I think it’d be better to say that relieving poverty is relatively simple/cheap. And it’s cool to here about all those organizations. I’m trying to set aside a good portion of what I spend/get to give away, so I’ll look at some of those options for what to do with the money.

On the issue of pro-life/pro-choice, all I can say conclusively is that abortion is active, intended murder whether with ignorance pled or not. I don’t really think I will debate that anymore.

And while I understand your defence of pro-choicers in the sense that you don’t want them portrayed as perverted, systematic killers who get pleasure out of destroying children, I think you just need to be really careful about making it clear you don’t agree with them. One thing I’ve learned about playing devil’s advocate in flammable issues like this one is that it is VERY VERY easy for someone to misunderstand you, and think that the views you are defending are your own.

I wish we could have this discussion in person. It’s so easy to misunderstand each other when all we can see is text.

“I think you’re missing most all of my points… because I’m so Pro-Life doesn’t mean that I want impoverished people to die or innocent civilians to die or people with disease or unclean water to die… I don’t know where you’re getting that from.”
Just curious, what point was I missing? And where did I say that you want impoverished, etc people to die?

Wait, what?

Yes, Molly! I think that’s what my first post said…

“Eric is saying that pro-choice people don’t put less value on the human life since they don’t believe that life begins at conception”

Yes, Zach!

“What do you mean by “easily”?”

Honestly, I don’t think it’s at all difficult to provide humanitarian aid to people. There are countless organizations that are willing to do most of the physical work for us, as long as people provide some resources. Some places just need volunteers to serve food, because they don’t have paid employees.

It’s easy to bring up Africa. We can save several thousand lives DAILY by providing a LifeStraw, which is a filtered straw. They’re NOT expensive, and they filter for a year. It comes out to something like a penny a day. Alleviating hunger isn’t much more of a hassle. For some $150, you can feed 2700 kids one meal, or about 7 kids for a year. That’s something like $25 to feed a kid for a year. An ENTIRE year. Do you think that’s easy?

I also suggested that it may be easier, practically and effectively, to promote humanitarian aid than to fight abortion, which Andrew pointed out.

“I think we’re just misunderstanding each other.”

Riley, if you reread my original post and subsequent comments, I was never accusing you of neglecting any humanitarian issues, nor was I suggesting that you’re wrong for thinking that you consider abortion above any other issue. I was, however, presenting my ideas of a pro-life ideology and how that aligns with my political vision.

In my very first comment, I wrote that “I was suggesting that pro-life is more than simply anti-abortion (as Andrew said). I think that there are many other ways we can promote life, as the term pro-life indicates.” How does this call for a rebuttal? Or rather, how is this an attack on your original post?

To my original post, you commented, “I think you’re missing my point.” As much as I doubt you’ll believe this, it really wasn’t a response to your post; I said that I’ve been considering “pro-life” for a while, and your post encouraged me to express my ideas.

To your rebuttal, I did respond emphatically, because I find some of your discussion incongruous and misdirected (“rebuttal” at what? racist vs pro-choice? abortion = prescribed, intended murders as a greater purpose?), but I understood what you meant in your post “Why I’m a Single-Issue Voter.”

“I could be wrong but I think he’s trying to keep you from demonizing pro-choice supporters.”

That’s a great way to put it! I think I was (I’ve slept since then) frustrated at your (Riley’s) presentation of the pro-choicers (intended murders/greater purpose of murder). Honestly, I think they have the same intentions as we do in saving lives.

Not going to add much, because I’m comfortable in pro-life stance, and also comfortable with the fact that it isn’t the only issue I vote on.

I did, however, want to add that the U.S. gives more money to foreign aid than any country in the world (though, we are second in private aid, percentage-wise). Could we give more? Yes, of course we could. But it’s not as if we haven’t sought to address the issue. Both parties have done an admirable job of sending foreign aid. The problems of poverty are immensely complex, and there’s a lot more to it than money. Third world governments routinely exploit their starving citizens and perpetuate the problem. In many cases, anything short of drastic regime change (or a miracle) is going to be insufficient. As much as the left hates him, George W. Bush did more for AIDS relief than any previous president (liberal pundits admit this).

I also wanted to point out that it’s probably unfair to say that people who support abortion don’t believe it is a life they are taking. I think the majority opinion is one of willful ignorance. Nancy Pelosi said that even if life began at conception, it would not affect her belief in the woman’s right to choose. I think Eric linked to something that talked about the issue being when we afford life human rights. As absurd as I think the argument is, I know that the issue isn’t life itself, and it’s why the debate will be in deadlock forever. It’s completely arbitrary.

I’m sympathetic to certain pro-choice views, but in the end, I come down on the other side of the fence. I am more than willing to compromise, if it saves lives, but I cannot accept that abortion isn’t ultimately an issue of convenience and pride. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether a fertilized egg is a life or not.

That’s my take. Carry on!