Why are Dems OK with poor people choosing to have an abortion, but not OK with them choosing good schools?

Question

Obama and most other Democrats are against school vouchers for low income parents who choose to take their kids out of a poor-performance school and put them in a quality school.

Yet he is all for 'choice' when it comes to killing unborn kids.

Can a liberal explain this to me? Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

The problem with vouchers is that private schools cherry pick the best students, but public schools have to try to educate any kids that come along. Also, why should my tax money to go indoctrinate people into a particular religion? It's bad enough that churches are out there campaigning for candidates yet don't have to pay taxes.

And, sorry, but a blob of bloody goo is *not* a baby. If it was, society would recognize your first birthday as being one year after you were conceived, not one year after you were physically born.

Besides, Republicans just use abortion to whip up their base. They have no intention of banning it or it would have been made illegal during the seven years we had a Republican president, a Republican majority in Congress, and a right-leaning court system. If Republicans are so "pro-life", then why haven't they banned abortion when they've been in the majority?

Answer 2

Would the school vouchers pay ALL of the school expenses incurred by these children? If so, great! If not, then you need to consider the fact that a lot of these parents STILL wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to private schools, since they wouldn't be able to afford the expenses not covered by the vouchers. Not only that, but the First Amendment states that the federal government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If federal monies fund religious schools or any other religious organizations, the Establishment Clause is being violated.

Answer 3

Because giving them a voucher is not giving them a choice. It is a way for the rich to get even richer by privatizing schools and to take away money from public schools.

Listen, I am all for smaller, more efficient government.  But the government has four responsibilities.

1. to defend us from foreign attacks (military)

2. to maintain infrastructure (roads, power, etc.)

3. to maintain order and law (police fire etc.)

4. to provide equal and fair education for ALL Americans.

By taking money away from public schools, they do not satisfy requirement # 4.  It is like farming out the police department to a private security firm.  That is no choice.  If the GOP offered vouchers while keeping the funding for public schools in place, then it would be a choice, but that is not what they are offering.

It is the governments position to provide for the education of our youth. I hold them responsible for that.  I pay 10,000 a year in taxes for education.  Now, they want me to have a voucher so I can pay for a private school?  Heck no.  If the voucher paid for the entire cost of the private school, (transportation and books) then I might consider it, but vouchers only pay for a small portion of the tuition.  How is that a choice?

It is an attempt to privatize the schooling so that some rich people can get richer.

Answer 4

It's a way of holding down key blocks of Democrat voters.

Answer 5

Because government schools are set up to make taxpayers, nothing more. They want them productive enough to earn a paycheck.

Answer 6

Because the libs are beholden to special interest groups like the teacher unions who donate millions and would quake in their boots if they were forced to compete in a free marketplace for the right to teach children.

And the millions they make from abortionists and abortion supporters will trump any moral choice they have ever dealt with.

Libs are evil.

Answer 7

Margaret Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood was a part of the Eugenic Movement of the 1920's and 1930's who believe in a supreme race philosophy.

Obama being naive allows himself to be manipulated against life.

Our constitution gurantees the Right to Life, then Liberty, then the individual pursuit of Happiness.  

Like slavery the time of this slaughter will end.  But Mr. Obama is responsible for its bigotry and racism.  I was a former Democrat activist.  The ProLife issue changed my voting.

Answer 8

As a tax payer, I'd prefer my dollars go towards kids getting a worthwhile education. If the public schools aren't cutting it, then by all means, children who WANT to learn should be given the opportunity.

A little competition might do the public school systems some good.

Answer 9

Well, that's kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison, but I think liberals would agree that the public schools in many states could use some work.

Answer 10

Cons claim not to want abortion. But take away the money from public schools to give to private schools so that the kids  that are born  does not have a good education. Their philosophy is Let babies live show we can kill them!

Answer 11

Because that would be against their ideology of federally imposed racial diversity.

Answer 12

- dems are ok with all people choosing abortions. if there was a proper social safety net in the US that would help people of few means take care of their children once they are born, you would surely see the amount of abortions drop. in france, the government provides you with a helper who comes and teaches you about taking care of babies and helps with any issues you might have once a week after you have a child. there is also government mandated maternity leave. in addition, if contraception was cheaply and easily available and comprehensive s*x ed were taught in poor areas, the number of abortions would also drop. banning abortion does not create fewer abortions - it creates more dangerous abortions for both the fetus and the mother. you have to look at what motivates people who want to have abortions and solve those problems instead of forcing them into illegal and dangerous procedures.

- vouchers are not necessarily the ticket out of poor schools for people of few means. in places where vouchers have been implemented, what usually happens is that the vouchers aren't enough to cover tuition at local private schools, so again, only families with the means to make up the difference can send their children to private schools. the answer to the school crisis is to change how schools are funded - they are currently funded by local property taxes which ensures that schools in expensive neighborhoods stay good while schools in poor neighborhoods stay poor. vouchers are not the answer. with 5 private schools in a city and 20 public ones, when everyone starts to apply to the private schools, those private schools can pick and choose the very best students - leaving those who might not be able to pay or were marginalized in their previous school to wallow behind in a school where everyone knows that they couldn't "cut it" for the "good school." i'd rather have more equality for schools instead of several amazing schools and a lot of really awful schools filled with demoralized kids.