Poll of the Day > Would you consider it "wrong" when many politicians vote like this?

(+) Yeah! (+)

......to be able to get an abortion but at the same time will do everything they can to reduce or even eliminate programs that would help these same kids, food stamps, wic, head start etc.....It is a fact that many politicians do this and you see it all the time.

Is it wrong for politicians to vote against abortion while also voting to defund welfare programs?

is that what you meant to say? cause this is a jumbled mess.
---

yes. they need to vote for pro life, and also for the programs to take care of those babies

No. Viewing abortion as morally wrong and opposing government programs for the poor is not wrong.
---

Not exactly. Frankly I don't believe that my tax dollars should pay for abortions or welfare. I don't have a whole ton of sympathy for single mothers; make better choices and take responsibility for your choices, don't expect others to feed your bastard kids. Sorry not sorry. I'm morally opposed to abortion, I don't want my tax dollars funding abortions, but unlike republicans I still think that you have the right to have an abortion. Just go to a clinic and pay for it yourself.

Expecting others to pay for your needs, and then calling those who don't give the fruits of their labor to you callous and unsympathetic is despicable behavior. And government legislation dictating the taking of money from one citizen to pay for another isn't charity; it's theft.
---

BADoglick posted...

I don't have a whole ton of sympathy for single mothers; make better choices and take responsibility for your choices, don't expect others to feed your bastard kids.

what if the father died?

It is wrong to be anti-choice.
It is wrong to implement tax and economic policy which forces people to welfare.
It is wrong to vote against minimum wage increases.
It is wrong to try cutting needed welfare programs.
It is wrong to do all of the above.
It is especially wrong to demand children suffer as retribution that a woman slept with a man other than you.

No. You can oppose the slaughter of babies, and stealing from taxpayers.

BeerOnTap posted...

No. You can oppose the slaughter of babies, and stealing from taxpayers.

You can also oppose sanity and reason.

BlackScythe0 posted...

It is wrong to be anti-choice.

see the thing is, other people believe very strongly in the complete opposite of this statement.

I mean what about the choice of the baby? nobody cares about the baby just the mom

I think it's bad to make it hard for them to get an abortion, but then take away programs that can help. Things happen. Sometimes, even with protection, women can become pregnant. They may not be financially stable or have a partner who is ready for he responsibilities of a child. Let them decide on their own if they can have a child or not. But don't take away their right to terminate a pregnancy, then make it so they also can't get help.
---

I support abortion up to 12th trimester. Give it a test run. If it doesn't work out then it doesn't work out.
---

Zikten posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

It is wrong to be anti-choice.

see the thing is, other people believe very strongly in the complete opposite of this statement.

I mean what about the choice of the baby? nobody cares about the baby just the mom

Not exactly true. If you baby will have a disability, there may be he chance you can't take care of it. And there's also the chance that if you give them up for adoption, they may not get adopted because of the disability. Or be able to live very long because of it. Just saying...
---

lolno. What I find wrong is creating cradle-to-grave entitlement programs, hampering businesses so people can't find jobs, and taking practical education out of schools so kids are less able to make it in the world.

In general, if you can't care for a child, you can give them up for adoption. Things like infanticide are old, barbaric practices.
---

some people though go too far. if they could they abort all less than perfect babies.
have a minor problem? better just kill it and try again. the idea of being able to screen the fetus and then abort it scares me. it's too much like what the nazis would do, to breed perfect humans

Zikten posted...

BADoglick posted...

I don't have a whole ton of sympathy for single mothers; make better choices and take responsibility for your choices, don't expect others to feed your bastard kids.

what if the father died?

I'm not opposed to temporary assistance. I'm very much opposed to paying for food stamps and WIC cards and everything else until the children turn eighteen. Welfare as a temporary last resort for the truly needy is entirely different than a lifetime dependency on others for all. The exceptions like the one you suggest don't justify a massive welfare state that stifles economic growth for the working class, just like using the less than five percent of unwanted pregnancies caused by rape or incest don't justify the billions of tax dollars funding abortions for anyone who simply wants an already paid for birth control contingency plan.
---

Btw, pro-life is a pro-responsibility stance, not a pro-reproduction one.
---

BADoglick posted...

I don't want my tax dollars funding abortions, but unlike republicans I still think that you have the right to have an abortion. Just go to a clinic and pay for it yourself.

This. I don't care how many kids they want to kill, just don't ask me to pay for it if you weren't raped. If you can't afford condoms or a clinic, coathangers are a dime a dozen.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Btw, pro-life is a pro-responsibility stance, not a pro-reproduction one.

Exactly, which is the entire flaw in the logic of those voting yes.

'Well if you don't wanna pay for my abortion, you should at least feel compelled to pay for my kids food, shelter, and clothing for eighteen years, cause otherwise you're an immoral hypocrite"

How about, don't sleep with random people and then get surprised and panicked when pregnancy occurs? Have an abortion, I don't care. Your kid would probably turn out as stupid as you, so by all means, kill that baby. Just don't expect me to pay for it.

I'm pro choice actually. But I wish to choose not to pay for that. Ironically, the stereotypical pro choice person wants me to not have that choice.
---

A lot of people here seem to only see one side. Lots of people use protection(even multiple forms, sometimes), and pregnancy still occurs. Because protection isn't always 100%.
---

I think the government can do more to help people in need in general, definitely. As long as they are trying to make it on their own and not just asking for handouts.

As far as abortion goes I am pro choice. I believe that a fetus is not the same thing as a fully formed and born human baby, especially in the early stages of development. I agree with the cutoff line idea where there is a distinction between a clump of cells that is in the process of becoming a developed baby and a baby that is close to being fully formed. In the early stages it should be up to the mother to decide if she wants to have the baby or not and should not be forced to carry it to term and then have the lifelong responsibility of taking care of it. The rights of the mother should definitely come before any perceived rights for an early fetus that has no awareness or concept that they ever existed.
---

I'm fine with people having abortions, based on the fact that the majority of abortions are early early in the pregnancy. According to all evidence I see, a fetus doesn't have the neural development to feel pain until around 27 weeks (6-7 months). I've heard accounts of women being made to carry a child to term that had no chance of survival, and died a painful death at 11 weeks. Sure, if someone has even had 2 abortions in a short time, they should be entered into an educational program, as further preventative action. Less abortions would likely occur if a great many states implemented FAR better sexual education in schools. I've heard accounts of people I know who attended school in Texas, and received very little sexual education. Living in British Columbia, I received general education on different methods of contraception, and we definitely see less teen pregnancy than Texas, Louisiana, etc. Not to say that our programs don't need major improvement (lots of fearmongering on STIs, but that's good too), but the stats on teen pregnancy are pretty obvious for states with poor sex ed. Kinda perpetuates a cycle.

I can see this from both sides, but I think the pro-lifers are generally worse at 'seeing it from both sides'. I do have some wonderful friends that would personally never get an abortion, but understand that other folks have different views. Sure, you're entitled to your own views on your own body, but folks need to understand there are serious problems with poverty and lack of education perpetuating problems with high abortion rates.
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

It is wrong to be anti-choice.

So what about the choice of being able to carry a firearm to protect yourself or your family?
What about the choice of whether or not you have to join your company's union?
What about school choice?

I'd consider it putting fingers together and mad-cackling levels of evil.
---

I think the reason the schools don't give better sex ed is because of multiple things. Sometimes, religious reasons. And they like to tell students to practice abstinence instead of teaching them how to protect themselves.
---

The_Lazy_Goron posted...

I believe that a fetus is not the same thing as a fully formed and born human baby, especially in the early stages of development.

see the big thing is that I and other people think it IS a human. and that's why we feel so strongly. that's basically what it comes down to. if you think they are human or not. and if they are, it's murder.

Zikten posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

It is wrong to be anti-choice.

see the thing is, other people believe very strongly in the complete opposite of this statement.

I mean what about the choice of the baby? nobody cares about the baby just the mom

That is like asking what about the choice of a cow.

Zikten posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

It is wrong to be anti-choice.

see the thing is, other people believe very strongly in the complete opposite of this statement.

I mean what about the choice of the baby? nobody cares about the baby just the mom

Right. The mom who has to be able to take care of a baby. And they may not be able to.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Right. The mom who has to be able to take care of a baby. And they may not be able to.

this would hold more weight in the past of human history. but in the 21st century, at least in civilized nations, there are programs to take care of babies if the mom can't do it

and I would be fine with increased funding on those programs. we spend so much money on the military. everything else is a drop in the bucket. I always laugh when people complain about "wasted spending"

Zikten posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Right. The mom who has to be able to take care of a baby. And they may not be able to.

this would hold more weight in the past of human history. but in the 21st century, at least in civilized nations, there are programs to take care of babies if the mom can't do it

Sometimes. But sometimes, for babies with disabilities, it can be hard to get them the help they need.
---

It's sort of hypocritical... At the same though, dumb people collecting welfare while pumping out tons of kids shouldn't be allowed.
---

bumpers
---

You have to be pretty cruel to be against something as benign and beneficial as WIC

Anyone actually against something of that sort shouldnt represent voters in any capacity
---