No the majority do not.
Once that kid is born their seen as a worthless leech stealing from welfare.
Advertisement
by New haven america » Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:32 pm
by New haven america » Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:34 pm
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.
by The Black Forrest » Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:45 pm
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.
by Sungoldy-China » Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:47 pm
by The Black Forrest » Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:49 pm
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.
by Adamede » Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:55 pm
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.
by Suriyanakhon » Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:18 am
by Istoreya » Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:50 am
Fahran wrote:As I said, you don't have to give someone the run of your house if you support not murdering them.
by Des-Bal » Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:23 am
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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by The Untied State » Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:50 am
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.
by Borderlands of Rojava » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:19 am
by Borderlands of Rojava » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:20 am
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?
by Agarntrop » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:22 am
by Sundiata » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:33 am
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.
by Agarntrop » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:40 am
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.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.
by Sundiata » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:46 am
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.
by Agarntrop » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:48 am
by Borderlands of Rojava » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:51 am
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.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.
by Istoreya » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:53 am
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?
by Sundiata » Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:07 am
by Sundiata » Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:10 am
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.
by The Blaatschapen » Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:40 am
by The Emerald Legion » Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:43 am
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.
by The New California Republic » Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:43 am
The New California Republic wrote:Btw there is an abortion thread.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Big Eyed Animation, Emotional Support Crocodile, Hidrandia, Kostane, Port Carverton
Advertisement