7 ms·

I feel in the US that we have an almost unnatural desire to protect children, to the exclusion of other people. Sure, who can be against children? They're you

by cbanek 9y ago

I feel in the US that we have an almost unnatural desire to protect children, to the exclusion of other people. Sure, who can be against children? They're young, cute (as long as you aren't changing their diapers at the time), and innocent of any possible wrong doing. Anything bad they do is just reflected on poor parenting, if that's the case or not. But yet the same pro-life people who want to save every child's life don't seem nearly so sympathetic to mothers, even mothers that want to have healthy children. The calls for de-funding planned parenthood and bad maternity leave policies are at odds with having healthy babies and families. And healthy families are exactly what insurance companies, the government, and families can agree on. (It's cheaper for insurance, more citizens to be tax payers, and families love kids) Yet in the political sphere, we're trying to take away programs like SNAP and WIC (which provide assistance to families and mothers). It's a lot cheaper to feed a baby at home and keep them healthy than it is to feed them in a hospital. Don't even get me started on childhood education. I do think we have the technology to do much better, but we lack funding, education, and political will. And it's all become entangled in the welfare/abortion debate, which in America seems evergreen for political abuse.

yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
> But yet the same pro-life people who want to save every child's life don't seem nearly so sympathetic to mothers, even mothers that want to have healthy children. This is rather disingenuous if you're referring to the practice of making sure one's children are healthy by murdering the unhealthy ones before birth. If, on the other hand, you refer to the coexistence of pro-life positions with being unwilling to allocate money to healthcare... Yeah, that's unfortunate, although not inherently contradictory (in my experience, both frequently co-occur with a strong emphasis on private charity rather that government services).
- cbanek 9y ago
  While there is something to be said for screening for genetic diseases, etc, I was referring more to how pro-life people more seem to care about people having babies, rather than those babies being treated well and having a good life and good future. Healthcare, education, nutrition, and safe & stable housing are key to a young family. I hear a lot about how we shouldn't have abortions, but I worry more about all the kids and babies in foster care that aren't getting the love and attention they deserve. Another hugely underfunded system that is notorious for abuse. I've got nothing against people being for life, and having kids. I'd suggest they go adopt a few kids rather than having them though. It's probably what Jesus would want you to do. But I can't and won't prescribe for everyone or even me before I'd have to make such a choice. Life is strange, and complicated in so many ways. Ways so crazy people couldn't invent them if they tried. I personally don't think we need to make it harder on anyone.
  - yehi 9y ago
    A lot of pro life people feel that actively killing sometime (they consider a fetus alive) is very bad and should be stopped. Where as keeping another person alive (not passively killing them) and happy is the individuals responsibility. Think about the trolley problem. In one case you passively kill 4 people and in the other case you actively kill 1. Pro life people would probably choose to passively kill 4 while pro choice would probably choose to actively kill 1.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - gech 9y ago
      A lot of people think letting people die is very bad too. And also a lot of people think there is a responsibility to not let others die.
      - yehi 9y ago
        Sure, that's what's great about democracy, we can vote for what the majority wants. I was responding to what cbanek wrote, as it seemed to me that cbanek did not correctly understand some of the pro-lifers viewpoints.
        thriftwy 9y ago
        You can't really vote majorities when human rights issues are involved. Basically same thing with other property rights. Can't vote a person out of their belongings.
        sumedh 9y ago
        > Sure, that's what's great about democracy, we can vote for what the majority wants. Sometimes what the majority wants, is wrong.
  - nandemo 9y ago
    Not trying to convince anyone, but: I believe abortion (with exceptions) is somewhere between manslaughter and murder morally, and therefore should be illegal. Nothing to do with religion. The "pro-life" label is silly. I don't believe people should have more children (I don't have any). Avoiding unwanted pregancies i.e. contraception is a solved problem. Contraception should be freely available as a matter of public health, just as vaccines are.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- usmeteora 9y ago
  I don't think they were referring to people wanting to murder babies with genetic predispositions, as much as poverty stricken women who couldn't afford safe sex, may have gotten pregnant against their will, can't afford a plan B pill much less any other form of retroactive action, and wanting to not raise a child in poverty without planning. I'm sorry man, but I just lived for 5 years in one of the worst ghettos in the country, ranked top 3% in the country in the nation for crime, and it is ungodly to witness on a daily basis what small children are subject to in places of extreme violence, crime, poverty, where the nearest grocery store is 10 miles away, much less anything else. I also live in the far north, and these children suffer in the winter. Oh and while I'm ranting on about how horrible it is for the children, I'll just throw in the mostly irrelevant existence of the women in these areas, and the emotional, oral and physical violence I have witnessed them be subject to and thats in public. I get chills thinking what these women are subject to in private. I've seen heroine addicts with their children dumpster diving for food in the back of my alley way on a Saturday morning as a routine, even trained their older children age 7/8 to dumpster dive for food, in America... I've seen a mother, in a place where uber/lyft arent allowed, wait 45min for a $40 cab with melting frozen chicken nuggets she got on welfare, and sat with her and her 6 yr old son at 10pm at night, so she could not have to walk him through the worst part of the ghetto after the public transportation stopped running, because her shift ran late and it took an hour to ride the bus to pick up her son from her mothers house where he was being watched after school. If at any time a mother or a potential mother, particularly one living in poverty and an area of high crime with no childcare situation, think they are not fit to have kids, we are doing ourselves as a society, the women, and these children, particularly one with a history of drug problems, or an in and out heroine addict, or a woman living in a violent home deems herself unfit to have children or raise them,regardless of how healthy they are in the womb a disservice to force them into existence, unless of course you would like to sit in the back of my alleyway and hand out food, coats, anti-voilence and rape education and other things that require raising "healthy" children. The only thing violent and cruel in my opinion is for you, as a third party, to decide above a mother who is willing to admit shes unfit as a parent, that she will have kids and that your unnamed private charity will somehow rear this child a healthy unbringing. I'm afraid you are just wrong about what encompasses having and raising healthy children, If you look at this from the perspective of the potential mothers, the potential children, or pure economics, we are dooming ourselves as a society. The only thing left standing as a pillar in the face of progress of enabling our society to help itself out of a viscious cycle of poverty and crime, is the emotional blackmail upon the masses guised under the idea that there is a morality based on either political, or religious, or other philosophical reference points formed by people who are not potential mothers, and CLEARLY not subjects of extreme poverty, that can be placed absolutely on all situations, where in all situations, the mother is left raising a child in poverty stricken hell with no resources because your local white suburban church and Fox news told you this is all a conspiracy, and anyways she was being irresponsible. nonsense. For anyone who has the opinion that mothers should be forced to have babies and if they didnt solve the problem "in time" its their own fault/ responsibility from that point on AND/OR that the private charity your local church is giving to is making a difference, I strongly recommend you go live in a real ghetto/poverty stricken area for atleast 6 months and walk the streets on a daily basis, and come out of your ignorance and then talk to me about all the things you think poverty stricken mothers should and should not do, and what they should be responsible for. I'd honestly love to hear it.... I am tired of hearing the pro life argument from stay at home moms in suburbia who need to pass a law to scare their preteens into not getting into trouble and doing their homework instead, because of their inadequate parenting to be frank, and 50 + yr old white men who have never truly suffered in their life. Why are they so concerned with the suffering of unborn lives and not the suffering the millions of people producing these potentially born lives, in neighborhoods and areas they have never lived in? it is always really interesting to see what few and far between things peak the interest of republican suburban white people enough for them to form an opinion, regarding entire demographics they will never interact with while driving their mini van to the local grocery store down the traffic circle. It is always over things that have nothing to do with them, do not limit their personal ability to live out their lives the way they think is "right" and is almost always because something someone else theyve never met in a situation theyve never been in is making a decision that is offensive to their way of life which again, they could continue to live out in complete isolated ignorance in the comfort of suburbia if they chose, but they choose to embarass our country by suddenly caring about what poor people are and are not entitled to. They need a law to point to and say "see? I am right, those people are wrong, they are sluts, they are irresponsible and they are not trying hard enough, and actually I am being humane and doing the right thing by telling those women I've never met what to do with their bodies. Obviously a bunch of white 50 yr old men in congress agree with me so now I can say aha, my way of life is superior."
sjg007 9y ago
Yep hypocrisy abounds.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tathougies 9y ago
This is incredibly disingenous. The largest pro-life advocacy group, the Catholic Church, is pro-universal healthcare, pro-maternity leave (and paternity leave, the Church believes both parents should be home with their children). Moreover, the church has a long history (longer than planned parenthood) of providing accessible healthcare services. One need only look at the number of Catholic hospitals that closed during the recession because they provided free or discounted care when no one else would. So, yeah, please stop projecting the entire sphere of simple-minded conservatism on the pro-life cause. The anti-abortion posse has supporters all over the political spectrum, not just in the republican party. If you want the democratic party to win an election, you should figure this one out.
- trhway 9y ago
  man, i'm sorry, after today's news it will for awhile be especially hard [and not in the way "hard" is understood these days in Vatican] for me to consider seriously as genuine any declared position of Catholic Church. I mean, for Christ sake, it was the Cardinal responsible for Inquisition (department of Doctrine of Faith as it is called these days) ! :)
  - tathougies 9y ago
    The Church isn't one homogeneous group. Each diocese operates independently, and each order is a separate entity, so the hospitals (which are usually run by nuns) are usually separate from the regular Church hierarchy. Nevertheless -- regardless of the many shortcomings of its members -- the Church is still probably the single largest non-political entity behind a single payer universal health care system in the country.
    - trhway 9y ago
      >The Church isn't one homogeneous group. Each diocese operates independently, and each order is a separate entity that definitely contradicts the Church's own teachings and declarations, and it doesn't work in the civil law space too - the courts stroke down that argument when the Church tried to use it in order to shield the assets from the child molestation lawsuits.
humanrebar 9y ago
> But yet the same pro-life people who want to save every child's life don't seem nearly so sympathetic to mothers, even mothers that want to have healthy children. You seem to be viewing all these problems through a political and government lens. I feel it's a leap in logic to say "if someone doesn't support progressive policies then they don't care about mothers, families, and born lives". One example, there are too many to list exhaustively, is in the recent refugee crisis. An evangelical charity supported by lots of red-staters was in there doing what it could (1). On a personal level, the churches I've been part of do attack poverty and justice issues on many fronts. There are women's shelters, several programs for the homeless, food banks, free health care clinics, job placement programs, financial education programs, sponsorship of impoverished third-world children, sponsorship of impoverished third-world villages, and so on. There is also a fund for helping church members (some of whom come from local shelters or are otherwise poor) pay bills as needed. And there are innumerable education, mentoring, and counseling programs offered to help families be emotionally and spiritually healthy, partly to avoid the need for programs for people with broken homes and so on. I am not afraid that I don't care about mothers just because Planned Parenthood is not on the list. Modulo big mistakes in the implementation (1), I am fine with SNAP, WIC, etc. when they're used to help poor families. I don't know any pro-life people who feel a burning need to cut these things. And, as a side note, it's really a bad idea to keep bringing up Planned Parenthood as being pro-mother. From time to time we have friends with money problems that need pregnancy care. We contacted the local Planned Parenthood asking about their offerings, only to find that they offer none, really. Not even referrals. They more or less said they do abortions and birth control and do not offer programs for women who are planning an actual pregnancy. A local pro-life pregnancy center also did not offer anything in house, but did refer us to some pro-life shelters and programs that would help out with prenatal care. 1) https://www.samaritanspurse.org/disaster/refugee-crisis-in-europe/ https://www.samaritanspurse.org/disaster/refugee-crisis-in-e... 2) I'd rather just move to minimum income, set it to a healthy level, and stop conflicting over funding levels of each of the multitude of entitlement programs. Poor people are hurt (or at least helped a lot less) by doing indirect charity through price fixing, corporate charity, etc. For example, do you know what might help with the homeless problem? Cheaper homes. But we insist on propping up housing prices, subsidizing sprawling McMansion-ridden suburbs, setting up people in unaffordable homes saying it's an investment, etc.
chrisbennet 9y ago
Perhaps, just perhaps, the Pro Life position is about appealing to a segment of voters who wouldn't be attracted by the Cut Taxes for the Wealthy position?
deorder 9y ago
You should know that people who are against one of the following are called "pro-life" (and therefore Trump-supporters, racists, alt-right and nazi...) as well: - 3rd-trimester / late term abortion without physical-health reasons. - The selling of body parts instead of freely giving it away for research. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_unde... (later said to only be the cost of transportation) - The idea of post-birth termination. See: http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261 http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261
- thriftwy 9y ago
  are called[by whom?] "pro-life"
  - deorder 9y ago
    By many people that are pro-abortion. The following way of thinking seems to be norm nowadays: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_against_us https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_... I think the term "pro-life" is being abused to put labels on people who are just against the points I mentioned. These people are not necessarily "anti-abortion".
    - cbanek 9y ago
      Who exactly is pro-abortion? Do you think there are women out there getting their kicks from getting pregnant just to have an abortion because it's such a fun time? It's an imperfect choice in an imperfect world, where a lot can happen. I wouldn't say anyone is "pro-abortion", but a lot of people are pro-choice, knowing that a blanket ban puts people at risk. > I think the term "pro-life" is being abused to put labels on people who are just against the points I mentioned. These people are not necessarily "anti-abortion". So what you're saying is someone who thinks it's okay to get a first trimester abortion for any reason is pro-life? That seems absurd.
      - 9y ago
homulilly 9y ago
the "pro-life" movement in the US has always been about controlling women, not protecting anyone. once you realize this the fact they generally don't put any focus on mothers, children's health after they're born, family planning, education, nutrition, etc makes a lot more sense.
- Avshalom 9y ago
  Not always, it started as merely a cynical attempt to force Catholics to vote Republican.
  - le-mark 9y ago
    Down votes aren't warranted, although breif, there's a lot of truth to this statement. It illustrates something very fundamental about US politics. Simply by guaranteeing pro life supreme court nominees, the Republicans have nearly every priest and pastor in the country beseeching, requesting, and/or demanding their parishioners to vote Republican. They'll show the videos or tell the stories and remind them to vote for the pro life candidate. This is a powerful force. I know a lot of people who voted for the current administration because of this.

by cbanek 9y ago

yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago

> But yet the same pro-life people who want to save every child's life don't seem nearly so sympathetic to mothers, even mothers that want to have healthy children. This is rather disingenuous if you're referring to the practice of making sure one's children are healthy by murdering the unhealthy ones before birth. If, on the other hand, you refer to the coexistence of pro-life positions with being unwilling to allocate money to healthcare... Yeah, that's unfortunate, although not inherently contradictory (in my experience, both frequently co-occur with a strong emphasis on private charity rather that government services).

cbanek 9y ago
While there is something to be said for screening for genetic diseases, etc, I was referring more to how pro-life people more seem to care about people having babies, rather than those babies being treated well and having a good life and good future. Healthcare, education, nutrition, and safe & stable housing are key to a young family. I hear a lot about how we shouldn't have abortions, but I worry more about all the kids and babies in foster care that aren't getting the love and attention they deserve. Another hugely underfunded system that is notorious for abuse. I've got nothing against people being for life, and having kids. I'd suggest they go adopt a few kids rather than having them though. It's probably what Jesus would want you to do. But I can't and won't prescribe for everyone or even me before I'd have to make such a choice. Life is strange, and complicated in so many ways. Ways so crazy people couldn't invent them if they tried. I personally don't think we need to make it harder on anyone.
- yehi 9y ago
  A lot of pro life people feel that actively killing sometime (they consider a fetus alive) is very bad and should be stopped. Where as keeping another person alive (not passively killing them) and happy is the individuals responsibility. Think about the trolley problem. In one case you passively kill 4 people and in the other case you actively kill 1. Pro life people would probably choose to passively kill 4 while pro choice would probably choose to actively kill 1.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - gech 9y ago
    A lot of people think letting people die is very bad too. And also a lot of people think there is a responsibility to not let others die.
    - yehi 9y ago
      Sure, that's what's great about democracy, we can vote for what the majority wants. I was responding to what cbanek wrote, as it seemed to me that cbanek did not correctly understand some of the pro-lifers viewpoints.
      - thriftwy 9y ago
        You can't really vote majorities when human rights issues are involved. Basically same thing with other property rights. Can't vote a person out of their belongings.
      - sumedh 9y ago
        > Sure, that's what's great about democracy, we can vote for what the majority wants. Sometimes what the majority wants, is wrong.
- nandemo 9y ago
  Not trying to convince anyone, but: I believe abortion (with exceptions) is somewhere between manslaughter and murder morally, and therefore should be illegal. Nothing to do with religion. The "pro-life" label is silly. I don't believe people should have more children (I don't have any). Avoiding unwanted pregancies i.e. contraception is a solved problem. Contraception should be freely available as a matter of public health, just as vaccines are.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
usmeteora 9y ago
I don't think they were referring to people wanting to murder babies with genetic predispositions, as much as poverty stricken women who couldn't afford safe sex, may have gotten pregnant against their will, can't afford a plan B pill much less any other form of retroactive action, and wanting to not raise a child in poverty without planning. I'm sorry man, but I just lived for 5 years in one of the worst ghettos in the country, ranked top 3% in the country in the nation for crime, and it is ungodly to witness on a daily basis what small children are subject to in places of extreme violence, crime, poverty, where the nearest grocery store is 10 miles away, much less anything else. I also live in the far north, and these children suffer in the winter. Oh and while I'm ranting on about how horrible it is for the children, I'll just throw in the mostly irrelevant existence of the women in these areas, and the emotional, oral and physical violence I have witnessed them be subject to and thats in public. I get chills thinking what these women are subject to in private. I've seen heroine addicts with their children dumpster diving for food in the back of my alley way on a Saturday morning as a routine, even trained their older children age 7/8 to dumpster dive for food, in America... I've seen a mother, in a place where uber/lyft arent allowed, wait 45min for a $40 cab with melting frozen chicken nuggets she got on welfare, and sat with her and her 6 yr old son at 10pm at night, so she could not have to walk him through the worst part of the ghetto after the public transportation stopped running, because her shift ran late and it took an hour to ride the bus to pick up her son from her mothers house where he was being watched after school. If at any time a mother or a potential mother, particularly one living in poverty and an area of high crime with no childcare situation, think they are not fit to have kids, we are doing ourselves as a society, the women, and these children, particularly one with a history of drug problems, or an in and out heroine addict, or a woman living in a violent home deems herself unfit to have children or raise them,regardless of how healthy they are in the womb a disservice to force them into existence, unless of course you would like to sit in the back of my alleyway and hand out food, coats, anti-voilence and rape education and other things that require raising "healthy" children. The only thing violent and cruel in my opinion is for you, as a third party, to decide above a mother who is willing to admit shes unfit as a parent, that she will have kids and that your unnamed private charity will somehow rear this child a healthy unbringing. I'm afraid you are just wrong about what encompasses having and raising healthy children, If you look at this from the perspective of the potential mothers, the potential children, or pure economics, we are dooming ourselves as a society. The only thing left standing as a pillar in the face of progress of enabling our society to help itself out of a viscious cycle of poverty and crime, is the emotional blackmail upon the masses guised under the idea that there is a morality based on either political, or religious, or other philosophical reference points formed by people who are not potential mothers, and CLEARLY not subjects of extreme poverty, that can be placed absolutely on all situations, where in all situations, the mother is left raising a child in poverty stricken hell with no resources because your local white suburban church and Fox news told you this is all a conspiracy, and anyways she was being irresponsible. nonsense. For anyone who has the opinion that mothers should be forced to have babies and if they didnt solve the problem "in time" its their own fault/ responsibility from that point on AND/OR that the private charity your local church is giving to is making a difference, I strongly recommend you go live in a real ghetto/poverty stricken area for atleast 6 months and walk the streets on a daily basis, and come out of your ignorance and then talk to me about all the things you think poverty stricken mothers should and should not do, and what they should be responsible for. I'd honestly love to hear it.... I am tired of hearing the pro life argument from stay at home moms in suburbia who need to pass a law to scare their preteens into not getting into trouble and doing their homework instead, because of their inadequate parenting to be frank, and 50 + yr old white men who have never truly suffered in their life. Why are they so concerned with the suffering of unborn lives and not the suffering the millions of people producing these potentially born lives, in neighborhoods and areas they have never lived in? it is always really interesting to see what few and far between things peak the interest of republican suburban white people enough for them to form an opinion, regarding entire demographics they will never interact with while driving their mini van to the local grocery store down the traffic circle. It is always over things that have nothing to do with them, do not limit their personal ability to live out their lives the way they think is "right" and is almost always because something someone else theyve never met in a situation theyve never been in is making a decision that is offensive to their way of life which again, they could continue to live out in complete isolated ignorance in the comfort of suburbia if they chose, but they choose to embarass our country by suddenly caring about what poor people are and are not entitled to. They need a law to point to and say "see? I am right, those people are wrong, they are sluts, they are irresponsible and they are not trying hard enough, and actually I am being humane and doing the right thing by telling those women I've never met what to do with their bodies. Obviously a bunch of white 50 yr old men in congress agree with me so now I can say aha, my way of life is superior."

sjg007 9y ago

Yep hypocrisy abounds.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tathougies 9y ago

This is incredibly disingenous. The largest pro-life advocacy group, the Catholic Church, is pro-universal healthcare, pro-maternity leave (and paternity leave, the Church believes both parents should be home with their children). Moreover, the church has a long history (longer than planned parenthood) of providing accessible healthcare services. One need only look at the number of Catholic hospitals that closed during the recession because they provided free or discounted care when no one else would. So, yeah, please stop projecting the entire sphere of simple-minded conservatism on the pro-life cause. The anti-abortion posse has supporters all over the political spectrum, not just in the republican party. If you want the democratic party to win an election, you should figure this one out.

trhway 9y ago
man, i'm sorry, after today's news it will for awhile be especially hard [and not in the way "hard" is understood these days in Vatican] for me to consider seriously as genuine any declared position of Catholic Church. I mean, for Christ sake, it was the Cardinal responsible for Inquisition (department of Doctrine of Faith as it is called these days) ! :)
- tathougies 9y ago
  The Church isn't one homogeneous group. Each diocese operates independently, and each order is a separate entity, so the hospitals (which are usually run by nuns) are usually separate from the regular Church hierarchy. Nevertheless -- regardless of the many shortcomings of its members -- the Church is still probably the single largest non-political entity behind a single payer universal health care system in the country.
  - trhway 9y ago
    >The Church isn't one homogeneous group. Each diocese operates independently, and each order is a separate entity that definitely contradicts the Church's own teachings and declarations, and it doesn't work in the civil law space too - the courts stroke down that argument when the Church tried to use it in order to shield the assets from the child molestation lawsuits.

humanrebar 9y ago

> But yet the same pro-life people who want to save every child's life don't seem nearly so sympathetic to mothers, even mothers that want to have healthy children. You seem to be viewing all these problems through a political and government lens. I feel it's a leap in logic to say "if someone doesn't support progressive policies then they don't care about mothers, families, and born lives". One example, there are too many to list exhaustively, is in the recent refugee crisis. An evangelical charity supported by lots of red-staters was in there doing what it could (1). On a personal level, the churches I've been part of do attack poverty and justice issues on many fronts. There are women's shelters, several programs for the homeless, food banks, free health care clinics, job placement programs, financial education programs, sponsorship of impoverished third-world children, sponsorship of impoverished third-world villages, and so on. There is also a fund for helping church members (some of whom come from local shelters or are otherwise poor) pay bills as needed. And there are innumerable education, mentoring, and counseling programs offered to help families be emotionally and spiritually healthy, partly to avoid the need for programs for people with broken homes and so on. I am not afraid that I don't care about mothers just because Planned Parenthood is not on the list. Modulo big mistakes in the implementation (1), I am fine with SNAP, WIC, etc. when they're used to help poor families. I don't know any pro-life people who feel a burning need to cut these things. And, as a side note, it's really a bad idea to keep bringing up Planned Parenthood as being pro-mother. From time to time we have friends with money problems that need pregnancy care. We contacted the local Planned Parenthood asking about their offerings, only to find that they offer none, really. Not even referrals. They more or less said they do abortions and birth control and do not offer programs for women who are planning an actual pregnancy. A local pro-life pregnancy center also did not offer anything in house, but did refer us to some pro-life shelters and programs that would help out with prenatal care. 1) https://www.samaritanspurse.org/disaster/refugee-crisis-in-europe/ https://www.samaritanspurse.org/disaster/refugee-crisis-in-e... 2) I'd rather just move to minimum income, set it to a healthy level, and stop conflicting over funding levels of each of the multitude of entitlement programs. Poor people are hurt (or at least helped a lot less) by doing indirect charity through price fixing, corporate charity, etc. For example, do you know what might help with the homeless problem? Cheaper homes. But we insist on propping up housing prices, subsidizing sprawling McMansion-ridden suburbs, setting up people in unaffordable homes saying it's an investment, etc.

chrisbennet 9y ago

Perhaps, just perhaps, the Pro Life position is about appealing to a segment of voters who wouldn't be attracted by the Cut Taxes for the Wealthy position?

deorder 9y ago

You should know that people who are against one of the following are called "pro-life" (and therefore Trump-supporters, racists, alt-right and nazi...) as well: - 3rd-trimester / late term abortion without physical-health reasons. - The selling of body parts instead of freely giving it away for research. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_unde... (later said to only be the cost of transportation) - The idea of post-birth termination. See: http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261 http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

thriftwy 9y ago
are called[by whom?] "pro-life"
- deorder 9y ago
  By many people that are pro-abortion. The following way of thinking seems to be norm nowadays: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_against_us https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_... I think the term "pro-life" is being abused to put labels on people who are just against the points I mentioned. These people are not necessarily "anti-abortion".
  - cbanek 9y ago
    Who exactly is pro-abortion? Do you think there are women out there getting their kicks from getting pregnant just to have an abortion because it's such a fun time? It's an imperfect choice in an imperfect world, where a lot can happen. I wouldn't say anyone is "pro-abortion", but a lot of people are pro-choice, knowing that a blanket ban puts people at risk. > I think the term "pro-life" is being abused to put labels on people who are just against the points I mentioned. These people are not necessarily "anti-abortion". So what you're saying is someone who thinks it's okay to get a first trimester abortion for any reason is pro-life? That seems absurd.
    - 9y ago

homulilly 9y ago

the "pro-life" movement in the US has always been about controlling women, not protecting anyone. once you realize this the fact they generally don't put any focus on mothers, children's health after they're born, family planning, education, nutrition, etc makes a lot more sense.

Avshalom 9y ago
Not always, it started as merely a cynical attempt to force Catholics to vote Republican.
- le-mark 9y ago
  Down votes aren't warranted, although breif, there's a lot of truth to this statement. It illustrates something very fundamental about US politics. Simply by guaranteeing pro life supreme court nominees, the Republicans have nearly every priest and pastor in the country beseeching, requesting, and/or demanding their parishioners to vote Republican. They'll show the videos or tell the stories and remind them to vote for the pro life candidate. This is a powerful force. I know a lot of people who voted for the current administration because of this.