Question for the pro-life crowd...

[Direckshun]

I've been reading a lot about abortion this week, particularly a lot from the pro-life perspective about right to life and all that jazz. I've been doing a lot of reflection on the topic, so I was hoping I could get some earnest reflection back from you.

I am pro-choice, of course, but I see the logic of the pro-life argument, even as I disagree with it.

One major issue I've with the pro-life crowd, however, is that this crowd almost always tends to be particularly conservative and anti-government. Which, to my mind, creates a practical issue with your position.

Now, I know what you're thinking, and no, I'm not going where you think -- I don't like argument often made by pro-choicers that "conservatives are supposed to be the small government party, yet here they are supporting governmental power over every woman's medical decision" because, while I think that's a fair point, I think you could easily argue that most people have exceptions to their ideologies; that's just the way people work. It's a complex world, and exceptions reign -- if I'm a hardcore conservative, I think it's still reasonable for me to support a ban on abortion due to the intensity and importance of the issue, even if it might conflict with my otherwise stout anti-government views. So I don't adopt that argument.

Here's my big hang-up with the conservative pro-life position:

A conservative pro-lifer simultaneously believes that:

(1.) Life is sacrosanct, and must be protected and preserved, and

(2.) government should either

(a.) provide as little or minimal economic assistance and relief to the people as possible, or
(b.) not be in the business of providing economic relief and services to people at all. (This is more of a libertarian position.)

To me, this perspective says simply: every soul with a chance to be born must be born, but once you're born, you're on your own.

Most fetuses who are aborted for non-medical reasons are most likely being aborted because their potential families do not want them for personal or even economic reasons. I'm not excusing this, but it is what it is. Forcing them to be born with an abortion ban puts them in these shit situations, and it's going to lead to a greater possibility of poor education, poverty, and crime than those who are born to families that actually wanted them.

Other times, they'll be effectively orphaned as the families who don't want them leave them in the street or put them up for adoption. Some will be adopted, but adopting is an insanely hard practice (and it should be -- you don't want to risk exploitation of these children), it's expensive, and it's nowhere remotely close to the rate of the children available for adoption -- and that's right now, without an abortion ban.

There's also the education perspective, for instance. As it stands now, most conservatives would probably side with getting rid of the Department of Education and embracing fully private schools. That puts innocent children whose only crime was to come out of the wrong vagina at an even greater disadvantage when it comes to being the properly-adjusted productive soul that pro-lifers believe every soul should be.

So my question to the conservative pro-lifers among us:

Assuming we ever achieve your dream of an abortion ban, are there policies that YOU PERSONALLY SUPPORT to provide aid to children who have been born under the ban that otherwise wouldn't have?

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful answers.

I know this is an abortion thread, but my hope is that this thread can be reflective and respectful, even as we might start to disagree.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

That has always confused me. The left will argue passionately how wrong killing is while trying to save the lives of merciless monsters guilty of rape and murder yet not even blink an eye at a 3rd trimester abortion~

Or partial birth abortion and infanticide. The target the wrong useless eaters.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

I'm definitely a male. I am libertarian-leaning, but I would consider myself more of a Classical Liberal than a libertarian.

Well, you just seemed too civil, rational and nice to be a guy.


What am I gonna do now, since I had a feminine voice attached to your posts and it stuck.

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Hmm. How do you figure?

Life is covered in the bill of rights. Nowhere is economic assistance mentioned.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

I consider myself a pro-life conservative, however I do not believe life begins at conception. I believe that life begins with neurological activity, and that an unborn life deserves equal protection under the constitution. However, I don't believe the federal regulation is the correct route to solving this issue. I do believe that no federal money should be sent to companies that provide abortions, because funds are fungible, and therefore my tax dollars are being used to pay for abortion.

Well kudos for being the only pro-life conservative to surface so far, I appreciate your input.

That said, as thoughtful as your first post was in this thread, it doesn't really answer the question in the OP.

Assuming we ever achieve your dream of an abortion ban, are there policies that YOU PERSONALLY SUPPORT to provide aid to children who have been born under the ban that otherwise wouldn't have?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

Life is covered in the bill of rights. Nowhere is economic assistance mentioned.

Explain, if you will.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Well kudos for being the only pro-life conservative to surface so far, I appreciate your input.

That said, as thoughtful as your first post was in this thread, it doesn't really answer the question in the OP.

Assuming we ever achieve your dream of an abortion ban, are there policies that YOU PERSONALLY SUPPORT to provide aid to children who have been born under the ban that otherwise wouldn't have?

Would you be satisfied only if the answer was founded on government programs?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

Would you be satisfied only if the answer was founded on government programs?

What's the problem with government programs providing ample assistance to children who wouldn't have been born before the abortion ban?

I'm anxious to hear what conservative pro-lifers will be suggesting in this thread.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What's the problem with government programs providing ample assistance to children who wouldn't have been born before the abortion ban?

I'm anxious to hear what conservative pro-lifers will be suggesting in this thread.

You didn't answer my question.

[bandwagonjumper]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I've been reading a lot about abortion this week, particularly a lot from the pro-life perspective about right to life and all that jazz. I've been doing a lot of reflection on the topic, so I was hoping I could get some earnest reflection back from you.

I am pro-choice, of course, but I see the logic of the pro-life argument, even as I disagree with it.

One major issue I've with the pro-life crowd, however, is that this crowd almost always tends to be particularly conservative and anti-government. Which, to my mind, creates a practical issue with your position.

Now, I know what you're thinking, and no, I'm not going where you think -- I don't like argument often made by pro-choicers that "conservatives are supposed to be the small government party, yet here they are supporting governmental power over every woman's medical decision" because, while I think that's a fair point, I think you could easily argue that most people have exceptions to their ideologies; that's just the way people work. It's a complex world, and exceptions reign -- if I'm a hardcore conservative, I think it's still reasonable for me to support a ban on abortion due to the intensity and importance of the issue, even if it might conflict with my otherwise stout anti-government views. So I don't adopt that argument.

You are either stupid or naive. Since the inception of chiefsplanet nobody has ever changed his mind on anything and this not place to exchange freely ideas and philosophies.
Here's my big hang-up with the conservative pro-life position:

A conservative pro-lifer simultaneously believes that:

(1.) Life is sacrosanct, and must be protected and preserved, and

(2.) government should either

(a.) provide as little or minimal economic assistance and relief to the people as possible, or
(b.) not be in the business of providing economic relief and services to people at all. (This is more of a libertarian position.)

To me, this perspective says simply: every soul with a chance to be born must be born, but once you're born, you're on your own.

Most fetuses who are aborted for non-medical reasons are most likely being aborted because their potential families do not want them for personal or even economic reasons. I'm not excusing this, but it is what it is. Forcing them to be born with an abortion ban puts them in these shit situations, and it's going to lead to a greater possibility of poor education, poverty, and crime than those who are born to families that actually wanted them.

Other times, they'll be effectively orphaned as the families who don't want them leave them in the street or put them up for adoption. Some will be adopted, but adopting is an insanely hard practice (and it should be -- you don't want to risk exploitation of these children), it's expensive, and it's nowhere remotely close to the rate of the children available for adoption -- and that's right now, without an abortion ban.

There's also the education perspective, for instance. As it stands now, most conservatives would probably side with getting rid of the Department of Education and embracing fully private schools. That puts innocent children whose only crime was to come out of the wrong vagina at an even greater disadvantage when it comes to being the properly-adjusted productive soul that pro-lifers believe every soul should be.

So my question to the conservative pro-lifers among us:

Assuming we ever achieve your dream of an abortion ban, are there policies that YOU PERSONALLY SUPPORT to provide aid to children who have been born under the ban that otherwise wouldn't have?

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful answers.

I know this is an abortion thread, but my hope is that this thread can be reflective and respectful, even as we might start to disagree.

You're either stupid or naive. This is neither a place to exchange ideas and philosophies nor to have meaningful discussions.

[ClevelandBronco]

I don't negotiate with terrorists and murderers, D.

[Buzz_TinBalls]

I am anti - life. Most of you ****ers need to die asap.

[Prison Bitch]

The better question for pro choicers is: when does abortion become illegal in the pregnancy? If you say never, that's an extreme viewpoint. If you say after the 1st trimester, than you are essentially pro-life for 2/3 of the pregnancy. The majority of pro choicers take the latter view which makes them semi pro life.

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Well kudos for being the only pro-life conservative to surface so far, I appreciate your input.

That said, as thoughtful as your first post was in this thread, it doesn't really answer the question in the OP.

Assuming we ever achieve your dream of an abortion ban, are there policies that YOU PERSONALLY SUPPORT to provide aid to children who have been born under the ban that otherwise wouldn't have?

I personally support adoption. I support charity. I do not support government economic assistance. My mother raised 2 children on $20,000 a year without government assistance. You aren't going to find a bleeding heart here.

[nstygma]

what is a pro-life conservative? not everybody fits neatly into a label.

i support emphasis on personal responsibility. and the enablers need to be beaten.

[Taco John]

what a stupid premise for a thread.