I think the point is they claim to be pro lifers by trying to eliminate abortion, yet they arent doing anything for the children who need homes. If they were really pro life then they would try to help children all through the spectrum and not just focus on fetuses
That statement is insanely false. Most people I've met who are vehemently pro-life I may not entirely agree with politically but more often tend to be folks MORE likely to adopt. In Texas specifically it's extremely common for a family to have 1-2 kids naturally and also adopt a 3rd. Maybe the issue isnt as simple as "There aren't enough abortion services to go around" but an issue with access to birth control or people stupidly having unprotected sex. I'm not saying I'm pro-life, but when I see people on insta gram bragging about the 'raw sex' they just had and then weeks later talking about how they're shocked someone is pregnant... I cant help but think there's a level of ignorance or stupidity involved as well with a portion of the people contributing to the population of the children in foster care.
Then you also have the children in foster care taken away from their parents or family's by state governments because of various forms of abuse or drugs being involved. This is why I think people bringing the foster care system into this argument is just so incredibly random.
Common in Texas? Of the thousands of people I've met here, only one was adopted and only two were raised by a foster family.
About that raw sex thing, yeah, we really need to re-vamp our sex-ed here. While I was in school it was 50 minutes in 8th grade, 50 minutes in 10th grade, and half a week in health class. It was pathetic.
I grew up in Dallas County, moved to Collin County later on. I dont want to be TOO specific because you never know what creeper may be reading our conversation.
They are not “pro-life”. This is a gross and disingenuous misrepresentation we have put up with for too long. They are forced-birth advocates. 1. They typically do not seek to reduce unwanted pregnancy utilizing safe sex or other proven measures 2. They do not seek to improve education or the life situation of women who give birth in financial hardship. 3. They do not involve themselves in preventing or reducing war as a pro-life stance. They do not seek to eliminate drug violence, gun violence, or a lack of safety in any way as a pro-life stance.
THEREFORE. Since the very nature of their arguments and focus limits their discussion to birth and they do not seek to reduce unwanted conception, they are literally and only forced-birth advocates. Breaking your brain and language itself in service of politeness actively enables denying reality. Call them Forced Birth Advocates because they are not and will not be Pro-life.
It’s a lie. It’s always been a lie. I’m tired of being polite to inhumane and unchristian evil. And that is entirely leaving aside the lies and other evil ACTS which would fill pages. And also leaves aside the unspoken extreme disrespect their stance has. No, solely the philosophy itself and the wrong name are evil on their own.
Yeah "pro life" is basically "pro birth" the child can then starve to death for all they care. At least that's my experience with pro lifers I've talked to.
The pro-life stance is that it is immoral to kill a human being. Now what they constitute to be a human being involves unborn children, a definition which I contest, but still. And their stance is that if people cannot afford children, they shouldn't be having them, which can be accomplished through other forms of birth control.
The part of the argument that is for personal responsibility and opposition to what they consider an immoral act, I can agree with. The part of the argument that I disagree with is their definition of what constitutes a human being, at which point we can define a fetus as one, and their position of outright banning things.
From a strictly libertarian point of view, even if they find the procedure wrong, banning it is an overreach of government power. It is not the role of the government to enforce morality.
That's nice in theory but 99% of people who I talked to who consider themselves "pro-life" are also pro-war, against social security of any kind, against state funded healthcare and usually also against both birth control and proper sex education, preaching abstinence rather than educating people about what can happen if you have unprotected sex.
Forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted child (which could be a product of rape or incest no less because there are no exceptions now) but refusing to provide any help once the child is born because "something something pull yourself up by the bootstraps" is making the child suffer for the maybe mistakes of its parents. Even if we go with the narrative that pro lifers love to push, that every woman who gets an abortion is an irresponsible slut (which, y'know, is just straight up false), the child is still going to grow up in shitty conditions with terrible parents instead of being aborted at an early stage of conception... (1/2)
... when it can't even be considered life. And sure I'd forgive all the other caveats of the pro life stance like being against social security, if you're for minimal government but believe that abortion is always murder, then yeah I'll disagree but it would be a consistent stance because murder laws should obviously apply in minimal governments too. But the part that irks me so much is that so many pro lifers especially in the Bible belt are completely against sex education of any kind. It isn't a coincidence that the Bible belt has the highest number of teen pregnancies in the US, because they don't teach the kids what's gonna happen and many of them get pregnant because they don't know that precum contains semen or that they can get birth control because they're only taught abstinence. (2/2)
As a child who would have been aborted had abortion been legal when I was conceived; I am definitely pro-choice. Neglected, unloved, abused. I'm well into my 50's and it still affects me today.
Pro-life people stand on their high horses under the name of humaneness that they are fighting for the right of unborn "children" that can't fight for themselves.
But we know that they're just hypocrite.
About that raw sex thing, yeah, we really need to re-vamp our sex-ed here. While I was in school it was 50 minutes in 8th grade, 50 minutes in 10th grade, and half a week in health class. It was pathetic.
THEREFORE. Since the very nature of their arguments and focus limits their discussion to birth and they do not seek to reduce unwanted conception, they are literally and only forced-birth advocates. Breaking your brain and language itself in service of politeness actively enables denying reality. Call them Forced Birth Advocates because they are not and will not be Pro-life.
The part of the argument that is for personal responsibility and opposition to what they consider an immoral act, I can agree with. The part of the argument that I disagree with is their definition of what constitutes a human being, at which point we can define a fetus as one, and their position of outright banning things.
From a strictly libertarian point of view, even if they find the procedure wrong, banning it is an overreach of government power. It is not the role of the government to enforce morality.
Forcing a woman to give birth to an unwanted child (which could be a product of rape or incest no less because there are no exceptions now) but refusing to provide any help once the child is born because "something something pull yourself up by the bootstraps" is making the child suffer for the maybe mistakes of its parents. Even if we go with the narrative that pro lifers love to push, that every woman who gets an abortion is an irresponsible slut (which, y'know, is just straight up false), the child is still going to grow up in shitty conditions with terrible parents instead of being aborted at an early stage of conception... (1/2)
But we know that they're just hypocrite.