February 4, 201313 yr I am a democrat and I am pro-choice and I am for welfare. It seems that many non democrats are pro-life and against welfare. May I ask why that is? Seems like abortion would do a better job of eliminating welfare instead of just hoping the government(or your favorite candidate) would do away with it. The Morning After Pill thread got me thinking and that is why I am asking now. Is being pro-life and against welfare an oxymoron? I'm thinking yes.
February 4, 201313 yr Not at all. Someone who is pro-life, normally is so for religious reasons (i.e. it's the killing of an unborn innocent child). Someone who is against welfare, such as myself, simply supports personal responsibility. You're responsible for your own life, don't go mooching off the government (i.e. taxpayers), because you can't support yourself.
February 4, 201313 yr ^ Good answer. Nailed it as far as I'm concerned. If your understanding of the beginning of human life is that it occurs at the moment of conception, then you can't condone the destruction of that life for the practical purpose of saving some money in social welfare programs.
February 4, 201313 yr Author Even though abortion is likely the only answer to ridding the problem of welfare? Or even the use or distribution of the morning after pill to teenagers like in NYC? Unwed teen mothers are on a collision course for welfare and if I am not mistaken aren't teen mothers higher now than ever before or are they just more glorified and in-your-face now making it seem like they are more prevalent now?
February 4, 201313 yr Even though abortion is likely the only answer to ridding the problem of welfare? Or even the use or distribution of the morning after pill to teenagers like in NYC? Unwed teen mothers are on a collision course for welfare and if I am not mistaken aren't teen mothers higher now than ever before or are they just more glorified and in-your-face now making it seem like they are more prevalent now? Really? Abortion has been legal now for how many years...and yet the dependancy on welfare seems to have risen during this same time period. I'm curious as to how you can make this assumption.
February 4, 201313 yr Author Really? Abortion has been legal now for how many years...and yet the dependancy on welfare seems to have risen during this same time period. I'm curious as to how you can make this assumption. Just spitballing. Thinking out loud on the BGP platform. My thought process was thinking that there are people against abortion and welfare and I found it odd because it seems to me that more abortions would equal less welfare. And yes, I am aware that is flawed thinking. I'm just thinking out loud. Abortion is legal but I hear of less and less people having abortions. Truthfully when I was in college is when people I knew had abortions. I know of others who have had abortions not in college and some of them would have been on welfare if not for their abortions. The ones I know in college who had abortions are not on welfare.
February 4, 201313 yr Author In high school and college I remember people having hushed abortions...being sent away for a month or two...things like that. Now it seems like those kids are having the babies now and by the time they are 20 they are in the system.
February 4, 201313 yr Even though abortion is likely the only answer to ridding the problem of welfare? Or even the use or distribution of the morning after pill to teenagers like in NYC? Unwed teen mothers are on a collision course for welfare and if I am not mistaken aren't teen mothers higher now than ever before or are they just more glorified and in-your-face now making it seem like they are more prevalent now? The easy answer is eliminate the welfare system and those teen mothers won't last.
February 4, 201313 yr I am on the same side of this issue as PP92. I am not a democrat, but I am pro-choice, and not anti-welfare, but welfare with restrictions....ie. hand up, not a hand out. I think welfare should be a working program, not a stay-at-home program. There should not be extra pay for extra children born into the program. That may be harsh, but it is a FACT, there are children born into this world because they bring a bigger welfare check. That is wrong, wrong, wrong!!! If anyone has seen Freakonomics, one of the interesting links made in the discussion was with the surprising reduction in crime during the late 1980's was that it coincided ~17 years earlier with the passing of Roe v. Wade. Our welfare mess is solvable, not quickly, but over time. But first we have to be committed to changing it in a fair and humane way. There is nothing inhumane about expecting a recipient to do something to earn the money.
February 4, 201313 yr Not at all. Someone who is pro-life, normally is so for religious reasons (i.e. it's the killing of an unborn innocent child). Someone who is against welfare, such as myself, simply supports personal responsibility. You're responsible for your own life, don't go mooching off the government (i.e. taxpayers), because you can't support yourself. I agree for the most part. I will add that for those truly in need of a little help, I support some sort of welfare. I feel like a lot of people abuse the system and our government is not doing a good enough job of fighting that. If you are going to give people money, make sure they deserve it.
February 5, 201313 yr They don't want to work, they are given just enough that the incentive to work is practically non-existent. I wouldn't lump all into this category, but.........
February 5, 201313 yr The easy answer is eliminate the welfare system and those teen mothers won't last. What do you mean, 'won't last?'
February 5, 201313 yr I will add that for those truly in need of a little help, I support some sort of welfare. I feel like a lot of people abuse the system and our government is not doing a good enough job of fighting that. I agree. Assistance for those in need should be limited to necessities only. (Nice cars, jewelry, I Phones, cigarettes, tattoos, X-Boxes, 50" plasma TVs, etc, are NOT necessities). If you want these things, get a job and EARN them. Oh yeah, and...before you are eligible to pick up your check, you must pee in a cup. If its not clean, NO CHECK.
February 5, 201313 yr If anyone has seen Freakonomics, one of the interesting links made in the discussion was with the surprising reduction in crime during the late 1980's was that it coincided ~17 years earlier with the passing of Roe v. Wade. I've not seen the movie, and while that stat is incredibly interesting, it probably shouldn't be terribly surprising. I love the correlation between bizarre stats and how they are interwoven.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.