HJW
|
posted on January 26, 2001 06:46:01 PM new
Shoshanah & kraftdinner
|
inside
|
posted on January 26, 2001 07:00:16 PM new
kraftdinner,
Interesting idea. How exactly would you propose to do such a study? I suppose first you'd have to find kids whose parents were refused abortion and then ask those kids if they would prefer to be dead?
|
shar9
|
posted on January 26, 2001 07:01:59 PM new
toke,
Had a long post but perhaps too controversial so I will try this.
Has anyone heard about a Bush plan or wish to have a "Cabinet Office" being funded to handle social issues and that this would be a church official?
I just heard a snipet from the news the other night.
|
kiheicat
|
posted on January 26, 2001 07:22:03 PM new
The whole issue of counseling still bugs me.
TO ANY BUSH SUPPORTERS:
Can anyone give a rational argument why the cutting off government support and funding of people who counsel women for emotional support when they need it most and to advise on alternate choices ...which is what Bush has done... should be justified?
[ edited by kiheicat on Jan 26, 2001 07:23 PM ]
|
krs
|
posted on January 26, 2001 07:26:47 PM new
Yes, Shar9, it is part of one his schemes to have such an office as part of the cabinet. There is a general plan to try to have many or all social services conducted by or through the church. I posted a link about it somewhere, though the link, if I remember, was actually about his psycho/religious mentor. I'll try to find it and if it's still live will bring it back.
|
HJW
|
posted on January 26, 2001 07:34:52 PM new
In other words, conservative compassion provided by the church...
cheaper and less efficient.
Helen
|
HJW
|
posted on January 26, 2001 07:43:26 PM new
Lower taxes for business and the wealthy and reductions in government spending, particularly for social services is top priority in the
Republican Party and as you have noticed
the first thing on the agenda the first
week in office.
Helen
|
nobs
|
posted on January 26, 2001 07:44:18 PM new
It's gonna be a looooooooooooooooong 4 years!
I have a feeling Bush has only just begun 
|
krs
|
posted on January 26, 2001 07:47:38 PM new
Yeah, it's compassionate conservatism. I can give a snippet right away, but I know there's more info around.
{snippet]Last week George asked for $8 billion worth of government money for a welfare program mainly operated by religious institutions. Based on his use of government money to fund social programs within mainly religious institutions in Texas, he's asking us to have faith in him, when our experience suggests that would be a mistake. (For example, see the Texas Charter Schools story below.) Although his voucher plan never saw the light of day, the same problems were evident. He likes to put governmental power and money in the hands of religious institutions, gets governmental lawyers to try to work around the constitution, attempts to make accountability as fuzzy as possible, does not provide governmental overseers with the money or the manpower to to do job, and then ignores the chaos that follows and lets his spinners clean up the mess. If simple incompetence is not the problem, one wonders what Bush's ultimate intentions really are. Consider the problems with his "faith-based" plan.[/unsnippet]
[snippet]First, George would create a welfare bureaucracy in the name of eliminating a welfare bureaucracy. " Bush already has said that, if elected president, he would establish an 'Office of Faith-Based Action' in the government to serve as a clearinghouse for successful charitable social programs and to help religious groups with federal regulations,"[/unsnippet]
--Clay Robison in not today's Houston Chronicle.
|
shar9
|
posted on January 26, 2001 07:49:58 PM new
krs,
Thank you. I would suggest this would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
If this is true and this office is to be funded then I would ask, what is the difference? If I have to have a choice between church handling social services and the Gov't, then I will take the gov't.
Perhaps Dubya is trying to bring forth those "Thousand points of life" for his father.
I thought the whole intent that Republican's have been making for years that the "church" should be handling welfare and other social needs to be a false premise.
If the gov't has to pay the church then it means that the church can't begin and never would help all those in need as has been cited over and over again that they would. "Church" deciding "who" is in need.
While I find the church gives comfort and spiritual aid and solace I do not relish the fact that "Church and State" are forging a merger to be one.
Call me silly but I find my needs from both Church and State to be separate needs.
|
krs
|
posted on January 26, 2001 07:55:45 PM new
Right.
Simple George likes the idea of a sermonized "message" going with the beans in the soup kitchen.
Maybe in was in some skid row shelter where he had to listen to a spiel before allowed entrance for the night that he saw the light and took that great leap of faith that enabled his supposed recovery from alcoholism and brought him to us all today.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on January 26, 2001 08:04:10 PM new
I really try to stay out of these abortion threads.
I do have questions. If Bush is so anti-choice then why does he not have any adopted children? They only have two of their own, surely there was room on that big old ranch for a few more.Why don't any of the anti-choice leaders have any adopted children? They all have enough money to support them,enough to even have someone else care for them...why don't they have any? If they won't adopt them why do they think those non-aborted children will all find loving homes?
|
kiheicat
|
posted on January 26, 2001 08:39:08 PM new
Excellent question, rawbunzel!
|
inside
|
posted on January 26, 2001 08:41:47 PM new
rawbunzel,
We know what the pro-abortionists think of orphans and needy kids. That has been made obvious in these posts.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on January 26, 2001 08:45:59 PM new
You know, Inside, that does not address my post at all. I am pro-choice not pro-abortion myself. To me you are anti-choice. We are all pro-life. You could never see that. I can.It's a vision thing. [to quote a Bush]
Thanks Kiheicat, I think about these things but no one ever has an answer.
|
krs
|
posted on January 26, 2001 08:49:10 PM new
These is recent: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/26/politics/26BUSH.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47964-2001Jan25.html
inside,
where does your term 'pro-abotionist' derive? I've never heard of anyone who is pro-abortionist, except from you.
[ edited by krs on Jan 26, 2001 09:04 PM ]
|
inside
|
posted on January 26, 2001 08:50:42 PM new
I love the way so many like to try and seperate choice/abortion. You are not choosing a soft drink.
|
gaffan
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:02:45 PM new
...and I love the way anti-choicers fail to see any difference between a single fertilized cell and a baby.
-gaffan-
|
inside
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:03:12 PM new
krs,
I call it as I see it. Pro-choice brings of images of the right to choose something nice. Taking a life is not nice. Sometimes it is neccessary but it is not nice.
I am pro-choice, for the baby's choice. But then nobody wants to think about the healthy white adoptable kids dying. The ones that can grow up acceptable to society as defined in posts here. Those children die too. Why? Not every child aborted is nonwhite, unhealthy, learning disabled, deformed or whatever critia the posters here deem unacceptable for birth. Not every child aborted is still a blob, some are viable but have their brains sucked out.
While I may see times when abortion is neccesary, the pro-abortionists seem to find no reason to ever save a life.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:07:35 PM new
Inside. You will think as you will no matter what anyone says. I can see that. I am old enough to remember when my peers ,my mothers peers and even my grandmothers peers were forced into back alleys with dirty implements when backed into a corner due to an unwanted pregnancy.Since time began women have been having abortions. Do I think it is a good thing? NO. Am I glad they can have one if THEY feel it is the only choice they have? YES. Do I want women in dirty back alleys again? NEVER!! Thirty years is apparently long enough for too many to forget the real reasons behind Roe vs Wade. Womens lives.
I would never presume to make any choice for you, why do you want to make it for others?
|
inside
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:09:01 PM new
gaffan,
You seen pictures of partial birth aborted kids? They have ten little fingers and toes. Hair on their heads. Full bodies. Little arms and legs. But they suck their brains out. Of course they don't pull them all the way out first. No they might breath and then it would be murder.
But then perhaps you still think it's just a fertilized egg?
|
gaffan
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:17:41 PM new
Masterful deflection of the observation. I'm not the one who's contending they're the same.
-gaffan-
|
inside
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:19:30 PM new
rawbunzel,
If you have an abortion, you are making the choice for the child.
I don't think you have much to fear about my power to force any choice on you. Look around, I'm the only person on this thread who feels that a fetus is a person with their own set of rights.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:23:40 PM new
That's hilarious KRS!!...Pro-Abortionists....!!!
Do you honestly think that people consider abortion the same as picking a soft drink inside???
You see inside, your response is almost stereotypical of of what "Pro-Life" people think of "Pro-Choice" people.
I think people or organizations that try to dictate how an individual conducts their life is wrong and personally don't understand why it's someone else's business what I choose to do with my life, body, brain.....
Because someone has a certain belief (whether it be religious or not) in what's right and what's wrong to them, doesn't give them carte blanche to impliment their ideas on other people...period.
Especially for Bush to throw such a dig at the majority of Pro-Choice-ers in his first 24 hours of "rule".........yikes!!....get out the smelling salts!!
|
krs
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:27:17 PM new
inside,
Help me with your:
"But then nobody wants to think about the healthy white adoptable kids dying. The ones that can grow up acceptable to society as defined in posts here. Those children die too. Why? Not every child aborted is nonwhite, unhealthy, learning disabled, deformed or whatever critia the posters here deem unacceptable for birth. Not every child aborted is still a blob, some are viable but have their brains sucked out".
In admitting to the 'sometimes necessity' of aborting a child are you saying that you would differentiate that necessity as to inclusion? Do you mean to say, as it seems that you have said, that your objections to abortion stem mainly from the supposed wish of what you call pro-abortionists' to end any life and not just those which you may deem to be 'sometimes necessary' which I've got to conclude are those which are not healthy white and adoptable?
edited as I forgot that inside's last sentence was outside my first interest.
[ edited by krs on Jan 26, 2001 09:30 PM ]
|
inside
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:28:56 PM new
kraftdiner,
I don't care what you do with your body. You make that choice. I care about a life that is offered no choice.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:29:07 PM new
Inside, so you are saying that women have no choice? Only the fetus does? This makes no sense to me. No a fetus can't talk for itself. It also can't breathe for itself or eat for itself or live on its own. It is dependent in all ways on that womans choices.
I trust women to make these choices why can't you? Women not smart enough to decide for themselves?
Now I leave you. This topic will never be solved by us here on AW.
[You still didn't say why you think Bush and his ilk have never adopted any children. Looks like another case of do as I say and not as I do to me.]
|
roadsmith
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:29:19 PM new
And an Amen from me, too, Shoshana! We just returned from two weeks on the beach in Mexico, blessedly away from all U.S. information and news. Then we saw our first headline--Bush moves to deny overseas abortion funding--and my blood just boiled.
And I agree with many who've said we don't know anyone who is FOR abortion per se; it is always a last resort. The fact is that family planning prevents abortions. Can't the "right to lifers" get that through their heads?! The same people who are anti-abortion are anti-birth control. Go figure.
My mother, rest her soul, was a righteous prig who expressed more than once to me that women who get pregnant "illegitimately" should have to go through childbirth with no painkillers whatsoever, to teach them a good lesson.
The sin, of course, to these people is sex--but only on the part of the woman. And the punishment is that she should have to have the baby. And then they seem not to care what happens to the baby after it's born.
|
krs
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:32:18 PM new
Right. Have the baby and live in shame before God forevermore.
|
inside
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:39:48 PM new
krs,
By neccessity, as I have said in the past, I mean that should a mother's life be in mortal danger. But then perhaps you have not read the posts carefully.
rawbunzel,
If they could not live without the mom then why suck their brains out? If women are so smart why are so many needing abortions?
roadsmith,
I am glad I did not have your mother.
|
