this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
71 points (76.3% liked)
conservative
949 readers
6 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So you'd rather they get birthed and slowly starve rather than just not be born?
If you don't support social programs to help people when they're alive then you're a massive hypocrite, as you're just letting them die a slower and more painful death, which most would consider the inhumane thing to do
For the record, I did not argue for no welfare. I said that the argument was stupid. Its perfectly logical to say "I'm anti-murder but not pro-welfare."
Imo, we need welfare, especially for babies and children.
Hell, you can give a lot of reasons. Theres even one for feminists. I forget the exact wording I heard, but it hinges on the lack of mens reproductive rights, and women being equal to men.
Men are considered smart enough and responsible enough to not fuck unless they want to risk children. Women are not stupid, they are just as smart and responsible as men.
Theres also the racism argument since its mostly minorities aborting.
Your post history indicates that you hate minorities, so that doesn't feel like a point you believe in, but I don't think you believe in anything, so there is that.
Wtf are you talking about? What comment have I made that hates minorities?
Fucking "indicates", is that the new version of dogwhistle?
I dunno, I'd say if you say both in the same sentence, you probably haven't actually cared enough to consider welfare to counteract your "anti-murder" stance
So it's perfectly fair to say that what you are arguing would lead to unnecessary death just from your negligence to follow through. You're effectively just trying to hand waive it off as "we'll worry about it later" when it's already too late.
Only if you ignore the context that said "murder" being stopped will result in the need for welfare. In that case you're 100% right
Too bad reality doesn't ignore context as easily as cuckservatives such as yourself