Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, the state’s GOP-led Legislature has disbanded a maternal mortality committee, failed to expand postpartum Medicaid coverage and turned down federal grants for child care.
I see many other liberals interpret this sort of policy as hypocritical (and therefore as evidence that conservatives have some sort of hidden motive) but don’t think that it is. There’s no inherent contradiction between opposing abortion and believing that current levels of government support for parents are too high. IMO conservatives generally believe exactly what they say that they believe: abortion is morally wrong and people aren’t entitled to government assistance.
It’s not hypocrisy in the same way that the Pope’s opposition to both birth control and abortion isn’t hypocrisy: the ends don’t justify the means. I assume you think of government support for pregnant women as a good thing, but a lot of conservatives appear to disagree with you. To them, abortion is bad, government “handouts” are bad, and even if abortion is worse than handouts, doing a bad thing to prevent an even worse thing is wrong.
Sure but they are wrong. People are entitled to government assistance. That is why we pay taxes in the first place. If a government can’t be relied on to help their citizens when they are in need then they shouldn’t be taking their fucking money. They can’t have it both ways.
Because I’m sure if they knew these facts, which were true before Roe v Wade was overturned and women had access to abortion and other options, these “pro-life” folks would certainly be concerned about the life of mother and child and take action to ensure adequate pre- and post-natal support for both.
Surely they were merely ignorant of these facts (that I found in two minutes) and just didn’t think to check for any of this before yanking this support, right? They must instinctively know how much is too much. I’m sure it’s not because they think only certain people deserve support by way of affording it. Because, gosh, that* would be truly ghastly. And they’re nothing if not moral and upstanding protectors of all life equally, right?
I mean why would they even consider death rates anyway. Who could ever foresee that less support could cause health problems including death? Surely only God himself could’ve anticipated such a thing.
I see many other liberals interpret this sort of policy as hypocritical (and therefore as evidence that conservatives have some sort of hidden motive) but don’t think that it is. There’s no inherent contradiction between opposing abortion and believing that current levels of government support for parents are too high. IMO conservatives generally believe exactly what they say that they believe: abortion is morally wrong and people aren’t entitled to government assistance.
But we (and they) know that reducing government support for pregnant women increases the number of abortions.
So they profess to wanting to “save lives” by ending abortions, while doing something that increases rhe number of abortions.
How exactly is that not hypocrasy?
It’s not hypocrisy in the same way that the Pope’s opposition to both birth control and abortion isn’t hypocrisy: the ends don’t justify the means. I assume you think of government support for pregnant women as a good thing, but a lot of conservatives appear to disagree with you. To them, abortion is bad, government “handouts” are bad, and even if abortion is worse than handouts, doing a bad thing to prevent an even worse thing is wrong.
That is also hypocrisy, thanks for another great example.
That is literally what the government is for, to support its citizens, yes.
They also disagree with climate change and the earth being more than 6000 years old. Doesn’t make them right, or any less hypocritical.
Sure but they are wrong. People are entitled to government assistance. That is why we pay taxes in the first place. If a government can’t be relied on to help their citizens when they are in need then they shouldn’t be taking their fucking money. They can’t have it both ways.
Apparently they are unaware of how high the infant mortality rate is in the US vs elsewhere.. They’re unaware how high maternal mortality rates in the US are vs other countries.
Because I’m sure if they knew these facts, which were true before Roe v Wade was overturned and women had access to abortion and other options, these “pro-life” folks would certainly be concerned about the life of mother and child and take action to ensure adequate pre- and post-natal support for both.
Surely they were merely ignorant of these facts (that I found in two minutes) and just didn’t think to check for any of this before yanking this support, right? They must instinctively know how much is too much. I’m sure it’s not because they think only certain people deserve support by way of affording it. Because, gosh, that* would be truly ghastly. And they’re nothing if not moral and upstanding protectors of all life equally, right?
I mean why would they even consider death rates anyway. Who could ever foresee that less support could cause health problems including death? Surely only God himself could’ve anticipated such a thing.
Dude,
Then conservatives should stop crying about population decline or how people aren’t having kids