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
Gay Patriot
» How John Hoeven Can Save America
JustOneMinute
» The Topless Ann AlthouseEd Driscoll
» The Bears Are Who We Thought They WereStop The ACLU
» Senate Approves Motion to Proceed on ObamacareStop The ACLU
» Glenn Beck: The Man With The PlanPundit & Pundette
» Reports of Broder's retirement greatly exaggeratedAmSpecBlog
» The Road Ahead in the Health Care Battle
Slippery…… slope….. enjoy
That’s about right, though I don’t really shed any tears about “murdering” bacteria either.
But you just admitted that the cingle celled zygot is “life” that just needs an incubator. Interesting how much you must dance to rationalize murder.
alaskangrizzly:
No I didn’t, I said it isn’t life. Can we not play the tiresome semantics games?
#93 Zeroangel:
You’ve made your stand on when life begins on the vague concept of when the “point fetal pain is possible”?
Why is the ability to abort so important that those kind of rhetorical contortions are necessary?
Either a person is alive or dead, there’s no in-between, ZA. To be able to have a valid opinion you really need to inform yourself beyond the guessing stage.
But to clarify one irrefutable point: since we all know humans can only reproduce humans, there is no doubt any life they produce will be human.
– alaskangrizzly
Yes, invoking Hitler. A true sign you’re winning the debate. /sarc
– englishqueen
Except that’s not what you said. You said I shouldn’t ever post my opinion on this topic again. I don’t take those guys to task for their views on abortion, any more than I took you to task for yours. I simply stated mine. I realized long ago that it’s the hubris to believe I can change anyone’s mind on this issue, or that anyone can change mine.
Whatever makes you feel better boss, your slippery slope will catch up with you further and further the more medicine develops. Then you won’t have any excuses left except to say “yeah, I favor murder”
I can’t help it if you are just like him, that’s your problem.
Yes.
I guess you should ask a woman that wants an abortion.
Or it is not a person.
If we’re going to try and determine what life is, and where it starts, how about using an accepted version of what science shows the definition, something like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_life
I’ve made the argument in posts here at other times that human embryos do in fact meet all of the qualifications listed. If there is some other fact as to why they wouldn’t be considered alive, i’m listening.
Likewise, living matter just doesnt “spring up”…living beings are not created from inert matter, that i’ve seen so far.
– alaskangrizzly
Except that I’m nothing like him. You must realize how silly you sound.
You both advocate the murder of millions… what am I missing?
abstractmind:
From your page:
So, these definitions aren’t agreed upon.
Further, these definitions seem to apply to a set of organisms or one organism over the course of it’s life, they aren’t meant to define when “life’ begins.
I can’t wait until I get pregnant and get to tell people that I’m having a baby, but until it’s born (or can feel pain or whatever), they should refer to it as a litter of kittens.
I believe you’ll find OB-GYNs (not to mention Moms) to be somewhat shocked that they’re prescribing all sorts of vitamins to nourish along something that’s dead or “not alive”. Does it make any sense at all to give vitamins to help sustain something that’s dead or “not alive”?
Yes, considering the thing in question will eventually be alive and the mother in question wants that to happen.
When the mother does not want that to happen, I support (not applaud) her.
Actually if you want to stay consistent with Yash and Zero you would say “I plan to have a child in 9 months, right now I just have some unliving biological anomaly in a clump feeding off my body’s resources and in couple months I can then call it my baby since it can feel pain and has progressed from non-living tissue to a living and viable human being.”
Channeling that was exhausting, must be hard work doing all that dancing.
alaskangrizzly:
Or you could just be a person not trying to make a rhetorical point and say:
“I am pregnant.”
“I am pregnant.” with my baby. Because you know that’s what I hear all mother’s tell me even at 1 month and all.
Either a person is alive or dead
I’m certainly open to new concepts, ZA, but you still haven’t defined which species an unborn human is if it really isn’t human. (As far as I know, people only refer to other humans as “person” or “persons”.)
Aside from those that don’t want to have thier fetus develop into a baby.
The ability to carry on a rational debate?
-abstractmind
Alive as in living cells? Yeah, sure a fetus is alive. I just don’t believe it is a person, imbued with whatever it is that makes us whole persons. . .certainly not before 4 weeks, the point at which organs and the central nervous system start to form.
zeroangel said;
When I die, I certainly would perfer to feel no pain, but the inability to feel pain is not the determination of life or death. There was a little girl on Oprah with an ailment that made it impossible for her brain to register pain. She poked out her eyes as a baby because she felt no pain. Now, if someone murdered this same child, I am sure no sane person could deny that this little girl was once alive, simply because she didn’t hurt when it happened.
To use your own post, zero:
You were quick to cut out the LAST sentence of the paste there. What you left off was:
Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:
I’ll take often as something most agree on, or at least something that some sort of majority can at least use as a guideline.
I didnt say it was the end all, be all. but somehow, it seems a bit more exacting, when its broken down than “well, if it can feel pain, its alive”, or at the least a bit more indepth and descriptive.
Does that mean that since I have a massive pain tolerance, that i’m less alive than someone else?
Granted, its not “fetal pain”, but one could start a case for pain in general.
I’m sure you have a logical reason for not thinking living humans create other living humans…but i’m not seeing alot of fact or substance. You’re gonna have to give me something else to work with. I prefer to deal with fact, or at least logical reasoning, and would love to hear about this in those regards.
Love how you dodge the slippery slope you’re on. Makes for a fun afternoon of watching you squirm. What are you going to say anyhow once medicine keeps dropping the viabilty date down and down and down to closer to conception?
purplepeep:
I thought I was clear. It is not a different species, nor is it “alive”.
It is a developing part of the mother combined with DNA of the father.
We got Yash at 4 weeks
And Zero at a 2 to 3 months
I love consistency on what and what isn’t human don’t you?
Gotta correct you there, AKG – the terms “unliving” & “biological” are contradictory to one another. For something to be biological, it has to living by definition.
Unless, of course, you’re just pointing out the inherent illogic of Yash & ZA argument there. ;0
and thats fair. People such as myself see it simply in the light that you’re in fact destroying something alive. The fact that its not a -complete- person doesnt remove the fact that you’re destroying something that becomes a person. I dont think thats a logical stretch, given the frame of the debate.
alaskangrizzly:
No one is squirming, and it would be nice if you all dropped the rhetoric, strawman, et al. I don’t expect it to happen, but it would be nice.
I contend that it will only drop so low and I am already well below it.
Now this is comedy gold right here… a developing part of the mother lololololol that happens to have totally new DNA of it’s own derived from the mother and father but is so different that the unique human being developing may not even have the same blood type and may not be able to potentially receive organ donations from it’s own mother and yet is a “developing portion of the mother with added DNA from the father” that is just rich. Thank you for the laughs.
OK, so we are agree what is “developing” in the mother’s womb is human. Good.
Now let’s consider how anything that’s not living could ever “develope”?
e.g. A huge rock can sit by the seashore for a million years and it will not develope or produce anything new. Life – maybe moss – may grow on it, though.
I would also point out,l for consistancy sake, the the mitochondria that is present in every cell evolves at about 10 times the rate of human beings, and could be considered alive.
And mitochondria(which are responsible for cellular respiration, etc) are incredibly important in the forming, shaping, and even death, of living things.
Oh give it a rest man.
The fact is, that the defintion of “life” is rather unclear.
Suffice it to say, I do not consider a fetus a “whole person” and that’s for a variety of reasons among those, the fetal pain arguement, Yashmak’s nervous system arguement, the inability to live outside the womb or at least on its own, etc..
I am inclined to pay more consideration to the concerns / wants / needs of the woman (someone I KNOW to be “alive”) rather than something which can’t even be clearly defined.
Comparisons to Hitler are beyond the pale.
Only to certain types of people, you just happen to be one of them.
In the sense that it contains human DNA? Yes. In the sense that it is a living person? No.
Equivocation.
While i respect your view on it, I just dont see it as objective based on the material presented.
It is what it is, i suppose.
abstractmind:
Likewise, funny thing about opinions. *smile*
The definition of “life” is not unclear. Even a song on Sesame Street can explain it. The fact that an embryo grows and needs nourishment is clearly simple.
true. and in being civil and agreeing to disagree, is how progress is made.
I think there’s alot of science that really needs to come to bear in these respects, but from what i’ve read (and spent alot of time doing so, i’m a buff for this kind of thing), i think in time, when technology and research can push forward a bit more, we’ll have a definite answer.
I just hate not to err on the side of caution, or life (even possible or up and coming life).
I agree 100% that government; i.e., taxpayer, money should never be used for abortions. I also agree 100% that the government should not have ANY say whatsoever in when, where, or how a woman has an abortion. I am a middle-age mother of 2 – raised in Catholic schools. I consider myself a Conservative in the majority of issues – I vote Republican the majority of the time. I was never in the position where I had to make that horrible decision, thank God. I taught both of my children what the consequences would be if they were to get pregnant or impregnate someone else (a son and daughter obviously). Having said that – I have 2 nieces who have each recently given birth to twins – both of the mother’s are 20 years old – neither of the father’s is in the picture. They made the choice to have and keep the children – all of whom were born prematurely – hospital bills over $100K. These baby’s have absolutely and completely been tax-payer funded – and will continue to be until forever. You know why? Because the government; i.e., taxpayers, will provide everything for their mother’s because of these darling babies. Baby food, diapers, milk, cheese, daycare, subsidized housing, food stamps, welfare, doctor visits, immunizations, oh, yes, and if their mother’s want, they can also go to college for next to free. Sounds like a racket to me. I will NEVER listen to a man’s view of abortion – as a man, you will NEVER have to make that decision. In my opinion, this issue is so passionate for many reasons, one of which is as elementary as control of another. A man is incapable of becoming pregnant and will NEVER have that experience. I remember as a teenager, when abortions were all but outlawed, a few of my friends who tried to abort through various means. It was horrible. I will also say that the rich will always have access to abortion in a safe manner – it will only be the poor and middle-class who will resort back to “clothes hangers”. The Deacon sitting next to you in church – his daughter will have an abortion (legally) today, then he’ll be preaching against it tomorrow. This issue brings about so much hypocrisy, it nauseates me. As for me, it is NONE of my business what someone else chooses. The hysteria in this matter allows the media and our “leaders” to stir up the troops, as they always do – while at the same time obfiscating from taking care of the REAL issues that are confronting this nation.
Well, zero, if I’m not pregnant with a person, what am I pregnant with?
If someone asks me what I’m having, what should I answer? The whatever-it-is’s sex? Its status as a biological entity?
This is the problem with the “it’s not a human life” fallacy. We name every species’ offspring with a label that helps others connote what the offspring is or looks like. Why do we make that distinction with humans?
I concede that I am pro-life, but I understand that in certain extreme cases abortion may be allowed–that is, in a literal life-or-death situation for the mother. However, we shouldn’t try to fool ourselves and allay our guilt for aborting fellow human beings by asserting that they aren’t humans/people and that they aren’t alive.
Are organisms who live in symbiotic relationships less alive than those that don’t because they cannot survive without the other organism?
Too many people have abortions without full knowledge of what they’re doing–what’s at stake for them mentally and physically–and that is absolutely unacceptable. How does it give women more rights to limit their knowledge of something that could have such a huge effect on their well-beings?
birdlady79:
Right on!
ALCON:
I refer to #142 birdlady.
ZeroA Out.
Then what is it?
That’s great, are you also against men from becoming OBGYN’s too, I mean they will never have a period or have the associated body parts to be able to relate 100% to their patient so why limit your bigotry just to abortion?
I appreciate your view, and i cant force you to listen to a man…but i would point out that some of us MEN were on the bad side of women wanting abortions, and that we werent given a choice.
We were given a bill for it.
You might want to bear that in mind, and the feelings of those involved, while you rant.
Thanks.
Why does it not surprise me that ZA sides with bigot?
Are some people hypocrites? Yes, but don’t lump us all in there sister. I am pro-life today and will be pro-life tomorrow and I will not condone or assist or turn a blind eye to anyone regardless if their in my church or not who chooses murder over life.
By extension, wouldn’t tha pose a problem for the conception portion too? Jus’ sayin’?
I’ll not even answer your immature and ridiculous question grizzly – I’m sure if you try really, really hard, you can think of a more intelligent response. I’ll sit back and wait for that one, thank you.
thathatI’m not the one being a bigot, men have shown themselves quite capable and vice versa for the ladies such as female urologists assisting male patients with their reproductive and urinary problems, in understanding the medicine and science in these topics in both OBGYN’s and abortion (aka murder).
Thanks.
I’m a woman? What about my view on abortion?
You and zeroangel need to check out this website. It really debunks the notion that abortion is safe and legal.
My OB/GYN is male. My husband has a Master’s degree in Medical Science. My father-in-law is a physician. I find their medical advice just as sound as a female doctor’s advice.
If my husband and I didn’t see eye-to-eye on abortion, children, etc., I doubt very seriously that we would be married. It matters where he stands on issues.
Sorry – that should be “I’m a woman.” (period).
EQ,
Good catch! I thought perhaps you were trying to add a little levity to the thread.
I personally abhor abortion; however, it is not my business what another woman, under other circumstances, might choose. If my 13 year old daughter, niece, granddaughter, or any 13 year old, is gang-raped and is impregnated, should this child be forced to carry this fetus to term? englishqueen01 – I am sure you walk the walk as much as you talk the talk – I am sure you have adopted several children from orphanages, and foster parent several children and keep them safe from the monsters who have made the decision to keep these unwanted babies. True?
People such as myself see it simply in the light that you’re in fact destroying something alive. – abstractmind
It’s nice to see that at least someone here can carry on a debate on this issue rationally. But it cannot be simply ‘destroying something alive’, or else eating, warring, using antibiotics, stepping on ants, etc. etc. would also all be just as bad.
That clarifies things a bit. However, I still maintain that destroying something that becomes a person, isn’t the same thing as destroying a person.
Granted that many here disagree with me. For the record, I think I’ve mentioned before that personally, I don’t favor abortion, and am actually adamantly opposed to 2nd & 3rd trimester abortions. Even so, I don’t believe a fetus qualifies as a person until later in the pregnancy (at least not until it has developed a functioning central nervous system).
ok two questions for everyone. Me throwing away a used condem make me a murder ? does a woman taking birth control make her one also ?
The question is not about life and death and it should not be. It is about persoal responsibility. The rest is between you and your God. If you beleive in God. GWB signed a law saying if you kill a woman and she is pregant and fetus dies you get charged with murder on 2 counts not one.
I think the article was about how you feel about your tax dollars going to fund phony programs and organazations.
Granted, there should be some allowance. but using it for personal contraception measure is the bulk of the process. abortions due to rape/incest and so on….check the %’s. Its statistically just not normal. Depending on who is reporting the stats, i’ve seen the numbers waver between .1 and 1.2% (my firewall here at work prevents me from alot of things, including searching for stuff now that i’d provide as evidence, so my apologies…i’m usually all about the stats. i’ll see if there’s a way around it so i can post those.
However, the rest of your argument is an appeal that because someone hasn’t done something, that they can’t discuss it or hold a view.
For instance, i’m sure you and i agree that killing people (and for this example, we’ll use adults in general) in cold blood is wrong. Neither of us have to walk down the street and garrote every person we meet in order to know that. If the ability for people to agree, disagree, or state a point of view were limited to the exact amount of experiences we had on the subject, we’d be a narrowminded and boring species.
Just food for thought.
Yashmak,
True. And yes, i try to keep it civil
I see your point. Humans, by nature, normally find killing other people (at least for no reason) as an abhorant, and avoid it. Leeway here to argue, but generally, and like i referenced with birdlady, we dont need to kill to know its wrong.
The example of eating meat, however, is cold blooded to members of PETA. Persons of certain eastern philosophies believe killing anything on purpose, including ants, is wrong. It all depends on the view of the person involved. But those things pale, methinks, against the backdrop of detroying life when its the case of human beings.
I would equate it in some basic way to the same way plants develop. The seed of a pumpkin, for example, itself contains the means of becoming a full grown plant, but if you placed it in the ground, and then after a week when the shell cracks and the sprout comes out…if you crush the seed between your fingers, you destroyed life in development. Again just my thought, and as i mentioned with zero, there’s still alot of science left to do with this. And one day, i hope we have a definitive answer.
That’s such a tired canard. It’s no different than liberals who say only veterans can comment on war or women can comment on feminism.
My opinions on abortion are not contingent on whether or not I’ve adopted. I want to, and I will. We are researching becoming foster parents (not a simple process, mind you). Know someone who’s pregnant? Send her my way. I’ll give her a loving, supportive home and help her decide to raise the child or put him up for adoption.
I certainly won’t sell her up the river and let her deal with the aftermath of an abortion. For, indeed, most rape/incest victims who have abortions report it didn’t lessen the trauma, but increased it. (More about the study here).
But, quite frankly, this is the last ditch argument of a person who cannot win otherwise.
Please, explain this to me: How in the world is it preferable to rip an unborn child limb-from-limb, burn him with saline, or stick a scissors in her skull and suck out her brain than to bring them into existence?
Because they won’t remember it or know?
In that case, that argument might as well be drawn to its logical conclusion: let’s take all children in foster care and orphanages and shoot them. After all, being dead is better than living in an orphanage, right?
– abstractmind
I share your hope. Until that day arrives, however, I don’t think my views on this are likely to change. . .nor do I expect to change anyone else’s views on the matter. I wouldn’t even try.
As for your pumpkin seed analogy. . .it’s an interesting take. But the take I read on abortion from its foes here is that the pumpkin seed is in fact a pumpkin. But you can’t make pumpkin pie or carve a jack-o-lantern out of seeds. There’s obviously a difference. Why make the literary distinction if there’s no difference?
Yashmak:
Here’s a better analogy. In America, we have laws protecting Bald Eagle eggs not because they eggs themselves do anything, but because we recognize that the organism developing in those eggs will become a Bald Eagle.
Yet we twist the definition of what is/isn’t human and – as a nation – fail to recognize we give more rights and protections to animals (and, in some nations, plants) than we do our fellow man.
– englishqueen
So you recognize that the organism developing in those eggs is not a bald eagle yet.
It’s also important to note that while Bald Eagles are endangered species, the same cannot be said of humans (although that’s not entirely relevant to this discussion).
Well, the distinction is made, at least on my end, because of the prospect. Because eventually, those single cells do form something we do recognize. I have trouble believe something isnt alive because of its current structure. Growth indicates life, in my book. if the difference between it being a blob and being alive is 4 weeks, as we’ve seen in earlier posts, i’m not sure why the 4 weeks is a huge deal breaker.
But you’re right. people hold their views, and that’s how it is. When i discuss something, the best i can do is lay out what i know, what i can show or prove, and how i interpret the data. how someone else takes it, well..thats up to them. If they change as a result, then thats fine. if not, then thats how it is. if they have conflicting information, then those facts should likewise be explored.
for our pumpkin, though…
Everything starts out as the small version of itself. pumpkins dont just jump up on their own, they have to grow and develop like everything else. such is the way of life. Is the seed a full grown pumpkin? of course not
But give it some water and a place to grow, and soon…you’ll have a wonderful pumpkin pie 
OK, so i’m not advocating killing pumpkin seeds. But i’d carve up a pumpkin for some pie in a heartbeat
Wish i had more time to go indepth…but yay work
Yes it is. It isn’t a fish, or a frog, or a cat.
It’s a Bald Eagle. Granted, it’s developing, but it’s genetic make up is no different from a full-grown Bald Eagle.
The notion of viability is also alarming. My 17-month-old son could not survive without someone feeding, clothing, diapering and caring for him. Indeed, studies showed infants deprived of human contact suffered great trauma and even died.
So the notion that a baby isn’t human until it can live outside the womb is shaky logic at best.
They may breathe on their own, but without the care and nurturing of another human being (ideally their mother or an adoptive parent), they can’t survive.
Which means children aren’t “human” until they can take care of themselves. Which means there are some adults out there who aren’t fully human.
OK, so we are agree what is “developing” in the mother’s womb is human. Good.
In the sense that it contains human DNA? Yes. In the sense that it is a living person? No.
I assume you’re refering to equivication on your part there, ZA.
I’ve very specifically used your terminology as much as possible, not to pick on you – though I do like to have some fun
– but to underscore Confucius’ observation “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names”.
I once thought along your line of something like “it’s just at best a blob” – something that could be interchanable with cancer. That was even long after I became one of them thar born-aginner Christian-types. I was even active with a pro-abortion group, being the tres PC sensitive modern male, ala Phil Donahue/Alan Alda, that I was.
But then I looked at this issue logically, accepting into my thinking process only the terms that have solid & tangible meaning, sans equivacation. In so doing, I could not escape the fact what I was dealing with nothing less than human life. I could have denied it, but I would have been intellectually dishonest with myself.
You sound like an intelligent person who is capable of evaluating the issue logically even if it challenges your preconceptions. I’d suggest you do so.
We all have the tendency to try to justify our views – whether they be right or wrong. It’s only upon taking on those views with a willingness to sacrifice ego for intellectual honesty and consistency that a person can reach the point of surety and non-equivication.
I mentioned Charlie Manson above. In his own mind he can easily justify he and his “family’s” actions in taking innocent human life.(Though some of his gang have since come to realize they were justifying something very evil. I suspect spending a life behimd bars gives one time to re-evaluate their worldview).
Socrates noted well that an “unexamined life is not worth living”. I would just add what I think is a good corollary, “an unchallanged opinion is not worth keeping”.
– englishqueen
No, you said it BECOMES a bald eagle, indicating it’s not one yet.
You’re right though. It’s not a fish, frog, or cat. It’s an egg.
Pro-life: It’s a baby, we agree, the end.
***********************************
Pro-death: Innumerous excuses and definitions on when life begins (let alone when that life can be called a “baby”) and none of them can never agree.
Some say it must “feel” pain.
Some say it must be viable outside the womb (like a baby can still live outside the womb unless taken care of – much like being in the womb).
Barbara Boxer went so far as to say “it is not a baby until you bring it home from the hospital.”
On and on and on and…
************************************
So, a living cell (sperm) makes it inside another living cell (ova), a process so extremely involved most people could never grasp the chemical process that takes place by these two living cells, and creates another extremely complex life form, a human being. All of the complexities of these processes can be ignored as “not a living thing” by those of you who can cheapen life and, yet, accept an amoeba as living – that is fine. The rest of us have a basic grasp of living.
Fine – let me refine that so you don’t get caught up in semantics.
We recognize it is a developing Bald Eagle, but a Bald Eagle nonetheless.
That says it best.
P.S. most of the pro-death supporters (Rusty comes to mind) abhor the idea of putting a murder to death. They are opposed to the death penalty unless it is a baby in a womb.
AND! It involves pie! What could be better?
Except cheesecake…but i dont think there are seeds anywhere for that…but if there were….mmmmmm
Very well put, the slippery slope continues on their end.
This is the only INDISPUTED fact that’s been stated in this thread!
Oh – what about pumpkin-pie flavored cheesecake? Best of both worlds!
Now I want pumpkin pie…and cheesecake. Darn you, abstractmind.
:Note to self – invent cheesecake seeds and get rich!
Oh. My. Sides.
Right, and give a fetus a place to grow and some time, and one day you might have a wonderful firefighter, or accountant, etc. etc. But that’s alot different than saying it’s a person from the moment of conception.
The only thing I can positively, unequivacally say on the matter is that I will never have an abortion. However; I will not stop you from having one if that is what you choose. I won’t bring you to the clinic – but I’ll be there to hold you while you cry afterwards. Yes, it breaks my heart that people choose to abort; however, I will not judge them for doing so. That is for God to do, and perhaps he’s a little more forgiving than those of us on earth.
If you don’t want your tax dollars going to pay for an abortion; well, I agree. But I also don’t think the government should be involved in this matter at all. Period.
And, by the way, englishqueen, I have “fostered” 3 different children – all of whom came from mother’s who chose to have numerous children, none of which were taken care of. Not one of whom I would have wanted to die in foster care or in an orphanage. In fact, I believe that I ultimately saved them from that very result.
This is sick. More murder of children, adding Homo marriage, abuse of anykind, no love for others etc…
There will be greater storms, earthquakes, and volcanos because of this. Climate change is manmade after all.
But then how can you argue it would be better if their mother aborted them? How can anyone argue that?
I stand by my assertion that the logical conclusion of “abortion’s better than a life in foster care/orphanages” is to eliminate the kids currently living in such situations.
It’s not fun. I don’t doubt that.
But, please, I emplore you, visit this website. The effects of abortion are far deeper and longer-lasting than crying for a while after the fact.
I believe we need to create a culture where women and their unborn children are treated better – which includes encouraging marriage, holding fathers responsible, and getting people off welfare.
“I believe we need to create a culture where women and their unborn children are treated better – which includes encouraging marriage, holding fathers responsible, and getting people off welfare.”
On this, we can certainly agree.
completely agree. the fairness men receive in court…well, thats another long discussion and one of which i am crushingly familiar.
But yes, with that statement, i completely agree.
Yep. For that, I blame radical feminism. I blame radical feminism for the breakdown of the family, quite frankly.
They said men were pigs, unnecessary, unwanted, etc., and then act surprised when some men don’t stick around or own up to their children and their mothers.
But, that’s another long discussion.
That does sounds good! Has anybody here tried it?
Yep. That’s why I suggested it.
One word: YUM.
The recipe even looks reasonably dummy-proof so that I could handle it.
The goodness of pumpkin and cheesecake in one dish. And here I sit with nary a thing in the cupboard for a sweet-tooth fix (not even sugar)! Ah well, a bro’s out picking up stuff at the store. Somehow I will survive til then as I wipe the drool off the monitor.
Usually my quick-fix is to take some Bisquick and whomp up a coffeecake. Can’t get much simpler and faster than that!
purplepeep:
You don’t think you are being a tad bit patronizing? Do you think I just came to my decisions lightly and haven’t reflected on these things over the course of years?
I could turn the whole thing around and say the exact same thing back to you. I won’t though, because I know I can’t change your mind, and vice-versa.
Yashmak put it best in #107:
Hubris.
“We all have the tendency to try to justify our views – whether they be right or wrong. It’s only upon taking on those views with a willingness to sacrifice ego for intellectual honesty and consistency that a person can reach the point of surety and non-equivication.”
Nope, ZA – I doubt anyone can or will contracdict that as a universal human trait/truth. But you’re certainly welcome to give it a shot.
To my thinking, that such observations may cause you to feel “inferior” or whatever (i.e. “people talk down to me”) would seem to suggest you’re working from an emotionally-based position than an intellectual one. (How a person reacts to aemotional neutral statements and what they read into them is somewhat of an interest of mine.)
.
You’d be too late – since as noted, I’ve already “turned it around” on myself and tackled assumptions with logic to see if they were true or false.
I agree that one person cannot change another person’s mind. And that’s quite exactly the point I stressed; coming to valid conclusions comes as, and has value, when it’s the result of self-challenge.
You may be satisfied with having an “equivicating opinion” and that’s fine. But you’ll have to accept that – for me – it wouldn’t be satisfactory. But when it there is something I am not sure or feel equivocal about, I’m very used to offering up more than a good heaping of “I dunnos”.
purplepeep:
You are over-analyzing.
I doubt your impartiality.
I think you misunderstood my use of the word equivocation.
glad I skipped these comments
Rob:
Are you suggesting that poor little Jasmine Sanders would have been better off never being born?
And Rob, once again, I ask you:
If 50 million abortions in the past 35 years have reduced neither welfare nor crime, don’t you think the solution lies not in murdering more innocent unborn children but cracking down on the attitudes in the culture that breed violence and entitlement?
It would seem so. I bet that notion would be really comforting to Jasmine’s family.
Being 25, I have little memory of the 1980s. I’m not surprised to learn, however, that prior to Ronald Reagan, Republicans supported abortion for eugenic purposes.
That attitude clearly has not died out.
Rob is unhinged.
zeroangel:
You and I have debated before, and I agree with purplepeep. You do not debate logically or with reason. Your information is often unfactual.
I don’t know why, but you seem to have a blind spot in some areas, and you are unaware of it. Perhaps you need to take a class in logic and rhetorical analysis in order to clarify your thinking skills.
I am not insulting or degrading you, however I have noticed this tendency in your thought patterns.
I will though…he has a thought pattern????
Whuddathunkit.
atheling:
I feel the same way about you.
abstractmind:
Please reread my comment in #114.
I’d appreciate it if you please read my posts before you question my thought processes. I used that quote exactly.
Great response, zeroangel, and it proves my point.
Secondly, I think, rather than feel when I debate.