Typical hypocrisy from anti-choice politicians on the Hill
| June 10th, 2005This post was removed by request of the author.
24 Responses to “Typical hypocrisy from anti-choice politicians on the Hill”
Leave a Reply
If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.
(Need to know how to create blockquotes and links, i.e., linked text?)
If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking program may have blocked your comment by mistake. When this happens, please contact the moderators right away so we can rescue your comment!
June 10th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Culture of life, only if it involves them doing nothing, and only if the life of the individual is under debate.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
The pro-life agenda holds that the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth. Help the fetus-yes. Help anyone else-no.
This comment was written by Becky.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Could be an additional reason they’re not willing to help is an interest in generating more white infants for adoption.
They probably use among their arguments:
Have fewer behavior problems than all other groups, except children raised in intact families. And so do their birth mothers. Significantly, teenage mothers who choose adoption also do better than mothers who choose to be single parents.
And:
All the goals of liberal government programs like job training, supplemental education, and family planning are attained with greater ease, and at lower cost, through adoption. P. Fagan, Liberal Welfare Programs, “Data . . . Teen Mothers,” Heritage Found., #1031, Mar. 31, 1995
Both quotes are from the following website:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_34.asp
The same website has a page on “Abortion, your choice, and alternatives”. The first alternative given is:
What are the choices other than abortion? Here is a comparison of adoption and abortion.
the 2nd (and last) alternative is:
Women Helping Centers
That page is about pro-life women’s help groups. How they can find ways of providing financial help. I imagine that when a woman is aided by such a center there’s ample opportunity to push adoption, if she isn’t considering it.
This comment was written by Idyllopus.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 9:34 pm
With this and all the instances where fetuses are valued more than the born (abortion, refusal to fill prescriptions for birth control, snowflake babies, poor veteran support, dismantling social security, blocking potentially life-saving stem cell research), coupled with things like anti-evolution and intelligent design in the public schools, it’s like a scary sequel to 1984 (in more ways that this): remove the supports that keep many of the living alive or able to function beyond a minimal survival stage (unless you’re rich and can afford it what with all that govt. support you get for your contribution), and focus on indoctrinating babies fresh out of the womb or heck, fresh out of the petri dish.
Or maybe it’s the Twilight Zone.
This comment was written by manxome.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2005 at 10:35 pm
Um, or, just maybe, a representative from the minority party got his amendment shot down because people in the minority party generally have a hard time getting things through committee.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 6:55 am
Gee, Robert, are you accusing our elected representatives of putting politics ahead of people?
This comment was written by rhc.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 6:57 am
Except there’s a history of this kind of hypcrisy on the part of these people. They don’t want abortion, but they don’t want to prevent it with any methods other than abstinence—well, if you’re female, that is. It’s been long enough so one can see too easily the effects of their policies, and those effects are not conducive to helping women and children. Typical.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 7:03 am
I wonder if all the “nice, reasonable” pro-lifers will be writing to these representatives to express their outrage at the blatant disregard for cute, cuddly babies reflected in this vote.
Just once, I’d like to see these “nice, reasonable” folk more concerned with what our elected officials have between their ears than with what I’ve got between my legs. Gack.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 7:40 am
Robert, it just all fits into the “Democrats don’t stand for anything/have no ideas (that we like)” catapult.
This comment was written by manxome.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 8:30 am
While this may be realistic, it’s not any excuse for hypocrisy.
Furthermore, nothing prevents Republicans from writing their own versions of all these proposals.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 10:29 am
That’s true, Amp. I wonder if the billions that the Feds spend on these kinds of services will disappear in the budget this year - or, whether they will continue to be there and even grow, as they generally do.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
I’m pro-life, and I could care less if someone is married or not when they get impregnated, but it is wrong for taxpayers to flip the bill for baby production by people that can not afford to raise children - some of which should not even be considered as parents (druggies, criminals, etc.).
It is more an issue of the choices people make (to get themselves pregnant) and not one of targeting any group for making a stand against supporting people that make BAD choices!
I’ll tell you what - if you really feel so strongly about this then YOU take an pregnant lady into your house, YOU feed her, YOU pay her medical expenses. YOU do all of this BEFORE you expect others to!
This comment was written by JustaDog.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
JustADog, it’s a bit odd to talk about “bad choices” made when one of the people we’re discussing is a newborn infant. Obviously, infants and children did not make “bad choices” which led to their poverty. So even if we accept the premise of your argument - which I don’t - there would remain strong reason to support poor households with children.
However, I have to doubt your whole premise, that we should never help people who have made bad choices. If a homeowner makes bad choices which leads to her house catching on fire, we still send the fire department to help them. If someone walks late at night in a dangerous area of town, and gets mugged, the police don’t say “I don’t want to support bad choices” and refuse to take the report. If someone takes a job at a corporation that was in bad shape and eventually has to do layoffs, we don’t say “bad choice” and refuse to pay unemployment.
But no one is expecting you or anyone else to take poor single mothers into their homes, and personally feed them and pay their medical bills. We are expecting you to allow a tiny portion of your taxes to go towards supporting poor single parents; and of course we are totally willing to pay our fair share of taxes for this purpose, as well.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
We are expecting you to allow a tiny portion of your taxes to go towards supporting poor single parents - Sorry - I’m not in favor of this kind of support. I would be in favor of programs that reduce this type of pregnancy And, it is never “a tiny portion of taxes” - it is a growing burden from pre-birth through the teen years - supporting those that can’t support their own families. Still - how can you practically demand people pay up unless you would be willing to take on even 1 yourself, as mentioned above?
I was a bit extreme about the “bad choices” - but it is still applicable for this type of situation. One does not accidently get pregnant - but one always has time to take precautions. It is the choice whether precautions are taken or not. The exception would be rape or incest (still rape) - in which case I’d support taxpayer money paying for an abortion.
BTW - thank you for posting my comment. Some other blogs are not as open as you to different opinions!
This comment was written by JustaDog.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Uh, Justadog, the anti-choicers have been supporting abstinence-only education and allowing nosy pharmacists to refuse to give women birth control. By rights, those women whose ‘choices’ have been reduced to two—celibacy and pregnancy—should be able to show up on any pro lifer’s doorstep and demand support. YOU made the choice to support that kind of thing—where’ s the follow up?
Yeah, and I’m about sick of hearing about how women should just keep their legs crossed. If that’s the case, then pro lifer men should stop trying to get between them then, and they should devote a huge amount of publicity at curbing that male sex drive. They don’t.
By the same token, the pro lifers need to start adopting some of these kids. Then it’ll be possible to believe they’re pro life. Right now all they are is pro-fetus’ life at all costs, no matter what.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
“Yeah, and I’m about sick of hearing about how women should just keep their legs crossed. If that’s the case, then pro lifer men should stop trying to get between them then, and they should devote a huge amount of publicity at curbing that male sex drive. They don’t.”
Well said, ginmar. Too bad we’ll never do something like that because–gasp–expecting guys (especially self-righteous, arrogant, moralist-superiority anti-choice males like JustaDog) to control their own sexual appetites, wear condoms, make “good choices” themselves, or keep it zipped up?! Sacrilege! We only do that to women and their sexuality, and then scorn them if they get pregnant. Never mind the sperm-donor, because he was being just a guy. /rolls eyes/
“By the same token, the pro lifers need to start adopting some of these kids. Then it’ll be possible to believe they’re pro life. Right now all they are is pro-fetus’ life at all costs, no matter what.”
As Becky said earlier, life begins at conception and ends at birth, according to these people. After they’re born, who gives a shit?! (Unless they’re a pearly white baby up for adoption) Thanks again Robert and JustaDog, predictable anti-choice males, for reminding everyone of the hypocrisy and bullshit filled rhetoric of the “pro-life” and “pro-Culture of Life” ideologues, especially from anti-choice men. It was never about “life” or “protecting zygotes/blastocysts/fetus”, it’s about penalizing women, their sex lives, and control. We’ve been over this before.
“BTW - thank you for posting my comment. Some other blogs are not as open as you to different opinions!”
Yeah, since you seem to hint and suggest in your comments that women who get pregnant (aside from rape or incest) are stupid sluts (how about those stupid man-whores who helped them get pregnant?), who should be punished with pregnancy, poverty, and little or no healthcare. Where’s that compassionate conservatism? Oh wait, there’s no such thing. And this is my thread, by the way, but I didn’t mind Amp posting your comment at #12 (he can do what he wants anyway) and I posted your comment in #14 (as opposing opinions don’t bother me much anyhow), as you and Robert prove my point about so called “pro-life” people–especially “pro-life” men. ‘Let your opponents speak and they’re bound to prove your point eventually’, is how I go about all of this.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD — I re-read my first comment and saw I typed in the wrong word — I’m not “pro-life” - I’m pro-choice! Sorry about that! Guess some of the comments were stuck in my brain while typing and it added to the confusion, LOL.
the pro lifers need to start adopting some of these kids - I TOTALLY agree! Just like pro-handout supporters need to adopt a poor person or two (a preg. mom?).
Yeah, since you seem to hint and suggest in your comments that women who get pregnant (aside from rape or incest) are stupid sluts - No, you read that into what I said and that’s too bad. Why must you people take some comment and turn it into something extreme is was not meant to be?
Where’s that compassionate conservatism Well I’m more on the right than far left, but I am pro-choice, I don’t go to any church, I’m not the property of Republicans or Democrats - so sorry, you might find me difficult to put your traditional labels on.
This comment was written by JustaDog.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Holy shit! I’m sorry too. Total miscommunication there! Okay, you’re pro-choice, not pro-life. Still it would have helped if you had put that in your comment in #12. Though my disagreement with some of your other comments and my own comments about them in particular still stands, but okay, whatever, keep going.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
Why must you people take some comment and turn it into something extreme is was not meant to be?
Because here’s something that Robert has not yet grasped: if you have the same experience with 95% of a given group, have you any reason to expect the 5% to be different? And is that 5% being disingenuous when they claim that their contrast to the 95% makes them better?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
if you have the same experience with 95% of a given group, have you any reason to expect the 5% to be different?
Experience. Logic. Openness to new data.
And is that 5% being disingenuous when they claim that their contrast to the 95% makes them better?
Depends on the actually existing contrast, doesn’t it? Hopefully you’ve already got an opinion on the extent of that contrast; Christ forbid you collect any new data.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
If you have the same experience with 95% of a given group, have you any reason to expect the 5% to be different?
Experience. Logic. Openness to new data. Yeah, how nice it must be on that moutain top. Thank you for dispensing your wisdom!
And is that 5% being disingenuous when they claim that their contrast to the 95% makes them better?
Yeah, I notice your reply was more theory and ho humanity. Only perfect human beings live en tirely by theory, Robert. How many might-have-been aboted babies have you adopted in your life so far?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
How many might-have-been aboted babies have you adopted in your life so far?
Two.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
* Florynce Kennedy
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion
I put my signature under Florynce’s.
This comment was written by João Carlos.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Um, I tried to find this amendment of Rep. Obey’s, and the only bill I could find (on the Congressional Record website, which might not be as current as the post) was the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005. I just wanted to read his amendment for myself (foolish, I know), so does anyone know if that’s the one or not?
On the other hand, on the Thomas website, there is a bill that maybe should get our support - S 740, Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2005, introduced by Sen. Bingaman (D-NM), and it looks as if it has all of the things Rep. Obey was trying to get done in it, based on the post. Sometimes amendments to appropriations bills get shot down not because a minority member has introduced it or because there is fundamental opposition to the content of the amendment but because they need to amend existing statutes to make the spending legal. Just a thought.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators