following, if I go with the GOP priorities on welfare, and the political views of the GOP on abortion issue:

* No abortions, period.  Rape (incest as a subset of rape) is not an excuse to terminate the life of a child.

* It is not the role of the government to provide any form of welfare to anyone, outside of the elderly.  The Federal government has no place providing any sort of prenatal care for women either.  

Combining these two policies, the following is a reality: Women who got pregnant due to being raped will get no help from the government to help bring the child to birth, or to help care for the child afterwards.   Heck, the government isn't even going to fund adoption support either.

So, how exactly can anyone, like the GOP, have a policy where women are forced to give birth on the one had, and also provide no resources to enable them to do that?  How exactly is that pro-life?  At best, it is a weak form of pro-birth, AT BEST... but there is no indication of that even be supported.  It is a case of back-alley birthings... and I guess the newborn gets put in a dumpster and abandoned.  But then again, maybe seeing this, the state can step in and put the woman in prison for considering this.  So, maybe the best policy would be to put women who are raped in prison.  They would at least get some health care.

 


Just because they don't feel the government should be doling out welfare does not mean they themelves do not care. It mearly means they don't want the government being the ones to do it. Perhaps they feel their church is better at distributin welfare and helping people or tha they themselves want to help people. Aren't republicans known for donationg more of their money to charity that democrats?

And you also believe in a complete and total ban on abortion, even in the case of rape?  If so, defend the view that you support this view, of forcing a woman to give birth, but then proving no support in the process.

If you don't support this, or aren't Republican, then what I wrote on really wouldn't apply to yourself and you are more than free to say NO WELFARE.  At least you are consistent.

if abortion is wrong, its because the embroyo is a human being.

so at the moment of fertalization its human, it doesnt magically become non-human because the dad is a rapist.

being a human doesnt rely on who the dad was, or else we could kill all people who's dad were rapists.

 

also im on the fence about this, but i feel if the child has no parent who will take care of it, it is the responsibility of governement to intervene and help the child. i think that goes for all non working age peoplle/ minors. just like when kids have abusive or neglecting parents, child services take the kid away and they become wards of the state. but this goes for just children. i think think you would find almost all republicans in support of this.



richardhutnik on 21 August 2012
gergroy said:
richardhutnik said:
gergroy said:
I think you are exaggerating quite a bit with your argument here. Now, I don't agree with outlawing abortion so I'm not going to defend it. However, if abortion isn't an option then I would think most women would just go through adoption agencies, I don't think you would find many women dumping babies in dumpsters. When couples adopt, they also agree to pay for all the healthcare related to the birth of the child.

So, yeah... a bit of an exaggeration.

I could show example after example of the GOP slashing funding to social programs.  I would like you to show where the GOP would support any sort of funding to make this so.

Here is the GOP platform on abortion, where they speak of a pro-life agenda:

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

 

Again, what is this "Pro-life agenda" the GOP has?

did you even read my post? because your response doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said...

I read your post.  I was trying not to take it as what I thought i read it as.  If you outlaw abortion then there wouldn't be a problem with unwanted births, because almost all children put up for adoption would find homes to take care of the kids.  Currently there are over 130,000 children waiting to be adopted today: http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-children-remain-unadopted-in-america

Add over 30,000 more a year due to forced pregnancy due to rape and how much do you think it would go up?

I mention GOP policy, because they are the one pushing views seen here by some, that the government isn't supposed to do anything to address the issue.



BenVTrigger on 21 August 2012

The reason it can be labled pro-life is because there is zero debate that you are killing living organisms during an abortion.

This is not opinion it is a fact.

The only question is whether or not you feel its ethically ok to kill an organism that has everything within its DNA to form a fully functioning human being. Regardless of ones opinion however abortion is the killing of a living organism thus the label pro-life



killerzX on 21 August 2012
richardhutnik said:
gergroy said:
richardhutnik said:
gergroy said:
I think you are exaggerating quite a bit with your argument here. Now, I don't agree with outlawing abortion so I'm not going to defend it. However, if abortion isn't an option then I would think most women would just go through adoption agencies, I don't think you would find many women dumping babies in dumpsters. When couples adopt, they also agree to pay for all the healthcare related to the birth of the child.

So, yeah... a bit of an exaggeration.

I could show example after example of the GOP slashing funding to social programs.  I would like you to show where the GOP would support any sort of funding to make this so.

Here is the GOP platform on abortion, where they speak of a pro-life agenda:

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

 

Again, what is this "Pro-life agenda" the GOP has?

did you even read my post? because your response doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said...

I read your post.  I was trying not to take it as what I thought i read it as.  If you outlaw abortion then there wouldn't be a problem with unwanted births, because almost all children put up for adoption would find homes to take care of the kids.  Currently there are over 130,000 children waiting to be adopted today: http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-children-remain-unadopted-in-america

Add over 30,000 more a year due to forced pregnancy due to rape and how much do you think it would go up?

I mention GOP policy, because they are the one pushing views seen here by some, that the government isn't supposed to do anything to address the issue.

thats a sepperate issue, its too hard to adopt in this country, i know of many people who have tried, yet dont get approval.

we have a big problem of people instead adopting foreign babies instead of demestic (which isnt bad per se) because it too difficult to adopt.

but it also another issue, a moral issue. one that involves the moral decay in our society. one that promotes irresponsibility, promiscuity, and general bad behavior. so really untill we solve that problem (which many people dont feel is a problem, because they are okay with it, and dont believe its moral decay, so it makes it an even harder proplem to solve) there is always going to be a huge supply of kids to adopt.

but i, as well as many others would much prefer an abundance of kids, then an abundance of murder.