It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So called "pro-lifers" cut food aid for poor single mothers, children and infants

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
I'm pro-abortion and I don't really care about this. It will make people think twice before popping out kids.
Pro-lifers are quite useless, unless they've done something outstanding like Michelle Bachman and adopted 23 kids...For the most part they want people to pop out kids, but after that, they don't care what happens to the kid. They're anti-women and hypocrites at best.


This is not a matter of wanting people to "pop out kids"! It is a matter that when you have sex and get preggie, it's time to take responsibility and not just kill your unborn because it's a bit inconvenient. You sound a bit like the Prez though, you don't want people to be "punished with babies". But somehow the pro-Choice think that tax payers must pay the financial price for other people's mistakes in paying for both their abortions and the care of their "mistakes" from cradle to grave. This is what we call the Nanny State, and Mussolini called it "Totalitarianism".




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by cassp83
I am pretty sure that most pro-lifers assume that those who are not equipped to have children will choose adoption.

Too bad that almost never happens.


In a perfect world that would be the case, but it ain't that straight forward. Who funds the these orphanages? Child welfare? The federal government, state governments. I'd wonder what the GOP plan is for the funding of these social services to parentless children? I'll probably try to dig some more information up.


The UN gives financial incentives to people in Third World countries who limit their family size to 1 child. Like China only without the forced abortions.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


A fetus is not a child. I don't care how you try to explain it to me. It's not the same thing.

As far as taxpayers financing abortions....I don't want either...
I don't think taxpayers should pay for unwanted kids or for abortions. That's how it should be. I'm not responsible for either situation. However...given the current system, I'd opt that they would choose abortion, because in the long run it saves the taxpayers a lot more money.

If you want to adopt a bunch of unwanted kids, that's your perogative, but they're not for me to worry about. Breeders should pay for their own mistakes...They should be sterilized, fined and have their children taken away if they do not have the financial means to raise a child.

The consequences would give reckless breeders more motive to use contraceptives. Until..then I'll remain pro-abortion and will continue to send a monthly donation to planned parenthood.
edit on 19-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




But somehow the pro-Choice think that tax payers must pay the financial price for other people's mistakes in paying for both their abortions and the care of their "mistakes" from cradle to grave.


So your solution for the problem of unwanted kids or mistakes is to both make abortion unavailable to the poor parents (unless they are rich so they can pay for it, which somehow defeats the purpose), and then let the children suffer and parents struggle with the kids they are forced to have without any assistance.

Worst solution from all, both for the parents, for the kids, and ultimately also for the paxpayers (lots of children, and with bad care = lots of criminals, unproductive members of the society in the future, higher strain for medical and social system, police etc = higher taxes for all.

The best solution for all is to make free abortion as well as child welfare available for all (in case of welfare limited to first 2-3 children of course). The money you pay for abortions for the poor and child welfare now will return many times in the future.

Of course republicans cant think ahead or use logic to deduce future consequences of a policy. They only see the present, that they cannot buy another yacht now, screw the future, screw the poor mothers with unwanted children or even children of poor people themselves, I want my second car now.



This is what we call the Nanny State, and Mussolini called it "Totalitarianism".


lol, read the definition of totalitarian state, and social democracy (the thing republicans call "nanny state"). Apples and oranges. Are you saying all states with child welfare and abortion payed by the public healthcare system are totalitarian?
edit on 19/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




The UN gives financial incentives to people in Third World countries who limit their family size to 1 child.


Really? Never heard of that. That would be a great thing to do, if true.
Any source?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Do you know there are actually people who believe Republicans don't care if small children die from starvation?
Republicans are getting a bad reputation in some circles. I wonder why?


I've heard it rumored that when the Republicans are in office, they screw things up so badly, while having their way, that during the next election..... they don't fix it. They let it slide so the Democrats can go in and try to put the country reasonably back together. Then when they do.....BAM. They are ready to go back in and do their dirty work.

Of course, I guess it would be foolish to believe any of that..........



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
It can be saved by tombambi simply ordering our troops home.....3 wars to choose from.....withdarw troops from any 2 within 48 hrs,which he has the power to do,and all that lovely money can be spent feeding welfare drones for years.....so its up to the dim leadership now



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Hasn't this always been the position of pro-lifers? They're all about controlling a woman's reproductive choices, but once they get their way, they run like cowards, off to "save" some other innocent unborn baby, only to relegate it to a life of neglect, hunger, homelessness and abuse... They don't give a rat's ass about an unwanted child. Just the unborn child. Once it's born, all the political gain has been bled out, so they turn their backs.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

I do frown at those woman and men who make the wrong choices and who are not accountable for it. That being said, it just astounds me that the free market revolutionaries want to tell these woman what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Not to mention, the many woman (and men, the husbands, partners) of whom suffered unspeakable crimes, and then on top of that, they want to tell these woman what they must do and that they're on their own.

I would have alittle more respect for many of these pro-lifers if they were consistent with their beliefs. I know of some pro-lifers who oppose abortion but support a woman's right to choose regardless, but then again many others support invasive laws, and then they support gutting the education system and gutting the food and medical aid system. Unbelievable. "Liberty" for ya folks.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)


While you lost me a bit with the link between pro-lifers and public education, I'll have to say I'm with you on this. While I'm personally pro-life, with my own arbitrary time at which it's OK to abort a child, I wouldn't stand in the way of legislation to allow abortion.

I've argued my stance before on government intervention, but my leftist side comes out when programs specifically designed for children are cut. Not education, because the Department of Education has done more to hinder it than anyone else ever could. I mean programs like WIC or CHIP.

While states themselves can't really do anything about military spending, the Federal government sure could. If they're going to take my wages without so much as a by your leave, at least they could spend it by saving children instead of bombing them.

/TOA
edit on 19-6-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by cassp83
I am pretty sure that most pro-lifers assume that those who are not equipped to have children will choose adoption.

Too bad that almost never happens.



I can't believe you people cannot spot a government mandated trick designed to get two people who don't love, can't stand and don't know each other... to wed.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Meatman
I see by the OP he reads nothing but far left sites.

I think the Gooberment should be gutting everything including food to the poor, but then again I have never asked for anything from the Gooberment even when I was down or up.



I am curious about your genetic heritage.

There are races of people who are less empathetic than others.
They expect very high standards from people and accept nothing less.
Are you Germanic?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
It can be saved by tombambi simply ordering our troops home.....3 wars to choose from.....withdarw troops from any 2 within 48 hrs,which he has the power to do,and all that lovely money can be spent feeding welfare drones for years.....so its up to the dim leadership now
So why isnt the dim leadership toeing up on the line and freeing up all that lovely money?...It cant be the republicans....they arent in power....the wars could end tomorrow if the dim leadership wanted it to....lets hear it from dim supporters...why dont they end the wars?...



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Well, what I kinda got out of it was: "Everyone has the right to life, but they sure as heck don't have the right to everyone else's money to pay for it."

As a pro-choicer myself, I can kinda see their point, which seems strange...



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Hasn't this always been the position of pro-lifers? They're all about controlling a woman's reproductive choices, but once they get their way, they run like cowards, off to "save" some other innocent unborn baby, only to relegate it to a life of neglect, hunger, homelessness and abuse... They don't give a rat's ass about an unwanted child. Just the unborn child. Once it's born, all the political gain has been bled out, so they turn their backs.


Spot on! Another thing that really gets me is the attituted towards the pregnant women in general. Sometimes the social consequences of being pregnant I think scare women more into abortions than economic ones. For example, "Oh LOOK! A pregnant teenager! She must be a slut. Here parents sure didn't raise her right." Everything about the pregnant teenager is wrong to these uptight "moral" people but she must have that baby! Criticize the woman who is pregnant but force here to have it! And then when the unborn child is finally born, it's just another street rat to complain about because it's just another dependent on welfare.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
There seems to be too many issues on the table here...if you decide one way then you bag the other. Typical of anything to do with our government in my opinion.

So lets see...what are the issues?

1. Are you pro-life, or are you pro-choice?

2. Somebody is paying either way...should it be tax payers money or your own?

3. Since this is a state issue (at least in funding allocations), should the federal government impose financial responsibility on the issue?

4. How can we enforce one law but then fund another direction or slash funding entirely?

See where this is going...it's been debated for decades, Roe vs. Wade and the first Supreme Court ruling on abortion should be an indication that there is an obvious push for pro-choice in our culture, and pro-life is a thing of the past. Because I am pro-life, I believe it is because as our nation evolves we are becoming more and more accepting of things that were considered horrendous just a few short decades ago.

So where do you stand on abortion, and in what cases? Should a 22 year old woman that has had 7 abortions in the last 2 years still be allowed (I say allowed because it is legal) to continue to get abortions, and if so, then who should pay for that? Where do you draw the line?

Should education for pro-life be at the top of the state and federal funding levels when the budget is cut? It is a mess and there are just too many issues to debate...if you stand on one leg the other gets cut off, and if you kneel then a chair will be given to you so you can sit. Where you stand on any of this is just a point of argument for another person. I don't care if it is at the state level or the federal level, the issues are the same...that is the constant...and the only change is who is going to get pissy about what.
edit on 19-6-2011 by jerryznv because: ...

edit on 19-6-2011 by jerryznv because: ..



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Hasn't this always been the position of pro-lifers? They're all about controlling a woman's reproductive choices, but once they get their way, they run like cowards, off to "save" some other innocent unborn baby, only to relegate it to a life of neglect, hunger, homelessness and abuse... They don't give a rat's ass about an unwanted child. Just the unborn child. Once it's born, all the political gain has been bled out, so they turn their backs.


I think I've agreed with every post of yours that I've ever read, and I've probably given you 20 stars, but on this one, I was wondering if this is what you really think.

In my social psychology class, I was really annoyed when my Professor brought up what he saw as hypocrisy on the part of 'pro-choicers'. (As a pro-choicer, I was annoyed that he would bring this up in his role as a Professor, because basically he got to speak his point, and not have anyone refute it, because we moved right on to another topic.)

His point was that pro-choicers consistently pointed out that they were for rights and free choice, yet obviously the situation was going to involve the loss of a 'right and a choice' from someone (baby or mom). He thought it was hypocritical that pro-choice individuals consistently acted like they were for freedom of choice while they were in fact taking that away from a future human being.

In his mind, he wasn't pro-life because he wanted to control a women's reproductive choices', but because he truly thought that it was wrong to voluntarily interfere with another individual's chance at life.

In his eyes, the child should not be the one to lose 'rights and freedom of choice', because the child came into existence through no fault of its own. Yet, the parents did make a choice (in most cases), and thus by making that choice, and because someone MUST lose their rights and freedom of choice, it should thus be the parents.


So, do you really believe that pro-lifers really act the role that they do over politics? Because, as I have further talked to some of the more intelligent pro-lifers, I believe that they are seeing the same things I'm seeing, and just making a different, yet understandable, opinion.

(Not that it matters, but for me, I am pro-choice because I think it is better to take that right away from an individual who is not yet born, and has no conception of what life is yet. Because the baby will be dependent on others for a large portion of its life, (most likely on people that truly didn't want the baby around), and because I see human over-population as the largest threat to our world, I also feel that abortion is a necessary 'evil'.

I also do not fear death so much that I see abortion as a 'true evil'. I think one must have some type of religious upbringing to see death in that way, and I don't have that. I think death takes people away from their goals and from the people that love them, and an unwanted baby has neither conscious goals nor people that want them)



edit on 19-6-2011 by AlphaBetaGammaX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by AlphaBetaGammaX
 


First, thank you for such a well-thought and articulated post.



Originally posted by AlphaBetaGammaX
So, do you really believe that pro-lifers really act the role that they do over politics?


Keep in mind I'm talking about those listed in the OP. The lawmakers. The politicians. And yes, I think the reoccurring issues of abortion, along with gun control and gay rights, are simply political tools used by the elected officials to insure they get votes. They wave their flag with the message they think their constituents want to hear, regardless how they personally feel.

Now, citizens? I think the motivations for their opinions run the gamut. They are pro-life for religious, social, cultural and yes, political reasons. I totally support people having and expressing their opinions on abortion. It's when the law gets involved that I have something to say.

We've seen time and time again that politicians will use these hot-button issues for votes, and with the Tea Party (GOP) activism recently, there is a strong push to get all Americans to behave in a conservative manner that every Republican would be proud of.



(Not that it matters, but for me, I am pro-choice because I think it is better to take that right away from an individual who is not yet born, and has no conception of what life is yet. Because the baby will be dependent on others for a large portion of its life, (most likely on people that truly didn't want the baby around), and because I see human over-population as the largest threat to our world, I also feel that abortion is a necessary 'evil'.


I don't believe an unborn's 'rights' trump a living, breathing person's rights. The Constitution protects the rights of people. And until that child is really a person and not a fetus, it doesn't have rights. As long its life is completely dependent on a person, I believe that the person has the rights, not the unborn life inside of them. Yes it is a life. But not yet a person.

I also agree with the overpopulation issue, abortion being a necessary 'evil' and I don't fear death either.
There are many things worse than death.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
The money is there for AIDS rsearch,food stamps for the drones,tax cuts for the Middle Class...plenty of funds to pay for every liberal dream program on Earth...all that has to happen is the Dear Leader to order the troops home...he has the clout in Congress to make it stick...so why doesnt it happen?...Where is the leadership dims?
edit on 6/19/2011 by Homedawg because: sp



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





I don't believe an unborn's 'rights' trump a living, breathing person's rights. The Constitution protects the rights of people. And until that child is really a person and not a fetus, it doesn't have rights. As long its life is completely dependent on a person, I believe that the person has the rights, not the unborn life inside of them. Yes it is a life. But not yet a person.


Do you consider a person with a physical or mental hanicap that is totally dependent on another person to care for them, without rights too?

I mean could we say that these hadicaps have life, but they are not really people? I just don't buy that...I don't want to argue the position of pro-life or pro-choice, but I would like to know how you can come to believe that a fetus is a life but not a person. That seems like double talk...and does not make sense to me!



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
The money is there for AIDS rsearch,food stamps for the drones,tax cuts for the Middle Class...plenty of funds to pay for every liberal dream program on Earth...all that has to happen is the Dear Leader to order the troops home...he has the clout in Congress to make it stick...so why doesnt it happen?...Where is the leadership dims?
edit on 6/19/2011 by Homedawg because: sp
Lets Get'er done libs....call your dim congresscritter today and tell them to communicate with the Dear Leader...get our people home and lets spend that money



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join