Can This Be Pro-Life?

[Anonymous]

I've been thinking recently and it just doesn't make sense. Conservatives don't support birth control or abortion because they're all about life. But after the babies are born, they don't want to support the welfare and wellness of the child here in the US or anywhere else. So what is it? You don't want anyone to have sex and practice abstinence? You want them to have sex and have as many kids as they want but don't help them out. Let the kids run around sick and hungry, right?

The Bush Administration will be cutting off funding for any organizations that provide birth control to the poorest women in Africa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/opinion/09kristof.html?em

[Anonymous]

It's totally consistent with their positions in the U.S. -- anything that empowers women to control their own destinies must be bad.

And the fate of some African women thousands of miles away is small collateral damage compared with the benefits it reaps at the ballot box, where the uptight anti-sex crowd congratulates itself on having 3.4 kids and a minivan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Conservatives don't support birth control or abortion because they're all about life. But after the babies are born, they don't want to support the welfare and wellness of the child here in the US or anywhere else.

I'm a pro-choice liberal, but I hate being lumped under the label "liberal" as though it defines me. So for the sake of consistency, let me point out that many conservatives are pro-choice, and many who are pro-life are dedicated to encouraging adoption and to child-welfare.

We can make our points without demonizing the other side. I agree that some right-to-lifers are as you say, but I think it dilutes the argument to apply it to all conservatives.

[Anonymous]

I am always confused by the allegiances of the parties. Okay, if you're pro-life then you should not be supporting the death penalty and you might have a second thought about guns.

But, if you're pro-choice, then shouldn't you be for the death penalty and figure that shooting and killing someone that gets in your way is justified?

Is it about innocence? Do the pro-life people value innocence and have no problem punishing those they find guilty?

Do the pro-choice people think that everyone deserves a chance, just not at the cost of someone elses' convenience?

I just don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am always confused by the allegiances of the parties. Okay, if you're pro-life then you should not be supporting the death penalty and you might have a second thought about guns.

But, if you're pro-choice, then shouldn't you be for the death penalty and figure that shooting and killing someone that gets in your way is justified?

Is it about innocence? Do the pro-life people value innocence and have no problem punishing those they find guilty?

Do the pro-choice people think that everyone deserves a chance, just not at the cost of someone elses' convenience?

I just don't get it.

How about this as a response?

The issues you mention are more complex than a simple interpretation of the words "life" and "choice". Abortion involves a difficult contest between the right of a woman to control her body and the right of a fetus to its potential life as a human being. Capital punishment involves a difficult contest between a natural disgust at the crimes committed by the convicts and reluctance to take a human life when it is unclear whether doing so actually diminishes crime. Gun regulation involves a difficult contest between the right of each of us to self-protection and the fairly clear danger to each of us caused by the proliferation of guns.

When you have complex human beings confronting complex issues, I don't think it's surprising that people take different, sometimes seemingly self-contradictory, positions.

[Anonymous]

I'm the one that posted that I just don't get it.

I'm pro-life in that I will always choose life.
I'm anti-death penalty because I will always choose life
I'm pro gay rights and even gay marriage, because I think permanent bonding between loving people is an affirmation of life.
I have a gun, because I want to keep my life and the lives of my family safe.

I don't think that I am a complex person, I just feel like a person who wants everyone to be responsible to appreciate the life that is given to us all.

Does that make me a liberal or a conservative?

[Anonymous]

I'm a pro-choice liberal, but I hate being lumped under the label "liberal" as though it defines me. So for the sake of consistency, let me point out that many conservatives are pro-choice, and many who are pro-life are dedicated to encouraging adoption and to child-welfare.

We can make our points without demonizing the other side. I agree that some right-to-lifers are as you say, but I think it dilutes the argument to apply it to all conservatives.

Amen to this. I'm a pro-life conservative who is also extrememely pro-contraception, pro-adoption and pro-child welfare programs. This is the stance of virtually every pro-life individual I know in real life. On the whole we're not monsters!

[Anonymous]

OP, your "thinking" is so simplistic it's shameful.

The world/ country/ state is not one big commune. We don't just all get to go around having sex, making babies and then expecting others to "help us out." There is nothing inconsistent about about being pro-life, as in anti-abortion, pro-abstinence (although a bit naive, I admit), and opposed to a massive welfare state at the same time. I, personally, cannot be RESPONSIBLE for all these newly created creatures, even though I strongly support policies that ensure their birth and give them a chance at life in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking recently and it just doesn't make sense. Conservatives don't support birth control or abortion because they're all about life. But after the babies are born, they don't want to support the welfare and wellness of the child here in the US or anywhere else. So what is it?

Maybe Conservatives in general believe that PARENTS, not the state, are responsible for the well being of their children. Novel concept I know to the crowd who wants Big Brother government so you don't have to be personally responsible for anything - it's always someone else's fault.

Anonymous wrote:
The Bush Administration will be cutting off funding for any organizations that provide birth control to the poorest women in Africa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/opinion/09kristof.html?em

Maybe they don't want their tax dollars supporting abortion providers. Every $$ that is given to them for birth control products allows them to redirect other $$ to abortions.

Abortion is a VERY sensitive issue [understatement of the year] and people on BOTH sides feel very strongly about it. Pro-life citizens feel they are being held up and asked to participate in the abortion process when the govt. takes some of their income (taxes) and funds abortions. Why pro-choicers cannot accept the honestly held feelings of people who strongly disagree with them will remain one of the great mysteries of our contemporary civic life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the one that posted that I just don't get it.

I'm pro-life in that I will always choose life.
I'm anti-death penalty because I will always choose life
I'm pro gay rights and even gay marriage, because I think permanent bonding between loving people is an affirmation of life.
I have a gun, because I want to keep my life and the lives of my family safe.

I don't think that I am a complex person, I just feel like a person who wants everyone to be responsible to appreciate the life that is given to us all.

Does that make me a liberal or a conservative?

i think that makes you an individual thinker who won't just go by whatever one party says. that's a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, your "thinking" is so simplistic it's shameful.

The world/ country/ state is not one big commune. We don't just all get to go around having sex, making babies and then expecting others to "help us out." There is nothing inconsistent about about being pro-life, as in anti-abortion, pro-abstinence (although a bit naive, I admit), and opposed to a massive welfare state at the same time. I, personally, cannot be RESPONSIBLE for all these newly created creatures, even though I strongly support policies that ensure their birth and give them a chance at life in the first place.

Many African (and U.S.) women who seek family planning assistance are married, and hope to space out births or limit their family size in order to subsist and to provide for the families they already have. Do you favor abstinence after marriage?

[Anonymous]

Maybe Conservatives in general believe that PARENTS, not the state, are responsible for the well being of their children. Novel concept

I think most liberal agree with you. The problem is, we also recognize that some parents should not be parents, or cannot provide for their kids do to unfortunate circumstances, and we are not going to leave innocent kids to fend for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why pro-choicers cannot accept the honestly held feelings of people who strongly disagree with them will remain one of the great mysteries of our contemporary civic life.

I am a pro-choicer who. like many others, does accept that. I also think that here are pro-lifers who feel likewise about us, and I assume from what you said that you are one of them. I hope you will be comforted to know that not all pro-choicers are as you characterize us.

[Anonymous]

I have to ask this: do people who support gun rights really think that owning one is about protecting their family? Do you really think you are safer by owning a gun? Because you are not. Nor is your family. Presumably, if you own a gun and have a family, you must keep the gun in a locked box somewhere away from the kids. Guess what, if somebody breaks into your home, and you have to act THAT quickly to save you or your family's life, that gun in its locked box will be useless. You want to know what may help? An alarm system.

And please don't tell me you keep a loaded unlocked gun around. Because that is just plain stupid.

I think it is laughable how people justify their right to own a gun on the grounds that they have the right to protect themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking recently and it just doesn't make sense. Conservatives don't support birth control or abortion because they're all about life. But after the babies are born, they don't want to support the welfare and wellness of the child here in the US or anywhere else. So what is it?

Maybe Conservatives in general believe that PARENTS, not the state, are responsible for the well being of their children. Novel concept I know to the crowd who wants Big Brother government so you don't have to be personally responsible for anything - it's always someone else's fault.

Anonymous wrote:
The Bush Administration will be cutting off funding for any organizations that provide birth control to the poorest women in Africa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/opinion/09kristof.html?em

Maybe they don't want their tax dollars supporting abortion providers. Every $$ that is given to them for birth control products allows them to redirect other $$ to abortions.

Abortion is a VERY sensitive issue [understatement of the year] and people on BOTH sides feel very strongly about it. Pro-life citizens feel they are being held up and asked to participate in the abortion process when the govt. takes some of their income (taxes) and funds abortions. Why pro-choicers cannot accept the honestly held feelings of people who strongly disagree with them will remain one of the great mysteries of our contemporary civic life.

See...I have to say, I find your arguments totally inconsistent. On one hand, you think the state should not be responsible for the well-being of children. So...what? You don't believe in foster care programs or free lunch programs for low-income children? On the foolish notion that these are a parent's responsibility??? But then, you believe the government should intervene to save the life of an unborn child. The irony of this is that the harder it is for people to get abortions, the more government assistance will be needed for the larger number of children that will be born into a world where mom and dad are incapable and unable to provide for them.