Just imagine how many lives could be saved, and the increase in the quality of each of those lives as well.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Pro-Life logic 101
Just imagine how many lives could be saved, and the increase in the quality of each of those lives as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have been hollering about the hypocrisy of the so-called pro life crowd for years. The same folks who claim every life is precious are the same folks who would let the kids starve once they are born since these folks are against food stamps, welfare and any type of help for moms with kids. I would also note that these same folks seem to be against any type of birth control. Don't they know that without birth control, well, births will not be contolled and the population and the number of kids and moms needing food assistance and income supports will increase substantially.
ReplyDeleteThe hypocrites don't seem to understand that people are going to have sex regardless. Humans have been having sex for as long as we have been human and no amount of preaching is going to stop that activity.
And the same hypocrites don't seem to have a problem when they send 18 year old boys to war to die. Are the lives of our young men not important? Is the child in the womb the only important life? It sure seems to be the only life these hypocrites care about.
Of course it is - they have no responsibility for it - that all falls to the gestating mother. They also don't have to see it, or be aware of its existence - guaranteed, these religious nutjobs ever get their way, pregnant women will be banned form public view.
DeleteKilling someone because their presence is an inconvenience in your life is wrong. It was wrong for native populations to be murdered for their presence in a land wanted by foreign invaders. Just as it is wrong to kill an borned child because it will make you work harder to provide substance to them. On another note, there are only a few days per month to impregnate someone. Plan and the chances of having a unplanned child are limited. It is not easy to impreganate someone, as you well know.
DeletePro-life means anti-war, anti-death penalty, a quality of life worth living for all. Like Jesus, those conservative religious Christians should want to heal the sick and feed the hungry as did Christ. By trying to enact some of the most anti-women policies, they are the Christian Taliban, throwing us back several centuries in history. They will not be satisfied with taking away the voting rights of the poor and the minorities, women will be next. These people are as bad as any other fanatic repressive religious group around.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I'm surprised that the photo of the young hungry child is white, aren't you? I mean, their real goal is to add to the white population while starving the non-white one to death.
ReplyDeleteLow information and easily stampeded… kind of like sheep.
ReplyDeleteThe “shepherds” are fully informed and quit capable of having abortions if necessary.
Keep plugging away. “It’s a good life if you don’t weaken,” as my dad used to say. (Thinking about him this weekend.)
OT-- but I thought you might like it-- have you heard about the Vatican scandal? And how the Vatican is holding a butler who released damning documents? It's the lead story on HuffPo. X
ReplyDeleteI've said it before but it bears repeating particularly in view of the arrest of the popes butler.
ReplyDeletehttp://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/04/the-cross-of-papal-infallibility/
Pregnant woman falling down the stairs in some states will currently be investigated criminally to ensure that she wasn't intentionally trying to force a miscarriage.
ReplyDeleteParents leaving loaded handguns on the coffee table where their toddlers reach for them and accidentally kill themselves are not charged (at least in my State and several others) for their neglect being responsible for the death of their child.
I've put this way: "Pro-lifers aren't actually pro-life. They're pro-birth. They only care about life before it's born. After birth, life is on its own."
ReplyDeleteOur Congressman, Dave Camp, Republican - MI, is an unabashed supporter of the "unborn" (his term) but he stops supporting children once they are born. Typical right-wing mean-spirited Republican. Also involved in ALEC.
DeleteOn the physical (not ideological) left shoudl be another frame with the RCC's anti-contraception stance on the issue - all sperm MUST be able to meet willing egg.
ReplyDeleteJust imagine how many lives could be saved, and the increase in the quality of each of those lives as well.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------------------------
Just think of how many abortions that would NOT happen if the mother didn't have to worry about the quality of that child's life if she chose to have it.
I think they are going about this ass backwards. But if they change their position on it now they will become what they have been screaming against. Socialists. Or is it communist? I can't keep up with the word of the week anymore.
Was talking about this with strangers (!) the other day. About Bart Stupak's speech when the ACA debate was going on, about him talking about his anti-abortion stance, but voting for ACA because it appeared as though the Dems were the only party concerned about pro-life after the child is born.
ReplyDeleteGet this straight right-wing whack jobs: we are ALL pro-life! And truly being pro-life means that we practice respect, care, compassion & humanity after a child is born, from conception through childhood, teens, adult, end-of-life. No child goes hungry, everyone has a fair shot at getting a job and feeding themselves &/or their families, healthcare throughout all phases, no effing "vouchers" for education & health care. And part of the respect part of the equation means pro-choice -- we respect the right of others to determine what they do with their bodies and the choices that they make that determine their own quality of life issues.
Totally agree with commenter above that points out that if these screaming lunatics who claim to be pro-life would approach the battle from the other end of the spectrum they'd save more unborn babies ------ you want pregnant women to carry their babies to term? Well then make sure that they have a shot at keeping those babies fed, clothed, housed & educated. If you can't commit to doing that then eff off.
Both the left and the right have got it wrong, it all comes down to their true motives if you really look at the big picture here.
DeleteAs far as the left, they ONLY care about the born life to get them on the dole later. That's how the Demonrats grow their "plantation": They take in those who would be deemed "disadvantaged" and bestow "help" which they package as charity but it's far from it. It's help that's not only designed to keep you dependent, it's to "buy" votes in a sense. Did you know about the "refugee welcome baskets" last year distributed by the Demonrats that contained blankets, food, and oh yeah voter registration forms? How much more transparency of their intent do you really need? In jail, when newbies make their way to their cell, inmates dangle candy through the bars going "here fishy fishy". The naive who accept the candy bar will take that as a gesture of kindness, when in reality a transaction has just been made, they have just "sold" themselves, for a snickers. Ditto for the Demonrat party. When they offer aid, it comes with a yoke. Always.
As for the republicans, I actually find their approach worse, and I'm not even a liberal: they only care about the born. And they prove by their actions that they're all about talk, and about INVOLVING OTHER PEOPLE when it comes to caring for the born child, just as long as it's not with THEIR tax dollars, no that's someone ELSE'S job. But when the child is UNBORN, they're ALL IN, FULLY INVOLVED. Fully involved in a solution? Hell no, unless you count shaming the woman, beating her face with a bible, and telling her to legally abandon her child (which they use a more attractive term like "putting up for adoption") as a solution. Which, these hypocritical dopes don't even realize that putting up for adoption is just another form of taxpayer welfare! The welfare they demonize so much, yet they hate abortion at the same time. You can't hate both and expect to solve anything. I've heard with my own ears their callous indifference of the child after it's born. But as a fetus, they're the most important being in all the cosmos?!? That's not pro-life, that's just pro-natalism! You'd think that, since they want unconditional birth so desperately, and they sell so hard the idea of keeping the child just to legally abandon it (put up for adoption) that it would EVEN DAWN ON THEM to ELECT THEMSELVES to save that child by adopting the child THEMSELVES! The absence of response to this is the epitome of their hypocrisy, and it underscores the fact that they care more about indulging their self righteous sanctimony with TALK than to actually DO anything. They want the child to be born so bad, why don't they offer to take the child in, wouldn't that in a sense close the loop? But their pious, egotistical selves have already moved on to shame the next pregnant female. They don't want to hear from that child until they're old enough to enlist or to vote...and since they will most likely grow up "disadvantaged" guess who will swoop in and pretend to be savior? The Demonrats. Whom they will later grow to become beholden to, as described in the beginning. The conservatards create the very Demonrats and demand for welfare they claim to hate. I take it that hasn't occurred to anyone yet, until now 🤔
It's useless trying to make sense of how the reichwing fundies regard procreation. Seems to me that they are so wound up in their own "guilt" about having sexual urges that they try their damnedest to tamp it down in anyone else. The N.M. Chief Medical Officer was recently fired because she was promoting condom use, and the Repub Governor insists on abstinence education. meanwhile, N.M. has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country!
ReplyDeleteBeing for contraception is being pro-life in that by allowing women to chose whether or not they can or cannot accept, raise and nurture a child means that the child who is born will be more likely wanted, cared for and respected.
ReplyDeleteWomen in abusive relationships should be able to prevent unwanted pregnancies because to bring a child into such a relationship is a form of child abuse. To make women give birth to children conceived due to rape is to cast a life-long shadow on that child. To make women have large families when men are free to walk away from their financial responsibilities is to condemn those children to the horror of poverty.
Besides, why should only a few be able to push their "religious" beliefs upon us all? Why aren't people standing up and calling this pro-life fanaticism what it is - an attempt to demand we all follow only one religious viewpoint?
White babies have hunger issues too, but somehow that fat cheeked little cutie didn't seem the right "model" for this picture.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the comments here. I don't know why the so-called pro-lifers can't (or won't) figure these things out.
My husband's cousin is retired and living in Orlando. Raised in Buffalo, married and lived most of her life in Ft Wayne, IN, so geography hasn't really contributed to her viewpoint. She hates the Democrats and the President, and hates the ACA -- if you can't afford health insurance, too darn bad. She's also anti-abortion and is an avowed GOPer. She's also well-educated (although sometimes I wonder!) and is a former high school teacher.
ReplyDeleteWhat is constant in her life is her religion -- Baptist. She attends her church regularly and listens to what her pastor has to say. Biggest problem as I see it is that preachers are allowed to spout politics from the pulpit, even though their church is tax-exempt. And religious teachings and reichwing politics seem to have merged. It's a terribly scary situation.
The poster sums it up rather neatly with one obvious flaw. I don't believe for a minute they are 'sorry you are hungry'.
ReplyDeleteIt's the darker side of 'jeebus loves you'. Comfortable people who believe they are loved by god assume that their comfort is a reward for being good xtians. And it therefore follows that 'uncomfortable' people (poor, sick, homeless, abused, etc) are not loved by Jeebus and are simply getting what they deserve...
Who are we, the logic continues, to allocate OUR divinely-authorized resources to alleviate suffering that Jeebus Hisownself imposed as a punishment to the true sinners out there. When put this way, it's almost blasphemous to help the poor!
Rmoney 2012!!
Stamp Out The Poor!
O/T: If only they will be truthful enough to clear up the facts about who writes under her name. Yes, they need to apologize for misconstruing that blog.
ReplyDeleteBristol (Nancy) Palin Admits Mistake In Blog Post On Abortion 5/26/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/26/bristol-palin-abortion-mistake_n_1548192.html
(Brancy) Palin apologized and corrected earlier statements she made about fetuses that are aborted because they have been diagnosed with Down Syndrome in a blog post on Friday.
"I’m sorry to say I think I unknowingly passed on incorrect information," Palin wrote.
...sorry to say she thinks...
"I’m sorry to say I think I unknowingly passed on incorrect information," is hypocrite talk for "I lied". I actually saw this on the news ticker on MSNBC. After Bristol Palin they had in parentheses (blogger and daughter of Sarah Palin, former vice presidential candidate) this is "ticker worthy" and "news" in what respect?
DeleteSadly, there are people in this world who actually "buy" this bullshit. It's all about controlling women, building up the flock (people in the pews/theater seats/and watching talibanvangelical tee vee,) to keep the cash flowing, and replenishing the menu of pedophilia victims in some cases.
ReplyDeleteYet, what DO they do for the fetuses once they're viable and outside the womb? They slash help for the poor, and the excuse under the right photo is what they actually think.
No woman or couple makes the decision to have an abortion lightly, and sometimes there are medical reasons to terminate a pregnancy. No form of birth control is 100 percent guaranteed effective, and having safe, sanitary, abortions done by professional doctors should be available for those who chose. Those who don't believe in it shouldn't have one, and shouldn't stand in judgement of those who do.
Many churches are against gambling, yet have bingo in their school halls, send crap for kids to sell to raise funds, they even collected for "Pagan babies" in the sixties, anything for a buck. I know it's a false analogy, but it shows their hypocrisy.
Pardon my rant, this happens to be an issue I care about.
Driving the Pennsylvania Turnpike this memorial day weekend was like going through a pro-life gauntlet, shaming you for daring to think of that egg in your fallopian tube as nothing but a baby-to-be.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, as soon as it is born, you and especially that baby are on your own.
If only we were all lucky and lazy enough to be a fertile mertile like a Palin and have any of 'em, all of 'em long extended family to take care of your brood while you lounge in your pajama's doodling on your white paper, dreaming of the day you'll rule the world and lecture others about who you can marry, when to have a baby and whatnot.
Killing someone because their presence is an inconvenience in your life is wrong. It was wrong for native populations to be murdered for their presence in a land wanted by foreign invaders. Just as it is wrong to kill an borned child because it will make you work harder to provide substance to them. On another note, there are only a few days per month to impregnate someone. Plan and the chances of having a unplanned child are limited. It is not easy to impreganate someone, as you well know.
ReplyDeleteDon't your readers realize the hypocrisy of your blog? you claim to search for the truth while using easily countered tactics. Would your rather have an innocent child put to death because of the actions the parents caused than be put into foster care or have an open adoption so the parents can be a presence in their life while the child can have a happy and productive life with a chance of giving back to society? Also low income doesn't mean low interest I am 14 and have an actual job and in all honors classes. I also come from an economically repressed area, so if I save up until I am 18 I can go to a good college and university(of course with scholarships) and have a functioning family. Also with government aids they can get back on their feet if they want In reality I am closer to "the truth" than you can ever be so you might as well send the money you are using to find "the truth" to give to cancer research and also anti-abortionists.
ReplyDeleteThis is the genetic fallacy - the picture assumes the Pro-Life argument (that human life has inherent value) to be wrong, and continues on that assumption to mock the movement for not addressing another issue on a tangent. If the Pro-Life argument is true, then the most essential thing to do would be firstly to make sure the baby arrives alive and either gets raised or given to the millions who cannot conceive children of their own; secondly, to supply them with the necessary resources to become sustainable adults. Certainly that would be the logical thing to do? We should thus focus on increasing the resources, not to lessen the number of children allowed to live. To murder someone because they cannot sustain themselves is an unbelievable argument, as it would beg the question: should we then murder the homeless? Should we murder the already born handicapped among us? As you can see, this question is far more nuanced and complex than you are willing to concede.
ReplyDeleteA more accurate term than "pro-life" would really be PRO-NATAL.
ReplyDeleteA true "every life is precious" pro lifer would also be anti-war, gun control advocates and vegan, and when do you ever see that? In fact, it's often the exact opposite: the most vociferous pro-natalists deluded into believing they're pro life are actually most often the ones who pile on the MOST bacon! Hunt whether they need the meat or not (usually NOT), have the most guns and support most if not all of our wars! Pro-life indeed ��