"Pro-Lifers are Hypocrites"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shasta-Rose said:
I didn’t have any relatives who would help me for the duration of a pregnancy. I didn’t have funds to keep myself the whole time. I couldn’t lose my apartment–I had no place else to go.
Click to expand...
if you were not in a position to raise a child, why were you having a sexual relationship? I’m not accusing, just wondering how people can engage in sexual relationships and not understand that it leads to pregnancy.
 
Yes, I did hear that it could lead to pregnancy. I had been in a long-term relationship with my boyfriend. He left me. Not being in a relationship anymore, I got off the pill. Not long after that, a friend of mine…well, I was on the rebound and, even knowing it wasn’t the thing to do, I had a affair with him. Before I did that, I got back on the pill. I was always very careful. But there was a gap in my pill taking. In theory, it wasn’t long enough to matter, but I sort of worried, and then when I was late… Just flew into panic mode.

Yeah, you’re right. Shouldn’t have done it. Shouldn’t, in the first place, have loved my boyfriend as much as I did. I gave my love to a man who didn’t know what love is. That is a big regret.
 
A very telling factor in support of the idea that the pro-life movement is hypocritical is that none of these adherents will sign off on a very simple measure that would reduce the incidence of abortion. That measure is to eliminate all child-support laws because these laws motivate unwed fathers to facilitate and promote abortions for their pregnant girlfriends in order to avoid 18 years of child-support payments. It is really amazing at the resistance that pro-lifers exhibit towards this simple measure, and the great number of reasons that they will invent.
I believe that this resistance exposes the hypocrisy of the so-called “pro-life” movement which really ought to be called the “pro-incarceration” movement.
 
Those who are extremely passionate on the pro-life cause are often the same who do not extend the cause to social justice. That is highly hypocritical and I see this daily as I work in my diocese for social justice and am president of the pro life and social justice club
 
Last edited:
Yet there’s no difference: Pro-life is social justice. They’re all human rights issues. I don’t know why individual parishes treat them separately when they’re really part of the same fabric.
 
It’s the caricature that the Left has successfully convinced society to believe- that if you don’t believe that big government should care for people then you’re mean spirited and you hate people in need.

No true pro lifer is opposed to social justice and programs to help women in need. Government may not be the right way to do it and often times isn’t.
 
undead_rat said:
eliminate all child-support laws because these laws motivate unwed fathers to facilitate and promote abortions for their pregnant girlfriends in order to avoid 18 years of child-support payments.
Click to expand...
You have GOT to be kidding. So, if a man decides he doesn’t want to support his children, he can just get a divorce and, voila! he gets off scot-free. So, the children suffer. Who cares, as long as the father is free of responsibility, right?
:roll_eyes: :roll_eyes: :roll_eyes: :roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
He has posted this in other threads as well. Really doesn’t like the idea of child support
 
13pollitos said:
He has posted this in other threads as well. Really doesn’t like the idea of child support
Click to expand...
Child support is a good thing. Incarcerating a parent for failing to provide it is not as it motivates some of these persons to promote and enable an abortion, and that is the murder of a child.
I am willing to pay a little more in my taxes to save the life of an unborn child.
 
More conversation is not needed.
What is needed is more prayer. 🙏🙏🙏
We need to pray 🙏 that God grants us the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual strength to overcome all adversity in his life on Earth.
 
undead_rat said:
40.png
13pollitos:
He has posted this in other threads as well. Really doesn’t like the idea of child support
Click to expand...
Child support is a good thing. Incarcerating a parent for failing to provide it is not as it motivates some of these persons to promote and enable an abortion, and that is the murder of a child.
I am willing to pay a little more in my taxes to save the life of an unborn child.
Click to expand...
So you eliminate child support and men have no to ties to responsibility, and so have no interest in whether the child lives or dies. And the mother can have the child with the help of the state. Correct?

Two points:
  1. How does the indifference of a parent contribute to the well being of any child?
  2. If the father is not required to step up, the mother is left in worse desperation. And this is not just about money…it’s also about having a father to share life and parenting with. So the social safety net is not going to solve the problem of abortion.
And this argument about the social safety net demonstrably fails, as we have had every increasing dollars spent on welfare, and enforced child support, and we still have tens of millions of dead children.
The premise that money solves this problem is demonstrably false.
 
Last edited:
As I predicted, within the pro-life crowd we find intense opposition to the undertaking of a simple measure that would save the lives of unborn children, but cost them a little money. And they wonder why so many people regard them as hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
Why do you think that? How is putting all responsibility on moms and releasing dads from any responsibility prolife?
 
It is such a simple concept. The threat of 18 years of forced child-support payments will motivate some unwed fathers to promote and finance an abortion for their pregnant girlfriends. Eliminating the threat of incarceration or wage garnishment removes the motivation to enable an abortion.

I realize that posters see downsides, but the goal here is to prevent the murder of the unborn. That objective seems more important to me than the negative outcome of letting those who should pay off the hook. I have seen it said that eliminating the legal obligation to pay child-support will allow these men to just go away. I don’t see the logic here. It seems more likely to me that someone would move away in order to escape wage garnishment or jail.
 
undead_rat said:
The threat of 18 years of forced child-support payments will motivate some unwed fathers to promote and finance an abortion for their pregnant girlfriends. Eliminating the threat of incarceration or wage garnishment removes the motivation to enable an abortion.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense. If forced child support payments is what causes abortion, why do you not think women forced to take 100% of the responsibility of caring and raising a child for 18 years wouldn’t cause abortions? The actually care and raising of a child is so much harder than a making small payment that often doesn’t even cover childcare costs. Many moms that receive child support have the amount supplemented by tax payers already, and many moms do not have child support at all. Ask them if they think this is a good idea.

I know dads that begged to have their babies. They did everything possible to prevent their babies from being aborted. The moms aborted anyway. Those dads would have given anything to have the ability to pay child support. I just don’t follow how your logic works.

If abortion became illegal, most prolife people would support many programs (private and public) to help moms and babies. They already do, and many others would as well. Elimination of child support just doesn’t make sense.
 
13pollitos said:
If forced child support payments is what causes abortion, why do you not think women forced to take 100% of the responsibility of caring and raising a child for 18 years wouldn’t cause abortions?
Click to expand...
This issue has been addressed before, more than once. We all pay slightly higher taxes to make up the lost child-support payments.

Furthermore, no one over said that legally mandated child-support payments are the cause of all abortions, but it ought to be obvious that at least a few are motivated by this system.
 
I am having trouble understanding this: (Should this be a new thread or is this fitting here)

Condoms and birth control are seen as intrinsic evil because they stop unity and procreation. But they would also prevent a lot of unplanned pregnancies and thus abortions.

Life begins at conception but am I allowed to say that killing a baby is worse than killing a single cell at the point of conception? Using contraception wouldn’t even create life so is it better to not create life than to destroy it?

What I’m getting at is, if there can only be abortions or contraception to lessen abortions, shouldn’t we try to lessen it?

Can’t fight evil with evil but isn’t killing a baby more evil than at most killing a single cell? I can scratch my arm and kill a single cell
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top