Well, I guess that's about as stereotypical as it gets. There are single mothers and fathers out there who have to use food banks to feed their children. This is not a good thing. We've been down this road before. You feel everybody including children are a) expendable, and b) as capable as you are, but too lazy to bother. I feel otherwise. I don't see much point in travelling that route all over again.

>In Zimbabwe the people are impoverished due to crushing government's policies. In America people have freedom and the ability to make due for themselves. The difference lies in the circumstances of their poverty.
>
>No comparison will make their lives better, just like no argument will make their lives better. The betterment of their lives is their responsibility.
>
>I look at what's considered poor in this country. They typically have a roof over their heads, water, food and a tv or two, not to mention they're able to afford alcohol and cigarettes.
>
>>But they live in America, and in that they have trouble buying food, they are living in poverty. How does it make their lives better by comparing them to the impoverished of say, Zimbabwe?
>>
>>>I'd challenge that 1 in 5 idea. That's a relative statistic based on the prosperity that Americans enjoy and is not a fair comparison to the rest of the world. Those living below the poverty line in America would be considered wealthy in most of the world.
>>>
>>>>Yes, well some things are simple. Opinion arguing types may go stand around as principled as they may afford -- you know, a money & mouth match-up. Otherwise you are 'simply' proffering an unfunded mandate on to other peoples business. I support womb survival thru 12th grade. 1 outta 5 in that range in poverty is nothing for U.S. to be proud of. Let the Dept. of Ed. receive billions more than it asked for after already having it all, then let the military have a bake sale. Or conversely, 'privatize' the military -- not to worry because they will magically receive all they deserve from the market's invisible hand job or whatever. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, well some things are simple. Go stand around as principled as you can afford -- you know, a money & mouth match-up. Otherwise you are 'simply' proffering an unfunded mandate on to other peoples business.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Steven, there is nothing simple about this issue. My point in responding the way I did was to make a point that when you take a principled stance on an issue the alternatives are few, if any, if you really believe in your stance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think the abortion issue is oversimplified by all sides. Everyone makes it seem that there are only two stances - pro-choice or pro-life. I disagree. I am personally very, very pro-life as you probably figured from my response. OTOH, who makes me the judge of other peoples moral decisions? I don't believe in laws regarding abortion pro or con since it's an individuals private choice of what they can live with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OTOH, my gut is that a baby who can survive the womb deserves a chance at a life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tamar,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>1) What if the child has no chance at a normal life, or even surviving much past birth? Here, I'm thinking of really severe impairments, like ancephaly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>2) What if the child will survive birth, but not beyond early childhood? Something like Tay-Sachs, where victims die by age 5.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>3) What if the mother will survive pregnancy, but only at great damage to her health. For example, a mother with a disease that needs to be treated, but can't be treated while she's pregnant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The mother takes her chances because she became pregnant through personal choice or surfeit of birth control.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>4) What if carrying the pregnancy to term means the mother will lose the ability to bear future children?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The mother takes her chances because she became pregnant through personal choice or surfeit of birth control.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You mentioned rape, so let's go down that path:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>5) What if the mother is a child impregnated by her father, so you have not only the issue of rape and child abuse, but increased genetic risks?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The child is put up for adoption.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>6) What if the mother is child, 10 or 11 or 12?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The child is put up for adoption.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's enough to start.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The choices are simple when you believe in the sanctity of human life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ok 'sanctity'-breath, so they just send you the bill, right? I *sure* you're responsible for your belief, aren't you? Wow, it is simple. ;-)