Without Life, no other issues matter.
Why ask i rhetorical question rather than deal with reality?
Well, I can understand that. You can’t think of any true “proportionate reason” existing in the USA at this time because this is the single most important issue to you, and no other is a consideration. Others will have issues that are important to them that they will consider. Each one of us has to vote according to our conscience, and we will vote with issues that mean the most to us and our people in mind.
Of course people who care about and respect human life will also be “concerned” about the other things that face this Country, but that alone won’t make them a preferred candidate, or the best candidate for our Country and our people. For example, Palin is staunchly pro-life, but I have serious issue with her as president or vice-president and will vote for anyone but her because I believe her to be bad for the country. So basically, unless they put a good pro-life candidate out there, people aren’t going to vote for them. So it would be in everyone’s interest to put a good pro-life candidate on the roster, so that people will want to vote for them.
I understand that very well. For example, take a farmer who is having trouble paying the taxes on his farm. If a pro-life candidate talks about raising taxes (including on farms) to such a degree that the farmer will lose his home, well you can bet the bank that he will vote for the candidate running against him. Whether or not the candidate is pro-life or pro-choice, it won’t matter to that farmer if the farmer loses everything, and I certainly would not call that “selfish” that one is concerned about losing their homes.
I suspect that will be a very important matter for some voters. So a potential pro-life candidate better address it as well as announcing that they’re pro-life.
Do you think it is ok to put economic prosperity before someone elses life?
No, it’s not okay to put economic “prosperity” before someone else’s life. But it is important that one be able to keep their home, feed their family and be able to pay their bills. It’s important to a great deal of voters that they be able to take care of their family. Now, I understand it’s not important to all voters.
No matter who is voted in office, there will still be abortions. It’s not an evil that is just going to disappear. The damage done by the wrong candidate to those already living will only compound matters. Those who are already living matter as well. They are important too. Bush was staunchly pro-life and wasn’t able to accomplish much to outlaw abortion. People who are worried about other issues know this. The farmer would lose his livelihood and the capacity to provide for his family while waiting for those 48 million people to be born and need his crops.
I am no economist but wouldn’t increased demand only raise prices. Being that a large number of women having abortions are poor, wouldn’t increases in social services have to be paid for with tax dollars? I hate abortion as much as the next Catholic, but I am just not sold on the economic argument for banning abortion. I feel like the responsibilities for these unaborted children will have to be placed on society, especially if their parents didnt want them in the first place.
No, it’s not okay to put economic “prosperity” before someone else’s life. But it is important that one be able to keep their home, feed their family and be able to pay their bills. It’s important to a great deal of voters that they be able to take care of their family. Now, I understand it’s not important to all voters.
I’m tracking the 2011 votes, and hope you all are as well.
As of right now, the majority of the same elected persons who are voting against funding abortions are the most concerned about the economy. (Compared to the uncontrolled spending by the 2010 Government.)
This Country would be in terrible shape if the 2010 Congress had not been changed in the House.
H Con Res 36
senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm
clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/index.asp
foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/01/government-waste-numbers-report-identifies-dozens-duplicative-programs/
You don’t have to be a one-issue voter.Not the way OBAMACARE has been written. It was never intended to “help the poor”.
You are making false statements without any supporting documentation.You are dead-on, True. The Right Wing has taken the abortion cause as a win-win strategy. They can shut out the poor, fleece the middle class and shut down unions, give massive tax benefits to the super wealthy, wage wars in multiple countries causing carnage internationally, torture terror suspects, ignore the poor and immigrants, line the pockets of the military industrial complex, use cheesy racist tactics to win that smear people’s reputations, you name it…and as long as they’re anti-abortion with one-issue voters they WIN!
)No because the supply will also increase.
That would be an investment in our future that will pay back those tax dollars with interest over the lifetime of the child.
Then I trust you have no problem with us also euthanizing old folks, after all why should young men like myself have to take responsibility for old people who were to selfish in their youth to have the children to pay the taxes that would be needed to provide for them in their old age. Right?
