Federal government site refers poor moms to Planned Parenthood
Dawn Eden finds an interesting link on the Department of Agriculture’s WIC page–that’s right, WIC, which stands for the Women, Infants, and Children program. Apparently not only do they hand out huge wheels of commodity cheese to the deserving poor, but they also are referring women to Planned Parenthood, where they can do something about those pesky “I” and “C” portions of the acronym:
Considering that some 61 percent of WIC recipients are nonwhites, the government’s efforts to steer them towards Planned Parenthood dovetails neatly with the nation’ No. 1 abortion provider’s efforts to prevent births in the black and Latino communities.
Granted, the federal money that pays Planned Parenthood to serve WIC clients technically does not go towards abortions. But any money given to Planned Parenthood by the federal government keeps the organization’s lights on and its paychecks coming, enabling it to spend its $115 million surplus on expanding its abortion business.
If you follow Dawn’s link through to the WIC page, note the USDA’s has coded the page to display in the cheerful, non-threatening Comic Sans font. I find that detail rather chilling.
___________________
{Post by See-Dubya}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Abortion
Legal Insurrection
» Calling For Sparkman Apologies
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia ArchivesRiehl World View
» Update2: No Cancer?? Suicide! Staged As Homicide - Live Stream Of Sparkman News ConferenceAmerican Thinker
» The Wilding of Sarah PalinFounding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist RemarksMudville Gazette
» Threatswatch: US Embassy Denies Secret Eikenberry Talks With Taliban
Chilling indeed. When will government do the following:
1. Stop funding Planned Parenthood.
2. Stop referring people to PP.
3. Get entirely out of the abortion industry and draft meaningful, enforceable legislation that will do more than keep it “safe/legal/rare” (allegedly).
Cue the chirping crickets…
Sorry, but I fully support this. I am tired of paying for these morons mistakes (and the “paying” goes on for 18 years then the cycle starts again when that child is an adult). I would much rather see Planned parenthood used to PREVENT the pregnancy in the first place through birth control (and yes that is their main focus), but abortions do have a place in many cases. Frankly, I would like to see the gov’t refuse to increase welfare for every baby. I find it downright selfish and self centered for these women to get pregnant then whine to taxpayers to support them. Especially, when that bundle of joy is an “anchor baby” for the sole pupose of citizenship. Screw that. If this makes me “mean spirited”, then so be it. And yes I understand the gov’t should not be in the business of paying for abortions. But again it is the choice of pay a 1 time cahrge or pay for the 10 generations.
It actualy makes a brutal kind sense. No kid? no wic money being spent.
oops. Last line shoudl read “or pay for the next 10 generations of leeches”.
But it is for the Childern…. isn’t that Pelosi’s cry ? sarc off/
I think most of the people getting these entitlements could find a job and take care of themselves instaed of “we the people” taking care of them. It is true some people do need help. Help does not mean living an entire lifetime of it. Time for someone to start doing their phony jobs and check and see if these people really need a SHORT term hepl or if they are just scamming like most are.
Weary Citizen — I agree with you as well. I have felt for a long time that so long as someone is taking public assistance, they have NO BUSINESS having additional children — they obviously cannot support the ones they have. Yes, welfare programs should NOT increase compensation for additional children. It is well-known in the “welfare communities”, which are primarily Black and Latino, that additional children are simply another railcar on the gravy train.
Wait, they’re sending minorities over there, moreso than others, to do away with babies?
Where’s the cry of racism now?
Abortion isn’t the answer to the problem of ‘morons mistakes’ or ‘anchor babies’. Those problems have their own solutions that involve tougher requirements for government aid and secure borders, among other things. It’s abhorrent to think you can solve the welfare problem by murdering unborn children.
Abortion is nothing more than a woman’s right to be selfish.
On another note, the Planned Parenthood website is creepy in the way that they mislead the unwary. Abortion, using their terms, is really “quality, affordable health care”. They brutally attack Bush for “an attack on women’s health care that would limit the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services.”
Did you see the ‘and services.’ at the end of that sentence?
P.P. says “We believe that everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child, and that every child should be wanted and loved.”
So I guess, in their eyes, if you aren’t going to love the child, it’s just better to kill it.
I can’t believe my tax dollars are paying for this….
Ut oh, PP, sounds like Ms. Eden’s got your number!
The days of PP’s money racket scheme are numbered, and thus their nefarious, vile existence, when enough people learn their true nature. Readers should share this story with as many friends, relatives and associates as possible to help get the word out on the money machine that is PP!
I agree with what Weary Citizen says. Since when is it Govt. business to make sure i am fed and clothed. Like Davy Crokett said
Personal responsibilty need to be ones own not the govt.
WC, DFern: I understand your issues with the pervasive lack of morality among society, but the government should not be actively engaged in funding elective death as a response to its citizens’ lack of personal responsibility and moral efficacy. It’s wrong and it’s a dangerous precedent.
This is just sick. I do not think a penny of taxpayer money should fund ANY public or private organization that promotes or provides abortion services.
I learned a long time ago, that differences on this issue will never be reconciled. That is because when issues can not be boiled down to logic, emotions and religious beliefs come into play. I, as can easily be deduced, do not support banning abortion. It is a non issue for me frankly. Now, I do agree with your overall premise that “tougher legislation” would solve the welfare problem, but I am a pragmatist. Ther is no way in h*ll our PC socilaist gov’t will enact those tougher standards. We both know that. They won’t eve secure the border and stop the invaion, so we are dreaming they will fix entitlements. Therefore, we need to stop the pregnancies in the first place through birth control. If that fails, we need to consider all options. And before anyone gets their blood pressure up, I am not advocating forced abortions or the gov’t pay for them. Just that it be an option and we stop paying $ for additional children these idiots can not afford in the first place.
– abstractmind
Well, in California, there IS no racial majority anymore. So anyone in this state referred to Planned Parenthood would technically be a minority, whites included.
They’re referring the poor. The fact that those poor happen to be largely minorities does not make this racist. Personally, I have little problem with this. The fewer children of poor parents I’m supporting with my tax dollars, the better.
That is absolutely appalling and completely inexcusable.
The solution to the cycle of single parenthood is not found in killing the unborn children who didn’t ask to be created. That’s totally punishing the innocent victim here.
What about emphasizing the notion that men are responsible for women and that abstaining from sex until marriage is the best (read: ONLY) way to ensure you don’t find yourself unexpectedly pregnant?
Since 1973, there have been nearly 50 million abortions in this nation. That clearly hasn’t helped curb the “problem” of welfare children, so it’s high time we tried a different tactic.
Like teaching personal responsibility and doing away with the entitlement mentality.
I cannot believe you have the nerve to say the solution to this problem is to kill an unborn child.
I am afraid I have undergone a paradigm shift on this issue…
If infanticide is legal, so be it(though it is morally wrong), but if PP is a business, they should not be helped out by our tax dollars.
Just beyond the pale. No one here who supports this idea should ever comment on a thread regarding Planned Parenthood or abortion again, since it’s clear you think abortion is okay if it’s directed at the innocent children of welfare recipients.
You’re no different from the liberals who support abortion because it’s the “mother’s body, mother’s choice” and because it’s not a baby or individual human being, but a clump of cells.
In fact, you’re worse, because you’re arguing that the children of people who make irresponsible decisions need to be killed because you don’t like the welfare system. You’re specifically targeting “undesirables” – much like Margaret Sanger.
How utterly disappointing.
I thought PP was a federally funded, non-protit organization.
What’s with their undeniably political attack on the President?
Isn’t that a violation of IRS rules??
I don’t see it that way. See my second post above. Look, I knew my post would bring out those who are very religious. And that’s cool. We all have our own beliefs and value systems. I won’t change yours and you won’t change mine. But I thank you for not starting the name calling. You stated your opinion very strongly. Inexcuseable? Not in my opinion. Just practical.
Only if you are against liberal politics does it violate IRS rules.
supersean, DBKinNY, EQ, I totally agree that abortion should not be provided, funded, nor endorsed in any way by our Government. This article is especially chilling when you read the posters that appear in PP with slogans such as “if you want to see how fast he can run, tell him you’re pregnant” are put out by an organization calling itself “The Children’s Defense Fund.” Seems like the polar opposite of defending children, to me.
What ever happened to the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all? Pursuit of happiness not at the expense of another’s life or liberty.
Planned Parenthood isn’t racist, it’s progressive.
englishqueen01… you need to get off your throne.
I think you’re missing part of the sarcastic point.
And even though you’re correct in saying whites are not the majority in these areas, do you think for a New York minute that anyone in that area would cast off their minority tag if it didnt suit their wants?
My point was, had anyone other than PP issued a statement about having a preference for aborting minority children, it would have been called racist, repugnant, and unacceptable. Imagine, if you will, had some christian organization said the same thing.
There would be calls for that person’s head on the 6 o’clock news and every liberal talking head in the country would be on their back.
But on this issue, i would compromise. I wont complain about abortions when liberals stop protesting the death penalty and its legal in all of the 58 Obama states.
“englishqueen01″: take your outrage and shove it.
I’m outraged by the scale of black-on-white hate crimes that continues to go unreported. Not to mention violent crime committed against us by illegals. But you apparently want more and more.
Shove that.
Yes, my religion influences my views on abortion.
However, saying the solution to welfare is to abort the children of people who are sexually incontinent is like saying the family members of murderers should also be sentenced to death because it’s their fault we have to foot the bill for their criminal relative.
Anyone who talks about abortion so flippantly doesn’t fully understand what it entails. It is painful for both the mother and the child, and can result in death for the mother. And it’s not a peaceful, she passed in her sleep, sort of death.
Read about those deaths here. And read about what happens to unborn children during an abortion here.
The Stupid Party rears its ugly head again.
I’d love to see you find posts where I applaud, condone, or otherwise tolerate crime.
I don’t.
But saying abortion reduces the criminal population is just as asinine as liberals saying gun control laws reduce violent crime.
An unborn child is *not* a criminal: his parents are the guilty ones.
Call me arrogant if you will, but I’m not the one who’s sitting in judgment of who’s worthy of life.
I stand by my original statement: you’d all make Margaret Sanger very proud.
It is time for some retroactive birth control, starting with Congress that funds this crime and those that wrote the policy for the referrals.
You are not getting my point, nor am I inclined to try to articulate. Not your fault, but mine I guess. I am not saying the solution to welfare is abortion. That is stretching way beyond anything I posted. I said it is an option for mothers who don’t want to keep the baby if we the taxpayers will not support their butts via welfare. That’s it. It is appaulling to me to tell a young lady she must have an unwanted baby which will alter the course of her life irrevocably.
All you PP haters need to get a grip. The place is of tremendous value in preventing pregnancies, regardless of your views on abortion. My girlfriend in college used their services for birth control. Without it, she may have gotten pregnant accidentally then she and I would have had to drop out in order to support the family. That owold not have benefitted anyone.
Let’s just say we agree to disagree on this subject. I respect your opinion on the subject but I refuse to argue the merits due to the emotions wrapped aorund it. Nothing good ever comes of it.
Great post
/sarc
By your reasoning, should we believe the answer to your issues is to kill blacks? Illegals? Should we get the government to fund your ideas?
Was it really necessary to be so rude?
On July 24th, 2008 at 10:26 am, abstractmind said:
Ditto! Pilloried doesn’t even begin to describe the excoriation and outright slanderous attacks Christian groups have had to endure for their prolife stances from liberals and the MSM.
I see everett brought out the Eugenics to remind us that people like him want to eradicate whole sections of society. Great… personally I’d rather declare war on you and anyone like you willing to murder either the unborn or those born you deem “undesirable” because your attitude is no different than what led Hitler to “eradicate 6 million undesireables”. When you’re ready to start that war, I am waiting for you.
I’ve heard a crude but apt line, goes along with personal responsibility no matter what race, creed or political party you are.
If you can’t feed ‘em, don’t breed ‘em.
I’m opposed to abortion but all for personal responsibility.
Weary Citizen – Do you also post under the name Rusty? Because your comments sound very familiar…
But please let us be honest here about the true nature of “accidental pregnancies.”
Nobody forces those young ladies to get pregnant. What kind of society tells its citizens to fix their mistakes by getting rid of the consequences and pretending it never happened? If it alters the course of her life, it is because (nine times out of 10) she chose to have sex.
[Note: I am not trying to start a debate on birth control, that is not the point of this comment...] In your other example, your girlfriend would not have gotten “accidentally” pregnant without PP… She would have gotten pregnant as a direct result of choosing to have sex. You both clearly knew that that was a possibility. If, as a result of that choice, you two had to make great changes in your lives, that would be the consequence of your actions. (At least you would get a wonderful little baby out of it.)
I don’t want to be harsh, but I am tired of abortion proponents making it sound as though pro-lifers stick babies into young women’s wombs and then force them to deal with the consequences. I just want people to learn to make wise choices from the start. If they don’t make wise choices, they should deal with the consequences. That goes for all poor choices, not just those related to sex.
AMEN
agreed 100%
Answer:
The Democratic Party of the United States of America and the society they want to bring about in their “change and hope” campaign.
On July 24th, 2008 at 11:09 am, JW2 said:
Hear, hear, JW2! An excellent point that PP supporters never seem to acknowledge, making their pro-PP arguments less than sincere.
You know, there’s this great thing called “adoption” that wouldn’t force the mother to use welfare or have an abortion.
PP is not in the business of contraception – or at least that’s not their primary focus.
It’s the systematic destruction of a living human being in a manner so barbaric it isn’t remotely compassionate or tolerable.
A serious question for you: If we should not fund the children of welfare recipients through tax dollars, why should Planned Parenthood pay for contraception with tax dollars? Especially when contraception isn’t 100% failsafe?
Rusty? Give me a break. Anyone who posts here regularly would know better. And no I am not a liberal by any means. But being conservative should not mean you must oppose abortion.
And that “abstinance” plan you tout. Works real well in the real world doesn’t it?
– englishqueen
Right, because god forbid you should have to read a dissenting view. Beyond the pale? Maybe for you. But there are millions of other conservatives who share my views.
I care little if you agree, or disagree with me on this matter, but I will not be stifled in posting my views any more than you would be.
I would, in being fair, admit that it does work in the real world when people actually practice it. The unfortunate piece here is that our society has lost alot of what constitutes personal responsibility and self control, because we can wash the consequences away as if they never were there.
So, yes, it does work in the real world, when its applied.
But it means people have to have the mindset to do so. A little discipline goes a long way.
No, apparently it means you don’t oppose eugenics, either.
And how does that make you any different from a liberal? It doesn’t. Sex isn’t a right and one of the planks of true conservativism is self-control and personal responsibility. Which means keeping it in your pants until you’re ready to deal with the consequences of your actions in a responsible manner.
Abstinence is part of that.
I’m just floored that people who call themselves “conservative” have no problem sounding like a pro-abort liberal on this issue.
Abortion is never the correct answer.
Abstinance’s short comings are due to the government undercutting it by immorally funding PP.
What? Killing the children of “undesirable” persons?
I suppose if you consider the Nazis, KKK, communists, socialists, and radical Islam conservative, then yeah – all these same groups share the view that it’s a-okay to kill another human being when you think them undeserving of life.
I can’t wait for you guys to try to get Rusty or lgm on an issue like abortion – you sound no different from them and then you wonder why they don’t take your arguments seriously.
Adoption. Sure it is an option. But, just as you talk about how hard abortion is on the mother and baby, how hard do you think it is for a woman to carry a baby 9 months then give it away? It must be toturous mentally.
And BS on your PP nonsense. Contraception IS the main focus of their business. They do however realize many are too irrespnsible to take advantage of it. So they also give abortion as another option along with adoption.
I have heard all of this stuff before. I usually stay away from the conversation though. Engaging only when it has to do with entitlements. I respect the opinions and beliefs here. I jsut don’t agree. I will not post anymore on this topic as it has become a feeding frenzy and the personal attacks are sure to follow soon. I think most of us agree on 90% of all the other conservative topics. Just not this one.
You are arrogant.
I’m being respectful, but lets be intellectually honest for a minute. If the woman didnt want the baby to begin with, then I can’t accept that as a valid point of discussion. And if she didnt want the child anyway, then giving to someone else who would care for it seems a bit more humane.
my 2 cents on that point.
Real mature. You’re the kind of conservative liberals love and you make the work of other conservatives that much harder when you come out with such stupidity as “abort the children of welfare recipients.”
Give me a break.
Any harder than it is for her to murder it?
At least with adoption, there is a possibility she’ll have some sort of relationship with her child in the future.
And no possibility of her encountering the mental/emotional after effects of abortion.
I wouldn’t know; I don’t see it used in the ‘real world’. And I don’t see PP trying to promote it.
ENOUGH! NO MORE ANCHOR BABIES, CRACK BABIES, WELFARE BABIES!
I would rather pay PP once, then keep paying the rest of MY life!
If my tax dollars are going to PP I want to see RESULTS!
You know…if these SOB’s could, I truly believe they would start performing “Retro-abortions” in order to rid the world of those pesky children that get in their way. I just plain think there is something almost evil about a person that does not like children, and would want to snuff out their lives before they even start.
To say the least. This is disturbingly similar to how Nazi death camp operators lined the paths from the trains to the gas chambers with pretty flowers and signs that said “To the Baths” and “To the Infirmary”.
Awesome. A new lgm in the making.
Let the fun begin.
Does for me, have had zero unplanned pregnancies and zero STD’s. It’s called personal responsibility and thinking before you act, try it sometime and pass it along to a friend.
Then you are no better than the Eugenics founders of PP who wanted to eliminate the “undesireables”. See #33, I’m your huckleberry.
Don’t you mean “trite, overused Comic Sans font?”
Certainly: Go here.
These are the “results” of abortion. By all means, click through the videos and photos to see what the “results” of abortion are.
You’ve really become a parody of yourself. I suggest a good, stiff drink and a nap.
hell, i’d like to have those myself…sans parody reference of course
’nuff said.
And please, enlighten us, how is this the fault of the child you so rabidly want to kill?
Those of us still in possession of our sanity see this as the result of a culture of entitlement, no personal responsibility, and devalued morals. Of which abortion plays a big role.
Not as an excuse to murder children. But keep trying.
That didn’t take long. Perfect lgm channeling.
The parents are in a bad way, but lets blame the children.
Could it be that if the parents were maybe in a better situation…maybe some education or i, i dont know, a good old fashioned intervention…….
Doesnt gang violence claim enough, without claiminig the lives of even more children?
I would rather kill the parents… but they are too dangerous.
MWUAHAHAHA
keep it coming lgm-lite. I love it.
So, indeed, let’s go after the most defensless in society – the children.
I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.
Indeed. I’ll agree that I’m right and you’re wrong.
WC:
If someone isn’t responsible enough to use contraception, they aren’t responsible enough to have sex.
Having sex is (or should be) a choice. Choices have consequences, and someone who chooses to have sex should be prepared to deal with the possible emotional and physical consequences of doing so. Lack of personal responsibility is not an acceptable reason for having an abortion.
englishqueen01, your intolerance is showing. Don’t be one of those ! I happen to agree abortion is sooooooo wrong but I also feel he has the right to his point of view. In the end, we know God will sort it out.
You made your point, now leave it alone. My pastor says, ‘plant the seed and let God water it. Someone else may harvest the fruit but you did your best for Him.’
LOL. Whatever. But you just earned the names others here called you. I tried to be civil and polite but it is a lost art due to people like you.
Sadly, I don’t find myself terribly surprised about this. The feds have been forking money over to them for a long time. Granted, it’s not the USDA that does it but its still the federal government helping to fund part of their efforts.
Anything they can do to try and make it more palatable, huh?
The next link you might see could bee on http://www.whitehouse.gov, if the Obamessiah lucks out and gets elected in November. *shiver*
I guess so. But I abhor abortion. There is no excuse, no reason, to endorse or support something as cruel and evil as destroying the life of an unborn child.
He’s entitled to his opinion, but I am not going to sit by and not call him on it – especially when he demands “results” in the form of dead bodies of children because he’s sick of welfare.
I am, too. But I went through a period of time where my husband was unemployed (he lost his job when I was six months pregnant). Had push really come to shove, we may have needed help. Rob would have preferred I had an abortion.
If I’m intolerant, yes, I’m not going to tolerate people who say abortion is an option – whether to deal with an unplanned pregnancy or as a way to slim down the dole. It’s wrong and I won’t sit idly by as another 3000 children are denied the right to life today.
Please, tell me how I was not civil and polite.
I wasn’t the one who told another person to “shove it”.
You don’t like my position on abortion. I don’t like the fact you’re cool with – and advocating – destroying a child for the irresponsible behavior of her parents.
Within the covers of the Bible are all the answers for all the problems men face.
Ronald Reagan
Weary Citizen,
You pull the “emotion” and “religion” cards to not have to deal with the Pro-life arguments. The “emotion” belongs in your desire to kill “moron” life, as you call it. Just because it’s life you cannot see (outside the women’s body) you put yours hands over your ears and pretend it doesn’t exist. Too inconvient, I guess.
Single parents w/o money ought to have a legal obligation to give their children up for adoption.
Since that’s never going to happen, private and govt organizations need to do whatever it can to help these true victimes (the kids). It doesn’t matter what you think about the mom. If she’s an abusive parent, the govt needs to take the child away.
Government’s most basic function is to protect Human Life. Not to make the likes of “Weary Citizen”, “dfern”, and others more comfortable about the racial make-up.
Look, I knew my post would bring out those who are very religious.
I don’t think that’s really imporatnt to the question, EQ. Everybody instinctively knows that taking innocent life is wrong.
A guilty conscience is the the result of the cognitive dissonance of trying to reconcile such a known wrong with one’s contrary personal take, hence pro-abort folks get defensive. But it’s their internal civil war that is the cause, externals – e.g. your words of opposition – just reinforce the guilt and bring out more defensiveness.
Everyone who’s not a sociopath, ala Charles Manson, by nature knows – even if it deep down – the death of innocents is a tragedy to be avoided.
Even if we had no laws against adults murdering one another, people would still know it’s a wrong thing to do.
(Again, with the Manson-like sociopath exceptions.)
If you want to end the cycle of taxpayer subsidies, men have to be brought back into the family. WIC and other forms of welfare have pushed the men out. It created a system where it is advantageous for the woman to remain single and have children than to even shack up with the children’s father, much less marry him. If the man was once again in his role in home, provided he’s not a total loser, few would need welfare (and only temporarily) or Planned Parenthood’s “services.”
By the way, I don’t want to subsidize anyone’s sex life, whether it’s babies, abortions, or birth control. Since when is the horizontal mambo is something the government has to guarantee to everybody?
So let me get this straight…you can be as adamant as you want if you are pro-death…but you have to watch what you say and how you say it if you are pro-life?
Does that really make sense to anyone? Because when you break it down, that is exactly what you are saying.
Stick to your guns EQ. You have every right to stand up for what you believe as they do. yet another attempt at silencing or at the very least, quieting and suppressing the Right to Life belief.
Well there you go…actually thinking that the Left takes personal resposibility for anything. The victim mentality wins out hands down when it comes to the whole Abortion debate.
And Rob, you are advocating a type of genocide buddy. You are also making incredibly racist statements in your arguments for killing unborn children. the examples you have chosen are blatantly racist in nature.
Thanks for showing us all just what you have in that dark, damp, cold place located inside your chest-wall, just to the left of your sternum. Dance around it all you want and try to talk your way out, but you have stated your beliefs in genocide for the sake of money.
-englishqueen
How about when you indicated that people who don’t have a problem with this should never comment on this topic again?
Does “No one here who supports this idea should ever comment on a thread regarding Planned Parenthood or abortion again,” sound familiar?
Oh…and thanks for making my point about wanting “Retro-abortions”. Couldn’t have done it better if it was planned.
No pun
– RetFireman
Just FYI, look at the quote from englishqueen in my last comment.
Who is trying to quiet and suppress who?
I don’t begrudge her her beliefs. I do take it personally when she states I shouldn’t post mine.
Gee, and I am still milling around in another thread.
I guess it bears repeating that there are those of us that don’t feel guilty about abortions (as long as they aren’t late term) because we don’t consider an early fetus a human life.
Well I begrudge your beliefs, because Genocide is usually reserved for the loons on the left.
I’m merely pointing out the fact you’re all going to look like glaring hypocrites if you take Rusty, lgm, or the other MM resident liberals to task on issues of abortion and life. Am I wrong? No. And you can bet they’ll call you on it.
As RetFireman said, I’m sticking to my guns.
Exactly, and Hitler didn’t consider Jews to be worth living either so you are in good company.
#84 Zeroangel:
When is the magical tick-on-the-clock?? At what split second does a useless blob become something worthy of protection??
Is it when the odometer on a pregnancy turns from 7 months to 7 months and one minute. Then does it change from an “early fetus” to a “late term”??
Making that kind of distinction is only necessary if you consider Human Life to be a horrible inconvience.
alaskangrizzly:
Well, well, I invoke Godwin’s Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum. Probably about time this thread closed.
Regardless, I should think the differences between a person and a first trimester fetus (for example) are obvious.
That’s the crux of the slippery slope of “viable” because medicine and science are decreasing the weeks at which “viable” is at. So this year zeroangel’s stance may be X number of weeks and next year it might be Y number of weeks. Sucks to be all the ones murdered last year I guess since the technology wasn’t there to save them from the hands of Rusty and Zero.
At conception the “fetus” aka baby is a genetically unique person that if allowed to be protected in the womb will result in the birth of a human being. Gotta love them slippery slopes of ever changing rules on babies surviving, eats right into their argument that it is not a human being at conception like the rest of us know it is.
Some questions:
One form of life do you “consider” it, if not human? Canine, fish, reptilian or ? And on what do you base that consideration?
Not obvious to me.
HDFOB:
To answer your question I would say that (since as you point out the question is analog and not digital) a reasonable determination should be made at which point fetal pain is possible and then turn the clock back from there a few weeks just to be on the safe side.
How’s that?
Yeah, they are both genetically unique human beings. Sucks to be you.
How is,
“Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.”
morally different from,
“Don’t like slavery? Don’t own one.”?
purplepeep:
I guess I don’t consider it a “life” as such.
Agree.
Disagree.
With the most obvious being that one of the two has not been killed.
So a single celled bacteria is “life” because it can survive on it’s own but a cingle celled zygote isn’t “life” because it needs an incubator for 9 months in order to develop fully into a human being from the base state of being a human life. Um yeah…
purplepeep:
With the most obvious being that one of the two has
not been killednever been alive.