subgenius wrote:As usual the dismal policy of the Democratic party where liberals pick/choose when a child's life, and "family" is only as important as it is politically convenient.
I do sympathise with the motives of people who, in the belief that human life begins at conception, and that all human life is sacred, wish to ensure that no pregnancy that is capable of being brought to term should ever be ended by medical intervention. (I said I sympathise with their motives, though I don't agree with their views on the nature of human gestation or the conclusions they draw from those.)
But ... my problem is that their concern for the life of the child usually seems to stop when it has left its mother's womb. It seems to be no part of the agenda of the militant pro-lifers, who are so passionate that every fetus should be born, to ensure that this new living human being, once said to be so precious and sacred, should be provided with resources to ensure that it is adequately fed, clothed, housed and educated. That's all down to the parents, and the child has to take its chances from then on. If they are deadbeats, then that's just bad luck for the kid.
It's alive, and that's all that matters. And hey! If things don't work out so well, so much the better for the huge and growing criminal custody industry once the child is old enough to be sent to jail! Inmates have to come from somewhere, don't they?