Quote:
|
Is it acceptable that largely, "in the name of god", (or in the exploitation of the name), whole areas of the U.S. primarily in the "red states" have been manipulated, via legislation and moralizing, into places where women have lost their reproductive rights?
|
Is it acceptable to kill a living human being to preserve "reproductive rights"?
What are these reproductive rights? These women are still allowed to have sex, they're still allowed to have children, they're still allowed the dozens of options to avoid the latter without the deaths of their babies.
With such an enormous demand to adopt children, people willing to pay all medical fees and pay richly to monetarily compensate the mother, why is this such a bad plan?
You want everyone to support everyone else through monetary and political means (socialism), which is a lofty enough goal. But how can you draw the line on humans simply because their mothers dont want them?
Sure enough you can say how conservatives are often pro-war and pro-death penalty. I hear this all the time. The difference being is those people (the ones involved at least) have had a choice. There were active decisions that lead to it. The killer/rapist before he struck, the enemies as they supported people who preach "death to America".
These babies, however, never had a choice. They've committed no sin other than their mothers bad decisions. They've done no wrong other than simply existing. Now with all the alternatives out there, why is this so terrible to let these children live and simply have a good family adopt them?
Of course you can point out over-populated childrens homes at the turn of the century when abortion was illegal. However that is flawed because it was before the plethera of contrceptives out there.
So now you will point out the argument that if it's illegal, backstreet abortions will occur. However there are states that are strongholds of the pro-abortion group in which it will never go away. Simply buy a plane ticket, or greyhound if you cant afford it (what was it last? $100 cross country or something?) and go.
Quote:
|
how do you justify what amounts to revenge against the poor because they lack the good judgment to have protected sex, coupled with a their own bias against birth control, actually against non-reproductively motivated intercourse
|
Do you honestly think that just because someone is poor they're too ignorant to know about birth control? For all your touting about the suffering of the poor in this country, this is unlike you. This simply turns the poor into semi-retarded cattle. I'll tell you something, they DO know about it, it's a (I know I keep going back to this, but..) CHOICE.
Now I'll agree if you make the argument that birth control should be free. It already is (condoms), but not in all forms. I'll agree about that, because abortions will simply have no more excuses to lean on.
Your comment about how the rich find a way out, they always do. This doesn't mean the pro-life group wishes to make exemptions for them. It means that it's a fact of life since pre-history.
Sorry this is so long, last time Host attacked me for being short. This time I took the time to point out all the "lines" of the left and their flaws.