Abortion Fight Erupts in Health Care Debate

[Moncie]

Rocketlamb wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure, I ubderstand that it's not 100% effective. What I'm saying is, if you can't afford to pay for the consequences of your actions, don't expect me to pay for it. If a woman can't afford an abortion or a baby and she knows that sex is where babies come from and she doesn't have a committed partner yet has sex anyway, it's her own fault. Why should I have to give her money that I earned through my hard work that I want to use to care for my family? She and her partner can bear the cost.
It's all about personal responsibility.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Humans are SUPPOSED TO have sex. Because she can't afford or doesn't want a baby is no reason not to. Of course, I would expect that anyone who doesn't want a baby would use some form of contraceptive to try to prevent it. But in the event that it fails, I'd rather us pay for her abortion (IF that's what she wants), than pay for another kid to be on welfare. You do the math.

[Moncie]

Tooth4U wrote:

<quoted text>
Break?
umm, what is the award for? Why is there a ceremony wherein the Margaret Sanger award is , well awarded?
Adolph Hitler is dead , some say, as well. If there was an Adolph Hitler Award Ceremony, would you think it okay for the Secretary of State for the United States of America to both attend and be presented the Adolph Hitler award?
Your clueless. lol

It's "you're," and no, I am not. My point, in saying that she is dead, is that her values no longer guide PP. I thought you'd get that instead of my having to spell it out for you.

She had some bizarre beliefs. PP isn't following them. Not anymore.

[Maynard S]

Moncie wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, when we're battling the extreme right is there a choice?

No the Right wants your kids to have American style opportunities to thrive. Only parents who care about their children would embrace that philosophy. Those who support The Pelosians prefer to be defined as nothing but Sperm or Egg donors.

Repubs Independ, & Dems === Parents

Progressives=== Sperm or Egg donors

It is just that simple.

[Tooth4U]

So , let me get this straight from the get go.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton accepts the Bizarre Idea's Award.

Perfect.(L)

These recent comments made by Clinton reflect the mindset of the neo-Malthusian scientists currently occupying key positions in the Obama administration.

[Tooth4U]

Jurriaan Maessen
November 7, 2009


Recent comments made by Clinton reflect the mindset of the neo-Malthusian scientists currently occupying key positions in the Obama administration.

During a visit to India in July of this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed not only the administration’s commitment to tackle ‘global climate change’, but also her willingness to link it to overpopulation. After a roundtable discussion with Indian Minister for Environment Jairam Ramesh, Clinton openly pondered this supposed link:

“One of the participants”, Clinton stated,“pointed out that it’s rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning.”

“That was an incredibly important point”, Clinton added.“And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways.”

These recent comments made by Clinton reflect the mindset of the neo-Malthusian scientists currently occupying key positions in the Obama administration.

It may not come as a complete surprise to those who have studied the matter in some depth. The same Malthusian idea that triggered eugenics in the past now inspires the current environmentalist movement pushing global carbon taxes and other supranational measures, supposedly to ‘curb our carbon footprint’.

A couple of months before Clinton’s statements, LifeNews.Com reported on the comments by Clinton advisor Nina Fedoroff, who stated before BBC One Planet:

“We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people. There are probably already too many people on the planet.”

What we are witnessing here is the true mindset and ambition of the globalists and their cronies, namely to reduce the world’s population, the sooner the better. As the elite often admit, the current fixation on CO2 is just a pretext in order to get the job done.

[Moncie]

Maynard S wrote:

<quoted text>
No the Right wants your kids to have American style opportunities to thrive. Only parents who care about their children would embrace that philosophy. Those who support The Pelosians prefer to be defined as nothing but Sperm or Egg donors.
Repubs Independ, & Dems === Parents
Progressives=== Sperm or Egg donors
It is just that simple.

Noooo...the right wants to try to run my life. They also don't give a flying you-know-what about the kid after it's born. They only care that it IS born.

I am not an "egg donor." I'm a parent. One who wants her children to "have American style opportunities to thrive." I just want THEM to decide what their opportunities will be, not some right wing nutjob.

[Moncie]

Tooth4U wrote:

Jurriaan Maessen
November 7, 2009
Recent comments made by Clinton reflect the mindset of the neo-Malthusian scientists currently occupying key positions in the Obama administration.
During a visit to India in July of this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed not only the administration’s commitment to tackle ‘global climate change’, but also her willingness to link it to overpopulation. After a roundtable discussion with Indian Minister for Environment Jairam Ramesh, Clinton openly pondered this supposed link:
“One of the participants”, Clinton stated,“pointed out that it’s rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning.”
“That was an incredibly important point”, Clinton added.“And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways.”
These recent comments made by Clinton reflect the mindset of the neo-Malthusian scientists currently occupying key positions in the Obama administration.
It may not come as a complete surprise to those who have studied the matter in some depth. The same Malthusian idea that triggered eugenics in the past now inspires the current environmentalist movement pushing global carbon taxes and other supranational measures, supposedly to ‘curb our carbon footprint’.
A couple of months before Clinton’s statements, LifeNews.Com reported on the comments by Clinton advisor Nina Fedoroff, who stated before BBC One Planet:
“We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people. There are probably already too many people on the planet.”
What we are witnessing here is the true mindset and ambition of the globalists and their cronies, namely to reduce the world’s population, the sooner the better. As the elite often admit, the current fixation on CO2 is just a pretext in order to get the job done.

lifenews? Really?

Got anything from an unbiased site?

[Moncie]

Tooth4U wrote:

<quoted text>
As President Ronald Reagan once said.
"Prove to me that life doesnt begin at conception".
lol @ rights. You really do enjoy the Roman Empire thought forms, dont you.

Who said life doesn't begin at conception? Not me.

Under the law, a fetus has NO rights. Period.

You really need to do some research on sites other than lifenews. If you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't talk.

[Tooth4U]

Moncie wrote:

<quoted text>
Who said life doesn't begin at conception? Not me.
Under the law, a fetus has NO rights. Period.
You really need to do some research on sites other than lifenews. If you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't talk.

"you shouldn't talk', a freudian slip? Or, free speach is out as long as its not yours?
As indicated. You really enjoy Roman laws and edicts, rights etc.

[Moncie]

Tooth4U wrote:

<quoted text>
"you shouldn't talk', a freudian slip? Or, free speach is out as long as its not yours?
As indicated. You really enjoy Roman laws and edicts, rights etc.

Isn't it wise when one doesn't know what they're speaking of to put a sock in it, so to speak?

I'm not referring to your opinions. You're entitled to those. I am referring to inaccuracies and misstatements. Facts are facts.

[pbfa]

Moncie wrote:

<quoted text>
The fetus (it's not a child) doesn't wish anything. It has ZERO cognitive ability. And it has NO rights.
The rest of your post deserves no response. But I will say that you might attempt to base your posts on facts instead of overly emotional bullshit.

Too late for that one, moncie. It's a funny thing, though. PLM zealot, karma, conspiracy theorist - bet it's a birther, too... Oh, well, I need some Sunday humor!

[Moncie]

pbfa wrote:

<quoted text>
Too late for that one, moncie. It's a funny thing, though. PLM zealot, karma, conspiracy theorist - bet it's a birther, too... Oh, well, I need some Sunday humor!

I'm right there with ya P.=)

[Tooth4U]

Moncie wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't it wise when one doesn't know what they're speaking of to put a sock in it, so to speak?
I'm not referring to your opinions. You're entitled to those. I am referring to inaccuracies and misstatements. Facts are facts.

facts were cited in the story of Ms Clinton, and instead of refering to them, you instead refered to the website where the story was posted.

Oh, I have entitlement to free speach, not rights? From whose title are they drawn and by which domain of human endeavor do I owe such loyalty to in return? For, surely if were not entitled, then a poor serf such as I, might need an ombudsman.

I have presented no mistatements. You keep assuring me, that a 'fetus' to you,( a baby to others) has no rights. And when on to opine that I have entitlment to speak.

Are you certain it is not I, rather you who might need clarity?

[Moncie]

Tooth4U wrote:

<quoted text>
facts were cited in the story of Ms Clinton, and instead of refering to them, you instead refered to the website where the story was posted.
Oh, I have entitlement to free speach, not rights? From whose title are they drawn and by which domain of human endeavor do I owe such loyalty to in return? For, surely if were not entitled, then a poor serf such as I, might need an ombudsman.
I have presented no mistatements. You keep assuring me, that a 'fetus' to you,( a baby to others) has no rights. And when on to opine that I have entitlment to speak.
Are you certain it is not I, rather you who might need clarity?

When you cite from a biased source such as lifenews, you get no credibility from me.

Aside from that, what facts did you state? That Mrs. Clinton received an award? Okay, fine. I'll give you that.

Where did I state you didn't have rights? Don't bother looking...I didn't.

A fetus, under the laws of various states and the federal government, and under the U.S. Constitution, HAS NO RIGHTS. Deal with it.

[Tooth4U]

Moncie wrote:

<quoted text>
When you cite from a biased source such as lifenews, you get no credibility from me.
Aside from that, what facts did you state? That Mrs. Clinton received an award? Okay, fine. I'll give you that.
Where did I state you didn't have rights? Don't bother looking...I didn't.
A fetus, under the laws of various states and the federal government, and under the U.S. Constitution, HAS NO RIGHTS. Deal with it.

read memorandum 200 National Security Counsel
ummm I think 1972, there abouts.

It sets in place a goal of Eugenics. Do you know what Eugenics is? How about Wikipedia.......hmmm that credible for a beginning read?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

or how close to America was it practiced in earnes in the 1950's before being moved to the Philipines?
It was a Rockefellar Foundation financed operation in Puerto Rico during that time. Free 'birthing clinics' for the poor women who couldnt afford medical treatment. Oh, they sure did birth them for free there.What they didnt say , is that after the birth they sewed up the Uterus, and the women languished for many years not knowing why they couldnt conceive.

http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

Now. Margaret Sanger called children 'weeds'. I wouldnt accept any award with her name on it, just from that concept in itself.

[Tooth4U]

Moncie wrote:

<quoted text>
When you cite from a biased source such as lifenews, you get no credibility from me.
Aside from that, what facts did you state? That Mrs. Clinton received an award? Okay, fine. I'll give you that.
Where did I state you didn't have rights? Don't bother looking...I didn't.
A fetus, under the laws of various states and the federal government, and under the U.S. Constitution, HAS NO RIGHTS. Deal with it.

once again, I never said anything about rights. go back and find it. cant. taint there.

[Tooth4U]

Planned Parenthood is a front organization for the Eugenics program in America.

There. HA! I said it.

[Moncie]

Tooth4U wrote:

<quoted text>
read memorandum 200 National Security Counsel
ummm I think 1972, there abouts.
It sets in place a goal of Eugenics. Do you know what Eugenics is? How about Wikipedia.......hmmm that credible for a beginning read?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics
or how close to America was it practiced in earnes in the 1950's before being moved to the Philipines?
It was a Rockefellar Foundation financed operation in Puerto Rico during that time. Free 'birthing clinics' for the poor women who couldnt afford medical treatment. Oh, they sure did birth them for free there.What they didnt say , is that after the birth they sewed up the Uterus, and the women languished for many years not knowing why they couldnt conceive.
http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
Now. Margaret Sanger called children 'weeds'. I wouldnt accept any award with her name on it, just from that concept in itself.

Yeah...because wikipedia is SO much more credible than lifenews, right?~eyeroll~ ANYONE can contribute to wikipedia. Come *on*!

Whatever you want to say about Margaret Sanger, you're probably right. You still haven't drawn the correlation between her beliefs and Planned Parenthood today.

Let's see you do that.

[Moncie]

Tooth4U wrote:

Planned Parenthood is a front organization for the Eugenics program in America.
There. HA! I said it.

Yup, you said it. Now prove it.

[Tooth4U]

Moncie wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup, you said it. Now prove it.

Well, by its very definition and foundation, for one.

You see, proof is often in the pudding.

Evil masks itself as the good today. It immitates it. Often times when one opposes evil, such as the Nuclear Power industry, they learn from what reasoning it is that those in opposition have. All their concerns, and such and even science to 'prove' it. That is when evil, being keen to keep its processes going forward, redoubles its efforts, assimilating those concerns. Produces its own scientist to counter the grass roots folk who have opposition. And if necessary, silence their critics by other means.

Loma Linda Hospital was engaged in the practice of Baboon Heart Transplant surgery for children who otherwise would have died in the late 80s. They touted the need for this with 'it might save a childs life' to the poor devestated parents who thought this was thier only option, and approved. They touted it as a noble venture, when in both fact and reality it was to obscure its shadowy origens and serving only to gather the data on the 'expieriments'. That origen is the Nazi death camps where modern day heart transplant surgery has its origen.

Planned Parenthood has the same facade as its heroic noble venture. To help struggling women who, what? Who what?

Post the Mission Statement please.