With all due respect friend makerhacks - most of the Steemians here agreeing with me are African. So despite the images in my post, this feeling of declining values is not limited to white populations.
When it comes to abortion, I think many conservatives like myself could probably overlook it under the rape / incest circumstances you have mentioned. However, these are more extreme cases - likely less than say 5% of cases. So then it only comes down to - abort a fetus to avoid financial hardship 95% of the time.
So now that the public has been desensitized to the murder / abortion of a fetus, to avoid financial hardship - what next? Abort babies who cause financial hardship? Abort children who cause financial hardship? Abort people who cause financial hardship? Abort people who criticise the government on financial policy?
It is a slippery slope that we have seen too many times throughout history. Isn't it safer to simply love and respect all human life?
I thank you for your comment makerhacks - perhaps together we can find some acceptable middle ground for humanity.
SK.
We see this already. People who claim they are "pro-life" are often in fact "pro-forced-birth".
Once the baby is born, they cease to care.
How many voters and politicians claim religion but then target the weakest by taking away even school meals?
"Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
Which does bring us back to my original point on the financial prosperity. If families are prosperous financially they don't need to rely on school meals or other government support. They can support, love and nurture a child. Yes some will fall through the cracks - but at least the child will have a life to live right?
Not sure how John Kelly quotes on the borders and immigration relate to abortion sorry. I am not from the USA - so my knowledge of US politics is limited.
SK.
How do you propose to bring this about?
He is representative of the religious conservative viewpoint that once a child is born they are beyond any concern.
Obviously, when their Jesus was preaching their prosperity gospel he didn't say anything about "Suffer little children"
"It's not 'cruel' to separate families at the border — children will be 'put into foster care or whatever'"
-- John Kelly, "Christian" "Conservative"
Maybe so, but the 1950s was rife with bigotry, segregation, and unfairness.
Many who want a return to the 1950s do so out of a feeling of loss of power, because the playing field being balanced feels like they are losing rather than other people finally gaining what they were denied.
Life was not better then for someone of the "wrong" colour, race, religion, sexuality, or lifestyle.
OK - I see. Your comments appear to be focused on US history makerhack - the 1950's were a time for prosperity for much of the western world not just the US. I am sorry the pictures were all US based - put it down to the US being a powerhouse in film and media during this time.
The 50s were a bad time for the UK. There was still post-war rationing, racism was rife (leading to riots), and good housing was scarce, many living in slums.
An interesting read.
https://www.historytoday.com/roland-quinault/britain-1950
Yes looks like rationing continued into the 50s - but this encouraged backyard gardens - which I am all for.
However throughout the 50s the UK became one of the most industrialized nations in the world. Which was good for financial prosperity - but bad for the environment - pollution was terrible.
Good point once again makerhacks.
Have to go now though.
SK.
Hmm, you are a very patient man SK.
How do you do it?.🤷