3 ms·

It's also hard to understand why a fetus is to be protected but homeless children and people shouldn't be sheltered or fed, wars shouldn't be protested and educ

It's also hard to understand why a fetus is to be protected but homeless children and people shouldn't be sheltered or fed, wars shouldn't be protested and education shouldn't be funded, but here we are. Political tools are used as wedge issues, not as logical thinking points. "Not in my back yard" is a wonderful summation of this. While many upper class liberals support more homeless shelters, they don't want one in their neighborhood. While many neoconservatives support a ban on abortions, they wouldn't want low income, single mother housing placement shelters in their neighborhoods, with job training.

FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
Only the Catholics are consistent here, and only some of them.
recursive 4y ago
> It's also hard to understand why a fetus is to be protected but homeless children and people shouldn't be sheltered or fed. I believe it's the distinction between active killing vs. the passive lack of support.
- UnpossibleJim 4y ago
  This argument falls down when talking about sending American troops to any situation, however. Not sending troops in would be a passive lack of support. Sending in troops would be the active killing, on a national level.
  - swat535 4y ago
    The counter argument to that is: If pro lifers are assuming that a fetus is indeed a living human being, then it follows that the child is completely innocent and its survival is completely dependent on the mother. A soldier signing up for the army knows very well what he is up against..
    - UnpossibleJim 4y ago
      https://kjzz.org/content/1777360/arizona-gov-doug-ducey-says-his-pro-life-stance-applies-abortions-not-death-penalty https://kjzz.org/content/1777360/arizona-gov-doug-ducey-says... And yet here is Governor Ducy arguing for an arguably mentally incompetent man to be put to death for the murder of an innocent child. While, yes, the crime is egregious, and he should never be set free from his cell... Do you think that it is, indeed "pro-life" to argue, as quite a few do, to argue for the death penalty as a form of punishment (I won't say many - this truly does split the movement. Catholics especially - Ducy is a poor representative, but Republican politicians are overwhelmingly pro death penalty, anti abortion). A strong case can be made that the people who are executed suffer from severe mental illness and are not capable of telling right from wrong in any true form. Sociopaths who lack the education or means to make it to Wall Street, as it were. Just so you know, I'm not trying to be argumentative to be argumentative. You guys being very polite and I enjoy these conversations =) If you get sick of it, just stop responding, no hard feelings =) EDIT: grammar is hard
      - recursive 4y ago
        I'm not sure how that position can be reconciled with "pro-life". It seems like a direct conflict to me. So, I'm agreeing with you about Ducy.

FooBarBizBazz 4y ago

Only the Catholics are consistent here, and only some of them.

recursive 4y ago

> It's also hard to understand why a fetus is to be protected but homeless children and people shouldn't be sheltered or fed. I believe it's the distinction between active killing vs. the passive lack of support.

UnpossibleJim 4y ago
This argument falls down when talking about sending American troops to any situation, however. Not sending troops in would be a passive lack of support. Sending in troops would be the active killing, on a national level.
- swat535 4y ago
  The counter argument to that is: If pro lifers are assuming that a fetus is indeed a living human being, then it follows that the child is completely innocent and its survival is completely dependent on the mother. A soldier signing up for the army knows very well what he is up against..
  - UnpossibleJim 4y ago
    https://kjzz.org/content/1777360/arizona-gov-doug-ducey-says-his-pro-life-stance-applies-abortions-not-death-penalty https://kjzz.org/content/1777360/arizona-gov-doug-ducey-says... And yet here is Governor Ducy arguing for an arguably mentally incompetent man to be put to death for the murder of an innocent child. While, yes, the crime is egregious, and he should never be set free from his cell... Do you think that it is, indeed "pro-life" to argue, as quite a few do, to argue for the death penalty as a form of punishment (I won't say many - this truly does split the movement. Catholics especially - Ducy is a poor representative, but Republican politicians are overwhelmingly pro death penalty, anti abortion). A strong case can be made that the people who are executed suffer from severe mental illness and are not capable of telling right from wrong in any true form. Sociopaths who lack the education or means to make it to Wall Street, as it were. Just so you know, I'm not trying to be argumentative to be argumentative. You guys being very polite and I enjoy these conversations =) If you get sick of it, just stop responding, no hard feelings =) EDIT: grammar is hard
    - recursive 4y ago
      I'm not sure how that position can be reconciled with "pro-life". It seems like a direct conflict to me. So, I'm agreeing with you about Ducy.