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.

* Florynce Kennedy

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion

I put my signature under Florynce’s.

Two.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.