Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


I recognize that (a) I'm extremely late to the party on this and (b) you say in the comments below that at some point after posting this you reversed your position and became pro-choice.  That said, I have a question:  

Your argument as I understand it is that preserving one person's(a) life is worth placing enormous burden on another person's.  Do you then believe that this obligation continues after birth?  

If so, then it seems to me that in order to be consistent you should be supporting raising taxes (slightly inconveniencing some people) in order to provide funding for various social programs that prevent unnecessary loss of life by guaranteeing everyone has access to food and health care.  You should also be against the death penalty in all cases and for sensible gun laws and free mental health care that reduce school shootings.

It is my (limited, biased) experience that in America most forced-birth conservatives(b) are not consistent on this.  They vote to prevent abortion in order to preserve the life of a pre-birth person but they also vote for other policies that cause death among post-birth people, such as by blocking universal health care and/or controls on the price of insulin or prescription drugs, blocking any gun control laws whatsoever, and defunding programs such as WIC that provide food to poor children.  I would sincerely like an explanation about how these people square the circle.


(a) For the sake of argument, we'll grant that a fetus is a person.

(b) I use the term 'forced-birth conservative' because the term 'pro-life conservative' is not appropriate for the political group I'm discussing, since my specific point is that they are only pro-life for people who have not been born yet.