Au contraire, I'm trying to find persuasive literature from the right that helps me understand things better.
My understanding of the abortion debate was that it was wholesale manufactured by Southern Baptists to generate a cultural rallying point when they lost the segregation debate. I would argue that a party that chooses to punish abortion so harshly while refusing to support child tax credits, free preschool and daycare, and increase maternity leave and support us not a party intending to help babies. They are interested in controlling pregnant women.
What is your persuasive argument that they claim to support babies yet do so little to help them after they are born?
Where do you get this idea that "the abortion debate was that it was wholesale manufactured by Southern Baptists to generate a cultural rallying point"? You are really just proving my original claim; this is hardly a charitable interpretation. In fact, it is quite absurd. There is a clear reason for people to have a problem with abortion. Providing or not providing welfare to parents is a separate issue from whether babies should be killed. By your position, why do pro-abortion states not allow poor mothers to kill their toddlers? As well, it is not as if everyone that is against killing babies is against providing child tax credits or vouchers for preschool and daycare, many such states that oppose abortion do provide things like VPK, etc.
If someone thinks an act is murder or that a baby is a human life and not "just a clump of cells" it does not have to be because of some kind of leftist, John Oliver fever dream about boogeyman conspiracies and scare organizations. It can just be that people are against literally murdering innocent life.
Comments
Au contraire, I'm trying to find persuasive literature from the right that helps me understand things better.
My understanding of the abortion debate was that it was wholesale manufactured by Southern Baptists to generate a cultural rallying point when they lost the segregation debate. I would argue that a party that chooses to punish abortion so harshly while refusing to support child tax credits, free preschool and daycare, and increase maternity leave and support us not a party intending to help babies. They are interested in controlling pregnant women.
What is your persuasive argument that they claim to support babies yet do so little to help them after they are born?
Where do you get this idea that "the abortion debate was that it was wholesale manufactured by Southern Baptists to generate a cultural rallying point"? You are really just proving my original claim; this is hardly a charitable interpretation. In fact, it is quite absurd. There is a clear reason for people to have a problem with abortion. Providing or not providing welfare to parents is a separate issue from whether babies should be killed. By your position, why do pro-abortion states not allow poor mothers to kill their toddlers? As well, it is not as if everyone that is against killing babies is against providing child tax credits or vouchers for preschool and daycare, many such states that oppose abortion do provide things like VPK, etc.
If someone thinks an act is murder or that a baby is a human life and not "just a clump of cells" it does not have to be because of some kind of leftist, John Oliver fever dream about boogeyman conspiracies and scare organizations. It can just be that people are against literally murdering innocent life.