Saturday, June 12, 2010

Antichoice Contradictions

Money. Antichoicers seem to be obsessed with money. Some claim that Planned Parenthood and abortion providers only work for money (makes no sense w/ PP being a non-profit and providers offering free or discounted abortions for tough cases, but I digress). Some antis offer prochoicers money to turn in abortion providers, in the hopes that we are obsessed with money like they are (we're not).

But the one thing that drives me crazy is the contradiction between abortion and antichoicers paying taxes.

To explain further: antichoice and republican (or now, teaparty) usually go hand in hand. I'm sure there are some liberal antis out there, but they are certainly a minority.

Republicans, as a group, don't want to pay taxes. They don't want to pay for medicare, medicaid, health care for others, anything. If it involves their money and their neighbor or the kid down the street, republicans want nothing to do with it.

And yet, they want to ban abortion, which would create more welfare dependents and raise the taxes.

I do not understand this. How can you on one hand demand that there should be more people in this country, many of which would be on welfare or in foster care or need government help in some other way... and then also refuse to help pay for those expenses? Refuse to keep alive the children they've forced into this world?

Many people would jump to the logical conclusion: antichoicers don't care about born children or any born people for that matter, only fetuses. I'm loath to make such a general and almost unfair statement; but when all the facts point in one direction, it's hard to deny something is true.

If abortions are covered under health insurance and costs are kept low (by removing forced-ultrasound laws), Americans would pay lower taxes than if abortions were made illegal.

I can hear the anti reply already: "You want to kill babies to save money!!"

No. I do not want to kill babies to save money. I do not want to kill fetuses or infants to save money. I personally do not mind having a higher tax if the money goes to a starving child on welfare.

What I want to know is, do antichoicers realize the contradiction in these two ideas? How do they (you) reconcile between wanting lower taxes and wanting to increase the number of welfare recipients in America?


  1. Here's how: The Republicans serve a very small base (the rich) but their base is larger because it's augmented by a brainwashed population of Christians and rednecks. Therefore, they have to do things that are not in the best interest of their goals in order to avoid pissing off their larger, Christian, base. If they turned off their Christian base by supporting equal rights for gay people or women, then they would lose much of their base and every election they run under.

    They're not stupid, just painted in a corner, unable to achieve their mission.

  2. Jessica - I guess that's the way you would see it. The fact is, republicans are for people working, not sitting on their butt collecting welfare checks, aka my tax money. As for your Christian and redneck statement, I am proud to be both! We don't take a stand on issues, just to not piss off others. We are traditional conservative Americans. If you want to call us intolerant, you're probably right. But looking at where tolerance and being PC has gotten us, we don't regret our decision to fight back.

    Kushie - The government dependance you own, came out in your statement "How do they (you) reconcile between wanting lower taxes and wanting to increase the number of welfare recipients in America?" You are so sure that all these kids would end up on the welfare line. Create jobs for them. Help them to earn an honest days pay.

  3. Great post. They also claim to want to support women's health, but when women don't have access to birth control, ec, or abortion, they don't have full access to health care.

  4. I can understand the Republican leaders being able to contradict, but I don't get how individuals can do it without problem.

    For the record, I'm a Christian (obviously?) but not brainwashed, and maybe half redneck?

    Justsnap8: I know they're going to be welfare recipients because children aren't able to work. Also, most women who abort either don't want kids or cannot afford kids, which means these children would either be going into foster care or would be with parents who cannot afford to feed or clothe them. Again, welfare recipients.

    Many women who abort are working, and choose abortion because they're making the responsible choice. They have jobs, but those jobs can't cover the cost of having and raising a second child. Creating jobs wont help them (Equal pay and fair wages will, but that's another republican battle).

  5. I have nothing against helping people feed and clothe their kids, as long as the parents try their hardest to make ends meet. It's those that don't try that I'm referring to. The ones that take welfare because they think it's owed to them.

  6. Can you tell me the proportion of people who just take welfare because they can, and the proportion of people who take welfare because they can't make ends meet while working two jobs and caring for three kids?

  7. Also, do you realize that these "lazy" welfare people, if they exist, are probably included in some of the pregnant women you want to carry to term?

    So how can you say you want more welfare recipients but you refuse to pay to care for them?

  8. Conservatives LOVE to talk about the people who collect welfare because they're lazy and/or think it's owed to them. And I'm not naive, I know those people do exist, but they're VERY few. You know why the majority of people who are unemployed and on welfare stay that way? Because it is literally the only way to feed their children. It is possible in this country to earn an income that is too much for public assistance but not large enough to cover basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, heat). Also, if you're a single parent of a small child, you NEED a babysitter to go out and work. Childcare is outrageously expensive and prohibits a lot of single parents from being able to work because again, on welfare they can be certain their children will have enough to eat.

    Basically rich conservatives think that only those privileged with enough money should be able to live (they purposely refuse to understand the causes of poverty); middle- and poverty-class conservatives have been brain-washed. And ALL conservatives think women are their cute little playthings who should have to do whatever they say. At least that's the only way I can see to explain their rampant hypocrisy and contradictions.

  9. We should also consider the situation from the other way around. People stay on welfare because no one will hire them, not because they want to.

    "Disturbing Job Ads: 'The Unemployed Will Not Be Considered'"

  10. I saw that on HuffPo, it's sad. People have to start somewhere, and that's usually on the bottom. It's private industry that provides jobs for these people. I worked at a hamburger plant, in the office, but the people that worked in the plant itself were hard-workers, just trying to feed their families. That was taken away from them by the president of the company that was born with a silver spoon up his butt. We all lost jobs due to his stupidity. The people in the plant were not educated so to speak, but that was a type of work they could do. If we don't create jobs for them, then they depend on us to make ends meet. And yes, most of them probably got food stamps. Nobody I know has a problem contributing our tax dollars to feed people who need it. Same with medicaid. Who would turn down kids that need to see a doctor? You paint republicans as people that don't care, and that's just not true.

    Most women (not all), have families that could and would help them with unexpected babies. Alot of women abort because a baby would cramp their lifestyle. They want to finish their education, or get where they want in their career.

  11. You start off talking about people who are hard-working and unable to work in an office, but do what they can where they can.

    Then you bash women who choose to become educated so they can obtain those higher paying, "educated" jobs.

    I just don't get it.

  12. I don't bash women for getting educations, I bash them for sacrificing their children to get it.

  13. Republicans have Christian rednecks fooled into thinking that higher taxes affect them. Many Republicans in the middle class view themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires, so to speak. How many middle class Republicans think that taxing the rich higher than the middle class is a good thing? Well considering the Tea Party held their rally on tax day to protest taxes when their tax burden was lessened, goes to show how fooled they are. Rich Republicans have created this false notion of a socialist state so that foolish middle class Republicans will fight the battle for them. Taxes affect lower and upper income brackets the most, NOT the middle class. But no Republican would see that fact. And guess what justsnapd8, "traditional" values are misogynistic, racist and homophobic and have no place in today's society. "Traditional" values included slavery. Awesome values you've got there.

  14. "Most women (not all), have families that could and would help them with unexpected babies. Alot of women abort because a baby would cramp their lifestyle. They want to finish their education, or get where they want in their career."

    First, What Christian ProChoicer said. You want these women to get jobs, but in the same breath you fault them for having/getting jobs and pursuing the skills/education required to get a job that pays enough to keep their family off welfare???

    Also, nice assumptioning there, with the "most women who abort have families who'll help them." Really? Have you asked them all? Each and every one? And found an overwhelming majority to be rich, lazy, and have rich and benevolent families?

  15. it would seem that you guys are the ones with $$$ on the brain! Gee, wonder why it is ya'll ya'll can't see that?

    Not Guilty.. You are obviously more into name calling than you are in the truth. If you don't know any rednecks, you should really keep your mouth shut! And no, 'traditional' values are not misogynistic. And without traditional values, our society is in the toilet! Compare prolife tweets to prochoice tweets, not the regulars, but occasional tweeters. Can't you see how foul your people are?

    Criss - LTNS.. Congrats on the pregnancy.

    I don't fault anyone for getting a job or pursuing an education. And if they still need help with food/clothing/housing, it's ok with me as long as they try to make ends meet. Sacrificing children for higher wages is selfish. You and perhaps future children may have a life with a higher income, but the babies who die in abortion don't get to have a life at all.

    You are assuming that in most if not all cases, there would be no-one willing to help? Is your assuming that, any different than what I think? Didn't think so! And.. families do not have to be rich in $$$ to help with an unexpected baby, just rich in LOVE!!!

  16. Yes, we do have money on the brain. Because in our society, you need money to survive. As much as I'd like to, I can't eat LOVE. Neither can my future children.

    If I send Bank of America LOVE to pay my mortgage, they send me back an eviction notice.

    "Sacrificing children for higher wages is selfish."

    Again with the assumptioning. You assume they need the higher wages to buy a fancy car or Carrie Bradshaw shoes. I assume they need the higher wages because nobody can live on a minimum wage salary, and they need higher wages than minimum wage just to make ends meet.

    "You are assuming that in most if not all cases, there would be no-one willing to help?"

    No. You are assuming I think that, because you see the world in a very limited, all-or-nothing, black-and-white way.

    I choose to not make any assumptions about other women.

    Some may be selfish and irresponsible and lazy. SO WHAT? It's not my place to judge. (If I were to judge, I personally would much prefer those lazy, selfish, irresponsible people not become parents at all.)

    Some may have rich families who can help them out and are willing to do so. SO WHAT? Pregnancy and parenthood are about so much more than money and finances.

    Some may be mothers already, unable to make ends meet and unable to get any help from the government. Some may be childless, but still struggling to make ends meet. Some may be victims of domestic abuse. Some may live with depression or other mental illnesses; if you were willing to listen to why these conditions would make a woman unwilling/unable to carry a pregnancy to term, I'd take the time to explain it to you. But you and I have chatted before, and you choose to see the world your way and interpret the facts before you in whichever way makes them still make you "right" and others "wrong."

    Not everyone's life is just like yours. Or your friend's. Yes, maybe you know of one woman who found a way to "make ends meet" even though she lived with a mental illness/an abusive spouse, or worked for minimum wage, or who had an unplanned pregnancy when she was a mother to four children already.

    But for every one of those anecdotal stories that you have, I can find you five more that don't turn out as peachy as you paint it. We can trade anecdotal stories all day long -- or we could pretend that these women are adults who deserve just a sliver of respect and should be allowed to make their own choices when it comes to major life decisions, instead of forcing them to do it your way.

    Especially when you vote for the people who want to cut any social programs that would help these women make ends meet if they happen to be less privileged than you and I.

  17. bottom line - it is better to abort a fetus than to potentially have another welfare recipient. Yes?

  18. I'm late coming to this argument, but really? Most women have abortions because it would cramp their lifestyles? Wrong. Is your Google broken? (well it is now, but that's another debate for another time) 61% of American women who have abortions are women who have already had one child. Therefore it can be inferred that these women are not having abortions so they can be lazy, partying sluts going out on the town and drinking cosmos every night. They're making the responsible and unselfish decision to not put more strain on their family by bringing another mouth to feed into their home. So really, the idea that all women who have abortions are just irresponsible slutty slut sluts who want to go to raves every night is completely untrue to begin with and based on lies. Nice try though. Nice try.

  19. I so agree with you. How lovely that many of these "Christian" right-Republicans "Help the poor" like Jesus asked?