LogFAQs > #895711486

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Why doesn't our pro-life government guarantee healthcare to all life?
s0nicfan 02/08/18 2:39:04 PM #22:	Giant_Aspirin posted... s0nicfan posted... Giant_Aspirin posted... the typical Conservative mindset of "oh, i don't care how incapable you are of caring for that child, you WILL give birth to it and you will NOT receive any assistance from anyone, that's life" just blows my mind I'm pretty sure the typical conservative mindset is "wear a goddamn condom if you can't afford a kid", which outside of rape cases is a perfectly valid justification. Having kids isn't a constitutional right, and its your choice if you want to shoulder the burden. I don't agree with pro-lifers, but I also don't think you should intentionally misrepresent their arguments to make them look like cartoon villains. i just don't understand why they care so much for the life of the child while it's in the womb, but if that very same child is literally starving because the mom is poor, well, that's just her fault and it sucks to be that kid. if those people genuinely valued the life of that child i would think that compassion would extend for the entire time the child is a child. I imagine in their ideal world you wouldn't have starving kids because parents that can't afford kids wouldn't have them. The issue is you're saying the government should be punished for not feeding the kid, but at no point did you suggest the mother or father should be held responsible for having a kid they can't feed. But to your point, giving a kid you can't afford to feed up for adoption is already an option. As far as I'm aware, conservatives aren't aiming to shut down adoption agencies, so there's already a means of feeding the child of a parent had one they can't feed. EDIT: Also, and this important, you need to consider their position. They legitimately believe a fetus is a baby, and thus abortion is literally killing babies. I know people turn that into a joke a lot, but nobody ever likes to seriously discuss that aspect because it's MUCH harder to make them look like bad guys. You talk about "why don't conservatives want to support the baby after birth" but pro-lifers are literally sitting there wondering "why are dems okay with openly murdering babies"? To them, not murdering babies is more important than social benefits post birth. The only reason welfare seems like the bigger issue to dems is because they don't believe the fetus is a baby, so murdering one doesn't seem like an important thing to discuss. --- "History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz <cite>s0nicfan posted [p:895711486] in Why doesn'... [t:76297604]...</cite> <quote><cite>Giant_Aspirin posted...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Giant_Aspirin posted...</cite> <quote>the typical Conservative mindset of "oh, i don't care how incapable you are of caring for that child, you WILL give birth to it and you will NOT receive any assistance from anyone, that's life" just blows my mind</quote> I'm pretty sure the typical conservative mindset is "wear a goddamn condom if you can't afford a kid", which outside of rape cases is a perfectly valid justification. Having kids isn't a constitutional right, and its your choice if you want to shoulder the burden. I don't agree with pro-lifers, but I also don't think you should intentionally misrepresent their arguments to make them look like cartoon villains.</quote> i just don't understand why they care so much for the life of the child while it's in the womb, but if that very same child is literally starving because the mom is poor, well, that's just her fault and it sucks to be that kid. if those people genuinely valued the life of that child i would think that compassion would extend for the entire time the child is a child.</quote> I imagine in their ideal world you wouldn't have starving kids because parents that can't afford kids wouldn't have them. The issue is you're saying the government should be punished for not feeding the kid, but at no point did you suggest the mother or father should be held responsible for having a kid they can't feed. But to your point, giving a kid you can't afford to feed up for adoption is already an option. As far as I'm aware, conservatives aren't aiming to shut down adoption agencies, so there's already a means of feeding the child of a parent had one they can't feed. EDIT: Also, and this important, you need to consider their position. They legitimately believe a fetus is a baby, and thus abortion is literally killing babies. I know people turn that into a joke a lot, but nobody ever likes to seriously discuss that aspect because it's MUCH harder to make them look like bad guys. You talk about "why don't conservatives want to support the baby after birth" but pro-lifers are literally sitting there wondering "why are dems okay with openly murdering babies"? To them, not murdering babies is more important than social benefits post birth. The only reason welfare seems like the bigger issue to dems is because they don't believe the fetus is a baby, so murdering one doesn't seem like an important thing to discuss. --- "History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1