If Stopping Abortion Is Really Your Goal…
…then why would you be against contraceptives? Perhaps because it’s not really about the fetus – It’s about the sex.
But more conservative religious groups working with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships say they would be forced to oppose such a plan—even though they support the abortion reduction part—because they oppose federal dollars for contraception and comprehensive sex education. This camp, which includes such formidable organizations as the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, is pressuring the White House to decouple the two parts of the plan into separate bills. One bill would focus entirely on preventing unwanted pregnancy, while the other would focus on supporting pregnant women.
Seems to me that pro-life is really pro-consequences.
Tags: Abortion, contraceptives
Why don’t people use their own damned money to pay for contraception, and quit being wards of the state?
And what exactly is ‘comprehensive sex education?’ Are today’s young people so stupid that they don’t understand that intercourse can lead to pregnancy? What do they think, that it’s caused by the phases of the moon?
If sex is ‘private,’ then keep my tax dollars out of it.
Thanks for the word from planet wingnut callerRick! Dim-witted and infantile as usual.
For people with brains, of course it is not about abortion.
It is about being mad that people have sex, but most of all it is about keeping the fundraising letters going out and the executive salaries for the Anti- Abortion Industrial Complex padded.
I think people who visit the creationist museum believe that pregnancy is stork-related.
And, yes, it is about sex, not fetuses. Because if ending/limiting abortion is really your goal then you should be doing everything in your power (think: supplying contraceptives) to prevent unwanted pregnancies. However, if your main goal is to be moral, preachy, superior, judgmental…
Handouts are the liberal solution to every problem. It is simple – identify an issue – decide how much to spend on it and take that amount from everyone. The only question is when we are all wards of the state from whom will the money come ?
Why don’t people use their own damned money to pay for contraception, and quit being wards of the state?
Because it is in all of our interest that people who don’t want children should be able to prevent them. Especially people who can’t afford children.
Oh please, I thought (and anti-abortionists keep telling me) abortion is a “morality” issue. Now you guys are putting a price tag on it? Just admit it… it’s about the sex.
Even if it is about money – rubbers are cheaper than welfare.
Wise up farsider, you dolt. You’ve been sold a bill of goods. Your “leaders” are punking you out and laughing at you all the way to the bank.
Contraception is quite expensive, especially because many insurance companies don’t pay for it. If you’re living paycheck to paycheck can you afford to drop $50/month on oral contraceptives (the most effective). Condoms are effective, but a woman is still depending on someone else (for a man to wear them or use them correctly).
“federal dollars for contraception and comprehensive sex education”
There is the crux. The extremists at this site oppose any support of personal choice for religion yet you want the Federal Government to provide dollars for something some people don’t agree with at all.
The extremists on the left oppose giving school bus expenses (about $200) to parents who have children attending private/parochial schools. Even better, there is opposition to state funding assistance for school nurses at private/parochial schools.
Please save you left wing extremist position on abortion. You could be an atheist and you would have to acknowledge abortion kills an unborn child.
If a unborn child (25% abortion rate in Delaware) survives then we must spend endless bundles of tax money for education, health care and everything else but up until that point the unborn are an “inconvenient truth’.
Mike Protack
You keep on using this word ‘extremist’. I’m not sure you know what it means.
I didn’t know the separation of church and state was an extremist position!
Your side perverted the government with your boogey-man gobblely-gook. And now you’re back at the trough wanting more???
“yet you want the Federal Government to provide dollars for something some people don’t agree with at all.”
As do you. I don’t agree at all with spending the sums we do on the Defense Dept., let alone the Offense Dept. of pre-emptive war. Yet there go my taxes, funding another pork-flavored defense project.
Your constant mounting of your “high horse” would be less annoying if it weren’t a hobby horse.
“You could be an atheist and you would have to acknowledge abortion kills an unborn child.”
Only if you didn’t care about the meaning of words. A day-old blastocyst is not an “unborn child.” Without some training, you — meaning you specifically — would have a hard time distinguishing it from an amoeba.
Thank God for free speech. Thanks to your constant spouting on this site, you couldn’t be elected dog catcher.
“The extremists at this site oppose any support of personal choice for religion yet you want the Federal Government to provide dollars for something some people don’t agree with at all.”
I fully support personal choice for religion. that actually is a liberal principle. I oppose government intervention in personal choice for religion (such as funding a creche at city hall).
I accept federal government money for something that all people don’t agree on (such as the Iraq war), as long as the democratic process (three branches of government) support that something (war, comprehensive sex education, federal education department, etc).
I personally opposed the Occupation of Iraq, but concede that the country (sort of) elected W, and the Congress that we had then supported W’s representations of its necessity. As such, I was a vocal critic of the policy (a patriotic responsibility of the minority), but supported the system that permitted the policy.
And none of these fools were especially against “comprehensive sex education” when it consisted of “Abstinence Only” curricula. They even got a river of Federal money for it, that I don’t think was a handout they objected too, either.
Good point, Cassandra. Because, as pandora said, it’s about the sex. Scolding people with taxpayer money is something the GOP supports.
I have actually had this very conversation with people from A Rose and a Prayer, and they, too, revealed that their agenda is NOT anti-abortion but anti-all-sex-outside-of-marriage-and-only-then-for-procreation. In other words, the Pope’s position, which, of course, is just as two-faced as what you have detailed.
THIS JUST IN: IT’S ABOUT THE SEX!
personally if I’m gonna bang a chick I’m not spending money on no damn condom! I have to eat don’t I? why would I take money I don’t already have to pay for something I don’t really need?
This Daily Kos diary nails it:
This is true, if you really, truly believe that conception = person then it is inconsistent to believe that the circumstances of their conception are important. In their own heart of hearts people realize this, even if they can’t articulate it.
Perhaps life begins at ejaculation…
Well, a few minutes before.
There’s a thoroughly political answer to this puzzle: the ultra-right keeps a stranglehold on the “good Catholic” vote through the abortion issue, which for the Catholic Church is about sex, not abortion. The Catholic church is anti-birth control of all types. To keep Catholics in the Republican voting block, evangelicals and the extreme right wing are now happily singing the n0-birth-control tune, a tune they never sang before and which is not part of their dogmas.
That’s where the inconsistent logic comes in , UI. The ultra-right was never against birth control and when its constituency began considering that perhaps incest, rape and a few other areas might make abortion “okay”, the leadership followed along, thus creating an inconsistent message.
The Catholic church has no inconsistency; in fact, there are instances where the church picks the life of the fetus, no matter how feeble, over the life of the mother.
The leadership of Christian ultra-right is walking a fine line between the politics that its own members want and what the Catholic Church wants. Look along that line, and you’ll find all the logical missteps.
Which is why the question of cost is one of those logic missteps: we all know that birth control costs a hell of a lot less than paying for children. It ain’t about the cost; it’s about the sex — and the Catholic Church is the one running the board on that issue.
(The ultra right is more about controlling women than controlling the sex of women — but that’s a discussion for another day…!)
HOLD THE PHONE, GUYS, David’s getting dumber by the second! Remember that war in Iraq that we spent trillions on? The one David supported us spending trillions on? The one that none of us here agreed with?
Seriously, how does this guy type and breathe at the same time?
Great point XS. I didn’t know the Constitution required 100% agreement. If your religion dictates a certain thing… that’s really tough shit on you. Some people disagree with women’s suffage. So what?!?!
The Christian right… charging confidently into the 17th century!
There is nothing inconsistent with reducing abortion and reducing promiscuity that leads to it.
That is the solution to lowering the rate of abortions. We have to return to GOD and His values.
Personally, I would give a person a condom than let them have an abortion. Some people are not going to listen to us. I would rather them at least keep an innocent child from being victimized. We can’t be afraid of a little pragmatism when the stakes are a child’s life.
I speak for no one but myself.
We can’t be afraid of a little pragmatism when the stakes are a child’s life.
I speak for no one but myself.
Clearly. Because that last sentence put you at odds with your whole corrupt movement.
I speak for no one but myself.
really?
Dave, I really think you’d be happier in Iran where they are doing their best to “return to GOD and His values” like stoning gay people and other fun things.
If fits your whole lying, theocratic, totalitarian nature.
Promiscuity?
Oh yeah, it’s all about the sex.
We have to return to GOD and His values.
Now I can guess whey GOP Dave keeps on coming back . . . he hopes to convert a few lost souls here.
“Personally, I would give a person a condom than let them have an abortion.”
Actually, Dave, the person wearing the condom and the person having the abortion are two different people.
But I give you credit — many Republicans don’t even notice that there are men involved in creating babies. You did notice that, right?
Actually, PM, I think the anti-abortion movement gives men too much credit. Does anyone else find it suspicious that the part of the pregnancy the man is involved in is THE most important part. I would argue that there are many steps in a pregnancy and sperm + egg is just one of them.
“Contraception is quite expensive, especially because many insurance companies don’t pay for it.”
Then pull-out and cum on her tits…problem solved.
Classy. You are a credit to the pro-life movement.
Pulling out is also not very effective (approx. 27 out of every 100 result in pregnancy). But that shouldn’t bother callerRick since technique doesn’t seem to be his strong suit.
“…since technique doesn’t seem to be his strong suit.”
That’s what you think. I’ve got a lot of references, if you’re interested.