Old 07-14-2015, 01:55 PM
  #73  
waddler
Fork Horn
 
waddler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Bogart Georgia/Hunter Arkansas
Posts: 360
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
I'm not sure I understand where you're going with the above. Where does this occur and to which incident(s) are you referring?

In the first emboldened statement, you make it sound like both decisions are made for exactly the same reason(s) and are irrevocably linked and intertwined. If that is so, then couldn't you also ask the question in reverse (using your above format): What about the morality of taking away sustenance for the child because the parents are low class immorality and then outlawing abortion?

Your 2nd emboldened statement from above quote is even more curious. To wit "What about the morality of sentencing an unborn child to a life of destitution." I fail to see exactly how an unborn child (who is obviously not aborted) is "sentenced" to a "life of destitution."

Could you explain how you arrive at such a negative conclusion? What study do you base this on? Or even just some reasonable inference from some personal experience? So far, Ranger77 seems to have refuted your assertion with at least his own personal experience. I would guess that many others could also. At minimum, with such anecdotal personal experiences contrary to your theory or formula (I like assertion better though), it would seem that your assertion is not always accurate and would therefore need further study, or in your case, documentation, etc.
I will try to answer.

I understand personally about bootstrapping, and find nothing wrong with just providing opportunity. My only contention about abortion is that it is personal and the State should not be involved. I hardly see how that labels me a "Liberal", actually it was a "conservative" virtue in the Goldwater era, on up until the advent of the Reagan Admin., and the march of the Neo Cons. Enough of that.

Now as to the welfare funding, I prefer a working solution, where any man can be given a responsible job, even if it is a Government Work Program like the CCC was. But of course that is Socialism. Is it better to just give the money and encourage vagrancy? Our biggest problems with the lower class demographic, resides to a large extent in the big city ghetto. There, a person can make more money selling narcotics, primarily to middle and upper class suburbanites. The war on Drugs so highly touted by the Right, has failed as miserably as their Prohibition of Alcohol.

My bone of contention with the far right, is that on one hand they want to increase our population by 400,000 or so/year. Most of these children will belong to economically challenged people. Note I did not say family, because in many instances there is not one. And after forcing the addition of children into these dire circumstances, They want to restrict or eliminate the funding to the programs that support these waifs.

Outlawing abortion is Government sticking its nose further into the personal lives of Americans, a place they should not be. However, if abortion is to be limited or outlawed, then the people responsible for bringing that about are responsible for the children that result from their actions.

There is an old Chinese custom that says if you save a man's life you will be forever responsible for his actions. If these children are born and raised in the drug culture laden ghettos, then the responsibility for them becoming thugs and irresponsible citizens must be shared by those responsible for their existence.

When a child is saved from abortion, the "saviors" have thru their actions assumed a special responsibility to see that child has an equal chance to the American Freedoms. Including a safe secure habitation, warm clean clothing,food , medicine, health care, and a high school education free from danger That takes TAXES, and these monies can only come from "them what's got", so quit complaining when your taxes go up to cover the Welfare needed to provide for your "foster" children.
waddler is offline