Comments on: Dumb or Dishonest?

By: Thursday Blogwhoring « random babble…

Thursday Blogwhoring « random babble… — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:53:50 +0000

[...] Dumb or Dishonest? (Great Question. I vote “C. All of the [...]

By: Organ Donor

Organ Donor — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:02:27 +0000

I would have to say that was both dumb and dishonest!
I think for every dollar of funding that gets taken off of reproductive care or abortion about 10 times as much should have to be made available for programs that aid in raising children. That way pro-lifers can be certain to be pro-lifers all the way.

By: thetroubleis

thetroubleis — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:34:23 +0000

Ozymandias, thanks. I was just about to call him out on the adoption line. Adoption has been around ever since there were humans. Animals will adopt other animals, so why wouldn’t humans considering we are animals too?

By: Ozymandias

Ozymandias — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:20:59 +0000

Austin, they did have adoption during ancient Roman times. Augustus, for instance, was adopted by Julius Caesar. True, it was more a method for childless men to get sons from families who couldn’t afford political careers for all their children, but it still is completely wrong to say it didn’t exist. I am not sure if infanticide was illegal in Rome; it wasn’t in Greece, and in fact sometimes acted as a de facto adoption, in which childless families would pick up unwanted children exposed to die.

By: GrannyT

GrannyT — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:09:06 +0000

“Funding abortions not only increases the abortion rate among poor women….”

Who says? Austin, can you back that statement up with any meaningful statistics? And keep in mind, not all abortions are government funded, some are not done in medical facilities at all. Think coat hangers.

By: JessSnark

JessSnark — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:52:24 +0000

Austin: “I always try to seek out people who have different worldviews, and argue with them. What’s wrong with that? It’s not like I’m being rude or anything.”

Basically, because this is not high school debate club and people aren’t here just to argue for the sake of argument. You can probably find another blog where people do want to do that, or start your own. These issues are personal to us – the federal government’s ban on federal funding for abortions could actually have life-or-death implications for some of us – and treating them as if they’re in the same level of importance as “The school cafeteria food sucks, yea or nay?” is genuinely offensive. See derailingfordummies.com.

By: sonia

sonia — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:35:41 +0000

I think for every dollar of funding that gets taken off of reproductive care or abortion about 10 times as much should have to be made available for programs that aid in raising children. That way pro-lifers can be certain to be pro-lifers all the way.

By: Jordan

Jordan — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:28:58 +0000

Most conservatives think being anti-choice is keeping pro-abortion laws off the bodies off adorable, innocent “preborn” babies. They’re not guilty of hypocrisy just of being wrong in what they say and what they do.

By: akeeyu

akeeyu — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 08:19:23 +0000

“Funding abortions not only increases the abortion rate among poor women…”

What? Funding medical care increases the rate of poor women who can obtain medical care? Are we supposed to be outraged?

By: austin

austin — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:33:30 +0000

I’d say that they’re intentionally stealing the phrase, and rightfully so. Anti-abortion laws don’t violate womens’ bodies any more than banning infanticide in ancient Rome did. Think about it: they didn’t have adoption back then, so the baby had to either attach itself to her chest and use her body for its own survival, or die. If you wouldn’t call that “violating womens’ bodies”, why would you use that term to refer to abortion restrictions?