NationStates

Sundiata wrote:

Istoreya wrote:Agreed. Nor do I understand how "people who are pro-life should care about children after they are born too" is not a valid argument.

People who are pro-life do care about people after they're born.

Fahran wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:And exactly why shouldn't we house the homeless?

We probably should, though, in some instances, housing them isn't sufficient to address their issues. A lot of homeless people should probably be committed to mental institutions or rehabilitation programs so that they're able to function in society and maintain their health and well-being. Beyond that, creating social connections and developing marketable skills would be great too.

Des-Bal wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Cool. Now all these people are going to step forward and help raise these unwanted children right? Hello? Hello? Anybody? Hellllooooooo?

I never got this line of argument. If someone believes life begins at conception this is like arguing we should either buy everyone houses or euthanize the homeless.

Fahran wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:And exactly why shouldn't we house the homeless?

We probably should, though, in some instances, housing them isn't sufficient to address their issues. A lot of homeless people should probably be committed to mental institutions or rehabilitation programs so that they're able to function in society and maintain their health and well-being. Beyond that, creating social connections and developing marketable skills would be great too.

Sungoldy-China wrote:Fertility is nothing more than a conspiracy that genes use to control living things.
Abortion and infertility are the first steps to unravel the conspiracy.
If humans cannot get rid of this conspiracy through senses and technology,
Then human beings should follow the laws of nature and go to extinction like other extinct creatures.

New haven america wrote:So... You want to house the homeless is what you're saying.

Sundiata wrote:

Istoreya wrote:Agreed. Nor do I understand how "people who are pro-life should care about children after they are born too" is not a valid argument.

People who are pro-life do care about people after they're born.

Fahran wrote:As I said, you don't have to give someone the run of your house if you support not murdering them.

Istoreya wrote:Absolutely no-one is suggesting that one specific pro-life person must adopt a baby born to a mother who wanted an abortion. That's a ridiculous suggestion.

We're saying that there's no way you can be truly pro-life when you're okay with a baby being born into a sucky life because of the situation the mother was left in having to carry a pregnancy she didn't want. Single and teen mothers face nothing but ridicule from people who are supposedly "pro-life".

They don't support the not-murder of a baby if they don't care about that babies' wellbeing post-birth. Someone who wants to ban meat-eating doesn't let animal abuse slide just because it's not murder. Someone who did think that way would not be truly pro-animal rights. Instead, the only thing they want changed is the diet of other people. A person who thinks like that is pro-control-of-others. Just like most pro-life people are actually pro-control-of-others in the form of believing they should be allowed to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.

There is no way I am going to try and look at the argument from the perspective of a person who thinks that way. Someone who genuinely wants better support post-birth, sure, then we'll talk.

Sungoldy-China wrote:Fertility is nothing more than a conspiracy that genes use to control living things.
Abortion and infertility are the first steps to unravel the conspiracy.
If humans cannot get rid of this conspiracy through senses and technology,
Then human beings should follow the laws of nature and go to extinction like other extinct creatures.

Sundiata wrote:

Istoreya wrote:Agreed. Nor do I understand how "people who are pro-life should care about children after they are born too" is not a valid argument.

People who are pro-life do care about people after they're born.

Des-Bal wrote:

Istoreya wrote:Absolutely no-one is suggesting that one specific pro-life person must adopt a baby born to a mother who wanted an abortion. That's a ridiculous suggestion.

We're saying that there's no way you can be truly pro-life when you're okay with a baby being born into a sucky life because of the situation the mother was left in having to carry a pregnancy she didn't want. Single and teen mothers face nothing but ridicule from people who are supposedly "pro-life".

They don't support the not-murder of a baby if they don't care about that babies' wellbeing post-birth. Someone who wants to ban meat-eating doesn't let animal abuse slide just because it's not murder. Someone who did think that way would not be truly pro-animal rights. Instead, the only thing they want changed is the diet of other people. A person who thinks like that is pro-control-of-others. Just like most pro-life people are actually pro-control-of-others in the form of believing they should be allowed to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.

There is no way I am going to try and look at the argument from the perspective of a person who thinks that way. Someone who genuinely wants better support post-birth, sure, then we'll talk.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't believe in welfare must support killing the poor?

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

Sundiata wrote:People who are pro-life do care about people after they're born.

Which is why the pro life party is also the pro cut welfare party, right?

I think alot of pro life people are just trying to maximize human suffering fr.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

Sundiata wrote:People who are pro-life do care about people after they're born.

Which is why the pro life party is also the pro cut welfare party, right?

I think alot of pro life people are just trying to maximize human suffering fr.

Sundiata wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
Which is why the pro life party is also the pro cut welfare party, right?

I think alot of pro life people are just trying to maximize human suffering fr.

Well, you're mistaken. I can't speak for the ideological composition of the Republican Party but the question that you're asking is more historical than purely ideological. Reagan appealed to Evangelicals through rhetoric in the late 70s and early 80s. Also, Pro-life Democrats exist, myself for example.

Agarntrop wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Well, you're mistaken. I can't speak for the ideological composition of the Republican Party but the question that you're asking is more historical than purely ideological. Reagan appealed to Evangelicals through rhetoric in the late 70s and early 80s. Also, Pro-life Democrats exist, myself for example.

You're pro life because every position you hold is essentially determined by Rome.

Sundiata wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:You're pro life because every position you hold is essentially determined by Rome.

Come on man.

Sundiata wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
Which is why the pro life party is also the pro cut welfare party, right?

I think alot of pro life people are just trying to maximize human suffering fr.

Well, you're mistaken. I can't speak for the ideological composition of the Republican Party but the question that you're asking is more historical than purely ideological. Reagan appealed to Evangelicals through rhetoric in the late 70s and early 80s. Also, Pro-life Democrats exist, myself for example.

Des-Bal wrote:

Istoreya wrote:Absolutely no-one is suggesting that one specific pro-life person must adopt a baby born to a mother who wanted an abortion. That's a ridiculous suggestion.

We're saying that there's no way you can be truly pro-life when you're okay with a baby being born into a sucky life because of the situation the mother was left in having to carry a pregnancy she didn't want. Single and teen mothers face nothing but ridicule from people who are supposedly "pro-life".

They don't support the not-murder of a baby if they don't care about that babies' wellbeing post-birth. Someone who wants to ban meat-eating doesn't let animal abuse slide just because it's not murder. Someone who did think that way would not be truly pro-animal rights. Instead, the only thing they want changed is the diet of other people. A person who thinks like that is pro-control-of-others. Just like most pro-life people are actually pro-control-of-others in the form of believing they should be allowed to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.

There is no way I am going to try and look at the argument from the perspective of a person who thinks that way. Someone who genuinely wants better support post-birth, sure, then we'll talk.

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you suggesting that anyone who doesn't believe in welfare must support killing the poor?

Agarntrop wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Come on man.

I'm not wrong though am I? You practically take orders from the Church.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Well, you're mistaken. I can't speak for the ideological composition of the Republican Party but the question that you're asking is more historical than purely ideological. Reagan appealed to Evangelicals through rhetoric in the late 70s and early 80s. Also, Pro-life Democrats exist, myself for example.

Please don't mention the evangelicals. Most of them voted for Trump, and those who did lost any right to complain about how "immoral" america is.

Sundiata wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:I'm not wrong though am I? You practically take orders from the Church.

Well, let's say that's true. The church itself doesn't arbitrarily hold the position it does on abortion, specifically the belief that life begins at conception.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Well, you're mistaken. I can't speak for the ideological composition of the Republican Party but the question that you're asking is more historical than purely ideological. Reagan appealed to Evangelicals through rhetoric in the late 70s and early 80s. Also, Pro-life Democrats exist, myself for example.

Please don't mention the evangelicals. Most of them voted for Trump, and those who did lost any right to complain about how "immoral" america is.

The New California Republic wrote:Btw there is an abortion thread.