F***ing free 44

Obama’s 2010 health-care law was a levelling, socialist, collectivist, wealth-redistributing, government-enlarging measure. It was a power-grab, in the name of “compassion” as always –  the pretence by the left that the governing elite has nothing so much at heart as the welfare of the poor. The poor must have free stuff. Everyone must have free stuff so that no one is any different from anyone else – except of course the power-elite (what they called the “nomenclatura” in Soviet Russia).

But stuff does not come free. If some are getting something without paying for it, someone else is giving to them – involuntarily, in the collectivist state. “Free” means the state pays. The state gets its money from – well, from the people actually. The socialist, collectivist, redistributing state robs Peter to give free stuff to Pauline.

Among the free stuff Pauline must have is health-care. Obama’s health-care law requires contraception and sterilization to be included in all health insurance policies. There must be “free” contraceptives available to all women. They must be able to copulate without fear of conceiving. To have a baby is a “punishment” according to Obama. If conception accidentally happens, they must be able to have a “free” abortion. Copulating is good but conceiving is bad. Babies are bad for women’s health. And, besides, having a baby or an abortion is much more expensive than contraception.

Of course if every man and woman paid for their own health care just as they pay (or as most of them still do in America) for their food and shelter and clothing, the budgeting choices would concern nobody else. But freedom for the individual to make his and her own choices is precisely what the all-controlling, levelling, collectivist state is ideologically against. To prevent such freedom was the real reason why “Obamacare” was enacted.

To achieve their aim, Obama and cronies must ignore the Constitution. In any case it’s an outdated document, they say. As is stated in the official organ of the Dark Side, the New York Times:

The Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect … entitlement to food, education and health care.

By “the rest of the world” is meant places like Greece which recognize – to their financial embarrassment – that there’ s an entitlement to health care and everything. That’s the nub of the Obama collectivist ideology. All are entitled to have it, so some must pay for everyone to have it. Even if it brings the country to economic ruin.

However, those who pay must not be allowed to buy it for themselves. What selfishness! Private purchase is forbidden.

A Wall Street Journal editorial reports this and comments:

The HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] rule prohibits out-of-pocket costs for birth control, simply because Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s regulators believe no woman should have to pay anything for it. To take a larger example: The Obama Administration’s legal defense of the mandate to buy insurance or else pay a penalty is that the mere fact of being alive gives the government the right to regulate all Americans at every point in their lives

But there was a small difficulty, a minor nuisance. Some religions do not think of reproduction as a punishment and actually forbid contraception and abortion. They don’t see the question as one of health as the state pretends it is, but of morals. So the administration will allow an exception. Churches that object to birth control and abortion need not offer cover for them to their employees, and the employees may claim these “free” services directly from the insurers.

Of course they cannot and will not be free.

This is from PowerLine:

First, there is no possible constitutional basis on which the federal government can order insurance companies to provide specified services for free. Second, the idea that the cost of contraception and abortion services will be borne by insurance companies is absurd. Obviously, insurance companies will quote premiums based on the total cost of the coverage in the proposed policy. If the policy includes contraception and abortion, those costs will be included in the premium, regardless of whether those particular services are designated as “free” to the employee and/or the employer. It is the employee, of course, who ultimately bears the cost.

We’ll all ultimately bear the cost, which is our freedom.

Freedom itself, not health or religious doctrine, is the vital issue.

  • I’m jumping in here without reading any of the other comments.

    I don’t like abortion. Given the wide availability of cheap and effective contraception, there is practically no excuse anymore to dissolve an child in utero. Even so, reality is fraught with broken condoms and lecherous rapists and women who can’t work and grow a child inside of their bodies, so I absolutely disagree with any blanket bans on abortions or distribution of MA pills.

    Harm reduction, not bolstering the police state, ought to be the beat of our drum in regards to abortion policy. A small yet scientifically informed set of restrictions should govern the availability and legality of abortions. Among these would be a time limit and a list of acceptable methods to induce the miscarriage (hint: the clothes-hanger and the scalpel aren’t on the list).

    Two problems exist with this scheme, and both of them are related to national attitudes towards reproduction.

    Firstly, there exists a small but significant number of women who engage in the disgusting practice of “vanity abortions”. It’s natural and okay that humans like to orgasm quite frequently, preferably with each other, and not always in the pursuit of children. Tie your tubes, wear a rubber, install a diaphragm, only fuck vasectomized men – there are many ways to avoid becoming pregnant from sex, and you’re avoiding all of them to draw a fashion statement in blood! Most of all, it cheapens the horrific experiences of rape victims who were actually forced into pregnancy and wanted out through an abortion.

    The second problem comes out of the pro-life movement itself. For all of the good reasons to oppose abortion, the heavily Christian voice of the pro-life movement chooses all of the bad ones. Not only are these Christians against abortion because it’s God’s will to produce all of the undesired children you can (remember the curse of Eve?), they’re against contraception as well! Only abstinence satisfies these perverts. They do an enormous disservice to the very argument against abortion by channeling a considerable part of their energies into opposing the only real solution between “don’t kill your kids” and “you’ll have to come eventually“.

    All of this being said, the government is extremely stupid for taking the worst sides of both of these arguments.

  • Jillian Becker

    To be non-judgmental is not possible. Even to think one should not judge is to make a judgment. We all judge everything, always. 

    To judge the casual conceiving and aborting of human beings to be of no moral significance is to take a sociological view of the matter. A collectivist view. Sociology is by its very nature a socialist “science”. 

    But we who are individualists think of each human being as a world. A unique world. Good or bad, most commonly a mixture, a person is not one of many, but one only.   

    That’s why we cannot share the collectivist view of socialists and sociologists. They regard human beings as things, not very differently from the way rapists and slavers do. But of all things in nature, a human being is least a thing. 

    Whether in the womb or out of it.

    • Liz

      Jillian –
      Thanks for that perspective on this subject.  As this thread may be closing, I’d like to add one further comment to balance the quotes from Ayn Rand, with this one from Christopher Hitchens:
       
      “As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body.  There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even – this was seriously maintained – a tumor.  That nonsense seems to have stopped.  Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of featherlike weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. 
       This is yet another way in which science can make common cause with humanism. Just as no human being of average moral capacity could be indifferent to the sight of a woman being kicked in the stomach, so nobody could fail to be far more outraged if the woman in question were pregnant.  Embryology confirms morality.  The words ‘unborn child’, even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.
      However, this only opens the argument rather than closes it. There may be many circumstances in which it is not desirable to carry a fetus to full term…the best way of achieving a measure of control is by prophylaxis…which has in our own time become relatively foolproof and painless.  The second-best fallback solution, which may sometimes be desirable for other reasons, is termination of pregnancy: an expedient which is regretted by many even when it has been undertaken in dire need. 
      All thinking people recognize a painful conflict of rights and interests in this question, and strive to achieve a balance.  The only proposition that is completely useless, either morally or practically, is the wild statement that sperms and eggs are all potential lives which must not be prevented from fusing and that, when united however briefly, have souls and must be protected by law…
      Every single step toward the clarification of this argument has been opposed root and branch by the clergy…the strenuous and dogmatic is the moral enemy of the good.  It demands that we believe the impossible, and practice the unfeasible.  The whole case for extending protection to the unborn, and to expressing a bias in favor of life, has been wrecked by those who use unborn children, as well as born ones, as mere manipulable objects of their doctrine.” 

  • Jillian Becker

    Don L and George – 

    If either of you would like me to provide the other with your email address, please tell me.   Then you can carry on your dialogue as long as you choose. I think your exchanges under this post have become too personal and are losing general interest. I don’t want to close the post to comments (yet) because that would stop anyone else commenting. 

    I think we all know your respective positions on this issue by now. I thank you both for your contributions, but would remind you that repetition can become tedious, and personal abuse is never interesting. 

    Please do not take this as discouragement to comment on other posts. 

  • George

    In reply to Don L

    First of all Don , you keep changing the subject.   You have got some nerve talking about anger issues regarding me when you have done nothing but spew out anger and insults to a multitude of people  ( not only me ).  Furthermore , as a former law enforcement officer ( now retired ) I was NEVER taken off the streets for your ignorant information . I retired with honors and I actually received The Excellent Service Award prior to my retirement. I’m also a certified firearms instructor and  received an Honorable  Discharge in the Marines. I don’t have to account to you about myself and you are NOT the judge of me. Who do you think you are ?  No one else on this website has been giving me a bunch of grief but you.   The anger has come from you on a daily basis. You have attacked a multitude of people on this site ( both guests and regular commenters ). I did nothing to offend you and you come onto this site every day with the expressed purpose of trying to pick  a fight or engage in a “pissing contest” or “childish bickering match” . I’m not going to keep going on and on engaging in some senseless argument with you. Your virulent and hostile anger has gotten out of contriol while at the same time you’re pointing the finger at me. That is the epitome of double-standard and hypocrisy on your part–not mine.
                               If I had committed some offense to you and you had pointed it out to me , I would have quickly apologized as I have done before immediately on this site ( and others have witnessed such as proof ).   If the only person that has any hostile comments on this is YOU , then I’m certainly not going to lose any sleep over YOUR feelings toward me. Check yourself and look into the mirror. You acuse me of not answering any questions while I have yet to see you answer a single question of mine–again total hypocrisy.
                            You have gone out of your way to piss off almost everyone ( even regular commenters who are conservative atheists .   I’m not going to even respond any further to you as I am not going to reduce myself to your level. I’ll say it again—you need to practice what  you preach.  If you are representative of what conservative atheists are all about  then I regret I have ever called myself a conservaive atheist.  I’m not going to even respond any further to you as it’s a waste of time and in vain.   You made a comment to the “un” troll and told him you would like to meet up with him so you could slithis throat and then later you recently made a comment to a poster and said you would like to pop him in the face until he sees red which are both personal threats and are actually criminal offenses. And yet you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of being angry. You have got some nerve.  Your hate-mongering and mean-spirited and obnoxious behavior has gotten totally out of control and you’re in no position to point fingers at anyone. The sad part is , even in regards to the personal threats you made , this website let you get aay with it which is the sad part.  As far as im is concern,  was interested in what he had to say about Iran and I had no argument with him and he had none with me. You were the hostile one.   In your mind only O are right and everyone else who doesn’t agree with you are always wrong of course.  No one is criticizing your difference of viewpoint or opinions but your hostile demeanor while you’re accusing others ( or rather me ) of such.      I’m not goping to respond any further to any of your posts and i won’t even bother reading your reply to this as i’m done with the entire conversation that is going nowhere    I can’t believe the Navy acdcepted you with your out of control and hostile  behavior. So go ahead and spew out more insults. i don’t have to account to you for anything and ‘m fed up with the whole conversation that is going in senseless circles.   I regret that I even came on here after the crap I’ve had to put up with from you. Even the trolls haven’t been as offensive as you.   I get along with everyone ( including he religious ) and i’ve been invited to join other groups and I gfeel I would be certainly treated better than here .  The hostlity is coming from you—–not me.  So go ahead and reply with your continued insults as I am not going to even bother reading it. As far as I’m concerned my corresponding with you and this entire conversation is hereby terminated.   I regreat  I even came onto this site and I also regret I even welcomed you and considered you my dear friend.  I won’t even respond or even read the reply you make after this.  I won’t waste my time. I’m now in the process of getting involved in part time community activities and the community ( both religious and secular )  appreciates my contributions and have nothing but good things to say to me.  So go ahead and post your insults which is what you’re good for .   The shame is upon yourself. I will not respond any further or even read the post. 

  • George

    It’s amazing how Don L feels  that if other posters  don’t want to engage in a nonsensical “pissing contest” with  him  then they must be cowards.  Don L accuses others of saying stupid things but he ignores the stupid things emiting from himself.    Of couse hypocrisy knows no boundaries .  Of course in Don L’s own mind and twisted logic ( or rather illogic ) only he is always right and anyone and everyone who doesn’t agree with him is automatically wrong.  Where have I heard that before ?   Oh gee , I forgot , according to Don L , we’re ALL nothing but a bunch ” sons of bitches and sons of bitchetes”  and only Don L has a brain and can think. I’ve heard of conceited arrogance before , but that takes the cake and I’m sure Don  L  wrote the book on that one.
                                Whiler Don L  engages in his own self serving  ramblings on and on , he is so bent on pointing fingers at others and engaging in his own pathetic “mud slinging” that he fails to see  his own mean-spirited ignorance .   Furthermore posting some lengthy quote by Ayn Rand doesn’t prove anything or solve any problem whatsoever .  In addition , we are NOT talking about any newly formed embryo here and we’re certainly NOT talking about any simple “proroplasm” as asserted by Don L, but rather we are indeed talking about a totally formed , developed, and viable unborn infant that has all the faculties and physical genetic and biological  makeup as any fully developed human   ( only smaller ) .  Since Don L has chosen to be a promulgator of infanticide to the extent of unborn genocide  , I  hope Don L when he pushes his agenda publicly and more widespread that he will be sure and wear his swastika so that we can at least identify him for what he truly is.

    • Don L

      Say, aren’t you that fella that does serious and extensive research and believes picnics are evil?  You’re a kick  jahwead…

      Hey, you don’t have to get so angry because you can’t answer a simple question and defend your position.  That’s OK pobrecito…maybe next time, huh?

    • George

      For your ignorant ignorant information I made one error which was corrected  regarding a definition on originality and I never said picnics were evil and you’re a blatant liar in saying such.   Since I’m a  “jah-head” according to you , I’m proud of it  ” squid guy ” .   You haven’t answered  a single question of mine and as usual you’re the typical hypocrite. In fact I was the first one to welcome you to this website on [ About Us  ] and if you don’t believe me go back and check.   You won’t because you’re too embarrassed .  I don’t know what  your problem is but you certainly have some serious screws loose upstairs.    You have no idea what discourse and dialogue is. Your only form of communication is insulting everyone and anyone like you did Tom ,  who wasn’t on here proselytizing but only relaying information from his term in Iran which was indeed helpful information. In fact you’ve been insulting just about everybody and anybody because of your sociopathic behavior ( if not psychopathic ). You’ve done nothing but make enemies whenever you post anything , not because of your position or views but because of your mean-spirited conceited and hate-mongering demeanor. Of couse I’m the one who should know better in not even responding to your arrogant and antagonistic drivel . In your mind, all of us , ( not only me , but Liz, PareshK, Jillian and many others  are all a bunch of dummies from your warped mentality. Only Don L has sense or answers to anything and no one else matters. You are truly a piece of work. It’s people like you who are an embarrassment to atheists.  I’m certainly not going to lose any sleep worrying about any names you call me . As a matter of fact , coming from you,  your smear tactics are meaningless.  It has gotten to the point where it seems like most of the regular commenters   on here hate your guts and justifiably so since you continue to act like a pompous ass. You must be one miserable person  to act and think the way you do . Believe it or not , I don’t hate you—- I actually pity you. I actually feel sorry for you. So if you want to have the last word with your hate-mongering drivel, go right ahead, as I find you pathetic and sickening ! No one else is acting with the obnoxious conduct on here but you.  As I stated before it isn’t your views or position but your demeanor but no matter how many times people tell you this it will be in vain.

      • Don L

        so, you’re a retired cop?  Phew, with anger issues like you have…good thing they took you off the streets!  and they let you carry a gun?  mam o man.

        So, This Tom insults Liz, tells a real Iranian that he doesn’t know anything about Iran and you think he provides great info about how christians and muslims differ on how their respective looneys will return to life. 

        OK…you’re absolutely right …tip toe tip toe…

        Still can’t answer the question…oh well.

  • Don L

    Finally checked with the thoughts of one of my heroines…I’m glad to find my thoughts and hers were consistent.  I did not, however, consider aspects of what if pro-lifer’s actually had their way.  That’s why she’s published and I’m still learning. 

    “A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.” — Ayn Rand

    “Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.” — Ayn Rand

    “If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix—and that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth.

    The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.

    I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.”

    By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?” —Ayn Rand

    • Liz

      OK, as far as I can tell this was your last post on the subject, so I’ll insert my answer here. 
      First of all, as much as I admire Ayn Rand, I obviously disagree with her on this point.  She held the view prevalent in her day that a fetus is nothing but a peice of protoplasm, a collection of cells, etc.  I’m sure she would agree with your view that it is simply a parasite. 
      However, by this logic, you could also argue that an infant is also a parasite, since it “grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism (its mother) while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.” If left to survive on its own it would certainly die, just as a parasite does.
      By this logic, then, why don’t we just extend that right of a woman to control her own destiny by simply allowing her to leave this parasite to die if it is a burden or inconvenient to her?  Why should compassion enter into the equation?  According to your view, compassion is apparently nothing more than a vestige of theistic emotionalism anyway.
      To call compassion for the unborn “dishonest”, as Rand does, is itself dishonest, in my opinion.  It is a stubborn, selfish refusal to give value to the life of another human which uses the cover of upholding the “rights of women” – a very compassionate sounding cause, indeed. 
      The truth is, as Jillian pointed out, women should take the responsibility on themselves to prevent conception if they dont want to begin the life of another human being.  Once it’s begun, it is no longer just their own body they are dealing with.  It is theirs and that “parasite” called a human being, that evolution just so inconveniently gave them the role of “host” for. 

  • Don L

    Well, the first reply to my request for an aswer is a post from George to say I’m an offensive intolerant and insulting fellow…that I always think I’m right and I name call and offend folks who disagree with me…ABSOLUTELY TRUE.  Pretty much when I post a comment…I am right!!!  Prove me wrong!  When some theist pops in and lays down stupidity…I’m intolerant and enjoy insulting him/her…what, try to persuade?

    When I see a regular commentor misstate something…several times…eventually I will comment. I am all the things George accuses me of…proud of it… If you say stupid things, I will probably point them out… I provide evidence or a source of good authority.  If a commentor merely makes some statement…I will ask for authority or rational evidence.  If the error continues…I look foward to insulting and calling names…It’s great sport!  LOL.  Don’t like it…well, get it right, provide proof of a comment or if you refuse correction or opposing evidence…get ready for a blast! Na Na Na Na Na!  I am, I think, I will…I’m not a co-dependant seeking support from group grope. 

    On this topic of none existent/unborn…just cause/that’s the way I want it…say goodbye to any individual rights conservatism…it’s to enter the realm of ghosts and goblins…PROVE IT…fully formed means alive?  born?  how does that happen…defend it…with more than that’s what I think…were do these magical powers come from?  If you can’t proof your ‘OPINION” , I do think you’re a fool…right there with theists!

    Candidly, most of those supporting this unborn is alive nonsense are to afraid to admit it derives from the gifts from god theory…Everyone is indeed entiled to their opinion on anything!  But, when irrational, illogical and unprovable contrivances (existing only in one’s mind…like a god) enter the real world as to effect law…well, if ya can’t figure it out…Your a jerk and I love telling a fool that!

    OK…awaiting more replies…but George says nobody else will reply…LOL…either cowards or just more folk with empty emotion and no true p[hilosophical evidence…just god stuff.  The unborn and none existent have rights because?  JUst because you say so?  Millions say god exists…

  • George

    I see why everyone else has stopped posting on this comment page. They too are fed up and tired of the the same old tired worn out diatribe.    Anyone who has a working knowledge of biology and human anatomy  can understand that the positioniong of an unborn baby ( inside or outside of the womb ) has absolutely NOTHING to do with it’s genetic or bilogical makeup.   This is not rocket science. Why this is it so hard for certain individuals to understand is beyond me.    I have heard feminists argue that there is no problem with late-term abortion when the unborn is totally developed and viable and some have even argued for the right to perform post-partum abortion  ( or the right to kill  a healthy born infant shortly AFTER birth ).   I’m sure HITLER would have been proud of such individuals if they were among his henchmen.  I sure hope this is not the general consensus of atheists , because if it is , then we’re in big trouble.     I was reading a book on the abortion issue and I was actually shocked when a feminist local representative in the USA actually supported one of my described points  ( and no I wasn’t in the discussion ).   A baby can’t speak for itself. A baby has no means to defend itself.  If a woman is raped —should she be allowed to get an abortion ?  I  say yes ( in my viewpoint of course ). The idea of forcing a woman to carry to term the offspring of her assaulter is assinine but it should be done at the initial onset of fertilization and NOT when the unborn is completely viable and fully developed which is absurd. If an unborn child has fully  developed organs, a fully developed brain and fully developed limbs, and is totally viable and healthy , to kill it at this point is indeed MURDER and if I have to be called names to defend the unborn, I don’t give a %$#@ and I certainly don’t have to account to anyone on this site as a result of my position. Dialogue works BOTH ways but then again some individuals still haven’t grasped this.  Personally I believe it’s a wasted effort when stubborness meets sensibilities.
                             

  • Don L

    From the horrible bad, immoral, offensive and twisted-thinking, guy Don L to anyone interested:

    RE: Asking for a justification of the “pro-life” belief and the willingness to sacrifice living human beings’ rights for the sake of a potentiality of life.

    Many times on this site, perhaps even the reader has typed it/thought it, I have read the comment, aimed at theists and or about theists, that “JUST BECAUSE YOU/THEY BELIEVE SOMETHING…IT DOESN”T MAKE IT TRUE!”.  If this notion is valid and true, then, as I have repeatedly asked…by what proof, what philosophy, what rational and resonable morality justifies denying/sacrificing the rights of actual/real alive human beings for something merely, and only, potentialy alive?  By what manner is not born given rights reserved for the living? 

    I would suggest strongly that the belief in ‘unborn’ being attributed with ‘alive’ status is akin to immaculate conception, resurrection, a believe in a superior being.  It’s a belief, but it isn’t real, true or in any manner provable except by the christian-like arguments of millions believe it, god works in mysterious ways, etcetras.  Again, where do unborn rights come from?  Ah, god’s creation?  don’t cast semen upon the ground and other versus?  Indoctrination is the source?  The arguments chronically given all derive from mysticism and/ or just from the undefensible notion of…becuase that’s how I feel. Well, others don’t think or feel that way.  Let’s force god on folks!  NO? 

    Ascribing life and rights to ‘unborn’ thereby necessitates a crime of murder of one sort or another on any mother who, not abortion, has a miscarriage…life is precious…it was taken and faulty body or not…a crime is committed because a life is taken….misdemeanor?  Felony?  Degrees of one or the other?  Where does stupidity end.  Very nasty unintended consequences inevitably derive from mystical/emotional beliefs.  You may believe that pregnancy is a wonderful thing…you envision joy and picture a bouncy baby…SO F___ing what!  That’s your picture.  Keep it to yourself. It does not mean that cells assembling as to a potential living human being  means it is in fact a living human being.  Prove it!!!  “That’s my opinion” is not a proof…”That’s how I feel” is not proof…”It’s how I think” is neither a thought nor proof.

    Jefferson rewrote the bible to eliminate mystical/magical/unsupportable notions like ‘unborn’ means alive…what does unborn mean…for god’s sake? (LOL)…(in fact it means ‘not yet brought into existence’)…where does this notion that a fetus/embryo/collection of cells (like a tumor) have special attributes come from?  So, eliminating theism-derivative notions, pure emotion/feelings and opinion or opinion masquerading as thought…how and where does the belief that ‘unalive’ – as in not a living human being; not yet existing –  cell bundles have rights ascribed solely to living human beings derive, originate, stem from? Some valuation and or special circumstance is of what origin?  I look foward to a rational and reasoned reponse…or, as oft stated on this site…just because you, or any number of millions, believe a thing…it doesn’t make the thing true!

    Thanks from the thoughtless, insulting, degenerate baby killer Don L

  • Don L

    In the order I received the emails:

    George (unregistered) wrote:

    Anyone who thinks that those of us who are secular and pro-life are in a tiny miniscule   irrelavent minority are vastly wrong.  While maybe a minority ( as far as published and organized groups are concerned –that may be true  ) but there is more not mentioned in the mainstream media ( including secular the media ).  [lists omitted]

    —defense by appeal to the size of the group: millions of god lovers too.  Lotsa people being emotional and irrational doesn’t alter incorrect thinking.—

    PareshK wrote, in response to Don L (unregistered):

    Don wrote: “Take that damn thing out and see if it lives.”

    This point creates major holes in your argument.  During the last three months of pregnancy, babies CAN be taken out and still live.  So, now where do you draw the line?  At which point do you consider a baby “alive” given that fact?

    I am also pro-choice, but to say an unborn child is not alive seems ridiculous.

    —In a response to George, I acknowledged this. However, it is still not a living being until it is born…normal or cesarean. I guess the terminology is last trimester respective of viability.  But, in all cases potentiality never rises to living and sacrificing a living persons rights for unborn is the moral sin. Social condemnation as to “casual termination at this point is best method. However, the procedure whereas a baby is born and then terminated…better have a good medical reason or at that point a crime may be considered.  And, no matter your love for having children and all the heart strings it pulls…UNBORN does not mean living…it means not born and that means not alive; no rights as if alive!—

    Liz (unregistered) wrote, in response to Don L (unregistered):

    I can’t believe your twisted reasoning here.  A human fetus is not alive until it is born. It is a parasite.  But a parasite is  alive. So which is it?  You can’t have it both ways.

    —a cancerous groth is alive in the sense you appply.  But it is not alive in the sense as a being!  fetus/embryo…cells doing what cells do…irrespective of what it may look like on a sonigram or other imaging device/technique.  Emotions can be wonderful things…they are dangerous when applied to law/government force.  UNBORN…NOT alive…not born…to ascribe life and rights to this is the height of sick emotional illogic…when and how have you kid lovers fallen into the trap of redifining life?  Potential life IS NOT actual LIFE!!!  Yopu all sound as idiotic as christians holding onto immaculate screwing!

    The idea that you all would prescribe, by force, how other women should live their lives is the true crime.  To confuse an assemblage of cells as being a living human being is horrendously false and dangerous collectivism thinking.  The right to an abortion is the right to eliminate cells from the body.  To believe these cells have some magic or state of life is mysticism.  Again, you have every right to believe what you want…to impose your belief, like a flagrant theist, on anyone else is is un-conservative…it is to deny others rights based on…the distorted and ‘twisted’ idea that unborn means living…this is Obama thinking and, sadly, myopia rather than thought rules these comments! Then, to ascribe murder to a women’s right to choose…sorry Jillian…this is over the top emotion.  By what philosophical morality does one arrive at not living/potential rise to actual living human being?—

    • George

      First of all you  stated in a post a few months ago that you were NOT going to make any responses to my posts  ,  then KEEP YOUR  WORD .    I never e-mailed you and I  never mentioned your name and I have no intent to . In fact , I want nothing to do with you whatsoever after the crap I’ve had to put up with from you right after I had stated before that I was rooting for you as president ( tongue in cheek ) .   I want NO conversation with you on any  subject—PERIOD !!!  If an unborn baby is fully developed and just hasn’t emerged from the birth canal anal via birth doen’t make it any  less than a human . If an infant is fully developed and viable and able to sustain life entirely and is healthy with all organs and a fully developed brain then it is indeed a human and just because it hasn’t emerged from the womb in birth from exiting the birth canal as a matter of positional transition does not make it any less human—-PERIOD !    Now having said that as I stated before , I never mentioned your name and I don’t want to and I still want  NOTHING   to  do with you on any topic whatsoever —plain and simple.  So therefore carry on your conversation with someone else—not me.  I’m fed up with the whole thing.   I’m not bothering you and don’t you bother me and I’m tired of this crap.   I won’t mention your name and you  agree to not mention mine—-it’s that simple .  

      • George

        The 8th sentence line should read folks —“from the birth canal” –not    “anal”   .   It was a typo folks .  I’m getting off the subject before I say something that will get me banned permanently from the website and I want to keep it civil and I’m going to leave it at that.     

      • Don L

        Pobrecito!  Since I was the only one who brought up the topic…not mentioning my name doesn’t mean you weren’t responding to me.  But, for all the the mysticism life to the unborn magic beliebers…as a practical matter:  The woman is near full term, has an auto accident…unborn dies…is she arrested for murder?  What gets me about you george is the chronic…”Idon’t want”, “that’s the way it will be”,  “end of topic”, basically my way yada yada…your just an emotional and opinionated bully…you don’t discuss…you impose.  If you don’t want a respons…don’t refer to me.  It’s always been interesting to me how many people you talk about that you describe trying to relate to in the real world and all seem to reject you and it’s always their fault…curious?  Take it easy big fella!

        • George

          First of all , I’m NOT the one who has to take it easy and you should practice what you preach.   Your rantings go way off base and you need to look into the mirror to see who the real culprit is.   I made a simple point of my position and then you go off with your hot tempered ad hominem jabs at anyone who doesn’tt subscribe to Don L’s version of things .  If a baby accidentally dies in an accident is not the same as intentionally  going to an abortion clinic and killing a viable fully developed human being.  Your hostile demeanor has been out of control and not only towards guests but against fellow regular commenters. Everyone has a right to have a difference of viewpoint, opinion and perception of things .   The emotional opinionated bully is yourself and you have a habit of attaching labels to other people  which really  describes yourself. In fact most of your posts have been plain and simple cyberbullying and antagonism and nothing to do with discussion or trying to engage in civil discourse or dialogue and your hypocrisy and double-standard precedes you.  I’m wasting my time even responding to you as I may as well be talking to a brick wall.  Only Don L is right—-in your eyes everyone else is a bunch of dummies and stupid in your mind.  Only Don  L has a right to an opinion—everyone else in your mind is an idiot. Only Don L  has the right concept of things—in your mindset, everyone else should ALL go along with your perception of things.   Spare me the rhetoric and propaganda as it doesn’t hold water.   Lately you have been pissing everyone off  ( and overwhelmingly by your  DEAMEANOR  )  —but  of course in your self centered mind—-YOU are always right and everyone else be damned !

  • George

    Anyone who thinks that those of us who are secular and pro-life are in a tiny miniscule   irrelavent minority are vastly wrong.  While maybe a minority ( as far as published and organized groups are concerned –that may be true  ) but there is more not mentioned in the mainstream media ( including secular the media ) .

               The following are just a few secular Pro-Life groups who respect, support and and defend the life of the unborn in spite of what the anti-lifers and pro-infanticide promulgators proclaim.   

    * (1)    Atheists and Agnostic Pro-Life League    ( Homepage ) 
                 http://www.godlessprolifers.org    hosted by  James Matthew Wallace  , aka- The Complete Heretic

    *  (2)   Prolife Conservative Atheists    
                  http://www.theblaze.com

    *  (3)   Secular Arguments gainst Abortion
                  www.godandscience.org

    *  (4)   Secular Pro Life   http://www.secularprolife.org

    *  (5)   Pagans for Life

    *  (6)   Libertarians for Life       ( Pro-Life Site )

    *  (7)   ” 5 myths about pro-lifers  , and how to refute them ” – by Kristen Walker

                              The bottom line is that all atheists are not monolithic.   All atheists don’t think alike just like not all Christians don’t think alike.  Just because a person doesn’t believe in the supernatural or paranormal does not mean that on political, social, philosophical , medical , and even scientific issues we are all going to agree.  Being a freethinker means just that—-the ability to think and decide freely on our own what to accept and what to reject.     Unfortunately some people have missed the mark on this very definition.  I am also NOT going to allow myself to be lured into some “pissing contest” or “childish bickering match” on this issue. I defend my position just as others defend theirs and I respectfully remain firm in my position on this issue.

    • George

      I’m aware that pagans are religious , and I simply added that to the list.

  • George

    I am in total agreement with what Liz  has posted here and also that of Jillian.  When I was a member of a major liberal atheist organization , I got into a personal debate with a few liberal atheists on the subject of abortion ( which is promulgated highly by ghe radical liberal feminists ).     The subject of abortion has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. Many fundamentalists have adopted the subject as being  purely regarding the constraints of their faith.  When I read and hear some of the comments of the various pro-abortion crowd , I find it very alarming how supposedly rational and intelligent human beings  ( even atheists ) can become so inhuman in their mentality regarding the unborn. If an unborn baby is fully developed and has all viable means to live outside of the womb , just because it hasn’t emerged from out of the vaginal tract does NOT negate that it is any less human just because it hasn’t moved or transitioned a few centimeters to another position.   So , in their minds  if it’s inside the womb –it isn’t human , but then move it a few centimeters to the outside and now all of a sudden  it’s genetic and biological makeup has magically changed and turned it into a human being infant.   When I hear some atheists push this rubbish , it never ceases to amaze me that even atheists aren’t rational on everything.   I agree with Liz and Jillian.   Where is the father’s right to opt out from being forced into being a father from an unwanted pregnancy  if the condom or contraceptive failed ? 
                           People say that the father should have known the risk beforehand.  That’s true , however the same rule applies to the mother.  She can simply waltz into an abortion clinic and have the unborn child killed if she doesn’t want to responsible of being a mother with an unwanted child , however the biological father  has no such option.   If the mother choses to keep the baby, the father will be forced by the GOVERNMENT to pay child support for a baby that is unwanted by him. He has no option or available means to not be forced into fatherhood.  I will not go so far to say that at the moment of conception that it is now a a human  but when the fetus is indeed fully developed and viable ( with fully developed organs and brain )  then it is indeed a living ,  breathing and fully organ-functioning human being. This has NOTHING  to do with religion but respecting ,  recognizing  and acknowledging  life in it’s truest form. 
                         Some women and liberal minded atheists and even a few  conservatives say it’s only the right of the mother to make the call. Wrong again.    If the mother is raped or has her life in danger or even if it’s at the immediate onset of the egg/sperm union as a result of a failed contraceptive or unwanted pregnancy  ( then the mother should be able to  ) and that’s  one thing and yet it still isn’t my or anyone else’s  say to make a specific point of where the life begins at this point —but using abortion as a form of post-pregnancy concraceptive is the epitome of  inhuman behavior.   If an unborn child is fully viable and developed , just because it hasn’t emerged yet in birth has not transformed or declared it to be biologically inhuman .  It’s genetic and biological makeup hasn’t changed. It’s amazing how we have supposedly intelligent people with a modern day nazi mentality toward the unborn.  It makes me want to scream and break something  when I hear this crap. If  the biological father wants to have his child and raise it and love it on his own , he has every right to even in spite of the idea that the mother doesn’t want anything to do with the child. She can simply bring the child to term , give birth and turn the child over to the father who will be a loving and caring parent to what is equally his child as well.   This is what ticks me off even toward some atheists on this subject.  There is a website titled——   ” Atheists &  Agnostic  Pro-Life League “. I intend to join them. I read an article in a particular humanist magazine and one of the staff writers ( a liberal by the way ) said that even he is pro-life and is against abortion for the purpose of post-pregnancy contraceptive purposes ).  The wacky idea by liberals that if the child isn’t born yet  even though totally viable and developed )and the claim that it  is nothing but a glob of flesh or a piece of meat is plain insanity and proves that just because a person has secular beliefs doesn’t in itself make a person truly rational, reasonable and sensible.   An unboarn child if fully developed is both the responsibility of both biological parents —since both produced it and both should have a say toward the fate of that child. Just because the child is being housed and developed in the mother’s womb ( a human bilogical incubator ) doesn’t give any reason to violate the father’s rights to what is equally his child as well.  This is NOT up for opinion, or personal point of view . Opinions don’t change biology and nature.  If the pro-abortion agenda is what many atheists are going to promote , then I want no part of it and I stand my ground on this issue and I don’t give a rat’s a** what anyone thinks otherwise on the matter.      A child’s life is not up for personal  opinion or “feeling”.  Who speaks for the unborn ? Who defends the helpless unborn ? An infant’s right to have LIFE  is not up for PERSONAL opinion or perception.  Calling this   ” choice ”  is not only a misnomer but totally assinine.  No baby chooses to die—plain and simple.  Unfortunately some people in our society are too stupid, ignorant and pitifully selfish that talking to them is like talking to a  f***ing  brick wall.  I’m at the end of my rope on this and I can see where this is going and  it’s really wearing thin.  I respect life and if others don’t then that’s their problem—not mine , and I  don’t give a crap. I stand firm in my position . Others have posted their view and I have now posted mine and so be it.

  • Don L

    Based on posts on this page and posts on previous pages:

    First, the idea that government has any right to mandate anything is un-constitutional as regards the Founders intent.  Just as today’s christians misinterpret “nature’s god” & “their creator”, they misinterpret the original meanings of “regulate” & “common welfare”.  The Founders understood issues of welfare and healthcare and purposefully rejected government involvement.  And, up until the 20th century, cases where a “safety net” was required, it was provided by local institutions, services and individuals.  Absolutely nothing in the constitution gives government the right to spend the governeds’ money on anything other than self-defense and the protection of property and physical well being.

    Further, The construction of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were specific as to the relation of the individual to government.  It was right to life relative to government action…not some morals of either a majority or a minority applied to law.  It was right to liberty as regards freedom from government.  And, it was pursuit of happiness free of government intervention in commerce excepting fraud or other crimes against property rights and physical well being. Government has no right to establish a mandate for anything nor force a company to pay for anything.

    Now, sorry to step on toes, but the following statement may express a personal opinion, but it’s as irrational and as illogical as the easter bunny. And, prudish is indeed a plausibe interpretation of the “casually” imposition.  Why can’t it be a casual decision?  Like fairness…who determines…it sure isn’t something you want government defining!

    [abortion] “When it is used casually as a means of birth control, I think it is simply murder.”

    How, in fact can you murder something that is unborn…not alive?  It is a fetus; it takes on the appearance/form of a human…so?  It is not alive! It’s growth, can be terminated…modern medicine…this is not murder.  This idea is tied directly to the notion that life begins at conception…a faith-based illogic…is it not?  Certainly, we don’t want government forcing people to have abortions…we don’t want government involved in any moral issues.

    Further, to place any limit on any women’s desire to have an abortion is just like every law of prohibition: liquor, drugs.  It is doomed to failure and always results in more harm than good. We have already been there and suffered the maimings and deaths associated with the morals of stupididty.  People will drink, take drugs and have sex…No? And, if it doesn’t hurt you, affect your property…what damned business of it of yours anyway if a woman doesn’t want to have a child.  She’s not allowed to enjoy sex…says what fool? If some woman or married couple doesn’t want a child and, because of the enjoyment of sex, an egg is ferilized she or they have every right to determine what they want to do about it…proceed or terminate it.  Murder…it is only mental gymnastics and not fact that conjurs such foolery.  You can’t kill something that isn’t alive…unborn…is that like zombies?  The undead?  What stretch of insanity is at play to say a fetus is a living person…it is in fact merely a parasite until born.

    Summarily, no government pay outs for pills or procedures and government doesn’t have the right to make companies pay for products/serices or alter or create products/services. And, “they ought/should” emotional creation of law is invarably a loss of freedom for all. Here’s a great rule…mind your own business if it doesn’t effect you!

    • Liz

      Don – 
      It is a simple fact – if an organism is growing, it’s alive.  A whale fetus grows up to be a whale; a giraffe fetus grows up to be a giraffe.  It is not a “parasite” or a zombie. 
      Recognizing that a fetus is a living human being in it’s first stages of developement has nothing to do with religion – it’s just a plain scientific fact. 
      If we recognize that killing an adult human being is murder, then to be consistent, we should recognize that the killing of a pre-born human being is murder.  Who are you or anyone else to draw an arbritrary line saying, “after this point you’re alive – before that you’re a parasite.”  
      It is not a matter of a woman’s rights or freedom –  it’s a matter of life or death for a human being that some people think can be ignored simply because they can’t (yet) be seen.   

      • Don L

        Parasite: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

        A fetus certainly will, if gone to full term, result in a human being being born…It is not a living human being while a fetus!  That is a fact.  It is not alive.  Take that damn thing out and see if it lives.

        Who am I to say something isn’t alive until its born? Just what does being born mean?

        Sorry Liz…you are still locked into that 30 years of christian/theist illogic.  Who’s right is it…god’s?  Governments?  It certainly isn’t any of your business!

        Killing a born human is a crime.  What does unborn mean?  Not alive?  Sounds real insane to define it as an unseen live person.

        It is not a scientific fact that a fetus is a live human being.  It is scientifically not alive and totally dependent on the mother for any continuation of growth…and the mother has every right to determine whether or not she wishes to continue the pregnancy.  You can’t murder something that isn’t alive!

        • Don wrote: “Take that damn thing out and see if it lives.”

          This point creates major holes in your argument.  During the last three months of pregnancy, babies CAN be taken out and still live.  So, now where do you draw the line?  At which point do you consider a baby “alive” given that fact?

          I am also pro-choice, but to say an unborn child is not alive seems ridiculous.

        • Liz

          I can’t believe your twisted reasoning here. 
          A human fetus is not alive until it is born. It is a parasite. 
          But a parasite is  alive. 
          So which is it?  You can’t have it both ways.

  • The thing that really stood out for me was how Obama kept using the word “free” in his speech.  What if an insurance company feels that it would be most cost-effective to offer these products with a $10 or $20 copay?  I can’t believe that this would violate the new regulations that Obama is putting in place.  That simple fact shows just how DANGEROUS Obama is.  Unfortunately, the way he phrased it, I can only guess most of America is thinking that “free” access to these products is a good thing, but not really thinking about the underlying concept of government forcing private companies to offer goods in a certain way.  This is really scary, especially because Obama cleverly uses his class-warfare tactics to get all the lower and lower-mid income folks behind him.

    Obama is truly going to destroy this country if he gets re-elected.

  • Grandpa Boris

    I have a huge problem with your phrasing here, Jillian.   I don’t disagree with the stand you take against Obamacare attempting to regulate our behavior.   But you are coming off sounding as prudish, anti-sex and anti-abortion as Christian fundamentalists.   

    • What do you mean by this?  I am against religion as much as anyone on this site, but I do understand that some of these Christian institutions think it’s against their morals to offer birth control.  It’s their right to not offer these products.  No one is forcing anyone to work for these institutions.  If an employee does not like their employer’s health care offering, they can choose to work somewhere else.  The point is, the employer is free to make that decision if they so desire.

      So, I am not sure how Jillian’s statements were “as prudish, anti-sex and anti-abortion as Christian fundamentalists.”

    • Jillian Becker

      You read me wrongly. I’m no prude, Grandpa Boris. I am not in the least concerned about what adults do sexually. But I don’t want to pay for their contraception devices or operations or medical treatments of any sort.
      As for abortion as a moral issue, I recognize that it can be necessary, as when pregnancies are the result of rape or incest, or when the mother or child are seriously endangered by a birth. When it is used casually as a means of birth control, I think it is simply murder. Adults are responsible for the consequences of their actions. Women know what causes pregnancy. If they don’t want to conceive, they can refrain from causing conception, or take a risk with or without birth control. Whatever they do, consequences are not their fellow citizens’ responsibility. Obviously as an atheist I do not share the Catholic  view that contraception and abortion interfere with “God’s will”.

      • Grandpa Boris

        Jillian, your language (“They must be able to copulate without fear of conceiving”) was very telling.  There were many ways to say the same thing without implying a disdain for sex.  In this case, your disgust is palpable.
        I am in agreement with your view that we should not be required to fund solutions to other people’s mistakes or carelessness or even accidents that can happen when all precautions are taken.    However, I vehemently disagree that a woman should be denied the rights to abort her own fetus regardless of the circumstances of conception. You think abortion is “simply murder”.  I think until a fetus is viable outside of the womb, it’s a personal decision. 

        • Jillian Becker

          Nature, Grandpa Boris, does not allow a woman to copulate without fear of conceiving. 

          I am not disgusted by the act of copulation. I am impatient with stupidity. 

          I find it fascinating that men can take the aborting of babies so lightly. I wonder why that is? 

        • Grandpa Boris

          I don’t see a reply option on your comment, Jillian, so I will reply here.    

          Abortion as a primary means of birth control is insane.  But accidents happen.   We have an advantage of having relatively safe means of ending a pregnancy.   It’s definitely safer to have an abortion than giving a birth.   I will not debate how lightly or seriously men and women take the abortion.  There are women who are very comfortable with it, and there are men who are militantly against it.

    • George

      There is absolutely nothing prudish regarding taking a stand against Obama’s health plan which allows the use of  tax payer money to not only fund abortions  but also to fund the payment of contraceptives for people’s personal sexual behavior.   This has nothing to do with any attempt to change the church’s “tennant” based position on the issue .  Your misinterpreted perception toward Jillian Becker is guided by your theological indoctrination and not rational discourse.   As a secular freethinker  I personally couldn’t care less what the church’s views are on the matter and I’m tired of hearing on a regular basis in the media the false accusations toward secularists in regards to this issue.  

      • Keith

        I hate to say it but Obama won this one. He took powers he doesn’t have and mandated a religious organization go against its beliefs then as if making a backtrack took still more powers he doesn’t have and mandated private insurance companies give something away and the world rejoiced that he had to backtrack. He still used powers he doesn’t have and now has set precedent for doing so in the future.

        Little by little our freedoms are stripped away and by accepting the original illegal premise we feel we have won something even though we have lost a little more of our precious freedom.

        And not to start a war with Don L but if left alone what will a fetus become? I may be an atheist but I hold all life in high regard because I believe this is all we get. I echo Jillian’s belief that abortion as birth control is murder.

        • Don L

          No war Keith.  See my reply to Liz.  Alive…living people I hold dear.  A fetus…it isn’t alive and potential human doesn’t make it a live human. 

          Let ask…do you want government deciding moral issues?   

          And, you’re right…Obama keeps getting away with it!

        • George

           Keith ,  I agree with Jillian and  I also know that Obama won the day he took office . I don’t see any disparity as we’re on the same page here .  Obama cares nothing about the welfare of the American people . He’s a collectivist neo-Marxist and ALL of his programs are a virulent con-game. 

        • Don L

          Sorry…I forgot to ask (here’s where I think the theist indoctrination creeps in) about this line: “I hold all life in high regard because I believe this is all we get.”

          We get from whom or where?

        • Keith

          Don L,
          I am not sure that my sentence about ” holding all life in high regard because I believe this is all we get”  is ambiguous.

          Just because I don’t believe in a god doesn’t mean I don’t have beliefs.

          To clarify I don’t believe there is anymore to life than what we are experiencing so I try to live my life in a way that makes me feel good about myself. Not killing for the sake of killing or convenience is one of the ways I choose to live my life. Killing to feed myself or my family is a natural part of life and the life I take in that endeavor I hold in high regard.

          Abortion is a topic that always causes the type of responses seen here. You will never convince me that your point of view is one I should subscribe to and vice versa. But I would like to point out that  god aborts babies on a regular basis, i.e. miscarriages so evidently he doesn’t believe they are humans yet either so maybe it is you that has some theist indoctrination creeping in ;).

          p.s. rant all you want in reply, call me a coward but as far as I am concerned we jumped way off topic and it was my fault. Jillian is correct the personal attacks make me weary and I just as soon move on.

  • Don L

    Ah…by the way, who won the war on poverty?  Why don’t we hear about that from the mainstream media?

  • Don L

    People who need people…
    Grab all the gusto you can get…
    Take it easy…
    Live for today…
    don’t work too hard…
    he/she are in a better place now…
    I need you…
    capitalism can’t employ everybody…
    the USSR didn’t go all the way to communism…
     
    Emotion and FEELINGS have just about killed Knowledge and Thought.
     
    Few know the lesson of the broken window.  They cannot see the unintended consequences. That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen: The Unintended Consequences of Government Spending by M Frederic Bastiat: http://www.amazon.com/That-Which-Seen-Not-Consequences/dp/1453857508/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1329101199&sr=8-9#_  (the #_ are part of the URL)

  • George

                    Obama’s health care program ( Obamacare ) is nothing but socialized medicine . It’s the federal government taking over the health care of the USA and mandating how health care will be carried out and regulated. The idea of forcing people to have to buy health care is in itself illegal.   Also , the idea that taxpayers should foot the bill for non-insured citizens is also in itself criminal and unethical. Obama is a staunch neo-Marxist   and his agenda is to push his socialist ideology upon our nation and transform America into a socialist state.    This is what he meant when running for office when he said it was his intent to transform America. The problem was that braindead  “sheeple”  misinterpreted those words as if to mean he had intentions to help the poor, and middle class and improve our society.  They were lied to.   They were bamboozled.    They were hoodwinked. They were conned.  
                          Liberals proclaim to care  for  the ethnic minorities and women when in reality they use both groups as their   “useful idiots ”   just to achieve votes and to achieve and remain in power. They throw out a bone to pacify the crowd to keep them quiet and satisfied and then they engage in their true dubious agenda behind the scenes.  They are deceitful and treacherous while pretending to be the good guys. 
                           It was the socialist LIBERALS who created the ghettos and have caused a large percentage of ethnic minorities to be dependent upon government, have no incentive or motivation to improve their lot , and to keep them trapped in a lower class of helplessness  and this is how the liberals exercise control and power and feel safe in the long run with their phony smiles prtending as if they truly care.  As a result , ethnic minorities become nothing put parasites upon society and massive wards of the state and this also stirs up discontent among various groups ( the old –divide & conquer tactic ) .      When a group feels that they are nothing but “victims” with a victimhood mentality and engage in manipulated “group think ”  with a mindset of entitlement ——they lose all forms of self dignity , self respect, self value and lose any and all zeal to achieve and better themselves.  This also reinforces racist mentalities in the opposite group which liberals are totally aware of  and this also is part of their dubious agenda.   Liberals create the problem and then step in later claiming to have the solution of  how to fix it.   Ethnic minorities cannot fight racism by becoming racist bigots themselves. Women can’t fight sexism by becoming sexist bigots themselves.    You cannot fight one form of prejudice and bigotry by exercizing that same form of prejudice and bigotry at the opposite extreme. The idea should be to eradicate ALL FORMS of prejudice and bigotry in it’s entirety.  Liberals are also good at finger pointing at others for turmoil  which they caused .    Among whites —the radical religious right (conservative Christians ) are the power brokers of their group , however among blacks , the liberal wacky left -wing Democrat Party purveyors  ( liberal Christians )  are the power brokers among that ethnic groups. Most latinas ( Hispanics ) are  Catholics.    Most Middle Easterners are Muslims and many Asians are ( Buddhists ).  Many  Americans are Prostestants.   If we throw in Taoists, Hindus , Shitoism , Wiccans,  Scientologists, Voodoo adherents, Kwanza followers, cults and fly-by-night self-made clergymen  and messengers and many more too numerous to mention  —we have a mixture of a world of delusional wackos who are controlling and influencing the lives of a great multitude of innocent  men, women and children.  The sad and disturbing part is that many of them are regarded as people to be looked up to , respected and admired while they brainwash the masses who are too gullible to understand  that they are vehemently  stupid fools  of mythology and superstition which is being used as a political tool of power and control.    

  • Liz

    The enormous blind spot that collectivists have about “entitlement” is amazing.  How can you miss such an obvious flaw in reasoning?  Having “faith” in pie in the sky is one thing – you fail to reason it out on purpose.  But these people are supposed to be intellectuals, who have it all figured out.
    The thing with the Catholic church would never have happened if the government hadn’t been funding their charity in the first place, which was a violation of the separation of church and state to begin with.  Why didn’t they just stop taking federal money, if they objected to the govt. telling them how to use it?