Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters?



 Science > Abortion > Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 7 of 7

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 
Topic: Science > Abortion
User: "Sound of Trumpet"
Date: 10 Feb 2006 03:56:36 PM
Object: Why Is The Left So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters?
http://fathermckenzie.blogspot.com/2006/02/but-what-about-children.html
"But what about the CHILDREN?"
"Lyn Allison was 18 when she found out she was pregnant. Living in
Fairfield, Victoria, in the 1960s, the idea of being an unmarried
mother was a burden too great for her family to bear. As the Democrats
leader revealed in the Senate last night: "An estimated one in three
women have had an abortion, and I am one of them." [...] Senator
Allison explained her decision to the [Sydney Morning] Herald: "I came
from a very conservative family and for them the shame of having a
child out of wedlock was unacceptable... I lived near an unmarried
mothers' home and they were out of sight in what was effectively an
institution. That was never going to be a prospect for me." Her family
knew, and her GP referred her, an act that would have been illegal at
the time. Having a child at 18 would have changed her life in ways she
was not prepared to contemplate. "I probably wouldn't be here [in the
Senate]," she said..."
-- Stephanie Peatling, "Revelation adds to emotional debate", Sydney
Morning Herald (9 February 2006)
Perhaps not, Senator. On the other hand, there might be one more
40[?]-year-old Democrat voter alive today, to help your party stave off
its impending electoral extinction.
Unfortunately for the pro-aborts, in a political system based (assuming
we can continue to stave off the imposition of a Bill of Rights) on
universal adult suffrage, there's no way around the brute mathematics
of "I'm pro-life and I vote... and so do all my kids", no matter how
often they repeat the chanted mantra of "Not the Church/ not the state/
Let the Woman/ decide her fate". It is not necessary for the pro-life
side to chant back "Children's lives don't/ belong to others/ Not their
fathers/ Not their mothers". We just have to be the ones who have
children. (With the caveat that you don't of course, have like, fifteen
or sixteen kids so they grow up unfed and unclothed and get so pissed
off with their pro-life upbringing that they turn your society into
another Italy, France, Ireland or Quebec in a single generation.)
Having had much experience in my youth with student politicians, I
always simply assume that at least half of our MPs at any given time
have either aborted a child (if female) or have sired an aborted child
(if male). This cuts across Left-Right lines, since the logic of easy
abortion is as highly appealing to the Party of Lust as it is to the
Party of Greed.
Perhaps we can have similarly rational and impartial debates about the
merits of other controversial social policies? Hmmm... "When I was 18,
I called an effeminate schoolmate of mine a '*****'. The Bill before
this House today, by outlawing vilification on the grounds of sexual
orientation, would have made me -- and thousands of others like me -- a
criminal! A law-breaker! But I'm a law-abiding citizen! Therefore, if
what I did would conflict with the law, then the law must be wrong!..."
And of course, society is still locking up young unmarried mothers, in
what is effectively an institution, just like in Lyn Allison's youth,
to brutally punish them for having sex out of wedlock.
I don't really expect much more than this from the Democrats (although
I do hope Natasha Stott-Despoja took care to turn down the TV sound in
case her baby son hears her telling the world "Mummy might have had you
chopped up by the doctor if you'd been inconvenient for her
lifestyle"), or from Julia Gillard. But Fiona Nash? One of the few
redeeming traits of the Nationals used to be their much-trumpeted
attachment to Christian values. If they want to become the party of
selfishness in relation to children's rights, not only to tariffs and
taxes, then to hell with them.
Having said that, the pro-life side seems to be putting a lot of energy
into a battle over an essentially short-term and symbolic question:
whether it is the Health Minister, or an appointed govt board, that can
give final approval to the abortion pill. Even if they win, it could
well turn out a pyrrhic victory: Tony Abbott (who seems, given his
views on abortion and the monarchy, to be undecided as to whether a
person's chances in life should depend on whether they're lucky to be
conceived in the right womb) won't be Health Minister forever.
Moreover, I disagree with the anti-RU486 tack of framing opposition in
terms of concern for the woman's health. Not that I want women to bleed
to death as punishment for procuring at-home abortions, but because
they have voluntarily assumed the risk. Pro-aborts frequently depict
anti-aborts as paternalistic chauvinists who don't think adult women
can be trusted to make decisions in their own interests;[*] this
anti-RU486 argument plays right into the hands of those who peddle this
stereotype. Me, I have no doubt that on balance women are as good as
men are at making decisions to promote their own interests; what I
don't buy is the creative Cannoldian line that, if your mother decides
to abort you, that's in your interests too. (I am not making that up.
Cannold is an ethics lecturer, believe it or not. But then, so is Peter
Singer.)
[*] Except, of course, when women vote for John Howard. Then they're
naive dupes of the ruling class, the media and dog-whistle politics.
.

User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: Why Is The Reich So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? 13 Feb 2006 11:41:42 PM
Jack <JackFrost@here.com> wrote:

rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Offers of
assistance and what was needed came and were turned away,


Liar.

Google is your friend...

But not yours.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "BOB"

Title: Re: Why Is The Reich So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? 13 Feb 2006 01:29:17 PM
Jack <JackFrost@here.com> wrote in
news:cgj1v1lp4sj2f4k4fumsbk7tg51jhl6vj0@4ax.com:

On 13 Feb 2006 13:28:39 GMT,

(Ray Fischer) wrote:

Jack <JackFrost@here.com> wrote:

On 13 Feb 2006 07:38:40 GMT,

(Ray Fischer) wrote:

They don't need to generate hysteria. Bush really is a screwup.

Where?


Where not?

Iraq? Screwup. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost, hundreds of
billions of dollars wasted, all for a lie.

Hardly call it a screw up, gains are being made, for all the right
reasons.


Katrina? Screwup. Even the republicans say that Bush blew it with
Katrina. Despite ample warning Bush and his cronies sat on their
asses and let people die.

Democratic mentality is the sole cause for the failure. Federal
Republican failed to immediately step in when they realized what kind
of cluster ***** was happening.

Blanco herself was caught on a CNN camera and still doing her PR
rounds as New Orleans Saviour saying that there were requests for aid
she should have done five days before, She still waited another 24 hrs
before she began the process.

Why lie?


Homeland security? Screwup. Despite billions spent security is only
marhinally better. Mostly the money has been wasted.

sarcasim>Right!!!</sarcasim>


Economy? Screwup. Five years into his administration and the economy
is still sputtering.

Look at the preceding president. If he would have put his foot down on
some obvious abuses irrational exuberance would have been the only
correction.

Enron happened under clinton, same with Arther Anderson. Blaming Bush
for this is an outright lie.

The economy is doing well enough to attract foreign investment.


Budget? Screwup. Record deficits and trillions of dollars of debt
just so he could kill Iraqis and give his rich buddies massive tax
breaks.

2 wars, 3 major disasters, etc...


The guy has done the impossible with positive results (no can't
explain it)


You can't explain it because it's not true. There are no positive
results.

Just stuff clinton needed to do and refused.


The only real negative thing is the deficit but even
considering that when the pentagon, world trade center, a two front
explain it)war and New Orleans, it's understandable.


LOL! You really must be a sucker for republican propaganda. 9/11 was
a minor blip in the US economy. It's been four YEARS since then and
still the economy is dragging because he's been running up record
deficits and sucking trillions of dollars out of the economy.

Loss of knowhow alone is still hurting.

There's nothing there except manufactured opinion based on
circumstance, democratic errors and negative spin. Everything you've
mentioned works in his favor and to the disgrace of the democrats.

The entitlement program set up for immediate emergency aid has become
a bureaucratic nightmare still waiting resolution.

Hey, there's something you folk can whine about.

It too bad Clinton didn't give Al Qada a response over the first 2
attack. It's too bad Clinton cut bad intelligence and military
spending by 2/3 and 1/7 as a response to the previous attacks.
Hindsight is 20/20, eh?


Iraq is a mess of his own creation and is costing the US $5 billion a
week. In fact, as many Americans have died because of Iraq as died
because of 9/11.

Iraq is getting better. I have no intention of exploiting the people
there. You pissing on them is only going to make them wet.


Even the republicans say that Bush screwedup up with Katrina. And now
he's flagrantly violating the law by authorizing illegal wiretaps on
US citizens. The guy is an incompetant and a crook.

Bush lost favor with some republicans because he is less partisan then
they would like.



Like I said before, there's nothing there...

Typical mentality of the neocon wingnut and bootlickin Bush lapdog.
Blame everything on Clinton and worship the idiot president republiKKKans
currently in charge.
.

User: "Chairman Mao"

Title: Re: Why Is The Reich So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? 17 Feb 2006 10:01:53 PM
Yes according to you world liberals...
"Ray Fischer" <
> wrote in message
news:43f03780$0$58101$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Jack <JackFrost@here.com> wrote:

On 13 Feb 2006 06:30:52 GMT,

(Ray Fischer) wrote:

Jack <JackFrost@here.com> wrote:

(Ray Fischer) wrote:

Jack <JackFrost@here.com> wrote:


The left doesn't lead, it manufactures opinion


Weapons of mass destruction.

I don't have the same amount of information both parties had.


You don't even have the same amount of information Congress had.

I do
know it would have been unanimous except for 2 votes.


We also know that Bush lied to Congress.

Most likely untrue.

Congress did not take Bush at face value and most assuredly Democratic
representatives would have sought to take advantage of the situation,
even if it meant nothing more then a symbolic No Confidence.

Let's face it, Bush couldn't run into a burning building and save 17
children without some negative PR being included with it.


Bush couldn't run into a burning building to save 17 children without
killing 20 in the process and making another 20 homeless.

It is most
likely the same situation with America's involvement in Iraq,
Democrat's attempting to generate negative hysteria around an opposing
president.


They don't need to generate hysteria. Bush really is a screwup.

--
Ray Fischer



_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

.
User: "Craig Chilton"

Title: Re: Why Is The Reich So Keen On Killing Their Future Voters? 17 Feb 2006 11:29:53 PM
On 18 Feb 2006 04:01:53 GMT,
"Chairman Mao" <nihaoma@shanghai.com> wrote:

...according to you world liberals...

On behalf of social liberals everywhere, THANKS for
the COMPLIMENT!! It's an **honor** to be recognized as
a person who is sensible, compassionate, egalitarian, and
intelligent enough to be a liberal.
Beats the living hell out of being called a "conservative."
Associating any person with *those* hateful, control-
freakish, buttinskyish, and ignorant losers would be the
worst sort of INSULT.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
---
PROUD to be a social liberal/human-
rights-defending egalitarian!
.



  Page 7 of 7

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

6

 

7

 


Related Articles
Memo to the baby killers and their supporters.
on their way out, but...
Women Tell Their Abortion Stories 2 (Tewannah Aman)
Re: What do 'gay parents' tell their kids when they ask...
NeoCons Continue Their Silence on Torture Abuses (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent)
Tennessee anti-choicers lose their license plates
New Public Citizen Analysis Finds Corporations and Their Executives Have Contributed 96 Percent of Bush’s Inauguration Funds
Re: How Long Does It Take to Train Iraqis to Defend Their Own Country?
The ELITES that the RRR Cult never mentions: Their OWN **elites**.
Liberals Aborting Their Conscience
Re: Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'(YES PROOF)
TheoCons Care More For The Rapists than their Victims (I Dare You GOP Fuckers to Stop This Abortion!)
The Republican Mine Disaster: Blood on Their Hands (GOP: The Party That Wants Americans Dead)
Mining Lobbyists Paid Bush to Gut Safety Laws (GOP, The Blood on Their Hands)
SURE Identifier of RRR Cultists: They use NONSENSE Jargon in their attempts to denigrate people. E.g.., "Postmodern."
 

NEWER

pg.652     pg.362     pg.201     pg.112     pg.63     pg.36     pg.21     pg.13     pg.9     pg.7     pg.5     pg.3

OLDER