Hey, why stop with abortion?
My response to a savvy commenter
Hey, why stop with abortion?
In an earlier post on the whiners at Planned Parenthood, someone made the brilliant observation that he/she had no problem funding abortions since, well, let me let him/her tell you him/herself:
Interesting. But I have a better solution. If you want to quantify the value of life vs. finances that way, why don't we just sterilize any woman currently on welfare. That way, we don't even need to get into that moral thicket about 'when life begins.' We make sure it doesn't, and cut the entitlement budget at the same time.
Problem, among other things, fixed.
Comments (18)
Liberals certainly have broken out in straw men lately. Listening to Obama too much, it's the only way he know how to argue anymore.— MaggieL- Bravo, MaggieL! I couldn't agree more.— Christine
- What's the problem with that? Want your "welfare check", get the depo shot, want your WIC check, get a depo shot... want to be a Daily News columnist, get a depo shot. the world would be a better place without all the unwanted children and columnists... but wait, who would the priests rape if we don't have lots of kids around?— TheRevoltionWillNotBeTelevised
- Aw, buddy, c'mon. If you want to post your bigoted comments, at least find the right topic. I've written about the myth of the priest rapist a bunch of times previously on this site, a little scrolling instead of trolling would have placed you on the right track. And by the way, thanks for reading.— Christine
Welfare for mothers who cannot afford to raise their children is payment to an accessory to a crime. Children need a kind, loving home with intelligent, supportive parents. Anything less is criminal.— PlumberJoe- sorry christine, I get confused since you just keep recycling your columns, glad you spent 5 minutes redoing this one...quite a "show"— TheRevoltionWillNotBeTelevised
- Liberals are the ones who recycle, and it's usually other people's ideas. In fact, President Obama is doing a very good impression of Jimmy Carter these days. Let's hope he has the same stellar results. Now, back to our regularly scheduled intelligent discussion.— Christine
- By the way, you might want to check out your posting name dear. Unless 'revoltion' is what you meant to write. In which case, clever.— Christine
- How novel -- more hateful drivel from Christine Flowers. The notion that a woman should be stripped of her ability to have children, because she has lost her job or been hit with financial difficulty in a terrible economy, is completely abhorrent. It's wrong for anyone to say such a thing, but particularly vile coming from another woman. Contrary to what you and your supporters might think, there are plenty of women who don't abuse the system or use it for a meal ticket. These women deserve to be mothers just as much as anyone else, and how despicable of you to suggest otherwise. Anyway, nice work, Christine -- one of your most disgusting points of view to date.— roxgirl
- The disgusting point of view, 'roxgirl' is the one that says a woman can engage in intercourse indiscriminately and then demand that the government pay for her 'miscalculation.' And your point that 'those women deserve to be mothers just as much as anyone else' is a bit strange in this context, because having an abortion (and expecting the government to chip in) isn't really very maternal, is it? And finally, I'm sorry you and the people who think like you are incapable of irony. You don't want the government to tell you when to have babies, but you want them to pay for helping you not to have them. Brilliant.— Christine
- I'm game for this plan. Depo shots and drug testing for welfare recipients. Seems mighty pro-active.— sadim
- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
It is now possible to perform an interactive brain scan and detect abnormalities within various regions of the brain. I am certain that all the liberals who have posted here would show the bleeding heart syndrome in such a scan.
Did not welfare go out of existence with Clinton? Who brought it back?— PlumberJoe - Amazing. My post had absolutely nothing to do with abortion, yet you attack it with three "points" about abortion and women who seek abortions. Clearly, you have your talking points and you're sticking to them. I particularly like how you very handily turn my point about women on welfare deserving to be mothers into an argument that women who want to abort babies don't deserve to be mothers. I'm not sure where the connection is. But since you brought it up, I never said anything about the government telling me when to have babies, and I certainly never asked for anyone's help in not having one. And, just an FYI -- it's possible to have an unwanted pregnancy as the result of something other than, as you say, "indiscriminate intercourse." This column is utterly shameful, and your response just reinforces that.— roxgirl
- Sorry 'roxgirl' you're being both disingenuous, and a bit touchy. You're the one, my dear, who veered off course when my post was, in fact, about abortion and the fact that some misguided fellow thinks Planned Parenthood deserves federal funds to be able to provide abortions to weed out the 'welfare babies.' My point is that, hey, you want to weed out those babies, don't kill them after they're already in utero, living beings. Prevent them from even being brought into existence. And I take issue with your term 'unwanted pregnancy,' which somehow implies that if the mommy doesn't want to give birth, that baby is 'unwanted.' Well, maybe by momma, my dear, but not by its Creator, and a host of other people who would be willing to adopt him or her. So spare me the outrage.— Christine
- OK, time out. The original post by phyllycc was highly offensive and basically racist. I think he meant every word and it was not meant to be ironic.
Chris, on the other hand, your response was exactly that, ironic. Sure, if you want to abort babies of welfare mothers, why stop there? You simply carried his absurd suggestion to its logical conclusion. If preventing the poor from having babies is your aim, why not go all the way and stop them from having babies period?
Foxgirl simply took you too literally. Once that happens, reason goes out the window.
Of course, you would no more condone sterilization than you would abortion.
See problem fixed. 8-)— Magistra
View comments: 1
|
2
Popular Posts
About this blog
See Christine Flowers on Channel 6's "Inside Story" Sunday at 11:30 a.m.
Christine M. Flowers
Daily News Columnist
Email Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com Reach Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com.
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: