How to tell Republicans are serious about the unborn.

[LakeVermilion]

I am an individual that endorses choice. I believe that everyone should have the ability to make their own decisions regarding their health. Republicans will tell you that they are for choice, but that they are speaking for the unborn.

So, it occurred to me that Republicans want to establish the unborn as citizens. Back it up, I say. When the Republicans get around to giving tax credits for the unborn, I will believe that they are serious.

To follow their logic, it costs money to raise children. Thus a credit/deduction for children on state/federal taxes. It also costs money to prepare for the birth of a child. At tax time, give the families a credit for an unborn child if the birth will be in the next year.

Then I will know that Republicans take this life thing seriously.

(sarcastic post...somewhat)

[bigbrother05]

1. The only choice they support is when they are doing the choosing.

Remember they are not pro-life, just anti-abortion or pro-birth.

Once out of the womb, the kid's on it's own regardless of "pre-existing conditions".

[ck4829]

2. They aren't serious about postborn children either.

Case in point: Adoption by same sex parents

The Republicans and right wingers are the ones who have tried to ban it in the past and into today, they're the ones who call it a "social experiment", and they're the ones with the gall to say those families aren't "real families". They want to put forth the image they're just caring about the child.

But they aren't really all that concerned with the child.

How is it so easy to figure this out? The lack of preclusive action. If adoption by gay parents is sooo horrible and having a loving family that is headed by someone who is gay is sooo traumatizing than why are they simply banning gay adoption and not rushing into the foster care system and adopting these children first, therefore preempting the terrible loving gay people who want to also adopt them.

Don't see that happening though. It's almost like it's more important to them that gay people don't be seen the same as heterosexuals with families and love than for children to have the social, physical, symbolic, economic, and psychological capital associated with having a loving and stable family.

[Orsino]

3. It's not logic, so following it is usually superfluous.

They have their talking points, many of which are contradictory, and they're fine with that.