Pro-Life and World Hunger

[ComputerGeek25]

Easier to blame everyone else…such GREED and CORRUPTION in the world…golly gosh.

Let’s take a visit to 9th grade social studies shall we?

What you state above is not a blame, but is mere fact.

The US produces (or at least has the ability) enough food to feed most everyone abroad. We are the most generous nation on Earth.

The problem occurs mainly because food gets intercepted on the way to people that need it.

Lastly, if you look at some countries like Zimabwe, where they made massive land reforms, have basically turned them into a food importer.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Very true, and so simple …

if you believe the world is overpopulated and you need to do something about it, why are you still alive to talk about it.

How many people could live off of the amount of food and resources that you require to travel to all those places. Those resources would be better spent on someone that needs it.

Are you and your existance somehow more important to the world than a starving child somewhere else. Why are you using the resouces that could feed hundreds of people a year?

Why is that okay?

Because, God forbid, people have to give up driving their Hummers and Starbucks every morning…

 

[iamrefreshed]

I have to admit that the thought of supporting abortion for population control sickens me more that those who support it because they believe in choice.

Have the guts to do to yourselves what you would do to the unborn so your tummy can be filled.

 

[bilop]

In your opinion. I have been to overpopulated countries. In those countries there is simply so much human life, it isn’t considered important. It’s not valued. You may claim it’s ethics, but it’s not. It became devauled, more and more, with the growth of the population.

Playing Devil’s advocate:

If we’re going to kill people to conserve food, why are we starting with innocent unborn children?

Why don’t we start with all the murderers, rapists, child molesters and terrorists that we spend $100,000 a year emprisoning?

That would free up a lot of resources.

God Bless

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Playing Devil’s advocate:

If we’re going to kill people to conserve food, why are we starting with innocent unborn children?

Why don’t we start with all the murderers, rapists, child molesters and terrorists that we spend $100,000 a year emprisoning?

That would free up a lot of resources.

God Bless

Becasue we can’t have the death penalty… Capital punishment is wrong! They are people! What if they are innocent? It costs more to keep them on death row to to imprision them

Maybe my sarcasm is showing…

 

[bilop]

Becasue we can’t have the death penalty… Capital punishment is wrong! They are people! What if they are innocent? It costs more to keep them on death row to to imprision them

Maybe my sarcasm is showing…

Yeah, much better to kill someone we KNOW is innocent than somebody that has a 1 in 100,000 chance of being innocent.

It boggles my mind that the same people will protest the execution of a multiple murderer, but support unlimited abortion.

God Bless

 

[vern_humphrey]

Easier to not put ones own standard of living in jepoardy by giving to those in need but instead killing the needy off. Money and power corrupts such that those that have these things take advantage of their position of power to oppress the needy who are perceived to be a threat to them.

It must be a terrible burden to be so holy that you have the power to decide who lives and who dies.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yeah, much better to kill someone we KNOW is innocent than somebody that has a 1 in 100,000 chance of being innocent.

It boggles my mind that the same people will protest the execution of a multiple murderer, but support unlimited abortion.

God Bless

I confess, I’m not* nuanced* enough to understand this philosophy of “Protect the guilty, slaughter the innocent.”

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I confess, I’m not* nuanced* enough to understand this philosophy of “Protect the guilty, slaughter the innocent.”

And no one who believes this can provide me a coherent arguement as to their position (and why do you think they haven’t respondent yet ) because it’s silly.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And no one who believes this can provide me a coherent arguement as to their position (and why do you think they haven’t respondent yet ) because it’s silly.

You think they’re out of ammunition?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

You think they’re out of ammunition?

Meh. This is a silly arguement. “The world is over populated so lets kill people”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Meh. This is a silly arguement. “The world is over populated so lets kill people”

The proper response is, “Here’s something you can do about it – take this razor blade and hold your wrists over this bucket. Remember to cut long ways, not across the wrist.”

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The proper response is, “Here’s something you can do about it – take this razor blade and hold your wrists over this bucket. Remember to cut long ways, not across the wrist.”

Wow…this is one for the archives. Promoting suicide…even in jest. Not cool.

 

[hasikelee]

Meh. This is a silly arguement. “The world is over populated so lets kill people”

My favourite image regarding this long-standing argument:

A woman holding a sign facing a group of protestors that says,

"Save the world! Kill yourself!"

 

[vern_humphrey]

Wow…this is one for the archives. Promoting suicide…even in jest. Not cool.

Infantile response noted.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

There are approximately 50,000,000 less Americans since Roe
vs Wade. That is 50,000,000 fewer people to try and find
solutions to our problems, to help with the hungry, to help in
our clinics, to help with our elderly, the sick and the dying.
And on a personal level to the OP, who is going to care for you
when you can’t care for yourself–your one child or no child or
someone else’s? Let’s hope that person hasn’t been aborted
and is hungry enough to want the job.
So if fewer people are the solution, why haven’t 50,000,000 been
enough to make a bigger dent???

 

[jediliz]

I sent a generous check at Easter time to a program called Operation Rice Bowl, which helps feed the hungry in third world countries.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Becasue we can’t have the death penalty… Capital punishment is wrong! They are people! What if they are innocent? It costs more to keep them on death row to to imprision them

Maybe my sarcasm is showing…

Just a little.

 

[mmyers]

Go ahead and search these forums for “abortion”. Then do another search for “poverty” or “hunger”. How many threads do you find on poverty or hunger? How many do you find on abortion? The results of such a search speak for themselves.

I am not arguing about the morality of abortion. I am simply saying that poverty and hunger are just as important. I suppose it’s easier to be against abortion…it doesn’t cost you any $$ to speak against abortion. Addressing the problems of poverty and hunger might actually require that we all make a real sacrifice…the rich might even have to give up their tax cut (gasp!).

Oh there are so many flaws in your statements, but the one that strikes me as most humorous is the tax cuts of the rich. Don’t get me wrong, my husband is a CPA and we make our living on the complexities of the tax code, but the reality is that the richest one percent of this country actually paid 97% of the tax bill. What I have found over and over again is that the people who complain the loudest about taxes, don’t actually pay any…
But to get back to the topic at hand, you may be shocked to know that a move towards free markets and away from socialism would actually go miles in solving world hunger. Governments should not be running the social programs, we the people should be reaching out to solve the world’s problems. Oh and by the way I am pro-life and work with the homeless (who are generally hungry too)…where the heck do you get your stats…oh right you dont have any this is just unsupported opinion.

 

[mmyers]

Not to me. I see suffering children all the time. Cuts in social programs add to their suffering. Yet generally the pro-life camp is anti-social programs, even when helpless kids depend on these programs. I can feel a lot more compassion for a child I can see, one I know actually feels the suffering, has the consciousness and awareness to understand what’s happening - which I’m just not sure is true of a 12 week fetus. And, yes, I’ve seen the Silent Scream thing and researched it - uncovering evidence that it is totally misrepresented as a “scream”. I’ve tried to see it your way, but I just can’t.

The problem with social problems is that most people who specialize can be very good at what they do, but are very narrow minded.
What you are ultimately saying is that we should increase and not reduce government programs. The fatal flaw with this theory is that someone has to pay for these things and that is the taxpayer. So now we have to run the taxpayers money through a system that everybody takes a piece from. What we have then is an economic phemononon called deadwieght loss. Your dollar that you give to the government is now much less given to social programs, because all of the people who process it have taken their paycheck out. If we were not required to give taxes to be used toward social programs, the social programs would have more money because individuals whould have more to give. And don’t give the excuse that Americans wouldn’t give, in previous generations we gave a higher percentage out of our smaller paychecks, with less taxes.
Here is an example: The IRS takes a tax from the wealthy called an estate tax (a death tax which is technically illigal). The amount of money that they take in every year from this tax is just enough to cover the cost of the division of the IRS that deals with estate tax. That is a great way to spend money (voice dripping with sarcasm). But everytime that a politician wants to get rid of the tax there is a great outcry that we only are trying to help the rich and at the end of the day there is noone really hearing the cry of the poor (well except God, of course)