Pres. Bush is not pro life
This letter has not been edited.
Good point Dr. Kleinman. George Bush is anti anything he doesn't approve of. He's playing God instead of being a President of the people.
Posted by Stan B on October 11, 2007 02:10 PMGood point Dr. Kleinman. George Bush is anti anything he doesn't approve of. He's playing God instead of being a President of the people.
Posted by Stan B on October 11, 2007 02:10 PMWhat a bunch of garbage.
The health care reform for children expands it to families earning 60K per year and includes children who are up to 25 years old.
He is the first president to actually fund embryonic stem cell research (that's right, WJC didn't do it). He did limit the line you could use, but that makes sense since there are zero therapies from embryonic stem cells while there are many from adult stem cells.
Social Security is a ticking time bomb and everyone knows it (both Dems and Reps). Bush tried to reform it , not dismantle it.
Posted by on October 11, 2007 02:13 PMBush is not smart, brave, honest, caring, likeable, or hard-working either. So what's your point Doc?
Posted by AdditUp on October 11, 2007 02:29 PMBush is pro-Unborn Life
Posted by just sayin' on October 11, 2007 02:55 PMI have but one serious question to those that are in support of expanded federal funding on embryonic stem cells, but may be in a few parts.
If it ends up being the case that embryonic stem cells will be shown to cure just one disease, would you be in support of expanded federal funding, and at the same time, if it would be proven that through cultivation and destruction of the rain forest, we find a cure for just one disease, would you support that as well, and if not, why?
Re: anan@2:13pm "... social security is a ticking time bomb..." Coulda fixed it with the trillion dollars we've thrown down that iraq rathole. Thank you, Bush supporters.
Posted by on October 11, 2007 03:13 PMUsing stem cells which are going to be destroyed anyway, is not the equivalent of destroying a rain forest, unless, of course, the rain forest is going to be destroyed anyway. There's more to a rain forest than trees.
Posted by Stan B on October 11, 2007 03:26 PMReal cute doc.
Life doesn't end at conception either.
Posted by James Jones on October 11, 2007 03:27 PMWell, don't call Bush pro-choice! We don't want him on our side either!!!
Posted by The Other Side on October 11, 2007 03:31 PMok doc so schip is for the kiddies under 25 and their parents who make under 80k. yep that is about the kids. no really its hillbillary care or socialised health care.
so you are for health care for kids who are not aborted by the position you hold near and dear. hey doc do you do abortions?
social security fix was the idea of clinton in his state of the union address in 98 and it would have created priviate accounts for all that are force to give to ssi. the dums loved it and cheered as did the republicans. alas as all ideas of the dums of the day the idea was a warm fuzzy that ended after it was talked about. Bush did his best to put clintons idea to work for the American people but because he is a Republican and really wanting it to be passed all of the cheering dums turned it around and said it would ruin ssi. as teddy said from the floor of the senate, IF Mary Jo was alive today she could live on ssi. what a guy he is to talk on her 65th birthday that she never got to see thanks to teddy and his car.
so now hillbillary wants to give a 1k bounus to anyone of her liberal progressive socialist who will maybe try to save a penny with the governments help all paid for by the evil rich like her.
313 it is so nice to see that you woke up from your nap. now go read something with truth to it and not hillarys media matters blog.
Sorry "the other side" - Bush is very much pro-choice - Pro big-government, all-knowing state making the choice. Hey - if it's good enough for the Red Chinese, it should be good enough for us....
Posted by Liam on October 11, 2007 04:02 PMJames Jones:
"Life doesn't end at conception either"
No, not for the child. Sometimes for the parents maybe, but not the child.
Stan B - According to the global warming fanatics the rain forest is going to die. That should make it a fair comparison so you can address the question.
Posted by KW on October 11, 2007 04:16 PMToo bad Stan B. still isn't in the womb so we could abort him and use his stem cells.
He's so generous with someone else's body parts. Typical immoral liberal who will give you the shirt off of someone elses back.
Poor Fool, He cant see the forest for the trees
Dr. Kleinman didn't bother to mention that it expands this so-called health care for kids that who's parents make $60K a year. Another of Hillary's socialized medicine advocates and plan that they're trying to sneak in thru the back door. That also goes for the liberal media.
Same old tricks and no treats.
Posted by Just an Observation on October 11, 2007 04:25 PM04:42PM and 02:14PM erroneously state that SCHIP extends coverage to people twenty-five and under and extends coverage to those making sixty or eighty thousand a year.
There is nothing in the proposed act extending coverage to people up to age twenty-five, although I think there are other laws which extend certain kinds of coverage to people up to age twenty-five while they are in college. Bush has signed off his approval of such laws.
It is the states, and not the federal government, which determine the income limits. What the act does is to permit states to increase those limits beyond the original 200% of poverty up to 300%. It also provides that if a state had 400% before the act, that percent was acceptable provided that it was approved by the feds. New York did have such a provision but the feds did not approve of it.
There are misinformation websites which state the same erroneous misinformation as the above two posters, however, you won't find a single one citing language in the act to support the statements because there is none.
Posted by Truth on October 11, 2007 04:34 PM"Just an Observation" - it's way worse than you say. Did you know that socialized national defense, police, and fire protection are offered to EVERYBODY, even Bill Gates??? Bill Gates and other millionaire/billionaires can easily afford to pay for their own, but our socialized system lets them skate... Wake up and smell the coffee - NO to socialism.
Posted by Liam on October 11, 2007 04:37 PMOf course he's not 'pro-life'... that is in direct conflict with his being the war president. Wow, barbara must be sooo proud!
Posted by Sheila on October 11, 2007 04:40 PMKW,
No, not for the child. Sometimes for the parents maybe, but not the child.
No, conception does not take the life of either parent - not ever.
Posted by James Jones on October 11, 2007 06:58 PMtruth you should stop reading media matters as hillbillary care does include parents up to the the 80 k level and little kiddies up to adge 25
see now you get free health care.
Posted by on October 11, 2007 07:08 PMRobert Kleinman MD, "he opposes expanded health care for children."
Doctor, nobody, not even President Bush, is stopping you from treating children, even those without health insurance. You just might not get any money out of the uninsured, is all.
And I don't believe it should be the government's responsibility to guarantee your income.
robert,You must specializes in abortion.
Posted by Keith on October 12, 2007 01:04 AMHe is'nt pro- American Citizens,
(we the people)
7:05
Bill Gates has often had not much income - in years when MS does not pay a dividend, many MLB benchwarmers have had more income than he has and they don't have their own IRS computers. Plus, he often gives it away in the same year he recieves it, making net income zero in that case. Your statement about him needing his own IRS computer could use some citation or proof, since it seems so ridiculous.
So are you saying that "greedy" $60,000-earning Americans getting health care for their children as part of their tax base is anti-capitalistic??
Posted by on October 12, 2007 01:37 AM7:05
Bill Gates has often had not much income - in years when MS does not pay a dividend, many MLB benchwarmers have had more income than he has and they don't have their own IRS computers. Plus, he often gives it away in the same year he recieves it, making net income zero in that case. Your statement about him needing his own IRS computer could use some citation or proof, since it seems so ridiculous.
So are you saying that "greedy" $60,000-earning Americans getting health care for their children as part of their tax base is anti-capitalistic??
Posted by Liam on October 12, 2007 01:39 AMWhat the act does is to permit states to increase those limits beyond the original 200% of poverty up to 300%. It also provides that if a state had 400% before the act, that percent was acceptable provided that it was approved by the feds. New York did have such a provision but the feds did not approve of it.
nice job of proving your point truth. 2-300% above the proverty level to get free socialized heath care. yep that would be well below 80 k per year.
please next time put your brain in gear before attempting to seem smart.
"So are you saying that "greedy" $60,000-earning Americans getting health care for their children as part of their tax base is anti-capitalistic??"
Yep, that's exactly right, being forcibly removed from the fruits of one's own labors to pay fro someone else's idea of a "humanitarian" project is not capitalism. Sounds a lot like collectivism, actually. As I've stated before, if I'm going to be forced to pay for someone else's medicine, I would greatly prefer that my taxes fund aid to Africa, as the situation there is orders of magnitude worse than anything Americans have to worry about. But hey, they're not Americans, so who cares?
Posted by on October 12, 2007 08:13 AMLiam, LOL on "socialism". Keep the millionaires off the Interstates! They can buid their own!
Posted by on October 12, 2007 08:53 AMLiam - Police and fire are locally controlled. And there are many rural areas where you must subscribe to a private company. Trying to say police and fire depts are the same as socialized medicine is ludicrous at best.
James Jones - I was only making a funny. You know, as in your life drastically changes once you start having children.
Posted by KW on October 12, 2007 10:03 AMKW,
We end up with around a milliion aborted fetuses in the US annually.
I don't see the humor.
Posted by James Jones on October 12, 2007 10:30 AM8:53 - you're catching on. And let them build their own air traffic control and airport systems for their planes - no more socialist free rides on government systems.
Posted by Liam on October 12, 2007 10:36 AM"We end up with around a milliion aborted fetuses in the US annually.
I don't see the humor."
Do you get as perturbed about the real kids dying in Iraq, JJ, or does your concern for "kids" abruptly cease at birth?
Posted by drew on October 12, 2007 12:05 PMBush is pro death.
And quit saying Clinton did not support stem cell research. The technology was just becoming available at the end of his 2nd term. If Clinton had been allowed to serve a 3rd, there would be plenty of funding for stem cell research and we would not be giving away leadership in Bio Technology to Europe and Asia.
Posted by Edmond on October 12, 2007 12:38 PMdrew,
I know from our previous discussions that your moral code authorizes a million real abortions in the US based on my imagined indifference to children suffering in Iraq.
That's becauue you are a moral degenerate.
Posted by James Jones on October 12, 2007 01:36 PMOK, KW. Everything and everybody is going to die but I said destroy.
Posted by Stan B on October 12, 2007 03:41 PMWe are all pro-life, just different life. And while pro choice folks work to reduce unwanted pregnancies, the pro life people push abstenious only because ideology trumps reality to them.
They would rather a girl get pregnant then use birth control.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 12, 2007 04:00 PMMy, my, my, Jimmy-Jesus Jones is in a snit. Too bad. So sad. Might be just a bit more . . . shall we say, impressive? . . . or even . . . sincere? . . . well, anyway, a bit more something worthwhile, were it not for his own complete lack of any sound position from which to fault others.
But, that doesn't bother Jimmy-Jesus Jones. Not one little bit! Especially not when he's way, way, way, way, way off there in the wild blue yonder, up in the LaLa-Never-Never-Land of Oz.
Just go out there - somewhere over the rainbow - and follow the yellow brick road. And there you'll find Jimmy-Jesus Jones - if you get behind all the smoke and mirrors, that is - who'll render judgment on everything, while actually knowing little or nothing about anything.
(Oh! By the way! Don't forget to kow-tow properly to the Icon of Dubya the Dimwit as you enter. That's Jimmy-Jesus Jones's current Holiness of the Day.)
Gee! What a Whiz of a Whiz he is!
Posted by Old Grouch on October 12, 2007 04:21 PMGrouch,
Unknown at 2.06 made the same point but with the virtue of being succint.
You could learn from her..
Posted by James Jones on October 12, 2007 06:26 PM"They would rather a girl get pregnant then use birth control," says Sharon B. quite correctly.
Trouble is, the so-called pro-life members of the gender that doesn't get pregnant don't see it as them "getting a girl pregnant" so much as "girls getting pregnant," as if it were a unilateral act.
Which is the kind of logic you'd expect from a bachelor whose mommy told him she got him on eBay.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 13, 2007 10:03 AMWe are fortunate to have people like Sharon B. and Hans come forward and explain what "they" think for us.
That's especially true since, for some odd reason, since "they" don't seem to want to come forward and explain what "they" think.
Maybe "they" don't know about this page?
Posted by James Jones on October 13, 2007 10:45 AMDelighted to note that James Jones doesn't seem to count himself among what he clearly accuses Sharon B. and me as recklessly generalizing as "they" (even though I didn't use the term "they" except to quote Sharon--and Sharon is obviously using "they" to refer to "the pro-life people" she cites a sentence before the evidently offending "they.")
If you--and by "you" (I'd better clarify so James Jones doesn't get upset or confused again) I refer to anyone whose eyes happen to catch these lines--don't see yourself as part of "they," there's no need to take umbrage or even respond; "they" can certainly take care of themselves, can't "they"?
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 14, 2007 04:18 PMHans,
Let me try and clear this up for you. The point is "they" don't exist. If you read the posts in this thread you will discover that there is no evidence of the "they" you are looking for.
Having no real target for your contempt, "they" are hobgoblins you invent to satisfy your sanctimony.
So "they" are not likely to take umbrage now are they? Not unless you tell us they are of course.
JJ at 1:36 so much cleaner and neater to call one specific person a moral something or other than to use a less nasty "they".
Some, but apparently not all, pro-life people, would rather see a girl get pregnant than use birth control.
If I have I your permission, James dear, I will continue to speak for the entirety of secular, humanist, social program loving people, until they object.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 14, 2007 08:10 PMDr. Kleinman's short letter says a lot about socialism in this country.
The Dems should propose a bill called The No More Bad Things For Anyone Bill. After that, the Dems can follow up with a Puppies For Every Child Bill.
This way, when Republican Senator X votes against the bills because of constitutional reasons, the Dems can say "I can't believe Senator X opposes an end to bad things for everyone and puppies for every child in America. I'll pray that he changes his mind. I'll pray for him every night."
Posted by John II on October 14, 2007 11:38 PMSharon B,
So the "entirety of secular, humanist, social program loving people" calls for attributing the argurment made by the one to the many who have never made the statements so as not to embarrass the one who did. That sounds about right.
The conservative program calls for recogniznng that each indiviudal is individually responsible for their own actions. That's the only way freedom is workable in civil communities.
Posted by James Jones on October 15, 2007 06:47 AMSharon B,
So the "entirety of secular, humanist, social program loving people" calls for attributing the argurment made by the one to the many who have never made the statements so as not to embarrass the one who did. That sounds about right.
The conservative program calls for recogniznng that each indiviudal is individually responsible for their own actions. That's the only way freedom is workable in civil communities.
Posted by James Jones on October 15, 2007 06:47 AMOkay, James, I'll try again. The famous "they" is your abstraction, not mine. My first post specifically refers to what I call "pro-life members of the gender that doesn't get pregnant." Sharon B used the term "they" treferring to "pro life people." You're the one who picked up on the innocuous term "they" and tried to make an issue of it (let's hear it for semantics!) with your 10:45 and 6:36 posts. Are you saying pro-life people, specifically those of the gender that doesn't get pregnant, don't exist? Then a good many of these posts are hobgoblin as well.
To pick up on a subsequent statement of yours, if it were true that "The conservative program calls for [recognizing] that each indiviudal is individually responsible for their own actions," we wouldn't have been hearing "Yeah, but Clinton..." for six years, nor--to get back on topic--would 95% of anti-abortion rhetoric come from (not "they," feel better now?) "members of the gender that doesn't get pregnant."
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 15, 2007 07:32 AMHans,
Attempting to deal with James Jones is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. After a while, one begins to understand that it is an impossible job.
If he said it, he "didn't mean it (that way)"; but, of course, "he didn't sayi it (that way); but, if he did "say it that way", he "meant something else" and . . . !
It's what makes this forum so much fun, at times, when he gets started. IF you like that sort of slapstick, that is.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 15, 2007 09:06 AMHans
Yes "they" was my abstraction. I used the pronoun to make a point that you, and Sharon B, are concocting hobgoblins.
You did not post
"pro-life members of the gender that doesn't get pregnant"
You posted
"so-called pro-life members of the gender that doesn't get pregnant"
The distinction between the two is crux of the matter.
The "gender that doesn't get pregnant" is just an awkward phrase for "male" and "so-call pro-life" means hypocrite.
First you exclude anti-abortion women because they present some inconvenient difficulties for the pro-abortion case. Next you define anti-abortion males as hypocrites who are not qualified to make moral judgements.
In this way you can ignore the women and dismiss the men who make anti-abortion case which excuses you from any serious examination of the question.
Now, how do you know that the male making the anit-abortion case is a hypocrite when there is no evidence? Simple - if he's making the anti-abortion case, he is by definition a hypocrite.
We all know "they" are out there. This must be another one of "them."
Just as drew has no basis for accusing me of being indifferent to the death of children in Iraq, you have no basis for "Delighted to note that James Jones doesn't seem to count himself among... "
You delight is as genuine as your feigned concerned at my taking umbrage at your remarks, which by the way is impossible.
You need the hobgoblins.
As for you second point I'm not entirely certain I understand you. If you are asking me if 95% of the anti-abortion support is from men I would say no.
Based on the data I've seen the population seems to beak donw inot thirds across the board from pro- to anit- and I have seen nothing to support the idea that women are under- or over-represented in any group.
I suspect your question is borne of the fact that your position ignores the rights of the fetus - half of whom are female.
Okay James , a great many, but obviously not all, because one, meaning just a single person, can not say everyone who is pro-life would rather see girls get pregnant than use birth control.
Since many of the pro-life are also abstenious only in ideology , the connection is strong that these specific people, but only them, are doing something to prevent unwanted pregnancies, just not doing everything.
Pro choice people, most, some, many, make every effort to prevent unwanted pregnancies however they can.
I think you are challenging my decision to speak for pro choice folks as well as the others I mentioned.
I was elected as spokesperson in secret meetings.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 15, 2007 11:41 AMSharon ,
Congratulations on your new office. I think it's only right after all those years serving as sergeant-at-arms. I would have voted for you myself but I wasn't invited -probably an oversight.
I make no objection whatsoever on your speaking on behalf of the pro-abortion folks.
My objection is to your characterization:
"They would rather a girl get pregnant then use birth control."
I am opposed to abortion as a menas of birth control and I don't want to see a girl get pregnant rather than use birth control. In fact, I don't know anyone who takes that position. You may but, they haven't surfaced here.
There may be some people who think that way but it is unreasonable to ascribe the position as a characteristic of the movement since when it's not actually voiced.
That's a bit like accussing someone of being unpatriotic if they challenge Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
If someone takes that position and you want to challenge them - fine. If you want to challenge me, or us, based on what I, or we, actually post - fine.
But don't make stuff up and then tell us that's what we think.
If you continue in this way then you should know you cannot on count on my future support for your position as spokesperson for the pro-abortion crowd.
JJ, Pro-abortion if the woman chooses. New slogan so others can stop trying to read our minds.
You say I am pro abortion, is that what I think?
When pro embryo folks start pushing for birth control of every imaginable kind, I will perhaps change my mind that many of them, again not all, view pregnancy as punishment for sex outside of marriage.
Pro embryo people rarely talk about abortion by married women, that is a whole different issue.
On the other side of the coin, I would hide out a pregnant little girl who wants to keep her pregnancy going while all around her people are pressuring for abortion.
Sorry about forgetting to invite you, next meeting is to elect a language arts leader so the whole pro-embryo, pro-birth, pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-pro and anti-pro slogans can be explained to each side.
We will sit across the room and glare at you while sipping Boone Farm Strawberry Wine and smoking pot, and passing the hat to buy condoms for underprivileged kids.
We wouldn`t want you to get the wrong idea about us.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 15, 2007 01:37 PMSharon B,
You are one of the more resolute of the pro-abortion crowd posting here so - Yes, I do think that's what you think.
The question is: Do you should abortion should be lawful for birth control. You think it should. I disagree.
I prefer pro- and anit-abortion as the terms for the purpose of clarity. I have no need of artful language. Does the term pro-abortion trouble you?
Cheap wine, pot and condomns for kids - we all have to decide where we stand.
Posted by James Jones on October 15, 2007 02:30 PMJames I am pro the woman's choice. Yes abortion should be lawful for birth control.
Since I am not pro-abortion, I am pro choice that is artful, or awful, language.
Does the term pro-fetus or proembryo trouble you? How about just pro-birth?
What if I were to make the leap and call you pro-control of women? Since that is what the anti-choice laws do, they control women as surely as a gun to the head.
A pregnant woman will either decide her pregnancy or society will. Now we have a blended partnership, some choice, some laws and it appears to be working, until our use of birth control improves.
I would be perfectly happy if no other woman or girl ever chose an abortion and the whole debate ended. Ended with the women changing their minds. All 1 million or so a year.
Sharon B,
I'm sure you and I agreee that a law that forbids a woman from killing her young is not putting a gun to her head. The question is whether or not the fetus is one of her young.
I would be perfectly happy if there was not another case of homicide this year but wishing won't make it so.
Communities legislate as an expression morality. Our society currently ignores that the fetus' right to life.
You can call me pro-fetus or pro-embryo if you like. It won't change the reality.
It seems to me that the questin you ought to ask yourself, you don't have to respond to me, is why you find the term pro-abortion objectionable.
If we continue on the current path, the next generation will be little troubled by the term.
Posted by James Jones on October 15, 2007 05:20 PMJames Jones, I dislike the term pro-abortion because that is not how I describe myself, it is your method.
Currently, we acknowledge the fetus` right to life after it can live on its own. That is a compromise that we all have to learn to live with.
The best alternative is education and lots of birth control. And also make it possible for a pregnant woman or girl to keep her baby and not live in poverty, if that is her choice.
More community support, less abortions.
By the way, are you a grandfather yet?
You have talked about reading to your daughters, remember?
Posted by Sharon B. on October 15, 2007 09:33 PMSharon B,
The ability of a fetus to "live on its own" is completely artificial court ruling. A six month old can't live on its own. Besides which, late term abortions is Dr. Hern's specialty - along with a few others scattered throughout the country.
The sad fact that no one is safe in the womb in the US today.
Of course we agree the pregnant women should not live in poverty with her children.
The number one determinant of whether a child will live in pverty is the marital status of the mother. Two-parent families rarely live in poverty.
I did speak of reading to my children. Otherwise, my family life, in fact my personal life, will remain unknown on this page.
Given the vileness of so many of our fellow-posters here the reasons for that are obvious. Sad, but obvious.
James Jones, in the end it all comes down to what to do to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I vote for education, birth control and community support for women and their children, whether or not the women are married.
You, it seems, want the entire realm of the legal system, police, laws, prisons and control.
I don`t know if you would vote for a law forcing pregnant women to view an ultrasound of the baby, but I suspect you would support all these draconian efforts.
That said there is nothing more to be gained from the discussion.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 16, 2007 01:22 AM
Sharon B,
Abortion is an issue of morality.
I think we should use the authority of the government to protect the child in the womb to the same extent we use the authority of the government to protect the child in the crib. That's all we can do.
Abortion does not prevent unwanted pregnancy - it eliminates the consequence.
Posted by James Jones on October 16, 2007 09:37 AMJJ, morality is a religious word, and religions, although long lasting come in and out of society.
Depending upon the religion involved we have heard that these things are immoral: dancing, smoking, drinking, going to movies, wearing jewelry, women in bars or taverns, drugs during birth to help women, vasectomies on single young men, etc. and on and on and on.
Whatever religion is in favor, it holds the big stick in a society, and makes the rules on moral and immoral behavior.
At one time, in one country, it was considered immoral not to prevent your first born for sacrifice to the gods.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 16, 2007 05:01 PMSharon B,
Morality is not a "religious word." Atheists routinely make moral judgements based on their own values and principles.
Now, does the fact that the first born was sacrificed at some time in one country justify abortion for the purpose of birth control in the US today?
That's up to your moral judgement.
In my judgement the answer is, no. Immoral behaviour, killing the young, in the past does not authorize immoral behaviour, killing the young, today.
In fact I hold it as a general rule that immoral behaviour does not authorize immoral behaviour. That seems to me more a logical conclusion than a moral judgement.
Do you think otherwise?
Hint: I'm not religious so I don't take a position on killing the young - is not the "A" answer.
Posted by James Jones on October 16, 2007 05:41 PMJames Jones. The word moral, like its cousins sex and evil, are religious in origin. How people choose to use them is irrelevant.
Since religions come and go, their particular idea of morality is changeable over time.
We need to decide issues like this, including capital punishment, which I support, without the tired old argument of religious morals.
Your questions do not relate to my statements. I won`t defend an idea that is not my own, but something you think you see in my post.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 17, 2007 12:49 PM