[W:109] If White Conservatives Loved All People The Way They Do Embryos

[AlphaOmega]

In other words, you have no facts to refute the OP, so you decry it as "racist" even though it is true. :lol:

How about you actually address what the OP has to say, and if it's actually wrong, demonstrate why? That would help embarrass yourself less.

It is racist. Period.

 

[Phys251]

It is racist. Period.

I don't care about your race card. All I care about are the facts. What facts in the OP were wrong?

 

[AlphaOmega]

I don't care about your race card. All I care about are the facts. What facts in the OP were wrong?

Didn't read past the racism. Sorry.

 

[calamity]

If White Conservatives Loved All People The Way They Do Embryos





Once the baby is born, the "prolife" movement picks and chooses which babies' lives matters and which do not.

Immigrants fleeing hellish conditions for a chance at a new life? They don't matter.
Babies born into deep poverty? They don't matter.
Babies in abusive households? They don't matter.
LGBTQs? They don't matter. Especially Ts and Qs.

And so on, and so forth. Have you ever noticed how the people who claim to be devout supporters of the lives of babies are remarkably opposed to any kind of policy that would increase the survivability of babies once they leave the womb? Why this hypocrisy, anti-choicers?

Pro-life is a misnomer like "The Freedom Caucus." They are forced-birthers, by definition.

 

[Incredulous]

I don't really think this is correct. Conservatives are the most charitable of all groups, and they're most likely to develop groups that help the poor. Plus, they're most likely to adopt babies from third world nations. The difference is that they advocate doing their own charity work, while liberals groups advocate that the government do it.

Actually, its a joint effort...and most congregations use the majority of their budget on overhead costs supplementing charity work with government (a.k.a. American taxpayer dollars) funds.

Can Religious Charities Take the Place of the Welfare State?

People’s views on budget questions are often determined by their political beliefs, said Campbell. Whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, “religious people across the spectrum would agree the poor need to be helped.” The question is who should do the helping, and how much government should be involved.

In their private lives, religious Americans are extremely generous. According to the Lake Institute on Faith and Giving at Indiana University, donations to congregations, denominations, mission board, and TV and radio ministries account for roughly one-third of all annual giving in the U.S. The impact of this money is difficult to calculate, but it’s large: In 2001, the University of Pennsylvania professor Ram Cnaan tried to tally the financial value of all congregational social services in Philadelphia, estimating that it added up to roughly $247 million. When all social-service organizations with a religious mission are taken into account, the value of those services in many communities would likely be much higher.

These services aren’t exactly private, however. According to Oklahoma Representative Steve Russell, who testified on religious-freedom issues before Congress last spring, more than 2,000 federal contracts are awarded to religious organizations each year. If programs like the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grants are cut, as Trump has proposed, many religious organizations would lose major parts of their operating budgets. This kind of federal-spending cut can have tangible consequences: World Relief, an evangelical organization that works with the federal government on refugee resettlement, cut 140 staffers and closed five offices earlier this year when the Trump administration announced a sharp decrease in the number of refugees that will be accepted into the United States.

A lot of religious giving also doesn’t go toward helping the needy. “The vast majority of religious congregation budget [money] is spent on in-house expenses: clergy, building, materials,” said Christian Smith, a sociology professor at the University of Notre Dame. “Some congregations have more outreach ministry and social services than others. But in almost all cases, it ends up being a small part of the budget, just because it costs so much to run a congregation.”

Using a national survey of religious congregations in the U.S., the Duke Divinity School professor Mark Chaves found that 83 percent of congregations have some sort of program to help needy people in their communities. Most often, these efforts provide clothing, food, and temporary shelter, rather than intensive, long-term programs on substance abuse, post-prison rehabilitation, or immigrant resettlement. The median amount congregations spent on social-service programs was $1,500. “Religious congregations do a lot,” said Mary Jo Bane, a professor at Harvard University. But “the scale of what they do is trivial compared to what the government does. Especially if you think about the big government programs like … food stamps and school lunches, or health services through Medicaid, what religious organizations do is teeny tiny.”

Source on adoption stats?

 

[Noodlegawd]

You realize how silly that sounds right? without some "external justification"? That could mean anything. Basically you are excusing the killing of a life as long as some other person deems it ok.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. You should have looked up the word "justification" before you responded.

But that's not really important. Why don't you respond to the actual point of my comment?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Libya and Yemen were not started by the Bushes.

No wars were declared against them by the United States.

 

[SheWolf]

People who oppose abortion also oppose the killing of innocent humans after they're born.

P.S. This is a really old and worn out bait. You can do better.

There is no excuse for them in border camps. Do you think that’s what Jesus would do? Would Jesus support Trump in telling the national guard too shoot them?

 

[SheWolf]

People who oppose abortion SHOULD oppose killing them after birth. However, ask them to actually do anythimg to help these children and it seems they don't.

And they support the death penalty. They morally rationalize killing them after their born. I know a lot of pro life Trump supporters, and I would be shocked if they actually valued lives of people in border camps. They rationalize and moralize death to suit their world views. I believe Jesus would be against the border camps. I believe Jesus would stand for the humanity of refugees and poor, third world people. Their president says they come from ****holes. Tucker says they import filth and poverty, and we will become third world if we give them refugee. These Christians are misled.

 

[SheWolf]

So why are they usually war supporters? Conservatives want wars and liberals know better than to kill innocent civilians who did nothing to us.

Even when Trump told the national guard to shoot people on the border, no pro life political stood up for their lives or humanity. Pro life politicians talk about genocide and prejudice, but they fail to apply such values towards all of humanity. Tucker Carlson and Trump get away with saying people are coming from ****holes, and we can’t give them refugee or they will destroy our culture and make us, dirty, poor, and third world. The anti abortion movement is nothing but a political movement. It’s not even a legit philosophical Christian belief system. They are for war, the death penalty, border camps, and now it seems they excuse bigotry and prejudice towards third world people

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Even when Trump told the national guard to shoot people on the border, no pro life political stood up for their lives or humanity. Pro life politicians talk about genocide and prejudice, but they fail to apply such values towards all of humanity. Tucker Carlson and Trump get away with saying people are coming from ****holes, and we can’t give them refugee or they will destroy our culture and make us, dirty, poor, and third world. The anti abortion movement is nothing but a political movement. It’s not even a legit philosophical Christian belief system. They are for war, the death penalty, border camps, and now it seems they excuse bigotry and prejudice towards third world people.

Ask any Christian pro-lifer and he/she will tell you it is 100% about the Bible. They all point to the commandment: "You shall not kill." They also point to a passage in the New Testament about John leaping in Elizabeth's uterus, but he was a miraculous baby.

The same people oppose euthanasia BTW. They are pro-life for people who need to die to end their suffering, but pro-death for those who have no reason to be killed.

 

[weaver2]

People who oppose abortion also oppose the killing of innocent humans after they're born..

No they don't. Conservatives are almost always the warmongers. Vietnam was a conservative's war of choice to prevent the Vietnamese from getting rid of a corrupt leader and electing a communist. Iraq was a conservative's war of choice to control Iraqi petroleum. The current warmongering against Iran is supported by conservatives and carried out by Trump. Worst of all are those conservatives that simply go to war to build up their resume: Regan and Grenada, Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, Bush I and Central America, Bush II and Iraq.

 

[PeacefulPartier]

People who oppose abortion SHOULD oppose killing them after birth. However, ask them to actually do anythimg to help these children and it seems they don't.

Horse**** lie. My wife have been on an adoption list for almost 4 years now. We've put no preferences in. We will take a boy or girl of any race with any behavioral issues, disabilities or not. We will be on the list for probably another 2 to 3 years. We are considering adopting an older child just because it is easier, but it can also be messier. Many of these kids are coming from broken homes where both parents have drug, alcohol or behavioral issues. Granted, the state gives the children free college if they have good enough grades, but you always risk that the parents will hunt down the children and wreak havoc.

Point is, conservatives are adopting children that could have been aborted. You just want to believe that we don't care for these kids because it makes it easier for you to justify killing an innocent child just because one person deems him or her a burden. Who Adopts the Most? | Adoption.org

 

[rocket88]

Horse**** lie. My wife have been on an adoption list for almost 4 years now. We've put no preferences in. We will take a boy or girl of any race with any behavioral issues, disabilities or not. We will be on the list for probably another 2 to 3 years. We are considering adopting an older child just because it is easier, but it can also be messier. Many of these kids are coming from broken homes where both parents have drug, alcohol or behavioral issues. Granted, the state gives the children free college if they have good enough grades, but you always risk that the parents will hunt down the children and wreak havoc.

Point is, conservatives are adopting children that could have been aborted. You just want to believe that we don't care for these kids because it makes it easier for you to justify killing an innocent child just because one person deems him or her a burden. Who Adopts the Most? | Adoption.org

You know whst? I'm an adoptive father myself. Don't lecture me. Liberals are adopting also.

I adopted older kids, plenty of mental and behavioral problems. 2 bio siblings from Russia 10 years sgo. I currently have restraining orders from both because my daughter (now 18) accused me of sexual abuse because in her memory, i get confused with their bio father.

I believe in a smaller givernment that doesn't concern itself with what's going on with our junk. Whenever there's a proposal to spend some money to help kids, give them healthcare or an education, the Republican party shoots it down.

 

[weaver2]

Horse**** lie. My wife have been on an adoption list for almost 4 years now. We've put no preferences in. We will take a boy or girl of any race with any behavioral issues, disabilities or not. We will be on the list for probably another 2 to 3 years. We are considering adopting an older child just because it is easier, but it can also be messier. Many of these kids are coming from broken homes where both parents have drug, alcohol or behavioral issues. Granted, the state gives the children free college if they have good enough grades, but you always risk that the parents will hunt down the children and wreak havoc.

Point is, conservatives are adopting children that could have been aborted. You just want to believe that we don't care for these kids because it makes it easier for you to justify killing an innocent child just because one person deems him or her a burden. Who Adopts the Most? | Adoption.org

Big deal: adopting children who could have been aborted. Unfortunately most of the kids up for adoption weren't aborted and now they can't find adoptive homes. Only about 10% of children in foster care get adopted in any given year. The average time a child waits to be adopted is 3 years. The average age when a child is adopted is 7 years old. Evangelicals think women should carry an unwanted unplanned pregnancy carried to term then given away to an evangelical. Anybody ever ask a woman whether she wants to carry to term and then give away their child? Adoption is not the answer to abortion.

Who adopts the most: Evangelicals. Who is most likely to destroy the life of an adopted child if they turn out to be gay? Evangelicals

 

[Josie]

Ask any Christian pro-lifer and he/she will tell you it is 100% about the Bible.

That's just not true. I don't and many others I know also don't use scripture when explaining why they are pro-life.

 

[Cynical]

If White Conservatives Loved All People The Way They Do Embryos





Once the baby is born, the "prolife" movement picks and chooses which babies' lives matters and which do not.

Immigrants fleeing hellish conditions for a chance at a new life? They don't matter.
Babies born into deep poverty? They don't matter.
Babies in abusive households? They don't matter.
LGBTQs? They don't matter. Especially Ts and Qs.

And so on, and so forth. Have you ever noticed how the people who claim to be devout supporters of the lives of babies are remarkably opposed to any kind of policy that would increase the survivability of babies once they leave the womb? Why this hypocrisy, anti-choicers?

First of all only about 1/3 of Republican voters identify as very religious Evangelical Christians. Secondly, every Christian church I've been a part of does charitable work and giving within their communities and abroad. Third, what the **** do want Christian churches to do about LGBTQ people? Lastly, what the **** do liberals do with their own money and time for people living in hellish conditions in different countries, babies born into deep poverty, or babies in abusive households? How much have the Clinton's, the Obama's, the Pelosi's, the Warren's, the Biden's, the Sanders', etc., given of their own wealth and time to this?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

My wife have been on an adoption list for almost 4 years now. We've put no preferences in. We will take a boy or girl of any race with any behavioral issues, disabilities or not. We will be on the list for probably another 2 to 3 years. We are considering adopting an older child just because it is easier, but it can also be messier. Many of these kids are coming from broken homes where both parents have drug, alcohol or behavioral issues. Granted, the state gives the children free college if they have good enough grades, but you always risk that the parents will hunt down the children and wreak havoc.

Point is, conservatives are adopting children that could have been aborted. You just want to believe that we don't care for these kids because it makes it easier for you to justify killing an innocent child just because one person deems him or her a burden.

Actually many babies who are given up for adoption at birth do have problems while growing up and cost the government a lot of money. I recommend doing research on what really happens to those kids before making that assumption about pro-choiers.

 

[Bullseye]

If White Conservatives Loved All People The Way They Do Embryos





Once the baby is born, the "prolife" movement picks and chooses which babies' lives matters and which do not.

Immigrants fleeing hellish conditions for a chance at a new life? They don't matter.
Babies born into deep poverty? They don't matter.
Babies in abusive households? They don't matter.
LGBTQs? They don't matter. Especially Ts and Qs.

And so on, and so forth. Have you ever noticed how the people who claim to be devout supporters of the lives of babies are remarkably opposed to any kind of policy that would increase the survivability of babies once they leave the womb? Why this hypocrisy, anti-choicers?

IF only "slightly liberals" were only slightly smart than a stump . . .

 

[rocket88]

IF only "slightly liberals" were only slightly smart than a stump . . .

Then they'd be super geniuses compared to Trump supporters.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

That's just not true. I don't and many others I know also don't use scripture when explaining why they are pro-life.

So why is that the reason given by Protestant members of a Christian message board to be pro-life and most pro-lifers are Christians?

 

[weaver2]

First of all only about 1/3 of Republican voters identify as very religious Evangelical Christians. Secondly, every Christian church I've been a part of does charitable work and giving within their communities and abroad. Third, what the **** do want Christian churches to do about LGBTQ people? Lastly, what the **** do liberals do with their own money and time for people living in hellish conditions in different countries, babies born into deep poverty, or babies in abusive households? How much have the Clinton's, the Obama's, the Pelosi's, the Warren's, the Biden's, the Sanders', etc., given of their own wealth and time to this?

How much do you think Trump, McConnell, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Rupert Murdock, Rush Limbaugh, etc have given of their own wealth and time to different countries, babies born deep in poverty, equal treatment and opportunity for minorities, women, immigrants and how much do you think any of them have given LGBT causes.

Clean up your own dirty house before you start posting snark about the dirt in someone else's house.

 

[weaver2]

That's just not true. I don't and many others I know also don't use scripture when explaining why they are pro-life.

Your motives may be unbiblical but the entire anti-women anti-abortion movement was started by Catholic priests and Evangelical pastors. The most active current groups are attached to one church or another. And they justify destroying legal abortion by saying they are doing God's will. You can dispute that but statistics show that you are wrong. The movement is a religious war.

 

[year2late]

I do not necessarily think that conservatives do not care about the born....

But if they voted in a way that allowed better access to healthcare and social services for the poor and working poor, they might find that less women would feel compelled to abort.

A woman that has to worry about her healthcare and if se can stay employed (and housed) has double the worry if she is pregnant...let alone responsible for a child she may deliver.

Many seem to believe that lack of adequate health care and steady employment and housing/food insecurity is a trivial "inconvenience".

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I do not necessarily think that conservatives do not care about the born....

But if they voted in a way that allowed better access to healthcare and social services for the poor and working poor, they might find that less women would feel compelled to abort.

A woman that has to worry about her healthcare and if se can stay employed (and housed) has double the worry if she is pregnant...let alone responsible for a child she may deliver.

Many seem to believe that lack of adequate health care and steady employment and housing/food insecurity is a trivial "inconvenience."

Single pregnant women are in a "can't do what they have to do" situation. She can't pay for health care or live in her own home without a job. She can't work while raising a baby, so no employer would want to hire her. She knows taking a maternity leave can result in being fired. There is only one solution to this Catch-22 situation: government assistance. Free health care, free counseling, food stamps, welfare, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, you name it - she needs everything. If the government can't or won't give her what she so badly needs to endure all nine months of carrying a baby she tried to avoid having, she MUST have the right to abort her pregnancy. This is what I hate the most about the abortion laws being passed in state after state: NONE of them are accompanied by legislation to help the mothers get what they need and treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve during the most stressful times of their lives. I am still waiting for Christians to explain to me why they think these women should be betrayed and treated like second-class citizens in favor of embryos and fetuses that should not exist.