|
|
Post by ferrous on Aug 20, 2009 17:42:46 GMT -5
It seems that President Obama is making Reproductive Care a key element in his Health Care Reform. On July 17, 2007, Barack Obama pledged to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that abortion mandates would be included in his health care refonn proposals, saying that "in my mind, reproductive care is essential care, basic care, so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose." Under his plan, he said, "insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care ...that's going to be absolutely vital." As recently as late April 2009, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nation's largest abortion provider, affirmed that her organization would seek to use the health care reform legislation as "a platfonn" to achieve universal access to abortion. www.humanlife.net/display_news.htm?nid=476 |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 20, 2009 19:19:33 GMT -5
The eugenecists will never stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 20, 2009 23:23:44 GMT -5
Lol. So in your mind that equates to mandated abortions?!?!?!
Don't be so naive.
Of course we will fund abortions for those who are unable and unwilling to care for potential children. It would be inhumane not to.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Aug 21, 2009 8:45:10 GMT -5
So that explains it... I was under the mistaken notion that abortions were allowed by Roe vs Wade when the mother's health was in question.
In Saunterells interpetation it seems to imply that "they" would be the deciding factor in determing whether the abortion would be funded based on criteria on whether the mother was unwilling or incapable of caring for the "potential children.
Following in Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's suggestions... unproductive "potential children" could be weaned from the teat of society. A very short step from weaning unwanted "late term potential children" to even "post term unwanted children."
We must do it quickly, by the time they're adults, society has too much invested in them.
What an eye opener... In the minds of these liberal fascists it is perfectly acceptible to snuff out the lives of unwanted "potential children."
___________________
I would hope that TNG see's the reason I posted this in "The Worst Of America."
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 21, 2009 9:27:29 GMT -5
What if they are able but unwilling, Saunterelle? Do they get free abortions? How about repeat customers who use abortion as their prefered form of birth control? Will the former ACORN workers cost/benefit analysis eventually kick in and start to deny them abortions? After all, part of the plan that he has come up with calls for a govt. panel to OK each proceedure and decide if the potential benefits outweigh the costs.
No, that won't happen. People like Saunterelle have only one answer - kill off those who in their eyes is no benefit to anyone. A baby will get in the way of someone being able to live their chosen party lifestyle? Kill it. An old person take up too much time because their body is starting to fail after a productive life time? Kill him. Or more likely her. She won't be getting better, after all, so best to just get it out of the way. How about we kill you next Thursday, Gram'ma? I have a concert to go to Friday and I don't want to miss it.
But, let the State dare to impose the death penalty on proven scum like Tookie Williams, and Oh! You shouldn't kill anyone! He was just misunderstood. He was such a good boy.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 21, 2009 10:14:50 GMT -5
So that explains it... I was under the mistaken notion that abortions were allowed by Roe vs Wade when the mother's health was in question. In Saunterells interpetation it seems to imply that "they" would be the deciding factor in determing whether the abortion would be funded based on criteria on whether the mother was unwilling or incapable of caring for the "potential children. Following in Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's suggestions... unproductive "potential children" could be weaned from the teat of society. A very short step from weaning unwanted "late term potential children" to even "post term unwanted children." We must do it quickly, by the time they're adults, society has too much invested in them. What an eye opener... In the minds of these liberal fascists it is perfectly acceptible to snuff out the lives of unwanted "potential children." ___________________ I would hope that TNG see's the reason I posted this in "The Worst Of America." The potential mother decides whether or not to have an abortion, same as it functions now. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 21, 2009 11:02:16 GMT -5
[quote author=ferrous board=worstofamerica thread= The potential mother decides whether or not to have an abortion, same as it functions now. You have it wrong - as usual. The "potential mother" decides whether or not to have sex. The mother decides to kill the child. Or is guided to kill the child. Same as now. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 21, 2009 11:05:13 GMT -5
[quote author=ferrous board=worstofamerica thread= The potential mother decides whether or not to have an abortion, same as it functions now. You have it wrong - as usual. The "potential mother" decides whether or not to have sex. The mother decides to kill the child. Or is guided to kill the child. Same as now. "Guided to kill the child" - Give me a break. What a load of crap! |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Aug 21, 2009 11:07:29 GMT -5
That is the problem with Socialism of any type subdjoe, just watch saunterelle twist. Notice he did not answer? Only, "the potential mother decides." Every woman is a potential mother and the number of deaths I will have to pay for are just one to damn many. Some of us actually believe abortion in most cases is immoral and our money should not go to fund it, period, end of story.
It is not a health procedure if you are aborting your baby because you are unwilling to care for it. And if people like saunterelle believe that there will not be reprecussions for forcing people to pay for whole sale murder then he is just as insane as any person who suggests it. I for one will not stand by and allow my health care dollars to be spent that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Aug 21, 2009 11:10:19 GMT -5
You have it wrong - as usual. The "potential mother" decides whether or not to have sex. The mother decides to kill the child. Or is guided to kill the child. Same as now. "Guided to kill the child" - Give me a break. What a load of crap! Yep, that is what human life is to you, a load of crap to be flushed away. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 21, 2009 11:13:41 GMT -5
["Guided to kill the child" - Give me a break. What a load of crap! Ah! We agree - the "counseling" from Planned Parenthood IS a load of crap. PP exists to push abortion. I've known seveal women who had gone there for advice on how to best prepare for caring for their child. All were unmarried at the time. All were subtly pushed to have abortions. If you read their literature, you see that it is worded to guide women towards having an abortion rather then carry to term. So, yes, guided is the proper word. And,yes, it is a load of crap that PP can push its eugenics program with government funding. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 21, 2009 11:18:18 GMT -5
Guess what, abortion is LEGAL. Just like toting assault rifles to a Presidential debate on health care. Irresponsible? Yes. But completely legal.
Women are the ones who decide whether or not they want to have an abortion, not the government and not you. There are many different reasons leading to a woman's choice to have an abortion, for some it is easy, for others it is not. Your opinion of this completely LEGAL action is irrelevant.
|
|
