Any republican heroes?

[Spike-X]

Im Pro-choice, abortion is illegal in my country but I understand the argument for those who support life here as we dont have the same problems as the US when it comes to this.
yet when I see the arguments for pro-life republicans, most of those are based on lies or on way that on nowhere impact them directly or worse are just cruel for the sake of it.

Being "pro-life" has nothing to do with actually supporting life. It's about punishing women for having sex. Hope that helps.

[Spike-X]

Conservatives are more charitable in the United States.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/y...lanthropy.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/...ritable-079888

So helping others unaided is more of a Republican thing.

Which overlooks the fact that the reason so many people need help to begin with is due to conservative policies.

[numberthirty]

Which overlooks the fact that the reason so many people need help to begin with is due to conservative policies.

Never mind that there has been a tax break from doing so.

It's not exactly like know that you helped folks out is the beginning and the end of giving to charity in the US.

[Mister Mets]

Never mind that there has been a tax break from doing so.

It's not exactly like know that you helped folks out is the beginning and the end of giving to charity in the US.

Rich Democrats could take advantage of tax breaks.

[Celgress]

Being "pro-life" has nothing to do with actually supporting life. It's about punishing women for having sex. Hope that helps.

While I'm pro-choice I believe your statement is an oversimplification of a complex matter. Some people are pro-life because of their background (usually cultural or religious) or because of how they frame certain philosophical questions. It doesn't always mean they are bad people or hold malice towards women in general.

[Gray Lensman]

While I'm pro-choice I believe your statement is an oversimplification of a complex matter. Some people are pro-life because of their background (usually cultural or religious) or because of how they frame certain philosophical questions. It doesn't always mean they are bad people or hold malice towards women in general.

It often appears that way from the outside looking in, when the people against abortion are also against pretty much any form of birth control or effective sex education (abstinence only sex ed doesn't appear to work), and while claiming that 'life begins at conception' won't do anything for fertilized eggs at clinics (which count as conceived) because 'nobody is pregnant in those cases.'

Many of the people in the rank and file believe what they are saying, but I am unable to offer that benefit of the doubt to the higher ups in the movement due to their opposition to anything else which reduces unwanted pregnancies - which would also do a lot to reduce abortions.

[Celgress]

It often appears that way from the outside looking in, when the people against abortion are also against pretty much any form of birth control or effective sex education (abstinence only sex ed doesn't appear to work), and while claiming that 'life begins at conception' won't do anything for fertilized eggs at clinics (which count as conceived) because 'nobody is pregnant in those cases.'

Many of the people in the rank and file believe what they are saying, but I am unable to offer that benefit of the doubt to the higher ups in the movement due to their opposition to anything else which reduces unwanted pregnancies - which would also do a lot to reduce abortions.

True, I'll never understand the whole anti-contraception thing. I can understand (although not approve) of a pro-life stance in some cases but not this garbage. The late Pope John Paul II was a big proponent of such a stance during a time when HIV was untreatable and running rampant in Africa. Because of his teachings, many children were born into short lives of utter misery. I can't see how any loving god or gods would approve of his actions due to their terrible consequences yet he is being made a saint. *shakes head*.

[Gray Lensman]

True, I'll never understand the whole anti-contraception thing. I can understand (although not approve) of a pro-life stance in some cases but not this garbage. The late Pope John Paul II was a big proponent of such a stance during a time when HIV was untreatable and running rampant in Africa. Because of his teachings, many children were born into short lives of utter misery. I can't see how any loving god or gods would approve of his actions due to their terrible consequences yet he is being made a saint. *shakes head*.

Even dumber is how the church accelerated the process despite John Paul II insisting that never be done even for those who the public considered savings in life, on the grounds it would cheapen canonization. If alive, he might be the biggest opponent of making himself a saint.

[jetengine]

Pro life is making a rape victim carry her rapists child to term.

[dancj]

I can't see how any loving god or gods would approve of his actions due to their terrible consequences yet he is being made a saint. *shakes head*.

Religion made so much more sense when gods didn't claim to be loving or good. You didn't worship them because they deserved it - you did it because you wanted something from them or they'd smite you if you didn't.

[dancj]

Being "pro-life" has nothing to do with actually supporting life. It's about punishing women for having sex. Hope that helps.

That's a bit harsh.

I'm sure that there are people like that, but I also don't doubt that there are people who simply believe that life begins before birth and that you shouldn't kill. Taking it quite as early as conception is insane, but there is a point where the discussion becomes greyer and doesn't require you to be a moustache twirling villain.

[Tendrin]

Which overlooks the fact that the reason so many people need help to begin with is due to conservative policies.

And besides, it's simply less true than conservative partisans would like to assume, as a relatively recent MIT study points out:

Voluntary contributions from individuals are the lifeblood of nonprofit organizations, which in turn fund a large portion of social services in the United States. Given this reliance donor generosity, it is important to understand who contributes, and to where. In this paper, we argue against the conventional wisdom that political conservatives are inherently more generous toward private charities than liberals. At the individual level, the large bivariate relationship between giving and conservatism vanishes after adjusting for differences in income and religiosity. At the state level, we find no evidence of a relationship between charitable giving and Republican presidential voteshare. Finally, we show that any remaining differences in giving are an artifact of Republicans' greater propensity to give to religious causes, particularly their own church. Taken together, our results counter the notion that political conservatives compensate for their opposition to governmental intervention by supporting private charities.

A presumption of this giving being driven by a conservative ideological preference for their 'local communities to solve problems' seems to be wishful thinking, anyhow.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2148033

And all this to with saying nothing of whether or not any of these religious congregations actually spend a substantial amount of the donations they receive on anything other than their own expenses or, you know, building a new megachurch or their pastor's private plane.

[Malvolio]

And besides, it's simply less true than conservative partisans would like to assume, as a relatively recent MIT study points out:



A presumption of this giving being driven by a conservative ideological preference for their 'local communities to solve problems' seems to be wishful thinking, anyhow.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2148033

And all this to with saying nothing of whether or not any of these religious congregations actually spend a substantial amount of the donations they receive on anything other than their own expenses or, you know, building a new megachurch or their pastor's private plane.

That's what I said. Just look at the history of Jim Bakker or Pat Robertson.

[Celgress]

Even dumber is how the church accelerated the process despite John Paul II insisting that never be done even for those who the public considered savings in life, on the grounds it would cheapen canonization. If alive, he might be the biggest opponent of making himself a saint.

Well, one of his posthumous "miracles" is that he allegedly cured a woman's bowel blockage which makes sense considering how full of shit he was while alive (his protection of pedophile priests being one of his worst offenses). Sorry, I couldn't pass up the joke.

[ed2962]

Are we making a distinction between conservative and republican?

For some reason I want to say Capt Atom, but I'm not 100% sure on that one.