foster mom calls everyone who’s pro life a hypocrite if they oppose welfare
We’re still waiting on the judge to rule whether this blogger / mother / foster parent is a well-intentioned moron or a pompous asshat. Since she is a foster parent and mother with a bunch of rugrats she cares for, I’m going to assume she has good intentions. Let me state too that she very likely is a better person than me. Smarter, no. But definitely better.
I would try to paraphrase her blog but I’d rather not be accused of mischaracterizing her argument so I’ll settle for being accused of taking her out of context.
The background is that this lady’s five kids made a ruckus in the checkout line at the grocery store. Pretty harmless and most people behind her in line were patient. However, some jerks behind this lady at the grocery store made some remark about her having too many kids (the foster kids being supported with a little government money) while they had a pro-life sticker on their car.
This is prime TL;DR material, so I’ll just give you the “best of.”
If you encounter a family who is using government assistance to provide nourishing food for a child and your first thought is “Stupid welfare mongrels. My taxes buy that!” I am not sure you are pro-life.
And we got a live one! One thing this lady really likes doing is stating the nickname of a specific political position and taking it literally. If you don’t want your money going into welfare programs, you are not paying for someone’s food and therefore are literally not supporting their lives. You’re not “pro-life.” Get it, you hypocrite? I’ll pause for the infallibility of her position to overwhelm all previous notions you had.
That’s a tough pill to swallow, huh? You may counter with complaints of system abuse, inefficiencies, or the inherent problem with incentivizing people to not provide for their own children, but I’m sure you’ll find those positions obsolete now.
If you hear about the unaccompanied children crossing the border and if you know that their parents were so desperate for them to simply have a chance at life, they urged them to risk death to run for freedom, and your reply is, “Damn, illegals. Let’s build a wall!” I need to ask you, are you really pro-life? Their mothers chose to give them life in the most impossible of situations, and if they do not escape that life, they will almost certainly die. Again, I ask you, are you sure you are pro life?
Much like her previous assertion, this one finds a stark contrast between how the world really works and how she romanticises women she feels sympathy for. The fact is there is a large difference between the type of immigrants she describes and the makeup of the body of illegal immigrants as a whole coming across the southern border. I know she singles out the unaccompanied minors, but she has romanticised them along with the average illegal immigrant.
Even if we allow for her view of what type of immigrant all these people are, her alternate outcome of them facing certain deal is idiotic hyperbole at best. What’s my evidence? When the economy took a downturn and the government was just a little tougher on businesses as far as enforcing existing laws, illegal immigrants left in droves. So I guess it wasn’t so bad whenever they came from, right? At least not certain death. Cause unemployment and illegal status in America is certainly better than death.
And again, we’ll cut her weak argument some slack: even if they didn’t leave and all immigrants were mothers seeking only the safety of the children, how much goodwill can our country afford? Cause they don’t need to immigrate for this lady to support them–she can send her money south right now. But she can’t support all then on her own, right? And that’s my point.
Choosing life is hard for so many women, because they know just how hard raising that life is. It is an overwhelming pressure to want to give an innocent child the world, especially when this world is so ugly and broken. All mothers, even moms with planned pregnancies feel that pressure. Imagine the fear, isolation, and trepidation you would feel if you are pregnant in a situation in which you are totally unprepared for. So, if you are going to tell a mom to choose life, then you also need to be willing to support her in the life that will follow her courageous choice, because life will sometimes, maybe often, be hard. How can you be adamantly pro-life but then be unwilling to do anything to help those lives out?
How many moms do I have to support? So if I think killing a viable fetus is wrong and something that should be outlawed in our society I’m then responsible for all unaborted children because the mom “chose life?” I’m nearly dumbfounded by this one. Again, her emotional female solidarity with pregnant women has eclipsed rational thought. It’s not an incompatible position to be against a woman aborting her child and simultaneously think she shouldn’t have gotten pregnant in the first place. It’s also not hypocritical, given a child is already born, to support it by not supporting it. That is, requiring the mother and father to care for the child without public assistance. It may be tough but isn’t that the story of the human race?
Lastly, number 4:
The following is the gem she opens with. I didn’t open with it because neither did she. Yes, it was at the front of her article, but it was clear that she had already reached certain conclusions but now had to back-trace some logical premise so her conclusions would appear to simply flow out of her intellectual musings.
In my simplistic thinking it makes sense that if you agree with the view that life begins at conception, you must also agree with the view that life doesn’t end at birth. Therefore, being pro-life shouldn’t be just about supporting a child’s rights during their nine months in-utero but should also be about supporting the children’s (and their mother’s) lives after they are born.
Yes, your view is simplistic. So simplistic it’s idiotic. “[I]t makes sense that if you agree with the view that life begins at conception, you must also agree with the view that life doesn’t end at birth.” What? That doesn’t make sense, darling. In fact, it’s sophistic nonsense that does nothing but trick the reader into thinking that the rest of your blog flows from logical thought. But it doesn’t. Really, it doesn’t.
Now let’s get to the part where I mischaracterize her: a mother with too many young kids in the checkout line to manage alone gets condescending remarks from some WASPy assholes. Mom goes on rant she’s been saving up for some time, letting loose of all that frustration that comes from seeing so many kids with shitty homes or no homes at all. Justifiable feelings, especially considering that this woman appears to be a saint. But feelings like these always work their way into public policy with disastrous consequences and shouldn’t be applauded in that respect. In the words of Mr. McInnes, speaking about women voters, “We love that you have big hearts, but when you take those hearts and point them at the ballot box, you get a dog’s breakfast.”