• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What evidence is there that pro-life supporters do not care for fetuses after they are born?

Pozessed

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
934
Reaction score
217
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We see the accusation often. The accusation that pro-life supporters only care about the unborn and stop caring or at least care less once the child is born. What is your evidence for or against such claims?

I'd like to posit the adoption and foster care rates as evidence that they do not care about the children once they are born.
I'd also like to posit the high risk of abuse that orphans and foster care children experience as evidence they do not care about children after they are born.

The fact that we have foster care and group homes for orphans could be evidence that some do care about what happens to born children. But those types of charity would come to be regardless of the abortion issue imo.
 
Many children in America are born into poverty.

People who self-identify as pro-life also tend to vote against healthcare measures for the medically indigent, daycare funding for working mothers, school lunch programs, Headstart-type programs, etc.

These same people also tend to support funding for prison construction so they have a place to warehouse these children as the cumulative effects of poverty take their toll.
 
The accusation that pro-life supporters only care about the unborn and stop caring or at least care less once the child is born. What is your evidence for or against such claims?

Number of uninsured children in America grows for the first time in nearly a decade
New York (CNN)For the first time in nearly a decade, the number of uninsured children in America has grown.
The reversal is unprecedented, particularly given a strong economy in which more people are landing jobs and gaining access to employer health coverage. It also comes at a time when the nation's overall uninsured rate remained flat.
What's behind the increase in the uninsured isn't clear, but Alker attributes it to the Trump administration and Congress' attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and shrink Medicaid. Also, it took months for Congress to approve long-term funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, forcing several states to tell parents they might have to shutter their programs.

The GOP’s Struggles to Re-Authorize CHIP Is a Devastating Indictment
But the last-ditch repeal effort, meant to be passed by a September 30 deadline, may have another cost: the health insurance of nearly nine million children. What’s more frustrating still is that there is no reason for it to have gotten to this point, the latest evidence that the GOP has become incapable of governing responsibly.

TRUMP DEFENDS BILL THAT FAILED THE “JIMMY KIMMEL TEST”
“If your baby is going to die and it doesn’t have to, it shouldn’t matter how much money you make,” Kimmel said. Senator Bill Cassidy, who would later appear on Kimmel’s show, termed it the “Jimmy Kimmel test”—and said that any piece of Republican legislation would have to pass it. Four months later, Cassidy is one of the two primary co-sponsors of a bill that could strip those same protections away.
This, as Kimmel correctly noted, is not true. Graham-Cassidy doesn’t strip away the Affordable Care Act provision that requires insurers to cover sick Americans. But it does allow states to apply for waivers that would allow them to opt out of a number of regulations that currently prevents insurance companies from charging exorbitant rates for people with pre-existing conditions. Under Graham-Cassidy, states could lift that ban; remove the requirement for insurers to cover “essential health benefits,” such as emergency services and prescription costs; and impose higher premiums based on an individual’s age. The bill also rolls federal spending for Obamacare and Medicaid into block grants for states, which would result in a dramatic decrease in subsidies over time. The result would be rising premiums, which would almost certainly incentivize states to apply for waivers to shunt the sickest and most vulnerable populations into their own high-risk pool.

Taking Away Medicaid for Not Meeting Work Requirements Harms Children
Now, the Trump Administration is letting states take away Medicaid coverage from people who don’t work a specified number of hours each month. That policy will cause many parents to lose coverage, which will harm their children as well. When parents lack health coverage, children are also more likely to go uninsured. Children also benefit directly when their parents can access the health care they need and have greater financial security, which is why parents losing coverage hurts children’s health and long-term development.

4 Takeaways From Trump’s Plan To Rescind CHIP Funding
President Donald Trump wants to employ a rarely used budget maneuver called “rescission” to eliminate $15 billion in federal spending, including $7 billion from the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
 
In case you're unfamiliar with the story of the old man and the starfish: The Starfish Story: one step towards changing the world | EventsForChange

In your story there is natural forces contributing to the influx. In the abortion scenario, people are the direct cause of the influx. Thus the kid might have a different response if he knew he could decrease the amount of starfish washed ashore if he could attribute the problem to a starfish factory rather than natural causes.
 
In your story there is natural forces contributing to the influx. In the abortion scenario, people are the direct cause of the influx. Thus the kid might have a different response if he knew he could decrease the amount of starfish washed ashore if he could attribute the problem to a starfish factory rather than natural causes.

I think you've missed the point of the parable.
 
We see the accusation often. The accusation that pro-life supporters only care about the unborn and stop caring or at least care less once the child is born. What is your evidence for or against such claims?

I'd like to posit the adoption and foster care rates as evidence that they do not care about the children once they are born.
I'd also like to posit the high risk of abuse that orphans and foster care children experience as evidence they do not care about children after they are born.

The fact that we have foster care and group homes for orphans could be evidence that some do care about what happens to born children. But those types of charity would come to be regardless of the abortion issue imo.

The mere fact that pro-lifers desire to force women to bear unwanted children is child abuse. It really s that simple. All children should be wanted and loved.
 
The mere fact that pro-lifers desire to force women to bear unwanted children is child abuse. It really s that simple. All children should be wanted and loved.

Never even mind the real fact that a desire isn't anything other than a desire. A desire isn't child abuse. :roll:

Your spin is simplistic, but the issue is complex. That's why an entire forum is designation for its discussion.
 
We see the accusation often. The accusation that pro-life supporters only care about the unborn and stop caring or at least care less once the child is born. What is your evidence for or against such claims?

I'd like to posit the adoption and foster care rates as evidence that they do not care about the children once they are born.
I'd also like to posit the high risk of abuse that orphans and foster care children experience as evidence they do not care about children after they are born.

The fact that we have foster care and group homes for orphans could be evidence that some do care about what happens to born children. But those types of charity would come to be regardless of the abortion issue imo.

The constant objections to paying for welfare and other public assistance that would support women that cant afford a child.

It's very hypocritical to demand a woman produce a child and then deny her the $$ that would enable her to put a roof over their heads and food on the table.

In general, the more challenging the socio-economic challenges a family faces, the higher the risks are for a child to not reach its potential in school, get fewer opportunities in life, end up a juvenile delinquent, in a gang, in a foster home, in court, in prison, criminal behavior as an adult, etc.

Why would you encourage women to have kids they cant afford only to put them in foster care? There are over 400,000 kids in foster care in America now. Is that what you want to pay for? More of them? Foster homes are not 'evidence' that people care :doh...what else would you have the state do? Leave the kids at the side of the road starving? You are still paying for them.
 
Never even mind the real fact that a desire isn't anything other than a desire. A desire isn't child abuse. :roll:

Your spin is simplistic, but the issue is complex. That's why an entire forum is designation for its discussion.
And never mind the real fact that the anti-abortions desire is for the abuse and neglect of women and children
 

Giving to charity (which in this case includes churches, which in some cases, such as for Mormons, it is required to tithe a certain amount of your income to the church or their causes) is not the same thing as giving to children, specifically for children's welfare. What would those numbers look like if giving to churches was not included, but rather only giving to secular or nonreligious causes was counted?

Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious? | HuffPost
 
Giving to charity (which in this case includes churches, which in some cases, such as for Mormons, it is required to tithe a certain amount of your income to the church or their causes) is not the same thing as giving to children, specifically for children's welfare. What would those numbers look like if giving to churches was not included, but rather only giving to secular or nonreligious causes was counted?

Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious? | HuffPost

There is probably no way to know. Many of us who give money as private donations also don't claim tax deductions for them.
 
The mere fact that pro-lifers desire to force women to bear unwanted children is child abuse. It really s that simple. All children should be wanted and loved.

Damn right!!! And get rid of any that aren't loved!! Now that's a great policy.
 
George Bush.
Ronald Reagan.
George Bush Sr.
Donald Trump.

I could also name nearly every single republican in congress that authorized the amoral, unjust war that lead to countless DEATHS in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Syria, etc.

That conclusively proves you cannot be a true pro lifer. Because most pro lifers in congress are also pro war, and enjoy nothing more than invading a nation, killing its people, sending the sons of poor americans to die, fighting for a religious cause of non-description.
 
We see the accusation often. The accusation that pro-life supporters only care about the unborn and stop caring or at least care less once the child is born. What is your evidence for or against such claims?

I'd like to posit the adoption and foster care rates as evidence that they do not care about the children once they are born.
I'd also like to posit the high risk of abuse that orphans and foster care children experience as evidence they do not care about children after they are born.

The fact that we have foster care and group homes for orphans could be evidence that some do care about what happens to born children. But those types of charity would come to be regardless of the abortion issue imo.

well anybody that grouped pro-lifers all together is wrong, same as grouping all pro-choices together is wrong . . thats always an instant fail
so if ANYBODY did it that way, thats a problem

as for the topic, are there many that dont care after the birth, yes of course there are but they do not represent all of prolife obviously
 
We see the accusation often. The accusation that pro-life supporters only care about the unborn and stop caring or at least care less once the child is born. What is your evidence for or against such claims?........

There are none. Its just another attack method for liberals to justify murdering babies.
 
Many children in America are born into poverty.

Living standards are better today than they've ever been, yet crime, depression, drug abuse etc are at all-time highs. Figures.

People who self-identify as pro-life also tend to vote against healthcare measures for the medically indigent, daycare funding for working mothers, school lunch programs, Headstart-type programs, etc.

These same people also tend to support funding for prison construction so they have a place to warehouse these children as the cumulative effects of poverty take their toll.

So because Republicans are wary of how the country spends its finite resources, and support building prisons to keep child abusers and criminals out of society, that means we don't care about children? No logic found. Please explain.
 
The mere fact that pro-lifers desire to force women to bear unwanted children is child abuse.

Nothing that a child will ever go through would be worse than killing it. Nothing. Especially in some of the barbaric and brutal ways abortions are carried out. You're literally saying that dismembering children inside the womb or plucking them out and leaving them to rot in a bucket of acid is somehow better for that child than having it grow up with ripped shoes.

That doesn't even approach the bounds of logic, and it's morally deplorable. Poverty is usually temporary, and even so the children in it still have a desire to live. So no, you're not doing that child a favour by killing it. Nice try though.

Poverty is subjective anyway. The lower class in America lives way better than the upper class in most countries. Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg could quite easily look at us working class people and say that we're living in poverty and therefore our lives don't matter. Ultimately what you're doing is determining the value of one's life by their social class.
 
Living standards are better today than they've ever been, yet crime, depression, drug abuse etc are at all-time highs. Figures.



So because Republicans are wary of how the country spends its finite resources, and support building prisons to keep child abusers and criminals out of society, that means we don't care about children? No logic found. Please explain.

Now you're just making up sh!t. Crime, etc., is not at all time high.

No, Republicans would force a woman to carry an unwanted, unloved child into the world. And then you would deny that child healthcare, housing, a decent education. You know, because that would be like ... socialism.

There are things far worse than abortion in utero (throwing an unwanted unloved child away before they are born). I know. I was personally thrown away at least six times before I was 23. How I ever managed to avoid residing in one of your many abundant prisons I'll never know.
 
Nothing that a child will ever go through would be worse than killing it. Nothing. Especially in some of the barbaric and brutal ways abortions are carried out. You're literally saying that dismembering children inside the womb or plucking them out and leaving them to rot in a bucket of acid is somehow better for that child than having it grow up with ripped shoes.

That doesn't even approach the bounds of logic, and it's morally deplorable. Poverty is usually temporary, and even so the children in it still have a desire to live. So no, you're not doing that child a favour by killing it. Nice try though.

Poverty is subjective anyway. The lower class in America lives way better than the upper class in most countries. Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg could quite easily look at us working class people and say that we're living in poverty and therefore our lives don't matter. Ultimately what you're doing is determining the value of one's life by their social class.

Then why do we euthanize pets when they are in pain? Why bother doing that if death is worse than any pain any living thing can feel? Or do you believe that death is only worse for people?
 
Back
Top Bottom