According to the Democratic leadership at least. Representative Bart Stupak (R-MI) is one of the few non-idiotic rational Democrats. In other words, he’s a proud ‘NO’ vote for Obamacare based on the bill’s strong support and advocacy for abortion and his pro-life values. Of course, Stupak was the one who introduced the creatively-named ‘Stupak Amendment’ to the Obama healthcare overhaul removing a lot of the support for Abortion. While Stupak isn’t leaving his party, he seems quite aware of the fact that his own party is ignoring him and keeping him out of negotiations, and the Democrats seem insistent on pushing forth their pro-death agenda.
Apparently the Democrats are getting into business of population control.
If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more.
On the upside, at least the Democrats are finally interested in keeping costs down.
Wow. This is beyond disgusting that the DemoNcrats are trying to encourage serial infanticide. Nazi Pelosi hinted at that last year as well.
Best part of abortion: go look up the ratio of boys to girls aborted. In some places in the world, 275 boys are born for every 100 girls, and in certain cultures in America and Canada, ultrasounds with a gender determination are quickly followed by an abortion for “health reasons”.
Its not just infanticide, its gendercide and single boys have an annoying tendency to end up in prison or seeking 72 virgins.
That’s so true Kawen. The left seems to make pro-lifers out to be racist when they’re the ones who are discriminating…based on gender however.
“On the upside, at least the Democrats are finally interested in keeping costs down.”
Haha that was fantastic!
This is just pathetic. I know you won’t always agree with everything your party does but I don’t get how a democrat who is pro-life can be in a party soi adament towards abortion
Well written sire
Oy vey, where to begin with you Lawton.
1. Interesting that you chose to describe Stupak as ‘rational’ because of his anti-choice stance. And to think all my life I’d understood the term rational to mean making decisions based on reason/intelligent thinking rather than emotion/things that have no supporting evidence, when really it evidently means to make decisions based on unscientific religious beliefs. Got it.
2. While I do not claim that no individual or individuals have expressed the opinion that funding for abortions should remain in the health care bill in order to curb population growth, but I can tell you that this viewpoint is not shared by the VAST majority of pro-choice people. Primarily because it makes absolutely no sense. If the dems main objective was population control, wouldn’t they be AGAINST universal health care? Without abortion coverage, fetuses would still be aborted – only in back alleys and bathrooms rather than sanitary health care facilities. This means more women would die from botched abortions, preventing them from giving birth in the future. Without universal health care, low income/uninsured people wouldn’t have access to life-saving procedures. From where I’m sitting, it seems like the dems are much more interested in protecting life than their bible-thumping counterparts.
3. As for your insinuation that repubs are more fiscally responsible than dems… methinks you need a history (and current affairs) lesson. See http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html and http://usjamerica.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/the-washington-times-notices-that-democrats-are-fiscally-responsible-republicans-not-so-much/
To Kawen and Dan in Wisconsin:
First of all, I believe you are trying to assert that dems discriminate based on SEX (not gender) more than do repubs. For a very basic explanation of the difference between sex and gender please see http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html. In short, you can’t discriminate against a fetus based on gender because it has no concept of gender. Assuming you meant sex-discrimination, your assertion still has a major flaw. Yes, in some places in the world female fetuses are aborted because of their gender. For the most part this occurs in places with population control policies (i.e. China’s one child policy) and where male children are seen as more economically productive than female children. These incentives do not exist in Canada and the USA. I’m not saying that this has never been the reason for an abortion in Canada or the USA, because it very likely has – in a few, isolated cases. But if you take a look at Canadian and American sex ratios at birth (1.06 and 1.05 males/female, respectively according to the CIA world factbook) they are not significantly different. According to you, Canada’s ratio should be much higher due to a) its relatively large proportion of lefty-liberal types and b) its lack of restrictions on abortion. But it isn’t. Because the majority of us pro-choicers don’t support public funding for abortion out of some secret patriarchal desire for a male-dominated society, but because we believe in the right to bodily sovereignty, freedom of religion for all people regardless of sex, gender, or socio-economic status.
@Some pinko commie bastard:
Actually, I referred to Rep. Stupak as rational because he is going to vote against Obamacare. Learn to read.
My line about the Democrats being interested in population control was hyperbole. The Democrats are simply after control…and nothing else. If they can control who is born, how children are educated, what kind of healthcare they receive, etc. then they control those individuals’ entire lives. Furthermore, that type of control leads to a culture of dependence, of which subscribers tend to be very liberally-minded. Your statement that criminalizing abortion results in back-alley abortions is a fallacy. Show me a piece of evidence supporting that that actually happens. And by evidence I’m not referring to a case study of a couple of women who attempted coat-hanger abortions (the majority of which were actually performed when abortions were legal to avoid shame, by the way.)
Let me clarify, CONSERVATIVES are more fiscally responsible than Democrats. Sadly, not all Republicans are conservative (John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George W. Bush, John McCain, etc.)
Your statement that criminalizing abortion results in back-alley abortions is a fallacy.
Well, Andrew, since like your friend Ari you seem to have no idea what words mean, let me clarify a couple things for you.
First off, let’s define a ‘fallacy’, since you seem to be using it to indicate that a statement is false; this usage is gaining in popularity, but incorrect. A fallacy is a formal mistake in reasoning in the context of an argument. The premises appear to support the conclusion, but in fact don’t. For example:
If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.
This is the fallacy of ‘affirming the consequent.’ For example,
“If you are a fascist, then you hate communists.
Andrew Lawton hates communists.
Therefore, Andrew Lawton is a fascist.”
This argument is invalid, because the conditional is defined (correctly) in such a fashion than the consequence of a conditional does not imply its antecedent. This is known as a ‘formal’ fallacy, because it follows from the ‘form’ of the argument. For informal fallacies, the flaw is not structural (i.e., it may arise from equivocation or appeal to emotion).
If you would like to learn more about fallacies, feel free to consult Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Now, on to your desire for more information on abortion. I will assume your request is made in good faith and that you will take the time to acquaint yourself with the literature here and, if necessary, account for the facts. Let’s begin here:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2133995?seq=2
We clearly see that the immediate impact of Roe v. Wade was to lower abortion-related mortality by a significant amount over a very short time span. The authors moreover note than they estimate the amount of illegal abortions dropped from 130,000 to 17,000 in just three years, while not significantly raising the amount of total abortions sought.
Now I invite you to use google scholar and acquaint yourself with research not published by partisan media outlets. Perhaps what you will find will re-inforce your current beliefs. Perhaps not.
One last note, however. The quote you posted about democrats desiring ‘population control’ belongs to Stupak himself. There is no evidence whatsoever that any democrats have ever said this or believe it. Of course you want to believe it because you have this interesting narrative that the left is concerned with ‘control’ and the right with ‘freedom’. This is, as I pointed out to Ari in a previous comment, a preposterously simple-minded view. The right is just as concerned with social control (typically under the cloak of religion–e.g. against gay marriage) and the left just as concerned with freedom (e.g. the ACLU).
Because you think gay marriage is wrong, it doesn’t occur to you that it could be a legitimate case of freedom: people aren’t free to do what’s wrong. To someone without religious views condemning homosexuality, it plainly is a case of individual freedom. So here the ‘left’ wants to relax social control of sexuality and “let live,” as it were.
The moral of the story is that characterizing ‘left vs. right’ as a conflict between individual and state, freedom and control, is grossly naive. But as you mature and read more I’m convinced your views will mature too.
From the New England Journal of Medicine:
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=3178&query=home
“Among the most nettlesome obstacles in the yearlong debate over increasing the accessibility and affordability of health insurance has been the question of what effect health care reform legislation would have on the incidence of abortion. The recent experience in Massachusetts suggests that universal health care coverage has been associated with a decrease in the number of abortions performed, despite public and private funding of abortion that is substantially more liberal than the provisions of the federal legislation currently under consideration by Congress.”
Just in case you were still concerned, my friend, with the evidence you so ardently desired in a previous comment.