Party squelches pro-life Democrats

Washington Post columnist Melinda Henneberger on pro-life Democrats trying to get a hearing at the platform committee but getting shot down.  She comes up with an interesting parallel, that abortion is to Democrats what gun rights are to Republicans, an untouchable issue that allows for no compromise:

Democratic dissenters on the issue of abortion have made their case to the platform committee, arguing that the party should change its language enough to allow for some diversity of opinion on the matter and return to the “big tent” approach of the Clinton years.

The effort is probably doomed; NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan is on the committee, and those pushing for the change were happy just to get to testify; they weren’t even allowed to do that four years ago.

This time around, Janet Robert, who founded Minnesota’s progressive talk radio station AM 950, with talkers such as Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann, was given seven minutes to make the case, and she used it to argue that the party simply cannot win back Congress without Democrats who differ from the ’08 platform on this one issue. She cited a slew of stats, including a Gallup poll from last year in which 44 percent of Democrats said abortion should only be legal “in a few circumstances.”

The plank they want to rewrite says the party “unequivocally” supports Roe v. Wade and spells out that “we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” .  . .

There’s no question that Democrats won the House in ’06 by running more moderate candidates in districts the party would otherwise have lost to Republicans.

But the abortion rights lobby writes big checks and wields such unlimited power that I’ve long thought abortion rights have become to the Democrats what the Second Amendment is to Republicans — who are so terrified of the “slippery slope” that even the most common-sense gun restrictions are out of the question. Nobody wants to buck the lobby with bucks.

via Democratic abortion foes push for change in platform – She The People – The Washington Post.

The last time Democrats won big, they courted social conservatives and ran some moderate candidates.  Another theme of this column is that Democrats aren’t going to do that this time.

Democrats claim to be the party of compassion and social justice, championing the marginalized and supporting the little guy.  I can’t take that seriously as long as they so uncritically support abortion.  What is so “liberal” about being for abortion?  Women’s rights?  But isn’t that more of a libertarian way of thinking, the sort of individualist mindset that leftists condemn when they see it in conservatives?  At any rate, I can respect pro-life liberals, when you can find them, as being generally consistent in their principles.  But pro-abortion liberals are sort of like those early Americans who believed passionately in freedom, despite their glaring inconsistency of also believing even more passionately in slavery.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Michael B.

    “What is so “liberal” about being for abortion? Women’s rights? ”

    Yeah. It’s the whole thing that you can’t force a woman to have a baby she doesn’t want, any more than you can force her to have sex when she doesn’t want to.

    “The last time Democrats won big, they courted social conservatives ”

    When was that exactly? And where are even the pro-life Republicans who have done much of anything on the issue?

    “Democrats claim to be the party of compassion and social justice, championing the marginalized and supporting the little guy. I can’t take that seriously as long as they so uncritically support abortion. ”

    Not even a fundamentalist pro-lifer can take the idea seriously that a zygote is as valuable an infant. As I mentioned earlier, there is a burning down building and you can save either an infant or a thousand frozen zygotes. None of your “personhood” arguments convinced you that a thousand zygotes were even as valuable as 1 infant. They haven’t convinced pro-choicers either.

  • Michael B.

    “What is so “liberal” about being for abortion? Women’s rights? ”

    Yeah. It’s the whole thing that you can’t force a woman to have a baby she doesn’t want, any more than you can force her to have sex when she doesn’t want to.

    “The last time Democrats won big, they courted social conservatives ”

    When was that exactly? And where are even the pro-life Republicans who have done much of anything on the issue?

    “Democrats claim to be the party of compassion and social justice, championing the marginalized and supporting the little guy. I can’t take that seriously as long as they so uncritically support abortion. ”

    Not even a fundamentalist pro-lifer can take the idea seriously that a zygote is as valuable an infant. As I mentioned earlier, there is a burning down building and you can save either an infant or a thousand frozen zygotes. None of your “personhood” arguments convinced you that a thousand zygotes were even as valuable as 1 infant. They haven’t convinced pro-choicers either.

  • trotk

    Michael, I know that you think that you are clever with your either-or ethical dilemma, and I know that you think it proves that pro-life advocates don’t actually believe zygotes are persons.

    But honestly, it is a stupid question, because it doesn’t prove anything about what we believe the zygotes are. If my kids were in a burning building, and so were 1000 of Michael B, I would save my 3 children. It has nothing to do with whether I believe you are a person with the right to life, but instead everything to do with whom I value more. These are fundamentally different categories (subjective value vs. objective essence), and that is why your scenario is nothing other than a logical fallacy.

    As a logical fallacy, repeating it every time this issue comes up only makes you look like an idiot.

    If you need help constructing the syllogism so that you can see where your argument breaks down, let me know.

  • trotk

    Michael, I know that you think that you are clever with your either-or ethical dilemma, and I know that you think it proves that pro-life advocates don’t actually believe zygotes are persons.

    But honestly, it is a stupid question, because it doesn’t prove anything about what we believe the zygotes are. If my kids were in a burning building, and so were 1000 of Michael B, I would save my 3 children. It has nothing to do with whether I believe you are a person with the right to life, but instead everything to do with whom I value more. These are fundamentally different categories (subjective value vs. objective essence), and that is why your scenario is nothing other than a logical fallacy.

    As a logical fallacy, repeating it every time this issue comes up only makes you look like an idiot.

    If you need help constructing the syllogism so that you can see where your argument breaks down, let me know.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Yeah. It’s the whole thing that you can’t force a woman to have a baby she doesn’t want, any more than you can force her to have sex when she doesn’t want to.”

    No force required. It happens all by itself as a natural consequence of sexual activity. The government isn’t impregnating women. Abortion laws limit the behaviors of doctors. The doctor kills the baby. Abortion laws prohibit killing people before they are born, just as murder laws establish penalties for killing people after they are born.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Yeah. It’s the whole thing that you can’t force a woman to have a baby she doesn’t want, any more than you can force her to have sex when she doesn’t want to.”

    No force required. It happens all by itself as a natural consequence of sexual activity. The government isn’t impregnating women. Abortion laws limit the behaviors of doctors. The doctor kills the baby. Abortion laws prohibit killing people before they are born, just as murder laws establish penalties for killing people after they are born.

  • Carl Vehse

    “At any rate, I can respect pro-life liberals, when you can find them, as being generally consistent in their principles.”

    I do not. Not when such liberals support and vote for a genocidal murdering traitor. Not when being liberal, rather than the original meaning of “liberal,” today means an anti-Christian socialist. Not when liberals create and promote a welfare entitlement class to burden this country. Not when liberals seek to destroy the Bill of Rights and step on those they can’t.

    Being a Democrat today is inconsistent with pro-life principles. You can be one or the other, or a liar or witless in claiming to be both.

  • Carl Vehse

    “At any rate, I can respect pro-life liberals, when you can find them, as being generally consistent in their principles.”

    I do not. Not when such liberals support and vote for a genocidal murdering traitor. Not when being liberal, rather than the original meaning of “liberal,” today means an anti-Christian socialist. Not when liberals create and promote a welfare entitlement class to burden this country. Not when liberals seek to destroy the Bill of Rights and step on those they can’t.

    Being a Democrat today is inconsistent with pro-life principles. You can be one or the other, or a liar or witless in claiming to be both.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I actually prefer that the Democrat party takes an honest position. Only about 25% of Americans agree with our current policy on abortion. Most agree with a policy like European countries have; heavily restricted and democratically legislated. Our policy is the result of a judicial fiat that is fundamentally opposed by the vast majority of the public. 75% of Americans want abortion either restricted or prohibited. The obvious middle ground would be to allow states to just make their own laws like European nations do. In other words, overturn Roe v. Wade and let states decide. That would mean some states would be like Russia with tons of abortion and few restrictions and others would be like Ireland and Poland with near total bans. And most would be in the middle like France, Germany and Spain with heavy restrictions.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I actually prefer that the Democrat party takes an honest position. Only about 25% of Americans agree with our current policy on abortion. Most agree with a policy like European countries have; heavily restricted and democratically legislated. Our policy is the result of a judicial fiat that is fundamentally opposed by the vast majority of the public. 75% of Americans want abortion either restricted or prohibited. The obvious middle ground would be to allow states to just make their own laws like European nations do. In other words, overturn Roe v. Wade and let states decide. That would mean some states would be like Russia with tons of abortion and few restrictions and others would be like Ireland and Poland with near total bans. And most would be in the middle like France, Germany and Spain with heavy restrictions.

  • Steve Billingsley

    sg @ 5
    There you go again. Writing something that actually makes sense.

  • Steve Billingsley

    sg @ 5
    There you go again. Writing something that actually makes sense.

  • reg

    Carl,
    You say ” Not when such liberals support and vote for a genocidal murdering traitor. ” who would that be?

  • reg

    Carl,
    You say ” Not when such liberals support and vote for a genocidal murdering traitor. ” who would that be?

  • reg

    Michael B,
    Trotk is right you do sound like an idiot. Yours is the most illogical rant I have ever heard on this issue.

  • reg

    Michael B,
    Trotk is right you do sound like an idiot. Yours is the most illogical rant I have ever heard on this issue.

  • Steve Billingsley

    To add to part of sg’s point @ 5 – Both sides of the abortion debate (I’m definitely on the anti-abortion side) exhibit a great deal of fuzzy thinking around what would actually happen if R0e v Wade were overturned. Speaking only on the terms of jurisprudence, Roe v Wade as a horrible decision because it overturned the laws of at least 43 states (and you can make the case if effectively overturned all abortion codes in all 50 states) based on the flimsiest of constitutional reasoning (if you parse past the “privacy” talk in the majority opinion, 6 justices voted for the majority for no other reason than they wanted abortion to be legal). It is simply bad law.

    But if Roe v Wade were overturned what would happen is much as sg described. Some states would pass very restrictive abortion laws, others would pass very permissive abortion laws and the rest would fall at various places in between. Pro-lifers would be disappointed in the sense that there would be large swaths of the country where there are few, if any restrictions placed on abortion. Pro-choicers would be disappointed in that there would be restrictions place on abortion at all. But the law would actually reflect what the large majority of people in America actually think about abortion – that is should be legal in some instances and not legal in others. That doesn’t reflect what I think, but I think that is preferable to the current situation – where abortion is legally held as some sort of “secular sacrament” of women’s rights (which is an incredibly strange position for anyone who actually thinks longer than 2 seconds about abortion for anyone to hold).

  • Steve Billingsley

    To add to part of sg’s point @ 5 – Both sides of the abortion debate (I’m definitely on the anti-abortion side) exhibit a great deal of fuzzy thinking around what would actually happen if R0e v Wade were overturned. Speaking only on the terms of jurisprudence, Roe v Wade as a horrible decision because it overturned the laws of at least 43 states (and you can make the case if effectively overturned all abortion codes in all 50 states) based on the flimsiest of constitutional reasoning (if you parse past the “privacy” talk in the majority opinion, 6 justices voted for the majority for no other reason than they wanted abortion to be legal). It is simply bad law.

    But if Roe v Wade were overturned what would happen is much as sg described. Some states would pass very restrictive abortion laws, others would pass very permissive abortion laws and the rest would fall at various places in between. Pro-lifers would be disappointed in the sense that there would be large swaths of the country where there are few, if any restrictions placed on abortion. Pro-choicers would be disappointed in that there would be restrictions place on abortion at all. But the law would actually reflect what the large majority of people in America actually think about abortion – that is should be legal in some instances and not legal in others. That doesn’t reflect what I think, but I think that is preferable to the current situation – where abortion is legally held as some sort of “secular sacrament” of women’s rights (which is an incredibly strange position for anyone who actually thinks longer than 2 seconds about abortion for anyone to hold).

  • Cincinnatus

    This is rather old news: there are dozens of examples of formerly pro-life Democrats–Edward Kennedy being a particularly famous instance–who later kow-towed to the institution of pro-choice orthodoxy sometime between 1973 and 1983.

    The real question, though, is, as our host notes, “why?” Why would Democrats select as the litmus test for their party the question of abortion? It’s not and never has been a popular issue. The mere thought of it is off-putting to any thinking human being, even to those who support it (which is why no pro-abortion advocate calls him/herself “pro-abortion”). It militates against popular opinion, and, perhaps most significantly, it doesn’t necessarily comport with the Democratic Party’s broader social vision, such as it is: economic equity, etc.

    You can oppose higher taxes for the wealthy, gay marriage, the bailout bill, the stimulus package, or Obama in general and still caucus with the Democrats. But Lord knows you’d better not question abortion-on-demand! Why?!

    I think part of the problem is that, despite rumors of the G.O.P.’s demise, the Democratic Party has been descending into ideological irrelevancy since the ’70s: that was when the Party abandoned its broad New Deal coalition and decided instead to root its foundation into a motley assembly of ethnic minorities (esp. blacks), single women, and other “fringe” groups (like homosexuals). In other words, the Democratic Party self-consciously made itself the party of Identity Politics (or, as they would prefer to characterize it, the party of the downtrodden, etc.).

    This was a bad idea, since, even taken together, these groups still add up to a minority of the voting public. Marginal groups–say, feminist single women–tend to prioritize marginal issues–like abortion on demand. But it’s what the strategists of the New Left wanted.

    If it hadn’t been for Bill Clinton centrist strategy, the Democratic Party would today be obsolete. Just like popular support for abortion on demand.

  • Cincinnatus

    This is rather old news: there are dozens of examples of formerly pro-life Democrats–Edward Kennedy being a particularly famous instance–who later kow-towed to the institution of pro-choice orthodoxy sometime between 1973 and 1983.

    The real question, though, is, as our host notes, “why?” Why would Democrats select as the litmus test for their party the question of abortion? It’s not and never has been a popular issue. The mere thought of it is off-putting to any thinking human being, even to those who support it (which is why no pro-abortion advocate calls him/herself “pro-abortion”). It militates against popular opinion, and, perhaps most significantly, it doesn’t necessarily comport with the Democratic Party’s broader social vision, such as it is: economic equity, etc.

    You can oppose higher taxes for the wealthy, gay marriage, the bailout bill, the stimulus package, or Obama in general and still caucus with the Democrats. But Lord knows you’d better not question abortion-on-demand! Why?!

    I think part of the problem is that, despite rumors of the G.O.P.’s demise, the Democratic Party has been descending into ideological irrelevancy since the ’70s: that was when the Party abandoned its broad New Deal coalition and decided instead to root its foundation into a motley assembly of ethnic minorities (esp. blacks), single women, and other “fringe” groups (like homosexuals). In other words, the Democratic Party self-consciously made itself the party of Identity Politics (or, as they would prefer to characterize it, the party of the downtrodden, etc.).

    This was a bad idea, since, even taken together, these groups still add up to a minority of the voting public. Marginal groups–say, feminist single women–tend to prioritize marginal issues–like abortion on demand. But it’s what the strategists of the New Left wanted.

    If it hadn’t been for Bill Clinton centrist strategy, the Democratic Party would today be obsolete. Just like popular support for abortion on demand.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cincinnatus – which is why the Democrats have to push the demonizing of say Romney to such ridiculous extremes. It is to garner sympathetic support based on identity politics – The Atlantic has an article out today – http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/the-strangeness-of-obama-supporters-playing-the-innocents-killed-card/260906/

    Of course, not that the other side is angelic either.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Cincinnatus – which is why the Democrats have to push the demonizing of say Romney to such ridiculous extremes. It is to garner sympathetic support based on identity politics – The Atlantic has an article out today – http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/the-strangeness-of-obama-supporters-playing-the-innocents-killed-card/260906/

    Of course, not that the other side is angelic either.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Well, I think bigger picture is the way that both parties have chosen to replace evidence-based solution making with party-line talking points. I just don’t believe that Congress actually wants to solve anything. I think they are trying to squeeze as much money out of this gravy train before the wheels fall off.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Well, I think bigger picture is the way that both parties have chosen to replace evidence-based solution making with party-line talking points. I just don’t believe that Congress actually wants to solve anything. I think they are trying to squeeze as much money out of this gravy train before the wheels fall off.

  • Cincinnatus

    John,

    Your “bigger” point rather misses the point. Yes, everyone knows that mass democratic politics are characterized by shallow ideology, identity appeals, and talking points.

    The question we’re asking is why the Democratic Party has chosen as one of its primary talking points the issue of abortion. And not just as one of its talking points, but as the litmus test for Democratic orthodoxy. It’s baffling.

  • Cincinnatus

    John,

    Your “bigger” point rather misses the point. Yes, everyone knows that mass democratic politics are characterized by shallow ideology, identity appeals, and talking points.

    The question we’re asking is why the Democratic Party has chosen as one of its primary talking points the issue of abortion. And not just as one of its talking points, but as the litmus test for Democratic orthodoxy. It’s baffling.

  • S. P.

    s.g. and S. B.

    What you are saying seems reasonable to me, but I also cannot help but compare it to the situation in the first century of the Union. Some states allowed slavery, some did not, and all the states had different laws regarding slaves and slavery…

    In the end, how did that work out?

  • S. P.

    s.g. and S. B.

    What you are saying seems reasonable to me, but I also cannot help but compare it to the situation in the first century of the Union. Some states allowed slavery, some did not, and all the states had different laws regarding slaves and slavery…

    In the end, how did that work out?

  • Cincinnatus

    S.P.@14:

    It would have worked out fine if the Yankees weren’t such self-righteous imperialists about the whole thing.

    It’s also a non-sequitur. The states are never going to wage a civil war over the question of abortion.

  • Cincinnatus

    S.P.@14:

    It would have worked out fine if the Yankees weren’t such self-righteous imperialists about the whole thing.

    It’s also a non-sequitur. The states are never going to wage a civil war over the question of abortion.

  • George

    Just because a statement is made by a pro abort doesn’t mean it’s false. Clearly if someone will let a thousand of one thing die to save one of another thing must place relatively little value on the former. People take a pro abort mindset without even knowing it. It’s the same when people think a woman can kill an unborn baby and shouldn’t go to jail, but if she kills a born person, give her 25 to life.

  • George

    Just because a statement is made by a pro abort doesn’t mean it’s false. Clearly if someone will let a thousand of one thing die to save one of another thing must place relatively little value on the former. People take a pro abort mindset without even knowing it. It’s the same when people think a woman can kill an unborn baby and shouldn’t go to jail, but if she kills a born person, give her 25 to life.

  • Jon

    If I were really pro-abortion, I’d vote Republican everytime. When the party controls the White House and Congress, it refuses to pass the Human Life Amendment, which would overturn Roe. The party’s economic policies make life harder for poor women, who are most susceptible to the temptation to have an abortion for economic reasons. Even now, the party promises to repeal those portions of the ACA which forbid insurance companies from continuing to make pregnancy a pre-existing condition, thus denying women coverage, or using preganacy to raise women’s premiums. The GOP fights every proposal to make childcare more available to working women with children.

    I can understand why some American Christians don’t want to vote for the Democrats, but when I hear a Christian tell me how anti-abortion the GOP is, I know I’m listening to a fool.

  • Jon

    If I were really pro-abortion, I’d vote Republican everytime. When the party controls the White House and Congress, it refuses to pass the Human Life Amendment, which would overturn Roe. The party’s economic policies make life harder for poor women, who are most susceptible to the temptation to have an abortion for economic reasons. Even now, the party promises to repeal those portions of the ACA which forbid insurance companies from continuing to make pregnancy a pre-existing condition, thus denying women coverage, or using preganacy to raise women’s premiums. The GOP fights every proposal to make childcare more available to working women with children.

    I can understand why some American Christians don’t want to vote for the Democrats, but when I hear a Christian tell me how anti-abortion the GOP is, I know I’m listening to a fool.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jon@17:

    Are you politically blind? Serious question. Do you live under a rock?

    Obviously, Republicans have not succeeded in abolishing abortion altogether. Obviously, they haven’t even tried. Obviously, those who say they are trying to do so are pandering. Obviously, it will be impossible to do so as long as Roe v. Wade remains valid precedent.

    But Republicans, especially at the state level, have made huge efforts to place additional (and constitutionally acceptable) restrictions on abortions and abortion clinics, to the point that it is virtually impossible to get an abortion in some states. In addition, we can thank the Bush Administration for the Mexico City policy, for example. Mandatory ultrasounds, parental permission, stringent clinical requirements, etc.–all of these, among others, have been successful Republican efforts to, at the very least, limit the number of abortions that happen in America.

    I have no love whatsoever for the Republican part, but to pretend that they’re “more pro-abortion” than the Democrats is just absurdly, laughably wrong.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jon@17:

    Are you politically blind? Serious question. Do you live under a rock?

    Obviously, Republicans have not succeeded in abolishing abortion altogether. Obviously, they haven’t even tried. Obviously, those who say they are trying to do so are pandering. Obviously, it will be impossible to do so as long as Roe v. Wade remains valid precedent.

    But Republicans, especially at the state level, have made huge efforts to place additional (and constitutionally acceptable) restrictions on abortions and abortion clinics, to the point that it is virtually impossible to get an abortion in some states. In addition, we can thank the Bush Administration for the Mexico City policy, for example. Mandatory ultrasounds, parental permission, stringent clinical requirements, etc.–all of these, among others, have been successful Republican efforts to, at the very least, limit the number of abortions that happen in America.

    I have no love whatsoever for the Republican part, but to pretend that they’re “more pro-abortion” than the Democrats is just absurdly, laughably wrong.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @14

    Well, the fact is that not every issue is slavery nor analogous to it.

    Some states have the death penalty and regularly execute convicts. Others don’t. How will that work out in the end?

    We are united states. We are united for some purposes; those defined in our constitution. Citizens are guaranteed specific rights by that constitution. They are not guaranteed everything under the sun. They are not guaranteed uniform laws in all the states. If people in Massachusetts want 100% free health care at the point of service paid for by tax revenue, they can do it, but they are not entitled to it under the constitution. And if they do it, the rest of us are not required to follow their example. The constitution, pure and simple, does not give parents life and death authority over their unborn children. It is not a right. Due perhaps to common usage of language of the era of its authorship, the constitution also doesn’t expressly guarantee the rights of citizens before they draw their first breath. It can be amended to guarantee the right to life from conception like the German constitution does if we want to do that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @14

    Well, the fact is that not every issue is slavery nor analogous to it.

    Some states have the death penalty and regularly execute convicts. Others don’t. How will that work out in the end?

    We are united states. We are united for some purposes; those defined in our constitution. Citizens are guaranteed specific rights by that constitution. They are not guaranteed everything under the sun. They are not guaranteed uniform laws in all the states. If people in Massachusetts want 100% free health care at the point of service paid for by tax revenue, they can do it, but they are not entitled to it under the constitution. And if they do it, the rest of us are not required to follow their example. The constitution, pure and simple, does not give parents life and death authority over their unborn children. It is not a right. Due perhaps to common usage of language of the era of its authorship, the constitution also doesn’t expressly guarantee the rights of citizens before they draw their first breath. It can be amended to guarantee the right to life from conception like the German constitution does if we want to do that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The party’s economic policies make life harder for poor women, who are most susceptible to the temptation to have an abortion for economic reasons.

    I don’t think that is really true. The middle class is more likely to abort. They have the ability to benefit economically from higher earnings and fewer expenses. The poor gain from subsidies and do not, in general, have the ability to increase their earnings or savings by having fewer children.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The party’s economic policies make life harder for poor women, who are most susceptible to the temptation to have an abortion for economic reasons.

    I don’t think that is really true. The middle class is more likely to abort. They have the ability to benefit economically from higher earnings and fewer expenses. The poor gain from subsidies and do not, in general, have the ability to increase their earnings or savings by having fewer children.

  • Jon

    @18 You’re right that the GOP has, in some states, made abortion more expensive and more difficult for poor women to obtain, while leaving everyone else free to commit the alleged murder. It’s like refusing to criminalize murder-by-gun, but raising the price of firearms. The GOP does not believe abortion is murder; if it did, it would work to do those things that you rightly point out it “obviously” has no interest in doing. Given Roe, overturning it is the key. The GOP will flatly not do that.

  • Jon

    @18 You’re right that the GOP has, in some states, made abortion more expensive and more difficult for poor women to obtain, while leaving everyone else free to commit the alleged murder. It’s like refusing to criminalize murder-by-gun, but raising the price of firearms. The GOP does not believe abortion is murder; if it did, it would work to do those things that you rightly point out it “obviously” has no interest in doing. Given Roe, overturning it is the key. The GOP will flatly not do that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Even now, the party promises to repeal those portions of the ACA which forbid insurance companies from continuing to make pregnancy a pre-existing condition, thus denying women coverage, or using preganacy to raise women’s premiums. The GOP fights every proposal to make childcare more available to working women with children.”

    By definition those policies impact the middle class; working people who have insurance. Those are not the poor. The poor get more stuff by having more kids. The middle class just get more expenses. Neither party’s elites want a strong middle class or worse a strong upper middle class. Those people can be a threat to them. The GOP wants cheap labor to provide cheap goods/services to please the middle class voters. The Dems want to just buy votes with freebies and strange policies that appeal to current whims of affluent donors. Both Dems and Reps are influence peddlers.

    A fascinating case of watching the power behind the throne is Phill Kline in Kansas. He tried to investigate Planned Parenthood. The actions of the players in that drama were something to behold.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Even now, the party promises to repeal those portions of the ACA which forbid insurance companies from continuing to make pregnancy a pre-existing condition, thus denying women coverage, or using preganacy to raise women’s premiums. The GOP fights every proposal to make childcare more available to working women with children.”

    By definition those policies impact the middle class; working people who have insurance. Those are not the poor. The poor get more stuff by having more kids. The middle class just get more expenses. Neither party’s elites want a strong middle class or worse a strong upper middle class. Those people can be a threat to them. The GOP wants cheap labor to provide cheap goods/services to please the middle class voters. The Dems want to just buy votes with freebies and strange policies that appeal to current whims of affluent donors. Both Dems and Reps are influence peddlers.

    A fascinating case of watching the power behind the throne is Phill Kline in Kansas. He tried to investigate Planned Parenthood. The actions of the players in that drama were something to behold.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jon@21:

    I don’t understand your claim, probably because it makes no sense. The requirement, for example, to obtain parental permission before getting an abortion or to be shown an ultrasound beforehand applies regardless of economic status. Rich people don’t get a “pass” on these requirements. Rich women aren’t more “free” to commit murder than poor people because of these requirements. You’re being absurd. Rich people get a lot of breaks in this country, but free abortions aren’t among them. In fact, the poor can obtain free abortions through Medicare and Medicaid.

    The G.O.P. obviously “has no interest” in overturning Roe because it can’t do that. Do you have any knowledge of how the American governmental system works? Until the Supreme Court overturns Roe–which may or may not ever happen; who knows?–Republicans have actually been working within the system to limit abortions. That’s my point. Your partisan trolling is nonsense.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jon@21:

    I don’t understand your claim, probably because it makes no sense. The requirement, for example, to obtain parental permission before getting an abortion or to be shown an ultrasound beforehand applies regardless of economic status. Rich people don’t get a “pass” on these requirements. Rich women aren’t more “free” to commit murder than poor people because of these requirements. You’re being absurd. Rich people get a lot of breaks in this country, but free abortions aren’t among them. In fact, the poor can obtain free abortions through Medicare and Medicaid.

    The G.O.P. obviously “has no interest” in overturning Roe because it can’t do that. Do you have any knowledge of how the American governmental system works? Until the Supreme Court overturns Roe–which may or may not ever happen; who knows?–Republicans have actually been working within the system to limit abortions. That’s my point. Your partisan trolling is nonsense.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Given Roe, overturning it is the key. The GOP will flatly not do that.”

    Right. The GOP elite are not pro life, but many GOP voters are.

    It is kind of like Dems who vote to allow the president to use force in Iraq. They are plenty pro war, but many of their constituents are not, so they have to play both sides of the street.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Given Roe, overturning it is the key. The GOP will flatly not do that.”

    Right. The GOP elite are not pro life, but many GOP voters are.

    It is kind of like Dems who vote to allow the president to use force in Iraq. They are plenty pro war, but many of their constituents are not, so they have to play both sides of the street.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The rich, atheists, highly educated, Jews, etc., those who trend more pro abortion are also less likely to have abortions because they are smarter and more competent at effectively using birth control. So, no, they aren’t keeping abortion legal so they can use it, because they seldom do. Perhaps abortion is legal to keep the rest of us in check. Free birth control for all women, not just the poor, makes more sense to control the middle classes.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The rich, atheists, highly educated, Jews, etc., those who trend more pro abortion are also less likely to have abortions because they are smarter and more competent at effectively using birth control. So, no, they aren’t keeping abortion legal so they can use it, because they seldom do. Perhaps abortion is legal to keep the rest of us in check. Free birth control for all women, not just the poor, makes more sense to control the middle classes.

  • S. P.

    sg

    “Well, the fact is that not every issue is slavery nor analogous to it.”

    That’s right. The question is, what made slavery the issue that it was?What I’ve read is that two things came together and divisively reinforced each other: The contradiction between slavery and the political ideology that the Union was based on, and money–specifically the differences between the Union economy and the Southern economy.

    As for the contradiction, slavery and abortion are quite comparable. However, the Union is based on different principles now. Of course many of us still feel strongly about the ideals that the union was founded on and they are still officially embraced, but things have changed dramatically since the 19th century.

    As for the economic differences between North and South, there doesn’t seem to be anything obviously comparable relating to abortion.

  • S. P.

    sg

    “Well, the fact is that not every issue is slavery nor analogous to it.”

    That’s right. The question is, what made slavery the issue that it was?What I’ve read is that two things came together and divisively reinforced each other: The contradiction between slavery and the political ideology that the Union was based on, and money–specifically the differences between the Union economy and the Southern economy.

    As for the contradiction, slavery and abortion are quite comparable. However, the Union is based on different principles now. Of course many of us still feel strongly about the ideals that the union was founded on and they are still officially embraced, but things have changed dramatically since the 19th century.

    As for the economic differences between North and South, there doesn’t seem to be anything obviously comparable relating to abortion.

  • Steve Billingsley

    RE: Overturning Roe – as Cincinnatus @ 21 pointed out, the Supreme Court is the only group that can do that and there hasn’t been a case heard by the Court that had the possibility to materially effect Roe since Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1992.

    To say that the GOP doesn’t want to overturn Roe (and has done nothing) is a bit of a stretch. To say that it hasn’t been their top priority is unquestionably true.

    As far as the Life Amendment is concerned. It takes 2/3 of both houses to pass an amendment to the Constitution. The GOP hasn’t had anywhere close to a 2/3 majority in either house. So should they just bring it up for a vote and lose to show they’re serious? I know that symbolic votes do happen (trying to repeal Obamacare anyone?) – but this one would be pretty meaningless.

    I’m generally a pox on both of their houses type – but the GOP and the Democratic Party aren’t even in the same universe on this issue and to act like their “just the same” is plain crazy talk.

  • Steve Billingsley

    RE: Overturning Roe – as Cincinnatus @ 21 pointed out, the Supreme Court is the only group that can do that and there hasn’t been a case heard by the Court that had the possibility to materially effect Roe since Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1992.

    To say that the GOP doesn’t want to overturn Roe (and has done nothing) is a bit of a stretch. To say that it hasn’t been their top priority is unquestionably true.

    As far as the Life Amendment is concerned. It takes 2/3 of both houses to pass an amendment to the Constitution. The GOP hasn’t had anywhere close to a 2/3 majority in either house. So should they just bring it up for a vote and lose to show they’re serious? I know that symbolic votes do happen (trying to repeal Obamacare anyone?) – but this one would be pretty meaningless.

    I’m generally a pox on both of their houses type – but the GOP and the Democratic Party aren’t even in the same universe on this issue and to act like their “just the same” is plain crazy talk.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The question is, what made slavery the issue that it was?”

    It was what kept certain rich people rich. The poor in the South didn’t particularly support slavery per se, but they were pretty danged scared of Africans and sure as heck didn’t want them freed and living among them. The rich would be fine, just like the rich in the North because they would still be separate and have the power to live as they pleased. The poor southerners would not.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The question is, what made slavery the issue that it was?”

    It was what kept certain rich people rich. The poor in the South didn’t particularly support slavery per se, but they were pretty danged scared of Africans and sure as heck didn’t want them freed and living among them. The rich would be fine, just like the rich in the North because they would still be separate and have the power to live as they pleased. The poor southerners would not.

  • Grace

    S. P. @26

    “As for the contradiction, slavery and abortion are quite comparable.”

    No, slavery is not “comparable” any more then it is to same sex marriage, which is used often. When all else fails, the subject of “slavery” is slapped on the table as a comparison, it’s a false claim.

  • Grace

    S. P. @26

    “As for the contradiction, slavery and abortion are quite comparable.”

    No, slavery is not “comparable” any more then it is to same sex marriage, which is used often. When all else fails, the subject of “slavery” is slapped on the table as a comparison, it’s a false claim.

  • S. P.

    Grace,

    I suppose slavery might be something utterly unique, comparable to nothing. I hope that sort of thing is not true, though. Comparison is a very important tool in abstract, sophisticated thought.

  • S. P.

    Grace,

    I suppose slavery might be something utterly unique, comparable to nothing. I hope that sort of thing is not true, though. Comparison is a very important tool in abstract, sophisticated thought.

  • Grace

    S P

    OF COURSE “Comparison is a very important tool in abstract, sophisticated thought.” that is true. No thinking person would intimate, state or deny it. But that doesn’t mean that slavery is a comparison to same sex marriage and abortion. It’s mixed and mismatched.

  • Grace

    S P

    OF COURSE “Comparison is a very important tool in abstract, sophisticated thought.” that is true. No thinking person would intimate, state or deny it. But that doesn’t mean that slavery is a comparison to same sex marriage and abortion. It’s mixed and mismatched.

  • Jon

    @23
    1. Ultrasounds cost money.
    2. You mistakenly believe only SCOTUS can overturn Roe. But the Constution provides its own means to amend. As for SCOTUS, which GOP presidential nominee has said he’ll nominate justices who will emphatically overturn Roe? None. Sg @24 is much more on target by saying that the GOP establishment is not interested in overturning Roe. I’d go further and say it’s not interested abortion, except to whip up the base for votes and money. The culture war is too lucrative to win.

  • Jon

    @23
    1. Ultrasounds cost money.
    2. You mistakenly believe only SCOTUS can overturn Roe. But the Constution provides its own means to amend. As for SCOTUS, which GOP presidential nominee has said he’ll nominate justices who will emphatically overturn Roe? None. Sg @24 is much more on target by saying that the GOP establishment is not interested in overturning Roe. I’d go further and say it’s not interested abortion, except to whip up the base for votes and money. The culture war is too lucrative to win.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jon@32:

    1) No they don’t. If you’re so poor that you can’t afford a $50 ultrasound (this is what fancy 3D ultrasounds cost where I live), Medicaid and Medicare will fund routine prenatal ultrasounds. Planned Parenthood, free clinics, and other free or low-cost options also exist.

    Next, please tell me how expensive it is to obtain the signature of one’s parent or guardian!

    2) Yes, only SCOTUS can overturn Roe. That is an indisputable fact. Meanwhile, please explain to me how a constitutional amendment is remotely feasible. Republicans haven’t had a majority large enough to attempt something like that since…ever. Not in the entire party’s existence. In this case, the culture war is too expensive to win. It’s bad enough that Republicans have been wasting time holding meaningless votes on “repealing” Obamacare. Do you really think it would be prudent or “authentic” of them to hold endless meaningless votes on “overturning” Roe v. Wade? Please.

    That said, I agree with both you and sg to a point, especially since I’m particularly cynical regarding politicos: I doubt that Republican elites are at all interested in abortion except as a way of pandering to a particular segment of their base. While is why Mitt Romney actually has promised to appoint pro-life justices (i.e., you’re factually incorrect)–but I hold no illusions about whether he’ll actually do it. Besides, abortion isn’t even much of a talking point in this election cycle; it’s all about the economy–for both parties.

    Still, none of this changes the fact that the Republican party and only the Republican party has made serious efforts–again, especially at the state level–to restrict abortions using the policies I’ve listed and others (cf. “personhood” amendments). As another poster noted, if you think that, in practice, Republicans and Democrats are “the same” on the issue of abortion, you’re just delusional. You’re also delusional if you think that state-level Republican efforts to limit abortion have just been smoke-and-mirrors to gin up the base. National and state politics are distinct.

    I suspect you’re just trolling, though: out of one side of your mouth, you critique Republican policies that actually and actively limit abortions; out of the other side, you critique Republicans for not overturning Roe (as if that were possible)–even though that would limit abortions far more radically than any of the other policies we’ve discussed.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jon@32:

    1) No they don’t. If you’re so poor that you can’t afford a $50 ultrasound (this is what fancy 3D ultrasounds cost where I live), Medicaid and Medicare will fund routine prenatal ultrasounds. Planned Parenthood, free clinics, and other free or low-cost options also exist.

    Next, please tell me how expensive it is to obtain the signature of one’s parent or guardian!

    2) Yes, only SCOTUS can overturn Roe. That is an indisputable fact. Meanwhile, please explain to me how a constitutional amendment is remotely feasible. Republicans haven’t had a majority large enough to attempt something like that since…ever. Not in the entire party’s existence. In this case, the culture war is too expensive to win. It’s bad enough that Republicans have been wasting time holding meaningless votes on “repealing” Obamacare. Do you really think it would be prudent or “authentic” of them to hold endless meaningless votes on “overturning” Roe v. Wade? Please.

    That said, I agree with both you and sg to a point, especially since I’m particularly cynical regarding politicos: I doubt that Republican elites are at all interested in abortion except as a way of pandering to a particular segment of their base. While is why Mitt Romney actually has promised to appoint pro-life justices (i.e., you’re factually incorrect)–but I hold no illusions about whether he’ll actually do it. Besides, abortion isn’t even much of a talking point in this election cycle; it’s all about the economy–for both parties.

    Still, none of this changes the fact that the Republican party and only the Republican party has made serious efforts–again, especially at the state level–to restrict abortions using the policies I’ve listed and others (cf. “personhood” amendments). As another poster noted, if you think that, in practice, Republicans and Democrats are “the same” on the issue of abortion, you’re just delusional. You’re also delusional if you think that state-level Republican efforts to limit abortion have just been smoke-and-mirrors to gin up the base. National and state politics are distinct.

    I suspect you’re just trolling, though: out of one side of your mouth, you critique Republican policies that actually and actively limit abortions; out of the other side, you critique Republicans for not overturning Roe (as if that were possible)–even though that would limit abortions far more radically than any of the other policies we’ve discussed.

  • Jon

    @ 33 I simply haven’t the time or inclination to provide you the kind of civics lesson that you should have received by middle school.

    It’s puzzling how you can cheer, on the one hand, the GOP for virtually shutting down abortion in some states (by means of defunding Planned Parenthood, requiring ultrasounds, parental consent, etc.), yet insist, on the other, that even the poorest of women can easily circumvent these restrictions. I suspect you’re no longer even listening to yourself.

  • Jon

    @ 33 I simply haven’t the time or inclination to provide you the kind of civics lesson that you should have received by middle school.

    It’s puzzling how you can cheer, on the one hand, the GOP for virtually shutting down abortion in some states (by means of defunding Planned Parenthood, requiring ultrasounds, parental consent, etc.), yet insist, on the other, that even the poorest of women can easily circumvent these restrictions. I suspect you’re no longer even listening to yourself.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jon@34:

    While I appreciate the condescension, are you listening to yourself? That’s my entire point: you’re incoherent.

    On the one hand, you castigate the G.O.P. for not abolishing abortion altogether by undertaking the facially impossible task of “overturning” Roe v. Wade. On the other hand, and simultaneously, you criticize the G.O.P. for restricting access to abortions, thereby rendering abortions more difficult to obtain. EXACTLY. If abolishing abortion is constitutionally impossible (or unlikely, isn’t limiting abortions instead the entire point?

    Which way do you want it? In case I’m not being crystal-clear, it makes no sense whatsoever to criticize Republicans for not abolishing abortions while also criticizing them for restricting them. You do understand that you’re being incoherent, right?

    p.s. Which means I’m not the one being incoherent. My point, in response to your pseudo-concerns, was that it’s just as “difficult” for rich women to obtain abortions as it is for poor women under the new restrictions. It’s not measurably easier or harder for rich/poor women to obtain a (free) ultrasound, parental signature, etc.

  • Cincinnatus

    Jon@34:

    While I appreciate the condescension, are you listening to yourself? That’s my entire point: you’re incoherent.

    On the one hand, you castigate the G.O.P. for not abolishing abortion altogether by undertaking the facially impossible task of “overturning” Roe v. Wade. On the other hand, and simultaneously, you criticize the G.O.P. for restricting access to abortions, thereby rendering abortions more difficult to obtain. EXACTLY. If abolishing abortion is constitutionally impossible (or unlikely, isn’t limiting abortions instead the entire point?

    Which way do you want it? In case I’m not being crystal-clear, it makes no sense whatsoever to criticize Republicans for not abolishing abortions while also criticizing them for restricting them. You do understand that you’re being incoherent, right?

    p.s. Which means I’m not the one being incoherent. My point, in response to your pseudo-concerns, was that it’s just as “difficult” for rich women to obtain abortions as it is for poor women under the new restrictions. It’s not measurably easier or harder for rich/poor women to obtain a (free) ultrasound, parental signature, etc.

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    an interesting parallel!?!!
    “She comes up with an interesting parallel, that abortion is to Democrats what gun rights are to Republicans, an untouchable issue that allows for no compromise:”

    The Second Amendment is NOT to be tampered with!
    and
    Thou shall not commit MURDER- is not to be tampered with–
    NO COMPROMISE!-for either!
    Carol-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    an interesting parallel!?!!
    “She comes up with an interesting parallel, that abortion is to Democrats what gun rights are to Republicans, an untouchable issue that allows for no compromise:”

    The Second Amendment is NOT to be tampered with!
    and
    Thou shall not commit MURDER- is not to be tampered with–
    NO COMPROMISE!-for either!
    Carol-CS

  • Steve

    C-Christian Soldier in #36 has it about right.

  • Steve

    C-Christian Soldier in #36 has it about right.

  • Michael B.

    @trotk@2

    “Michael, I know that you think that you are clever with your either-or ethical dilemma,”

    No. I think if a man from some strange Hindu sect claimed that cows are as valuable as people, I think you’d probably ask similar questions. For example: would he really ever save a cow over a human being if he could only save one? Or is he just trying to hold fast to some doctrine?

    “If my kids were in a burning building, and so were 1000 of Michael B, I would save my 3 children.”

    Well that’s a different situation isn’t it? You have a burning down building with a lot of people, and you can only save a few, so you save those that are most important to you. That’s not what the original scenario is. It’s basically pick 1 of 1 type, or 1000 of another type. So either 1000 people will die, or a single one of your kids will die. If you’d be willing to have 1000 people die to save your kid, you’d be making a profound statement about how you view the rest of humanity compared to your progeny. Similiary, you’re making a “profound” statement about how you view a single infant you don’t even know, compared to 1000 zygotes.

    “These are fundamentally different categories (subjective value vs. objective essence)”

    That we completely agree on. What you choose in this situation says nothing about the inheritant value. If some radical Hindu chooses to save a cow over a human, that wouldn’t make the cow more valuable. But it does show what YOU value. Why is that infant child so much more valuable to you than 1000 single-celled zygotes? Isn’t the zygote also a person, albeit at a different stage of development? Why is it so much less valuable to you?

  • Michael B.

    @trotk@2

    “Michael, I know that you think that you are clever with your either-or ethical dilemma,”

    No. I think if a man from some strange Hindu sect claimed that cows are as valuable as people, I think you’d probably ask similar questions. For example: would he really ever save a cow over a human being if he could only save one? Or is he just trying to hold fast to some doctrine?

    “If my kids were in a burning building, and so were 1000 of Michael B, I would save my 3 children.”

    Well that’s a different situation isn’t it? You have a burning down building with a lot of people, and you can only save a few, so you save those that are most important to you. That’s not what the original scenario is. It’s basically pick 1 of 1 type, or 1000 of another type. So either 1000 people will die, or a single one of your kids will die. If you’d be willing to have 1000 people die to save your kid, you’d be making a profound statement about how you view the rest of humanity compared to your progeny. Similiary, you’re making a “profound” statement about how you view a single infant you don’t even know, compared to 1000 zygotes.

    “These are fundamentally different categories (subjective value vs. objective essence)”

    That we completely agree on. What you choose in this situation says nothing about the inheritant value. If some radical Hindu chooses to save a cow over a human, that wouldn’t make the cow more valuable. But it does show what YOU value. Why is that infant child so much more valuable to you than 1000 single-celled zygotes? Isn’t the zygote also a person, albeit at a different stage of development? Why is it so much less valuable to you?

  • Grace

    I would like all of you to take notice as to what’s going on outside our country.

    More Abandoned Children as Europe Austerity Wears On

    Published: Thursday, 9 Aug 2012
    By: Holly Ellyatt
    Assistant News Editor

    “As the euro zone debt crisis deepens and austerity measures take their toll across Europe, the number of young children and babies abandoned across the region has increased, according to local charities.

    The rise in the abandonment of infants across Europe is most visible in the spread of “baby hatches” or “boxes” across Europe, where unwanted infants are left anonymously.

    The phenomenon was previously more prevalent among immigrants, but it is becoming more widespread among financially desperate members of the local population.

    The hatches are sensor-activated so when a baby is placed, an alarm is activated and a carer comes to collect the child. Despite the practice being widely viewed as contravening the 1953 European Convention on Human Rights, of the 27 EU member countries, 11 countries still have “baby hatches” in operation, including Germany, Italy and Portugal.

    READ THE REST: http://www.cnbc.com/id/48585787

    What can you do, or this country to help those in need? This is most tragic. These are but babes.

  • Grace

    I would like all of you to take notice as to what’s going on outside our country.

    More Abandoned Children as Europe Austerity Wears On

    Published: Thursday, 9 Aug 2012
    By: Holly Ellyatt
    Assistant News Editor

    “As the euro zone debt crisis deepens and austerity measures take their toll across Europe, the number of young children and babies abandoned across the region has increased, according to local charities.

    The rise in the abandonment of infants across Europe is most visible in the spread of “baby hatches” or “boxes” across Europe, where unwanted infants are left anonymously.

    The phenomenon was previously more prevalent among immigrants, but it is becoming more widespread among financially desperate members of the local population.

    The hatches are sensor-activated so when a baby is placed, an alarm is activated and a carer comes to collect the child. Despite the practice being widely viewed as contravening the 1953 European Convention on Human Rights, of the 27 EU member countries, 11 countries still have “baby hatches” in operation, including Germany, Italy and Portugal.

    READ THE REST: http://www.cnbc.com/id/48585787

    What can you do, or this country to help those in need? This is most tragic. These are but babes.

  • Kevin Degidon

    Grace, I hope that piece you wrong isn’t the way it sounds. I could read it as “we should do something to take care of these abandoned children” or “maybe Europe should reconsider its austerity measures” but if you’re saying these mothers should have aborted (killed) their babies…

  • Kevin Degidon

    Grace, I hope that piece you wrong isn’t the way it sounds. I could read it as “we should do something to take care of these abandoned children” or “maybe Europe should reconsider its austerity measures” but if you’re saying these mothers should have aborted (killed) their babies…

  • Grace

    Kevin @ 40

    I am PRO-LIFE, in no way do I believe in abortion. I don’t know how you could have come to the conclusion that I believe anyone should abort their child.

    I did not write the article – what I did write was:

    “What can you do, or this country to help those in need? This is most tragic. These are but babes.”

  • Grace

    Kevin @ 40

    I am PRO-LIFE, in no way do I believe in abortion. I don’t know how you could have come to the conclusion that I believe anyone should abort their child.

    I did not write the article – what I did write was:

    “What can you do, or this country to help those in need? This is most tragic. These are but babes.”

  • Pingback: Clash Of Clans Cheat


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X