Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Killing future taxpayers via the stimulus bill

Shaun Kenney is executive director of a right wingnut Roman Catholic anti-abortion outfit called American Life League .

When he heard about a provision in the proposed stimulus bill that would include funds for family planning and (gasp!) contraceptives, Shaun went batshit crazy:

"At a time of financial crisis," he said, "Nancy Pelosi's solution is to kill future taxpayers."

It's hard to know how to response to such a moronic statement. Let's try this: A woman gets pregnant but soon thereafter has a miscarriage. What does Shaun say about that? Damn his goddamn God for killing a baby? Logically, of course. If a miscarriage is often nature's way of aborting a damaged fetus, and if God is the creator of all things, then God killed the baby!


The stimulus bill under attack by the morons of the Roman Church and Protestant fundamentalist christianists contains a provision which would allow states to provide family planning services -- including contraceptives -- for low-income people on Medicaid.

You'd think that would be a good thing! You'd think the anti-abortion nuts would be happy with that, as it would help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions.

But, you can't reason with anti-abortion nuts, especially of the Roman Catholic kind because they are still caught up in moribund medieval theological nonsense that every sperm is sacred -- a "potential" child of God, so therefore, contraception is bad, wrong, evil, and will send you directly to hell.

Most Roman Catholics don't believe that moribund medieval theological nonsense, but the Romanists continue to perpetrate it.

Thus, Shaun Kenney, again on Pelosi:

"Pelosi has described herself as 'an ardent, practicing Catholic.' But ardent, practicing Catholics do not treat destruction of human beings and human dignity as an economic stimulus plan. They do not see the death of countless preborn Americans through the use of abortifacient birth control as an opportunity to 'reduce state costs.'"

Note how nuts like this are going even nuttier: Contraception, which blocks those swimming little sperm from reaching their goal is considered the "destruction of human beings and human dignity." These swimming little sperm are referred to as "countless preborn Americans."

Kenney is echoed by another fruitcake, Patrict Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition. He says Pelosi's dastardly deeds are "bigoted, racist, elitist, and anti-child."

Of course they are. Furthermore, says Mahoney, America's leaders should "support and encourage America's children, not crush and destroy them."


Evidently, these asshats on the right have made enough noise that the Obama administration is considering removing this provision from the stimulus bill. That would be one hell of a mistake!

Life begins at birth! A fetus is not a human being. A fetus is a fetus! A fetus becomes a human being when it is born.

Sperm are not human beings. Sperm are wiggly little things that may or may not have the potential to help create a human being. Blocking sperm from realizing that potential is not "killing" children!

Contraceptives do not kill children, either! Contraceptives offer people the means by which to prevent unwanted children. And that reduces the number of abortions.

Contraception is a wonderful thing. The world has suffered mightily for many years from overpopulation.

These anti-abortion morons would rather have more children born into the world so the children can experience multitudinous opportunities for suffering -- disease, hunger, poverty, and early death.

Enough already! Leave the family planning provision in the stimulus bill.

7 comments:

Bob Poris said...

When do they start collecting the results of masturbation or wet dreams?

Aren’t there millions of potential children in every ejaculation?

Start sending such results to those that wish to save those potential lives.

Peter Gibbons said...

Seriously Jacob- "Life begins at birth?". You really need to be educated past 7th grade.

Human rights unfortunately just begin at birth in the USA (currently) but "life" itself? Blacks and women weren't "people" until constitutional amendments made them so, and some argued then that blacks weren't "humans" either to keep things the way they were.

It's fine to differ with asshats' religious beliefs when you have no faith in anything yourself, but at least let the science not be spun from truth to a lie on your blog. You lose total credibility when you do this.

When a "sperm" meets an "egg" and penetrates to the inside of it, DNA is instantaneously exchanged. This unique DNA will never change until this new person's death.

You can certainly label the stages of life ad nauseum through pre-birth stages, infancy, toddler, adolesence, adulthood, middle age, etc --but to not call it life at all is just plain ignorant on your part.

Jacob said...

Well, my friend, you seriously need to get past your religious beliefs. To believe a fertilized egg is a human being is nothing more than religious prejudice and not science at all.

Quote for me reputable scientists who believe human life begins at conception. You might stretch the point and say potential life begins then, but life begins at birth.

You need a little education yourself, sir.

Jacob

Peter Gibbons said...

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) defines pregnancy as beginning at implantation, as does the U.S. government. The New England Medical Journal also defines life as beginning at implantation. All three groups are unfortunately quite pro-abortion in their legislative advocacy.

The debate begins as to when to call it 'viable life' and as such, opinions vary ranging from fertilization to implantation to a short period of time after implantation, but even the biggest pro-abortion advocates don't say life begins at birth!

Planned Parenthood even calls your non-alive thing a "baby" after the first tri-mester, and they are bent on killing it.

So Jacob- you're wrong on two accounts now- I'm an athiest and an M.D. which is why I didn't bring up religion in my first reply, since the only religious aspect of life is whether it has a soul or not and thus would need to be protected in the afterlife and whether a soul was created even before the egg and the sperm met.

I don't believe in that which is why I let science do the talking instead. A baby has become perfectly viable to live on its own in as early as 18 weeks albeit a struggle at first requiring machines to contain the environment closely.

What would you call the 18 week old thing under the heat lamp with two arms, two legs, a heartbeat, a body and a head? A baby because it's born now?

What was it five minutes earlier?

The Intellectual Redneck said...

We all know the help Acorn gave the Democrats in winning the last election. What was in it for them? Is 4 billion dollars enough?
Democrats attempt to pay off Acorn

Jacob said...

Okay, Peter. Thanks for the input. So, exactly when is a fetus a "baby"? If a "baby" is "perfectly viable to live on its own in as early as 18 weeks" -- hooked up to machines and all, when could it live on its own without machines? And does that make it more of a baby?

In your opinion, is 18 weeks when the fetus turns into a real, live human being?

Another question, and I'm not trying to be snotty, but I am curious: would you describe yourself as anti-abortion or anti-choice?

I feel abortion should be considered carefully and thoroughly because potential life is involved, but I am pro-choice in that the decision to abort should be the woman's decision, in consultation with whomever she feels can assist her in making that decision. I am very opposed to the government deciding for her either.

Sorry about the religious assumption but your position seemed to me to be close to the christianist right.

From what you wrote, you are of the mind that human life begins at implantation, not at fertilization. Is contraception OK or do you consider that to be another form of "abortion"?

Also, in your mind is a fetus prior to 18 weeks a "baby"?

And, yes, of course I would "call the 18 week old thing..." a baby because it is born.

What the hell, maybe we're just fussing with semantics.

But I do appreciate your taking the time to write.

Jacob

Bob Poris said...

Semantics do not change the argument re abortion. Those with an unwanted pregnancy seek to abort. For some, the reasons are valid regardless of whether it is murder or not. The argument remains vital for some and they wish to continue abortion. Those opposed will continue to try to make it impossible to abort under any circumstances. Mixing in contraception merely clouds the basic issue of abortion. If contraception was allowed, there might be fewer abortions. Abortion would still be an option for some and should be safe if it is chosen. Call it mercy killing, murder, infanticide etc, the issues remain for those with an unwanted pregnancy.

I do not know anyone that is pro abortion. Most want the living mother to be, to have that option. It is never a pleasant choice and should not be used as a substitute for contraception. The goal should be less unwanted pregnancies and more options for the pregnant person.

opinions powered by SendLove.to