It has already been ruled unconstitutional in one state to cut the medicaid funding, so you can count on PP continuing to perform abortions AND receiving medicaid funding. Even if states were successful in eliminating medicaid funding, the people would soon protest. So you don't care if people die because they can't afford basic medical care...real pro-life there.[sarcasm] Don't you know that a lot of women who are forced to give birth instead of abort will be doing so on the taxpayers' dime? And it's a lot more expensive to pay for pre-natal, hospital cost, and post-natal care than to pay for abortions. "Slaughtering children" is not comparable to abortion, it always amazes me that anyone who disagrees with abortion doesn't give diddlysquat about the woman involved. Comeon, please, tell how she DESERVES to suffer because she chose to have sex, it's all her fault, right? That would be for the pregnant woman to decide.
Good for you. Does this mean that now you accept that you posted inane drivel? You feel attacked because you were shown that you are totally lacking on the topic?
Not to mention, fire fighting, police work or defending the nation. Oh wait, those good people are already being screwed by the conservatives, why not include then poor women too?
Then why should the US taxpayers continue to give $7 billion annually to Israel which has universal health care AND provides free and reduced cost abortions to women who meet specified ciriteria? It is ironic that right wingers who preach opposition to Planned Parenthood (Sarah Palin et al ) also support giving aid to Israel. It calls anti-abortion motives into question.
An excellent point especially considering how foreign aid for other nations was tied to their abortion stance. The stench of right wing hypocrisy just reeks.
To prometeus: I dont feel attacked! I was attacked: #7 permalink Then you don't know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) you are talking about. Otherwise educate yourself, it is far better than spewing ignorance. #12 permalink As I said you dont know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) you are talking about. #14 permalink Reading comprehension is not your strong suite, that is why you don't know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) you are talking about. #20 permalink You are truly clueless. I suppose that you believe that mocking the President makes up for the lack of substance in your post. Typical neocon drivel. Punish an organization by depriving the poor who need their services. That is right up there with subsidizing private jets. Brilliant, just brilliant. I am not the one pulling post from my arse. You think that this kind of ignorant drivel gives you credibility? #27 permalink Does this mean that now you accept that you posted inane drivel? You feel attacked because you were shown that you are totally lacking on the topic? Other than your repetitive personal attacks totally devoid of originality, the rest of your remarks were either opinion, or inane attempts to support your opinions. To Cady: Motives! How about the Lefts motives? If foreign aid and abortion are connected why did you single out Israel? A bunch of countries get foreign aid along with United Nations abortion programs. The only motive pro-life people have is life. All of the political garbage the infanticide crowd throws out there is designed to move the debate away from their innate cruelty and hatred of life. Also, those elected Democrats the Left loves so much are in bed with Chinese Communists who leave unwanted children to die of disease and starvation in state run institutions. Then the brutality is justified in the Lefts usual convoluted logic Had those children been aborted we would not have to be so cruel. Its their fault for being born. Before you knock the pro-life position just remember this: Before the Communists implemented their culture of death wherever they gained a foothold it was Christian missionaries who stopped girl babies from being thrown in rivers in many parts of China and Africa. Finally, I will never understand why so many free Americans make heros out of elected officials like the late Ted Kennedy who devoted his entire political life to slaughtering children.
Oh, you do feel attacked because you were shown to post ignorance and drivel. You are the only one who can change that. Educate yourself, it is far more effective than using bold type. By the way, I posted no opinion, only pointed out that you posted nothing relevant, factual or intelligent.
It's the only country with universal health care/ free and reduced cost abortions that extreme anti-choice spokesmen are screaming about, "We must support (Israel)!" Sorry, you gave yourself away when you suggested abstinence for women, meaning, women shouldn't have sex, and if they do, they must suffer the consequences. Ted Kennedy was an admirable advocate for actual born children. He opposed the Iraq war, promoted health care reform and was a champion of the environment.
no infant exists in a early term abortion .. later on it is questionable. Fair enough .. this makes logical sense if you want to do away with medicare and medicaid and have a full user pay system. This is not likely to happen though. Abortion would likely save the taxpayer dollars in the long run. An unwanted child born to a single mother in impoverished conditions costs the taxpayer hundreds of times more than the abortion. For this reason I do not see this as a very good argument.
To Giftedone: Tax dollars going to foreign countries to fund abortions is one glaring flaw in the abortion crowd’s financial argument. Why should those children, wanted or not, born in a foreign countries cost American taxpayers anything? My position against funding abortions is also a financial argument, but it is one that comes down on the side of life, while those who use the financial argument to pay for abortions come down on the side of death. Everything else is rhetoric and talking points.
Im glad you recognise that there is debate on both sides. I would argue that when there is debate on both sides we should default to individual liberty. I disagree that the "moral" question is closed. Humans must kill to survive. There is no sanctity in Life .. in of itself. There is no sanctity in "human life" either. (human as an adjective). The sperm is alive, skin cells are alive, and so on. There is sanctity in "a human". I agree that there is a Potential. The DNA in the zygote is programmed to create a human. Termination of this programing will result in the stoppage of the process of the creation of a human. How to value this potential is an interesting question. . I disagree. The decision to abort can help both society and the individual. I do not think a 16 yr old man and woman's lives will necessarily benefit from having a child. I is a given that their opportunities will be increased if they do not have the child. It is well known that children born into a disfunctional environment have a greater chance of becoming a menace to society. There is no need to debate Medicare/Medicade. If you agree with these then it is very tough to come up with a rational to not fund abortion. If you disagree with medicare then you are consistent in not wanting to fund abortion. no income tax ! This is a long convo. I must admit to having libertarian leanings, but this is another thread. LOL indeed it would not ! This is another thread, but be careful what you wish for. History shows that if leave the poor unfed civil strife erupts and sometimes this leads to totalitarian regimes. Second: There have been few times in history when the raging masses have been so well armed. I was referring to the financial benefits of abortion in the USA (assuming we leave ammendment 16 in place) Rhetoric is referring using the loose term "life" as if it means something .. or even Human life as described above. There is no such thing as a "living human" with no brain or heartbeat. .. and you can not kill a dead human. There is "potential" for a human to exist. I am not sure how we value a "potential" human relative to a living human.
To Giftedone: You are correct about the well-armed part although I would not label them the raging masses.
This is exactly what is debated .. one side claims an infant exists .. the other claims it does not. Either you are for health care or your are not .. If you are not then there is no other rational required. This is sociology 101 .. Any survey of history recognizes the importance of feeding the poor to a stable society .. From Rome to " Let them eat Cake" .. to the British poor houses. Your arguments about communism do not address the central point. There is a big difference between a "totalitarian dictatorship" and a republic or democracy trying to create a stable society even if it did. Both systems create stability by making sure folks are fed. Try not feeding them and see how long it takes before the masses become a raging mob.
Have you happened to notice that in the last few hundred years the world has gotten smaller and smaller? Today, everything in the world has the capability to influence most anything else. It is an absolute fact that what any govt does, is bound to be noticed by each other govt, sooner or later. When noticed, it will certainly be considered and judged and future decisions will be made including knowledge of those acts. So yes, the UN is influencing decisions in our courts, as are actions by all state govts and all international and national govts around the world, which is as it should be. We do NOT live in a vacuum.
No federal funds are used for abortion services provided for by Planned Parenthood. It is expressly prohibited by the law. Most of Planned Parenthood services relate to reproductive services unrelated to abortion and that is what Planned Parenthood uses government funding for, not abortion. Planned Parenthood is the number one provider of reproductive services to women in the United States from what I understand. Infanticide does not relate to abortion. An infant is a baby after birth by defnition typically between birth and the ability to walk. Abortions relate to zygotes, embryos or a fetus and not to an infant. The UN is correct in including abortion as a part of it's programs for women. It is not engaged in social engineering which is what the anti-abortion advocates support. Abortion is a medical procedure that should be covered by insurance programs just like the removal of a cancer or cyst is covered. I oppose social engineering and what a woman chooses to do related to her own body is between her and her doctor and should not be politically restricted for the purpose of social engineering. We need to keep the US government out from between the legs of a woman just like we need to keep the US government out of the bedroom. It is none of the government's business whether a woman has an abortion as it is a medical procedure that doesn't violate the Rights of any sovereign individual.
