Idealism goes astray in 'personhood' issue
Janet Brazill, Colorado Springs
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Idealism in young people is a wonderful thing. Usually.
But idealism wrongly applied can cause great harm.
Such is Amendment 48, the "personhood" initiative, which Colorado voters will have to consider in November. The young woman who is credited with promoting this initiative believes that if a fertilized egg is declared a "person," she will be able to stop the use of many contraceptives and all abortions.
The fertilized egg - especially before implantation, which is when some contraceptives can take effect - is unable to feel pain. Compare that to the woman who has a medical condition that requires contraceptives to prevent further births and the pain, even death, she will suffer, deprived of contraceptives. Or, the women who need abortions for life-saving reasons, such as ectopic pregnancies, but will be unable to obtain them.
Already, the United States ranks first among developed nations in the number of women who die from pregnancy-related complications.
Sadly, her "idealistic" action only will increase such suffering.
If this young woman truly wants to do good, she should work to ensure that women have the chance to survive pregnancy and bear healthy children. That means providing reproductive health services, from contraception to prenatal care.
July 7, 2008
5:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
Should we consider what God wants, in making the decision about whether or not to kill babies?
Or should people disregard God, and use only 'human intellect'??
July 7, 2008
6:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wechasa writes:
A fertilized egg is NOT a "baby". And this whole imbecilic notion should have been left to the sick child's fever dream, where it originated.
July 7, 2008
7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
@ Lets[not]Think: Who cares what God wants?
He/she/it doesn't even exist.
July 7, 2008
7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
Does anyone else find it odd that a child is allowed to weigh in on a public policy issue?
July 7, 2008
7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Easy answers to dumb questions episode # 4,947:
Question:
"Should we consider what God wants, in making the decision about whether or not to kill babies?"
Answer:
No.
July 7, 2008
7:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
becca, "Does anyone else find it odd that a child is allowed to weigh in on a public policy issue?", sign of the times, to not would be to risk stiffling her and permanantly scarring her.
July 7, 2008
7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Blair writes:
I agree with the letter writer in that idealism can lead to many harmful consequences. This initiative is a great example of idealism without coherent forethought.
By changing the legal day/time definition of personhood to the moment of conception, you have not only outlawed abortion, you will have removed the parental authority to make medical decisions for the fetus. Will medical procedures require the consent of this new “person”, a court appointed child advocate or maybe some government committee?
I understand that there are people opposed to abortion and applaud them for their convictions. I do not applaud or agree with their tactics to force those convictions on EVERYONE else. Tolerance and compassion seems to be two words that are left out of the thinking processes of those that are so adamant and militant in those convictions. Is not the simplest solution to apply those convictions to your own life and allow others to make their own decisions?
July 7, 2008
7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
mozillauser writes:
If a fetus is a person, wouldn't miscarriage be involuntary manslaughter?
If the writers wanted to ban abortion, they could have written it that way. I would oppose it, but at least it would have been honest. The way the wording is written, miscarriage as manslaughter will have to be considered part of the intent of the amendment... In other words, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, this one is not the right way forward.
July 7, 2008
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Great points Blair. You stole my thunder.
July 7, 2008
9:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Good post Blair.
Mozillauser,
"If a fetus is a person, wouldn't miscarriage be involuntary manslaughter?"
You can count on it. A woman drinks alcohol, damages the fetus, she goes to jail. Woman lifts more weight than she supposed to, has miscarriage, she goes to jail.
This is the stupidest amendment we will vote on this November and just another sinister plot by the prolifers to stop abortion. If this ridiculous thing passes on November 4 and I were a woman, I'd have my tubes tied on November 5.
July 7, 2008
9:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wechasa writes:
ONLY IN COWLORADO
Among the weird, wacky, and wonderful manifestations of religion to be found in Cowlorado, the latest burgeoning cult is that of the “Fertilized-Egg-Person”. Tracing its inception to a sick child’s fever dream, the cult seeks to amend the State Constitution to create full “legal rights” for its particular deity. Among other provisions of this attempt to establish a religion in the State, these “legal rights” would commence at the moment of conception; and the Fertilized-Egg-Person would thereafter be regarded at law in the same way as a fully developed human being.
The stated object of the cult is to forever ban abortions – even medically necessary ones – and to invoke the power of the civil government to criminalize any and all forms of what they call “murder of the unborn child”. Even spontaneous miscarriages would be subject to criminal penalties, as a form of homicide. And any and all forms of contraception would be outlawed as well, as being “abortifacients”; since for the cultists the only “permissible reason” for sex is the intention to procreate.
Among the weak minded – especially those already troubled by the multiplicity of sexual taboos and phobias contained in the so called “fundamentalist” religions – the Fertilized-Egg-Person Cult is proving to be an attractive opportunity for imposing the level of their own frustrations, incapacities, and incapabilities on the rest of society; and, thereby, aiding in the efforts to halt the whole of human progress, growth, and development out of the benighted depths of superstitious ignorance. Of course, these efforts are, fully and enthusiastically, encouraged, supported, and furthered by the “fundamentalist” cult gurus and panjandrums who infest the area; and whose basic influence, direction, and control is evidenced in their own rush to generate interest in the “inspiration” of the sick child’s fever dream.
Will the Fertilized-Egg-Person cult come to take its place among other Cowlorado groups who have assaulted the principle of separation of church and state with their fantastic premises of reactionary regression? Only time will tell, of course. But, forewarned is forearmed. And we all know the truth of the old adage: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”
July 7, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Romulus writes:
Many of those fertilized eggs never even implant in the uterus. They wind up going straight down the toilet. If a fertilized egg is a person, wouldn't that make God the biggest abortionist of all?
July 7, 2008
9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Poor comparison PajamaPulitzer. Late Term abortion happen rarely and to a very small percentage of women. This amendment affects the life of every woman in Colorado.
July 7, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
PajamaPulitzer,
Once again an extreme and poor comparison.
July 7, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
titancain writes:
When this amendment goes down in flames, will the far rightwingers shut up?
July 7, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
PajamaPulitzer,
"People like you want to use abortion on demand as a form of birth control which puts you at odds with the majority of Americans."
This statement just proves how out of touch you are.
July 7, 2008
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
pjmama...more conspiracy theories about people thinking themselves "gods"?
why does any type of "god" have to come into the equation?
what is with the fascination with the supernatural?
bottom line folks...the anti-choice movement's position DOESN'T decrease abortions...but rather makes them less safe for the woman.
the majority of americans don't want roe overturned.
the majority of americans want abortion to remain safe, legal and rare.
why the need to push your superstitious beliefs on the majority of americans?
July 7, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
My,my,my.....The letter writer says that it's just too idealistic to expect the public to turn a tap.Maybe it is,although I'm having difficulty figuring out how the human species has devolved so quickly as to be unable to match the pre AND post-natal nurturing skills of even the grandparents of those now of childbearing age.Skills obtained,by the way,with only a small fraction of the legal,informational,technological,medical,and nutritional resources now available.
July 7, 2008
11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
pjmama...if you encounter logic you can't counter....pouting isn't a viable defense mechanism.
let's recap:
the anti-choice movement's position DOESN'T decrease abortions...but rather makes them less safe for the woman.
the majority of americans don't want roe overturned.
the majority of americans want abortion to remain safe, legal and rare.
July 7, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Face it, Abortion is a selfish act - putting your own comfort ahead of and more important than someone else's life. Abortion is a selfish act aimed at avoiding the consequences of willingly engaging in the necessary act to become pregnant (I willingly separate out those who have been raped, etc.)
Every child, born and unborn, deserves a chance at life, regardless of the circumstances born into.
July 7, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Run-on sentence of the day courtesy PajamaPeabody:
"LetsThink: Becca, Charles, Marshdale, et. al. will deride you every time you even mention the name of God and will question His very existence yet it is interesting that they do not question their own existence as they proceed to play the role of a god in deciding who lives and who dies."
A veritable mouthful of metaphysical mish-mash from our resident misanthropic missionary.
July 7, 2008
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
@ Pajamas: You said. "Ms. Brazill: I sourced your comment . . . verbatim from articles attributed to Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup. Consider your objectivity on this matter to be trashed."
Good example of an ad hominem attack. And I will consider your objectivity trashed as well.
However, does the source render the data any less factual? Does the source render the data any less relevant?
If you wish to counter the claim, then offer evidence to refute the claim. The source of the claim is irrelevant if the data is supported by evidence.
July 7, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
Letsthink asks, "Should we consider what God wants, in making the decision about whether or not to kill babies?"
I respond, yes, indeed you should, if you believe in a deity that expects such things. But why assume that everyone else does?
And as for the whole "killing a baby" argument... Hogwash. None of you are ignorant enough to really think an egg is the same thing as baby. The emotive languge in the arguments alone is enough to disqualify you from rational discussion.
July 7, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Banning abortion I can almost (but not quite) understand, but banning contraceptives? It's just like I've said before: some overly-zealous religious folks are trying to outlaw sex unless you're married and trying to make babies.
If you belive in god, then follow god's laws. I'd like to see LetsThink (and his pals) forced to follow the laws of other religions and see how they like having somebody else's beliefs forced upon them. After all, it's one god, isn't it?
July 7, 2008
12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Art writes:
There are DAs who are already researching how to prosecute a woman for manslaughter if they have a miscarriage should this amendment pass. This amendment is very misogynistic. It will relegate women of child bearing age to second class citizens since it will require that all sorts of restrictions on their activities be put into place to assure that they do not have miscarriages. Another interesting sidelight, if the fertilized egg is a person and the mother commits a crime then will the fertilzed egg/person be charged as an accomplice in the crime? There are just too many odd ramifications from this proposal. We have had bad ideas on legislation before such as amendment 2 and amendment 41, but this is the absolute worst.
July 7, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
raysmom writes:
Can I interject a question about this amendment that has nothing to do with God or with a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child? And don't try to gloss it- that's what an abortion is, even if I do believe they should be legal and safe (but not late term, and not with tax dollars), which I do.
What about the women who lose their unborn children due to the criminal acts and/or negligence of another party? It happens with frequency- a drunk driver hits a pregnant woman's car and the baby dies, an abusive mate beats the woman and the baby dies, you know the spiel. Under the current laws, these people who killed these unborn babies, (and I guarantee you, the mother considers them her baby from the day she finds out she is pregnant), these people cannot be charged with the murder or manslaughter of her child. Where is HER CHOICE to consider her child a person? Or is CHOICE only for those who want to (or must, in all fairness) terminate a pregnancy?
This may not be the perfect way to do it, but I think we must, as a society, show some intrisic value for the unborn, and most of the posts above against the "personhood" initiative show no concern at all for the baby or anybody who doesn't agree with their de-humanizing of an unborn fetus to suit their agenda. Shouldn't there be some middle ground here?
July 7, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
Raysmom, I understand your feeling, but no, there can't be any middle ground. A fertilized egg is not a baby, even if, as a mother, I wish it to be. It will be a baby when it reaches the stage at which it can survive the birth. Till then, the same rules apply to me that apply to all women carrying an embryo or a fetus. Its the only fair way to do it, otherwise, my baby is more of a person than your baby is, merely because I really want mine. That set of circumstances couldn't even be legally defined.
July 7, 2008
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
I agree with Raysmom on this double edged sword. Over aggressive prosecutors opened up this pandora's box by allowing this. However, think about this, these will be the same prosecutors going after your wife if she miscarries and they think they can prove neglect. Maybe they won't win but it will cost you a small fortune, win or loose, to defend her.
This would be a terrible thing for Colorado women should this thing pass.
July 7, 2008
12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
For the record, despite my opposition to abortion on demand, I also oppose this amendment as a poorly thought out circumvention to Roe v. Wade.
Old Grouch, you really should get that persecution complex checked out. I know that medical practitioners aren't supposed to practice on their families or themselves, but certainly you could get one of your quack buddies to write you a script for Thorazine.
jay, someone like you should never invoke logic. The fact that you pout about anyone disagreeing with you and then provide a bunch of unproven assertions does not make you a logician.
"the anti-choice movement's position DOESN'T decrease abortions...but rather makes them less safe for the woman."
While I might agree with the latter part of this, the first part is nonsense. Why you would try and argue that illegalizing something would not decrease its frequency is beyond me. All it would take is one woman not having an abortion due to its legal status to disprove this statement(since I'm certainly not going to buy the idea that women who weren't already going to have abortions choosing to have them in protest of the legal issue). To put it in a different context, I know of a couple people who would smoke pot were it of the same legal status as alcohol, they choose not to because they don't want to risk the consequences of being caught, i.e. losing their jobs or kids.
"the majority of americans don't want roe overturned.
the majority of americans want abortion to remain safe, legal and rare."
How do you make these inferences? You certainly haven't provided any evidence to support them, and barring a link to very statistically sturdy sociological research, I don't think that you can. The amount of lurking variables in trying to measure the attitudes of a physically large, 300,000,000 person population is, in my opinion, an insurmountable obstacle to proving what a "majority of Americans" want.
I want to steal part of a post from El_Guapo on the Campos column thread, as I think it is relevant here in the context of "pro-choice".
"Women should be free to have sex with whomever they want, make a unilateral decision to keep or not keep any resulting fetuses, and unilaterally support any children they decide to keep.
Men should be free to have sex with whomever they want and have no obligation to support any resulting children. After all, women, not men, make the choice whether a pregnancy continues to term. Because men have no choice, they should have no responsibility.
Sex, as we all know, is only about pleasure, not procreation.
Sounds like paradise, doesn't it? Women get the choices and the children. Men get lots of free sex without worrying about the consequences."
Isn't that what we should have according to the "pro-choice" side of the argument?
July 7, 2008
1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
"Sounds like paradise, doesn't it? Women get the choices and the children. Men get lots of free sex without worrying about the consequences."
It's pretty much that way now.
I personally have no problem with that.
July 7, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
KarlCheney writes:
The same people who want to outlaw abortion and call a fetus a person are the same crowd not wanting universal health care for children. This same crowd will be on the threads complaining that they have to pay for someone else's child's health care or schooling. But they want to protect the fetus until birth, after that you are on your own kids.....
July 7, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
conniesz writes:
Here's a web site: http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/9...
The US MMR (Maternal Mortality Ratio) is 11/100,000
By contrast, here are some other numbers:
Iceland 4
Australia 4
Sweden 3
Germany 4
Greece 3
France 8
Japan 6
Slovenia 6
Korea 14
Argentina 77
Mexico 60
Saudi Arabia 18
Egypt 130
Israel 4
Mongolia 46
Peru 240
This is a random sample - check it out for yourselves. We are not the best by any means, but we're a long ways from the worst - of course much of this depends on how you define "developed country" - perhaps we are near the bottom in that category if you define it carefully.
July 7, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Reason writes:
Men should be free to have sex with whomever they want and have no obligation to support any resulting children.
Unless the man is married to the woman I agree.
Wachesa; The personhood amendment is not only in Colorado, at least Michigan and Montana, to name 2 also have amendments.
Bad amendment, not even the mother always knows exactly when they are pregnant. Too many variables to miscarriages, can’t be enforced and I wouldn’t want my government enforcing it.
KarlCheney writes:
"The same people who want to outlaw abortion and call a fetus a person are the same crowd not wanting universal health care for children." I don't want "universal health care" for children and I don't think abortion should be outlawed. I think parents are responsible for their children and paying for their healthcare, I also think there can be exceptions (poverty, developmental disability).
July 7, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Absolutely Karl.
Here's the thing, they really don't care about the unborn, for some their simply a tool to obtain the goal of controlling women. For others, like the fundamentalist's, the unborn fetus is a source of punishment for those women who dare to have sex outside of wedlock. Abortion is to easy a way out from that punishment.
You can easily tell this in there actions. Note Pajama's response, doesn't want the unborn aborted doesn't want to take any responsibility for them after their born and I have yet to see any prolifer in here or anyplace advocate better training for young adults so they can understand whats available to them to prevent pregnancy. However, you will see them advocating against planned parenthood, the very organization that can help prevent pregnancies and thus abortions. A very hypocritical lot, yes, but also a lot with an agenda against women as well.
July 7, 2008
1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Mortality rates is not necessarily an indication on quality of health care. Lifestyles and culture also play a big part. Americans are overweight and don't exercise enough, regardless of how good the doctor is the patient still needs to comply. We also allow more immigration than any other nation which can also affect maternal birth mortality rates.
July 7, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
hi reason, you're my favorite Concern Troll.
can i just post a thread in which these points were proven as facts and have you read it? i really don't feel like sifting and cutting and pasting yet again because of theologically and/or politically induced willful ignorance.
July 7, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
KarlCheney writes:
Pajama,
No I don't think I deserve handouts for being born, however I believe if you really want to take care of our kids they should all have health care regardless of economic situation (even the rich) and access to a good education. Past 18 you are an adult and should make choices for yourself. But if you want to protect the unborn I think you should take care of those that are born.
July 7, 2008
2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
It would be nice if we could focus more on helping the 'already born'...just received this message and thought it was appropriate to add to this discussion.
On June 26, the Bush Administration announced that, for the seventh straight year, it would withhold funding for the United Nations Population Fund. Given the important work that this agency does to slow global population growth and save women's lives, this announcement is appalling.
July 11 is World Population Day. The world's population is currently 6.7 billion people, and our numbers are likely to grow to between 7.8 and 10.8 billion by 2050 according to demographers at the United Nations.
Through positive and cost-effective programs like the UN Population Fund, we can provide educational opportunities for girls, expand economic opportunities for women, and expand access to comprehensive reproductive health and family planning services to millions of women and couples around the world. We can help improve the lives of children and families.
World Population Day reminds us that individuals have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and timing of their children. When people can plan their families, they can plan their lives. They can plan to beat poverty. They can plan on healthier mothers, healthier children, and a healthier planet.
July 7, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
KarlCheney at 1:21, two decades ago, Time magazine had a series of articles on abortion. A Congressperson whose name I don't remember made very similar points as yours. He concluded that some pro-lifers believe in post-partum abortion. To this day, I think that's a fantastic summation of their position.
The personhood amendment's problems go far beyond reproductive issues, miscarriages, etc. If a pregnant woman is sent to jail, can a defense attorney argue that the "embyonic or fetal person" the woman is carrying is being falsely imprisoned without charges or a trial and is therefore being denied due process in violation of Amendment 48, and by extenion thereof, sections 25 and 18 of Article II of the Colorado Constitution?
The "personhood" amendment could be applied to the Census counting, probate, and other areas. It ought to be called the Attorneys Full Employment Act.
LetsThink, in response to your very first post, when it comes to civil laws, my answers are "no" and "yes". What you think God wants and what other people of faith think Gods wants are radically different. Keep your God's paws off women's private decisions.
mozillauser at 7:59, I agree with you. This amendment is intellectually dishonest. If the sponsors wanted to challenge legal abortion and Roe v. Wade, they should have sponsored a straightforward ban. But they knew they'd lose at the polls, and lose big. So they're trying deceit.
July 7, 2008
3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
soccermom; "Family Planning" apparently includes abortion; in my opinion I don't think that tax dollars should go for abortions when it is for "family planning". I have no problem with tax dollars going for an abortion that is needed because the mother's life is at risk, if the mother cannot afford it. I don't think that a situation where the mother is at risk of losing her life is planned. I do think that "family planning" is a good thing that can be accomplished without abortion. It seems that the pro-abortion side doesn't think "family planning" can be done without abortion. I'm not sure if United Nations Population Fund includes abortion (the website doesn't make that clear, wonder why?) but if it does then I would agree with the president.
Appalling?
July 7, 2008
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Once again, I post this seminal example of just how shallow the thinking of the "pro-life" movement is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_t...
July 7, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
BTW, the United States pays 22% of the U.N. budget. China, for instance pays 2.667% of the U.N. budget. The U.S. pays more than any other country, Japan is second paying 16.624%.
Appalling?
July 7, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
@ Pajamas: You said, "Nice try requesting that I prove a negative. The onus of proof is on the writer."
Umm ... How is requesting controverting evidence for factual data trying to "prove a negative"?
Asking someone to disprove something is not the same thing as asking someone to engage in the logical impossibility of "proving a negative."
If I state that a square has an area of 150 square feet you can prove me wrong be showing that the sides of the square are 15 ft. each, resulting in an area of 225 square feet (15 x 15 = 225).
By the same token, the writer claims that the U.S. has the highest mortality rate of developed countries. You can disprove that by showing another developed country that has a higher mortality rate. Or you could show how the data calculations are incorrect or flawed.
But you cannot simply state that just because the comment was said by someone else, it is therefore invalid and trashes one's ability to be objective. ... well, I suppose you could say it, but then you'd just look incredibly stupid.
Oh, and while we're at it, for you who insists that the onus of proof is on the writer making the claim, do you care to offer any evidence to prove your god exists?
July 7, 2008
3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
" "Family Planning" apparently includes abortion; in my opinion I don't think that tax dollars should go for abortions when it is for "family planning"."
wasn't there a law passed recently that addressed this issue? are public tax dollars used for abortions any longer?
"It seems that the pro-abortion side doesn't think "family planning" can be done without abortion."
not so much. first, no one is "pro-abortion". in fact, if anyone IS "pro-abortion", it is the abstinence-only, anti-contraceptive access, pro-life crowd. secondly, family planning is about birth control, proper education and abortion as a last resort, not the first.
where do you guys come up with this stuff?
July 7, 2008
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
jay, I used to think no one is pro-abortion I have recently changed my mind. I do think there are extremists that are pro-abortion.
If abortion is a last resort why don't they just make that clear; the United Nations Population Fund does not make that clear at all. I hope all abortions are a last resort, most probably are.
July 7, 2008
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
"wasn't there a law passed recently that addressed this issue? are public tax dollars used for abortions any longer?"
If the U.S. was to give money to the UNPF that is tax dollars.
July 7, 2008
3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
brain, i just don't see what you're talking about here:
UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, is an international development agency that promotes the right of every woman, man and child to enjoy a life of health and equal opportunity. UNFPA supports countries in using population data for policies and programmes to reduce poverty and to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.
UNFPA seeks to improve the lives and expand the choices of individuals and couples. Over time, the reproductive choices they make, multiplied across communities and countries, alter population structures and trends.
UNFPA helps governments, at their request, to formulate policies and strategies to reduce poverty and support sustainable development. The Fund also assists countries to collect and analyse population data that can help them understand population trends. And it encourages governments to take into account the needs of future generations, as well as those alive today.
The close links between sustainable development and reproductive health and gender equality, the other main areas of UNFPA's work, were affirmed at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo. UNFPA is guided in its work by the Programme of Action adopted there. At the conference, 179 countries agreed that meeting needs for education and health, including reproductive health, is a prerequisite for sustainable development over the longer term. They also agreed on a roadmap for progress with the following goals:
Universal access to reproductive health services by 2015
Universal primary education and closing the gender gap in education by 2015
Reducing maternal mortality by 75 per cent by 2015
Reducing infant mortality
Increasing life expectancy
Reducing HIV infection rates
http://www.unfpa.org/about/
July 7, 2008
3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
I take back my last post about the UNPF.
"In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning"
That is from their website, sorry.
July 7, 2008
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
"It's pretty much that way now.
I personally have no problem with that."
You're kidding, right?
"The same people who want to outlaw abortion and call a fetus a person are the same crowd not wanting universal health care for children."
Here we go, "it's for the children". I'm opposed to universal healthcare, period. There are a number of reasons, one of the primary ones being that I'm fairly libertarian and I don't think that the entire population should be stuck with the bill for people who inflict damage upon themselves. Wanna smoke crack in the privacy of your home? Go for it, but don't expect the non-crackheads to pick up the tab. Same goes for obesity, since fat kids often grow into fat adults from overeating(and no, I don't buy Composts' argument about a lack of health consequences from obesity).
"This same crowd will be on the threads complaining that they have to pay for someone else's child's health care or schooling."
It doesn't bother me to pay for someone else's healthcare, as that's a choice I made with my money when I paid for insurance. Does it piss me off that I had to pay twice for my kids to get a decent education? Absolutely. Vouchers would be a far more effective way of providing the next generation with decent educations.
"But they want to protect the fetus until birth, after that you are on your own kids....."
I can't speak for anyone else, but I have just as much of a problem with someone tossing their infant into the dumpster as having a doctor do it for them.
"they really don't care about the unborn, for some their simply a tool to obtain the goal of controlling women."
Stereotypes are a real time saver, aren't they? What bothers me about convenience abortions is that they're a needless destruction of life. I could care less about "controlling women", unless by controlling you mean providing disincentives to dodging responsibility for their choices. If people want to have unprotected sex, that's fine, but don't expect me be tolerant of killing a life to get out of dealing with the consequences of that decision.
"doesn't want to take any responsibility for them after their born"
Of course not, that's the responsibility of the parents. If you want to give me a sob story about "the children", pick one outside of the wealthiest nation on the planet.
"I have yet to see any prolifer in here or anyplace advocate better training for young adults so they can understand whats available to them to prevent pregnancy."
Generalizations are so simple, why didn't I see that the world can be lumped into easily distinguishable categories? I fully advocate comprehensive sex ed for young people, however, I'm not so naive as to think it will prevent them from having unprotected sex. If they're old enough to have sex, they're old enough to deal the the consequences.
July 7, 2008
4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
"advocating against planned parenthood"
Are you referring to the Planned Parenthood founded by Margaret Sanger, who advocated using the organization and abortion as a means of eugenics? The Margaret Sanger who thought abortion should be used as a way to make that pesky "black" problem disappear into the biowaste bin?
jay, I'm quite sure that you haven't "proven" many "facts", ever, on this forum. As stated earlier, you like to make lists of unproven assertions, not the same thing at all. But I can't help someone as willfully ignorant as you understand that.
"in fact, if anyone IS "pro-abortion", it is the abstinence-only, anti-contraceptive access, pro-life crowd."
Do you smoke crack? Not that I think there's anything morally wrong with that so long as you limit its effects to yourself, but maybe you should put down the pipe before going to the keyboard.
July 7, 2008
4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
What is it with you and "crack", Reason???
July 7, 2008
4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
reason the Concern Troll...you never did answer my last question...and until you do, i'd appreciate you not lying about me, got it?
go troll somewhere else.
July 7, 2008
5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
"where do you guys come up with this stuff?"
I understand that this concept is foreign to you, but some of us actually read and come up with our own ideas based upon our read, then read some more to see whether our own ideas jive with available evidence. Not everyone has an addiction to cut and paste from DailyKos like you do jay.
I'm a little disappointed that I didn't get a "pout" or "willful ignorance" from you, did you finally get tired of being the RMN catch phrase comic relief, or just realize that repeating yourself ad nauseam makes you seem a little simple?
PS If you're familiar with the term troll, I would think you'd be familiar with the phrase- Don't feed the trolls(or expect them to obey whiny partisan tools).
July 7, 2008
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
reason, did you come to terms with the facts that the majority of americans don't want roe overturned, want abortion to remain legal and the anti-choice movement won't decrease abortions...or are you still sticking to the willful ignorance when faced with theologicall/politically inconvenient information?
there you go...how's that my little Concern Troll?
July 7, 2008
5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Jay,
Thank you for posting the information from the UNFPA.
Brain, how many abortions were there last year? Who do you think should be responsible for all those children if women are required to give birth to those children? Okay, so let's say that all children have DNA testing and all the males accept financial responsibility for the children that they helped create. Pay for their college and healthcare. Why should the women bear full responsibility? If the men can't afford it, then go after the grandparents. Is that fair? This law would be a nightmare.
Yes, it is appalling to cut funding for a program just because some folks don't agree with everything it does. Access to abortions is not the primary focus, why does the far right continue to use it as a wedge issue?
July 7, 2008
5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
becca framed this well:
@ Lets[not]Think: Who cares what God wants?
He/she/it doesn't even exist
-------------------------
If God doesn't exist then of course it absolutely approportiate to end any life which doesn't serve the social interest. The Supreme Court has in this case determined that even the innocent life in the womb is outside our consideration or obligation to protect if that is what the mother decides.
We do have a problem though if we consider the Founder's were right when they asserted that certain rights, including the right to life, are endowed not by society by the Creator.
If that's true then society has an obligation to protect the innocent life in the womb - keeping in mind that abortion is an issue because it is used as a method of birth control.
So the question becomes: What type of society do you want? The brave new worlders will construct new society where rights are endowed not by the Creator but by the state. In this new world we can kill our young if it seems to us, or at least to a Court, like a good idea because, after all, there is no higher authority than the dictates of our conscience and so we decide for ourselves who may live and who may not.
Or do you want to live in a society based on the belief that rights are endowed by the Creator and it is the responsibility of a just government to protect those rights?
The choice is clear.
July 7, 2008
6:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
It is basically a vote to get opinions, and it will not change scientific fact. Letting this thing even go to a vote is ridiculous.
July 7, 2008
6:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
A word of warning for all you pro life women who are of childbearing age, don`t get pregnant unless you are prepared to answer to your mother-in-law, or other in-laws about your behavior during your pregnancy. One complaint to the fetal police and your life will never be the same if you miscarry after such a complaint.
If your pregnancy ends badly and you want to sue your doctor, he or she will say you didn`t follow all their instructions to the letter, thus causing the murder of your unborn person.
Stay far back from any girl old enough to be pregnant. Now if you accidentally make her fall down and she does miscarry, you are not held responsible, but under this law, who knows.
Actually that is the big deal here, who knows what this might lead to?
Eventually some state may pass this, and that will be the first and last one to do so, after all the problems are straightened out.
Again the poor unmarried girls will get the worst of this law. But I think conservs don`t want these girls to have sex anyway. This would be a lovely "Told you so " law in their vindictive hands.
July 7, 2008
6:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Soccermom,you raise the question of what to do about all the extra kids coming into being because of the Personhood Amendment.There are a couple of answers.The first is that a woman narcissistic enough to have an abortion for convenience's sake is very likely to discover the benefits of getting it straight about the use of birth control once the law starts to insist that the consequences of an "oops" can last a long time indeed.Another answer is that for those too narcissistic to think straight,there is a large group of deep-pocketed people eager to adopt.There is also a money-hungry government who'll sooner or later figure out that enforced relinquishment means big $$ saved on the welfare side and bigger $$ collected in the form of adoption fees.
July 7, 2008
6:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
jay, I've come to terms with the fact that you are incapable of providing a straight answer or a basis for your assertions. If you want to believe in DailyKos skydaddy statistics to feel like you're right, go for it.
My opposition is neither theological nor political, but if creating stereotypes based on a single opinion helps you get through the day, again, go for it. I think you might like this article on the subject of Republican idiocy.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/...
"how many abortions were there last year?"
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is affiliated with Planned Parenthood, there were 1.21 million abortions in 2005.
"Who do you think should be responsible for all those children if women are required to give birth to those children?"
The parents.
"why does the far right continue to use it as a wedge issue?"
One hardly need be far right to be bothered by blase destruction of life for no better reason than convenience.
me2, you like sensationalism, don't you?
July 7, 2008
7:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
@ Yankee: Nice to see you found a noun and a verb you could use together. Too bad you can't use them to understand that ethics and morality are not the sole dominion of Biblical literalists and other religious nuts (cashews, et al.).
Regarding the Creator of the Declaration of Independence:
The philosophical intent of the use of "Creator"—"… endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights …"—is to state that the rights we possess are inherent and inalienable by virtue of our very existence, regardless of whether we are created by the Judeo-Christian God, some other god, or by cosmic happenstance. Thus, even if it is somehow proven that no god exists at all and we are the creations of little green men from another galaxy, it still stands that our rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are, and remain, inalienable.
Yet the Declaration’s language of “Nature’s God” and the “Creator”--tenuously religious terms of 18th Century Deists, skeptical of religion and the Judeo-Christian God--are nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. Instead we find prohibitions. Article VI mandates that “no religious test” shall be required to hold public office, and the First Amendment prohibits government from taking any official action with respect to religion, or prohibiting the free exercise, thereof. From these prohibitions, Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state is clearly visible, and the Judeo-Christian God (or any god, for that matter) are forever shut out of our Constitution.
The idea of a Christian Nation becomes little more than the wishful thinking of religious-minded power-mongers and mealy-mouthed ministers seeking to expand the scope of their influence beyond their congregation—a concept that is utterly and completely at odds with the core principles at the heart of our guarantees of life, liberty, and property.
Also, you may want to brush up on your history lessons:
http://blog.themadmanspeaks.com/relig...
July 7, 2008
7:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Reason, I adore sensationalism, I also know vindictive in-laws exist. I know blame the patient doctors exist when things go wrong.
Yank says if God doesn`t exist we can destroy any life that doesn`t fit the social needs, or something like that. False dichotomy again. Yank loves this thing.
The founding fathers were nice guys, but not Gods, so they spoke from human understanding, not Universal truth.
Scientifically, how many of the one million + abortions would be miscarried? We wouldn`t end up with 1.21 million live births in any given year anyway.
How many more people would be in this country if all the legally aborted since Roe v. Wade had lived to be born and then reproduce? Another 40 million plus another 30 or so. Without this law we might have another hundred million people here. Something to think about.
July 7, 2008
7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Reason, so you oppose universal health care because "It`s for the children" but you support this amendment because "It`s for the unborn children".
Delicious, and someone said irony is dead.
I don`t like to post back to back but that was too good to pass up.
July 7, 2008
8:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
"I know blame the patient doctors exist when things go wrong."
I happen to like knowing my doctor will place the blame where it lies, and not treat a non-existent cause. If that happens to be the patient, then, yes, by all means, blame the patient. Numerous medical conditions exist which a directly related to patient lifestyles and behaviors, why shouldn't doctors blame the cause? A significant chunk of the US' deficit in lifespan can be attributed to tobacco alone.
"so you oppose universal health care because "It`s for the children" but you support this amendment because "It`s for the unborn children"."
You're not very good at reading comprehension, are you? From my 12:41pm post today "For the record, despite my opposition to abortion on demand, I also oppose this amendment as a poorly thought out circumvention to Roe v. Wade." From my 4:03pm post, "I'm opposed to universal healthcare, period. There are a number of reasons, one of the primary ones being that I'm fairly libertarian and I don't think that the entire population should be stuck with the bill for people who inflict damage upon themselves." Nothing about children in there. Most colleges offer remedial reading classes, perhaps you should enroll in one.
July 7, 2008
8:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Reason, me2 isn't being sensationalistic. The unintended(?) consequences of this amendment are unknown and huge. I use a question mark because some of the real leaders of this amendment who know precisely what they're doing are perfectly willing to shove their cutesy spokesgirl out the window once the thing passes.
me2, regarding your post of 7:48, I think some right-to-lifers adore embryos/fetuses because embryos/fetuses are perfect baby substitutes. They're hidden. They don't cry all the time, they don't need midnight feedings, they don't need anybody else's care, they don't make messes, they don't put any demands on anyone other than the woman who's carrying them. Then they have the gumption to be born, spoiling everything. Thus the dichotomy you so nicely outline.
July 7, 2008
8:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
becca,
The idea of a Christian Nation becomes little more than the wishful thinking of religious-minded power-mongers and mealy-mouthed ministers seeking to expand the scope of their influence beyond their congregation.
------------------------------------
Well no. It was not the Founder's intent to establish a Christian, or for that matter a religious, nation. Their intent was to protect society from the tyranny of people (like you) who have no qualms in arrogating to themselves the authority to determine who should live and, more to the point, who should not.
That's why you, and your fellow death merchants, attempt to blow by the safeguards they established with talk of wishful thinking and little green men.
In regard to lessons:
"tenuously religious terms of 18th Century Deists"
Deists do not argue in religious terms since Diests are not religious ... that is rather the point of Deism.
Oh yes, in regard to the differences between the Declaration and the Constitution. That is attributable to the fact they were written for different purposes. The Declaration asserted a soveriegn nation and the principles thereof (as in rights coming from The Creator and not from The State). The Constitution established a democratic republic that was not theocratic (as in not religious please re-read the preceeding paragraph).
It's not as difficult as you think it is once you've grasped the rudiments.
July 7, 2008
8:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
See if you can "reason" this out Reason.
Your already paying for these children. Through medicade, welfare and even through your insurance premium because hospitals have to over-charge insured patients in order to cover the cost of the uninsured patient.
What would have cost a few hundred bucks for an abortion will now cost a couple hundred thousand of taxpayer money to raise the kid to 18. Then, since that person was raised on welfare, that becomes their profession and the cycle continues.
I'm not saying lack of money is a good reason for an abortion but I get tired of hearing the same reason from conservatives about not caring for a child after birth, you already paying for it in a lot of cases.
So how do you resolve it, cut the funds from family planning because the support abortion rights. Forget about the fact that they can help these people before they get pregnant. Conservative ideology must come first. One of these days the Republicans are going to wise up and realize the conservative vote is just not worth it and come up with another plan.
July 7, 2008
9:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Reason, you caught me that time.
When I was pregnant my doc said no sex after 6 months. So I disregarded his instructions, now what if I had miscarried and blamed him, see my point. He could have me arrested for causing this event. Lets not get into the entire history of medicine. I`m saying lots of doctors give weird advise, still today, to pregnant women. If a woman miscarries and the doc finds out she disobeyed his orders, then what? Call the fetalCSI.
July 7, 2008
9:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gadfly writes:
PajamaPulitzer, you wrote: “…are we really supposed to believe that the US has a higher death rate than Andorra and Malta? Please.”
Come on--nobody would classify Andorra & Malta as “developed” nations, which is what the statistic specified,
And conniesz’ stats show that this country's MMR (Maternal Mortality Ratio) is 11/100,000 while other “developed” countries like Australia, Sweden, Germany, France, Japan, etc. all have lower numbers. Evidently encouraging early abortions without clinic blockades does save women’s lives.
July 7, 2008
9:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
leftside
"Forget about the fact that they can help these people before they get pregnant. Conservative ideology must come first."
Conservative ideology (that is taking personal responsibility for your actions, behaving responsibly and putting concern for others well-being before your selfish pursuit of personal pleasure) will help "these people" before they get pregnant.
Learning to recognize that "these people" are just as good as you are is the first step on the path to understanding conservative principles. Why not give that first step a try leftside? A journey of a thousand miles begins with that first step.
Just try repeating "these people are just as good as me" until it penetrates your left wing arrogance.
July 7, 2008
9:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
Friends
I've been busy working all day; so I didn't have time to partcipate.
I appreciate some of the 'moral' arguments that were proposed. Thanks for being brave enough to stand up for morality. Unfortunately I see that you were cruelly attacked for proposing that morality be considered. Sorry about their meanness. That's they way some of them are (which is why they can support killing a baby; without any remorse).
Some of these people are very intelligent and skilled writers. But how can intelligence allow them to demand to kill a baby (4,000 a day??!!!). In their writing, they didn't even try to protect a baby's life at any time during its growth inside the womb; regardless of the horrible means used to kill the baby; or the potential value (perhaps an Abraham Lincoln or Mother Theresa?) of that living person.
Do people that want to will kill babies also deny that there is a God, who might be very opposed to what we are doing. And if He has the power to bring huge floods and tornadoes, he can certainly destroy a puny human who is shaking their fist at Him in defiance. I just pray that his patience might continue for a few more days; so these folks might realize what they are saying and who they are confronting.
Also, are these people willing to 'gamble' their eternity away by denying that eternity or God exist? That's a horribly risky gamble that has no payoff. And it's irreversible once you die.
If we can kill babies without shame, then we can kill any human. And the next step will be the elderly and infirmed. Apparently, Hitler was a reasonable man.
Morality in America is dead.
July 7, 2008
9:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
popo writes:
Any anti-choice person who dosen't immediately alter his / her "birth" certificte to make themselves 9 months older is either a not being honest with themselves or to whom they perceive to be their "God"......Period.
July 7, 2008
9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Yankee,
That's probably not the definition most people would give for "Conservative ideology". Certainly I wouldn't and as far as becoming one, I fear it would cost me any chance of having a clean conscience as I personally would consider it an immoral choice. Just so we understand each other and so you don't drag others into the mix as a show of numbers, that goes for conservatives and specifically Christian conservatives only, as I am in agreement with Republicans on a variety of issues.
July 7, 2008
9:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Yankee:
You are a death-cheering, war-mongering advocate of mass-murder in the name of American military hegemony and you have the chutzpa to call other people "death merchants"?
What a monumental joke you are.
You have never been able to prove that your ideas would result in fewer abortions occurring and consistently scoff at evidence to the contrary.
You have no credibility on this or any subject.
July 7, 2008
10:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
I have tried to stay away from the abortion issue on this because it is such a bag of trouble waiting to be opened in other areas.
This will effect illegals here who are pregnant. Think this through for a moment.
Even if every woman or girl tomorrow said no to abortion for unwanted pregnancies, this would still cause a mess in the legal, medical, and judicial system.
Every pregnant woman would be walking a fine line here, controlled by the fetus for the whole nine months.
This is another of those "we will show them" laws to let women know who really makes the rules. Like all laws based upon control, this will come back to bite some of the very folks who support it.
I have such a black sense of humor and justice that I might like to see this pass. Maybe it would be like burning a wound to get the poison out. Let everyone see the harm this could cause and be done with this type of law for good.
July 7, 2008
10:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
leftside, I understand that I am incurring the cost of the uninsured with my premium, but the point that you're are missing is that my decision to have insurance is VOLUNTARY. I understood that some of my payment would go to support services for the uninsured, and chose to pay it anyway. If I have to pay for mandatory government support programs out of my taxes, frankly, I would much rather that money go to somewhere outside of the US, the money that buys food stamps for junkies in the US could save thousands of lives on the other side of the world, where kids routinely die of diseases we take for granted. I don't expect the government to pay for everything and wipe my @$$ for me, which I guess means "conservative ideology must come first" to you.
"If a woman miscarries and the doc finds out she disobeyed his orders, then what? Call the fetalCSI."
This is sensationalism. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that the burden of evidence to prove that the mother "caused" the miscarriage as opposed to it being caused by nature would be fairly onerous. The police, at least in Denver, are often selective in which crimes they pay attention to.
"Any anti-choice person who dosen't immediately alter his / her "birth" certificte to make themselves 9 months older is either a not being honest with themselves or to whom they perceive to be their "God"......Period."
You do realize that there is a difference between being born and being alive right? At least biologically.
"that is taking personal responsibility for your actions, behaving responsibly and putting concern for others well-being before your selfish pursuit of personal pleasure""That's probably not the definition most people would give for "Conservative ideology"
I can only speak for myself, but that's almost exactly how I would define conservative ideology. The Republican party has polluted itself towards the left to the point where "Republican" and "conservative" shouldn't really even be associated anymore.
July 7, 2008
11:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
When a baby is born with fetal alcohol syndrome, who is more likely to go to jail, a middle class white mom, or a poor one of color?
We read of babies born addicted to drugs and the moms we read about are almost never white. There sure is selective prosecution in these areas. This law would just bring in more of the same.
Since this law would outlaw most abortions, the miscarriages of poor women of color would be suspect first, to make sure they were not induced abortions.
Who all is planning to vote yes on this?
July 8, 2008
12:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Reason, this last post and your post in the other forum simply says the opposite of the argument without any rationale what so ever.
You say you would rather taxes paid from our citizens go to another country because you fear it will go to a drug addict??? How many times has the US given money to these countries only to have it taken by their leaders or drug lords who grow and sell those very drugs?
"The police, at least in Denver, are often selective in which crimes they pay attention to."
This is what your willing to count on if your wife miscarries because she didn't follow the doctors instruction to the letter and some over zealous prosecutor decides to take her to task on it. Don't think this can't or won't happen if this amendment passes because it's perfectly logical that it can.
"You do realize that there is a difference between being born and being alive right? At least biologically."
Do you understand the difference between a fetus and a baby. Everybody who calls a fetus a baby is wrong, either out of ignorance or is simply lying to exaggerate a point and you know it. He-- you just did it with that comment, of course you disclaimed it with.. "At least biologically."
"The Republican party has polluted itself towards the left to the point where "Republican" and "conservative" shouldn't really even be associated anymore."
The Republican party has allowed itself to become polluted by "Christian" conservatives for the sake of winning elections. However, be patient, in case you missed it there is already a move toward that dis-association you hope for. Remember the Republican primaries? No conservative even came close to McCain, the same man they ridiculed in 2000. For the sake of American values it can't come quick enough, if the type of garbage, like this amendment, continues we won't be any better off than the people of Iran.
July 8, 2008
6:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Reason,
There is a notable lack of conservative thought in the elected Republican leadership. In that event, the likes of leftside will rush in to fill the void with slander. Speaking of leftside:
He has you at a disadvantage in that where you speak only for yourself he speaks for "Most People." That is a good-sized constituency but he takes on the responsibility without complaint.
And so we learn here that "Most People" think "These People" exist on a lower moral plane where they are not able to behave responsibly and so the option to kill their young must be available to them so they can life happy and prosperous lives.
The lesson the Republican leadership needs to learn is that it isn't enough to be right. You also have to make the case. Otherwise you're left with nothing but the vacuous narcissism of the American left.
July 8, 2008
6:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Letsthink,
Maybe not dead but certainly on life support.
God Bless.
July 8, 2008
7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
There has still been no credible evidence offered by any anti-abortion zealots that the policies they favor would help to reduce the number of abortions occurring.
I would link to credible studies suggesting the opposite, but ol' Yankee will just dismiss them (unread) as propaganda.
Let'sThink believes that there are actually people out there who *want more abortions to take place* when the truth is, he can't cite any instances of people saying they favor more abortions. The truth is the two sides of the issue differ only in methodology, but share the same goal--reducing the amount of abortions that occur.
Unfortunately, for personalities like LT and Yankee, demagoguery is the only avenue they have to enforce their flamboyant belief system on others. Simply imply that all who appose your ideas are murdering, immoral heathens "defying God" and whala!--no logic or factual evidence necessary!
The foolish and arrogant notion that ethical behavior and secularism are mutually exclusive is the root of their ignorance. They simply can't believe that someone lacking their fear of "everlasting hell-fire" could choose to do the right thing for reasons other than the selfish desire to avoid "hell".
Ethically challenged individuals like this need to take a good, long look in the mirror, because their assumptions about their ideological opponents are *dead wrong*, and those faulty assumptions are *all they've got*.
July 8, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"The Republican party has polluted itself towards the left to the point where "Republican" and "conservative" shouldn't really even be associated anymore"
yep...i would run from The Track Record too. i hear a lot of folks trying to distance themselves from the republican failures...but all the whining in the world isn't going to allow give you a pass for consistently electing folks who aren't good for america.
gotta pay the toll for the incompetence. half was paid on november 06...the other half of the bill comes due this november 4.
July 8, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
me2, if you're going to bring race into this, why don'