published Wednesday, July 10th, 2013

The Clinic

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

91
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
alprova said...

There is one thing for sure. The GOP has an obsession with the oversight of the reproductive organs of every single woman in the United States.

It's going to kill them next year.

Think the people turned out in droves for Obama last year? That will be nothing to those who will turn out to defeat each and every Republican who has their fingerprints on any legislation targeting women.

July 10, 2013 at 12:18 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

No Al, the obsession is with protecting the unborn.

July 10, 2013 at 12:25 a.m.
alprova said...

The far-right's obsession with protecting the unborn ends when they are born. Is that a fair statement? The evidence to that statement is contained in the comments of our own local right-wingers.

How many people who participate in this forum moan and groan about the Government social programs that support the poor. How many have whined about TANF benefits, more often than not, handed to those who are poor with children?

How many times have I read words like "welfare brood mares," used to describe poor women with children?

The anti-abortion crowd, with little exception, loves to believe that they are pro-life, but their concern often ends with the birth of any child. Outside of public assistance, those opposed to abortion contribute nothing to a mother to be able to provide for the cost of raising that child to adulthood.

There are some private resources out there to assist a mother while she is pregnant, but those resources dry up the minute their child is delivered.

I'm totally opposed to abortion as a means of birth control, without all other options being weighed first, but in the end, I have to side with a woman's right to choose what is best for her, if that is her choice.

And because there is all this objection to public assistance for single women with children, I find the anti-abortion folk lacking consistency in their arguments for preserving all life.

I'm well aware that there are many people out there receiving benefits who do not deserve them at all. I'm like most people, in that I would like to see anyone who is able to work for a living, be made to do so, but that in and of itself will not prevent them from being qualified for assistance of some sort.

I've met people recently who had six to seven siblings. All came from poor families who somehow were able to provide for them and to raise them. How they did it, God only knows.

Being poor is not a sin. But you would not know that based on the commentary coming from those who demean the poor on a daily basis in this and many other forums, most often than not, coming from those claiming to be religious.

If one is truly pro-life, then one also needs to understand that with the birth of any child, the cost of raising that child presents a tremendous challenge to that mother.

July 10, 2013 at 1:11 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Hey Alpo, what color is the sky at the planet you're on?

July 10, 2013 at 2:05 a.m.
conservative said...

If you don't believe Liberals/Socialists/Demoncrats live in an upside down perverted God hating world then consider that Sea Turtle nests and their eggs have federal protection. Kill their unborn and the wrath of Liberals/Socialists/Demoncrats Godless government will come down on you, but go ahead and kill YOUR unborn, it is perfectly legal.

Most assuredly the wrath of God abides on such, He will judge.

July 10, 2013 at 6:36 a.m.
limric said...

Good cartoon today Clay.

Great 1:11 a.m. post Alprova. You drove the truth home. Nice job John Henry. :-)

[~Honestly, If a vagina could shoot bullets it would have fewer regulations on it. Republicans/Christian Control Freaks (aka the American Taliban) think women run to Planned Parenthood like it was a 7-Eleven. I’ll take a soda, a bag of chips and an abortion please.]

~paraphrased from best friends Margaret and Helen

Of course these friends of sixty years are - according to Pat Robertson - pushing the feminist agenda. "Which is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

You think it's about saving innocent babies? Because it’s not. Reference Afghanistan or Iraq for starters.

Like blowing fart bubbles, not a week passes without the sewer gas they pass off as intellect wafting a new affront on women.

No such thing as a Republican war on women? Think again.

P.S. for all you right wing fans of the 'Inquisition', lets just cut to the chase and say: "It's Obama's fault." Cause it is - isn't it.

July 10, 2013 at 6:51 a.m.
alprova said...

Thanks Limric. As always, your posts are pure gems.

July 10, 2013 at 6:59 a.m.
limric said...

Conservative,

Your 6:36 post is your best yet. I love it.

Thank you for making me smile.

July 10, 2013 at 6:59 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

HERE'S JOEY:

WARNING: THE LINK TO GRAPHIC VIDEO BELOW MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PSYCHE:

http://www.catholic.org/video/watch.php?v=13 http://www.abort73.com/videos/this_is_abortion/

OK, alkarma, you and ol' limpRick explain the above with your slithering silver tongues:

By the way, al, do you punch a clock every morning before you start cartoon blogging?

July 10, 2013 at 8:24 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

Have patience, conservatives, they're having private time with their trees.

July 10, 2013 at 8:37 a.m.
joneses said...

There is one thing for sure. The dummycrats has an obsession with the oversight of the killing of babies from every single woman in the United States.

It's going to kill them next year.

Think the people turned out in droves for Obama last year? That will be nothing compared to those who will turn out to defeat every dummycrat for destroying our health care system, killing babies, supporting the terrorist organization The Muslim Brotherhood, increasing the debt to 20 trillion dollars, leaving brave men to die in Benghazi, instructing the IRS to target those who oppose the hussein obama regime, fabricating a ridiculous lie that there is a war on women, letting every criminal from Mexico into America to rape and kill the women in America, increasing the poverty rate in America, destroying jobs through environmental laws designed to destroy jobs in America and make more people, including women dependent on government forcing them to live in poverty, the war on Christianity, the war on family values, the war on Christian women, the war on corporations, the war on energy independence, the war on successful people, the war on the right to protect ourselves and many other failures or intentions to destroy America.

Why do liberals never say anything about hussein obama's successes? It is because he has no successes.

July 10, 2013 at 8:38 a.m.
conservative said...

Speaking of upside down perverted thinking I quess Mr Bennett is implying that the Republicans are pro life and that there is something wrong with that. Killing the unborn is moral while protecting the life of the unborn is immoral?

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

July 10, 2013 at 8:45 a.m.
jesse said...

Hey Joe, I'ts tough being the "most interesting man in the world" BUT like Al said "someone has to do it"!

Of course him and Limric disagree on just who fills that role!!

July 10, 2013 at 8:45 a.m.
Reardon said...

I can only speak for myself.

I am all about protecting the natural rights of all human beings.

I am NOT about protecting the arbitrary, political privileges of a specific class, ethnicity, or group of people.

My argument against abortion is simple.

Is a fetus a human being? Or a human-that-will-eventually-be?

Yes.

Since it shares all the functions as a out-of-the-womb human being, certainly it must have rights, correct?

Yes.

If a human being, or human-to-be, has natural rights like you and me, why is a baby in the womb subject to murder at a whim -- with the exception of a risk of death to the mother -- when we are protected by laws and police from out-of-the-womb murder?

There is an ethical inconsistency in the pro-baby under a few flaps of skin murder argument, and unfortunately, folks like Al refuse to acknowledge and understand the differences between natural rights and arbitrary political privileges bestowed upon a select group of the State.

A is A. Murder is murder.

And I am an atheist.

July 10, 2013 at 8:46 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Good stuff, Reardon.

July 10, 2013 at 8:55 a.m.
jesse said...

If you are O.K. with abortion then why all the uproar because a penal system in,i think Calif.were doing tubal ligations on inmates who gave birth in prison??

July 10, 2013 at 9 a.m.

Conservative is spot on. Sea turtle eggs, trees, frogs, and insects all receive more respect than the unborn do from Democrats.

Reardon, very good. We've all been a fetus, obviously. Murder is murder. 60 million plus since 1973 is genocide.

July 10, 2013 at 9:16 a.m.
moon4kat said...

Thanks to Alprova & Limric for intelligent posts.
Whether to have a child is a decision that should be made by the woman who has to go through pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood. If she thinks she can't handle those roles, I'll take her word for it. It's certain that the GOP isn't going to take care of the fetus after it's born. Before 12 weeks, the embryo is basically a clump cells akin to tadpole. The conservatives rant about protecting life, until it's born, then they are content with subjecting it to neglect and abuse.

July 10, 2013 at 9:20 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

moonkat: Not even a nice try. In fact, just pure caca. You're trying, (I guess) to mix a moral argument with a political one.

July 10, 2013 at 9:25 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

alkarma: If one is truly pro-life, then one also needs to understand that with the birth of any child, the cost of raising that child presents a tremendous challenge to that mother.

BUT TRUE PRO-ABORTION LIBERALS CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE COST THE UNWANTED CHILD HAS TO PAY. IT'S NOT ON THEIR IPHONE CALCULATOR.

July 10, 2013 at 9:26 a.m.
Reardon said...

Moon4kat -- let's think a little deeper here.

Tell me what the difference is between the following scenarios:

-Voluntarily supporting a human being with my money, and -Being forced at the barrel of a gun to support a human being with my money.

Is there an ethical difference, yes or no?

If yes, then you understand the difference between charity and government handouts, and hopefully partially why someone would object to pro-baby-in-the-womb murder and still not support political gift-giving (using my tax dollars) to irresponsible people.

If no, you are lost.

July 10, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.

moon4kat said...Whether to have a child is a decision that should be made by the woman who has to go through pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood.

That crucial decision is made before conception. Once the child is conceived, terminating his or life is the legitimate prerogative of NO other human being, including that of his or her mother – certainly not of those who press hardest for the abortion option: the expectant mother’s parents or her boyfriend. Supporting abortion = pro-woman? Ha. An expectant mother is simply subjected to more pressure to violate her conscience, end the life of her child, and endure the regret.


An ironic cartoon, given that abortionists are the ones making sure that many OB-GYN patients never make it to the Pediatrician.

July 10, 2013 at 9:45 a.m.

“I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child — a direct killing of the innocent child — murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? … Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.” – Mother Teresa, a (formerly) living refutation of the “they don’t care about children after birth” canard.

July 10, 2013 at 9:56 a.m.
Maximus said...

"The far rights obsesssion with protecting the unborn ends when they are born." Alprova, this loser mentality. This negative lack of faith in the spirit, energy, drive, determination, and ultimate success of the INDIVIDUAL without any assistance from a nanny state government is not only revolting, anti-American, it is vomit inducing. The only last trimester abortions that I wish would have occurred would be on you, Obama, Clay, and Bill Mahr. All are a-holes and would not have been missed in the least. Wow, how can someone be so cynical to think that 1.6 million abortions a year statistically impacting all of Alprova's precious guvment safety net programs such Social Security, Medicare, and the IRS is something our government should should support is really, really sick! The positive human potential being lost with each abortion is a stain upon our country, our economy, our heritage, our culture and our very souls. May Lord have mercy on those supporting and actually killing the unborn in the United States. They will need mercy come the judgement day. Now ya'll go to work!

July 10, 2013 at 9:57 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Abortion is a GOP conspiracy to murder little Democrats: the victims of A.D. 1973 would've started voting A.D. 1991/2.

If giving other people's money away constitutes generosity, let me steal Alprova's car, sell it, and give the money to Choices to provide oil changes for single mothers. Have you actually fact-checked to see what pro-lifers will do for women in difficult situations? Do voluntarily with their own resources?

July 10, 2013 at 10:06 a.m.
limric said...

["Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you’re just what they’re looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."] ~George Carlin

The hypocrisy/stupidity of conservatives:

When conservatives say they want smaller government, they are lying.

When conservatives say they're "pro-life", they are lying. (See picture in the link below)

When conservatives say the policy choices they fought for that fail (trickle down for instance) are somehow the fault of liberals, they are lying.

When conservatives say they value freedom, they are lying.

When conservatives say just about ANYTHING, they are LYING! But this really shouldn't surprise anyone anymore because they are so unaware that they don’t realize it.

Right wing values however:

Woman whose health is in jeopardy in the later terms of pregnancy. Value: NONE, she knew what she was getting into.

Welfare mom & kids. Value: NONE, It’s their own fault for being poor.

An accredited doctor that performs abortions. Value: NONE, he’s no better than Ed Gein.

Grievously ill child that might have a better chance of survival with Govt. paid health care. Value: NONE that would be socialism!

A few cells. Value: INFINITE, In all the universe, nothing has more value.

Those professing to stand for the ‘rights’ and or ‘protecting the unborn’ will run to the closest clinic if their daughter had a ‘Girls Gone Wild’ night that produced unwanted after effects, or their wife/daughter has a run in with some ‘bruthas’, dirty Mexicans, skinheads or even has an affair with the neighbor. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS!!

http://djiin.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/dead-afghan-children.jpg

Quote: ”A is A. Murder is murder.”....Unless it isn’t.

Oh yea; It’s still Obama’s fault.

July 10, 2013 at 10:06 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Limric: Not that I care, but you wasted a lot of keystrokes saying nothing. ^^^

July 10, 2013 at 10:27 a.m.
limric said...

"Not that I care," but you really never have anything Intelligent, clever, sharp, knowledgeable, bright, sensible or perceptive to contribute - do you Plain truth.

Fatuousness however – you donate in abundance. And with so few keystrokes too.

Y'know, that takes talent; or something. Hats off to ye.

July 10, 2013 at 10:53 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Well limric, that would be in the eye of the beholder, I guess. You seem to be smitten with your own words. At lease you have one fan.

July 10, 2013 at 11:10 a.m.
Reardon said...

Limric,

Baseless conjecture akin to a Community Agitator, sidestepping the debate regarding the difference between natural rights and politically-enforced privileges, and how morality intersects into both.

Then again, we are on the 'Toon Forum where 95% of posters' purpose is to get off on conjecture and hate-filled gibberish, versus actually engaging in an intellectual dialogue.

Question, Limrc -- Setting aside the debatable question of terminating a pregnancy due to high risk of death to the mother, is a human being under an inch or two of skin and membrane ethically inferior to a human being an inch or two outside of the vagina?

Yes or no?

July 10, 2013 at 11:41 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

^^^^ (warning: limpic and alpo subscribe to the axiom "why use 50 words, when 5000 will do?)

July 10, 2013 at 11:46 a.m.
limric said...

A question of greater consequence not open to conjecture Reardon is this:

Does ”A = A, and thus Murder = murder.”....Unless it isn’t? Who makes the exceptions? YOU?

You cannot ask your question while *Setting aside only what you wish.

Your contention(distortion) that I am - "sidestepping the debate regarding the difference between natural rights and politically-enforced privileges, and how morality intersects into both" - is an unsubstantiated inference. It is - wait for it...a strawman.

My statement: THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS, is not conjecture. The truth may be extreme, but to make it moderate is to lie.

July 10, 2013 at 12:11 p.m.
limric said...

Speaking of being smitten with my own words Plain Truth,

I’ve read many a poster in this forum regard your deployment of sketchy and often unpleasant retorts a mimic to troll droppings. They equate (conjecture on my part) your short stabbing responses to pouring water on an old vacuum tube circuit; producing smoky fits of zaps, squeaks and pops and rendered useless. And thus, darting ‘info-sults’ are of progressively diminishing value. The essence of sans sense.

Is it your mission to derail conversations, muddy science or meaningful debate using the playbook written by your corporate masters? If so, you do so with professional aplomb.

Again, ‘Hats off to ye'.

July 10, 2013 at 12:15 p.m.
Reardon said...

Limric -

I am interested in a substantive debate.

I do not care if I win or lose.

Will you join?

Please explain how, in reference to my claim that a human-being-to-be, nearly inches away from breathing his own air, is prescribed a different set of rights than the born human being just inches away from the vagina, umbilical cord still attached.

And then go on to explain, now that you have clearly established your position, why "Murder is murder unless it's not," for this scenario.

And to answer your statement that there are "No Exceptions," I agree. However, this is existential to the debate, ie, it does not apply. In fact, assume I agree with you on that statement that there are no exceptions (which I do), and proceed to make your point about the debate at hand.

Lastly, to clarify, I can set aside instances where RIGHTS of an individual are violated. IE, the baby is threatening the life of the mother. I believe that is a valid argument about who has the first right to life.

But to murder for the sake of convenience is a totally different debate of which actually matters. We can talk about and debate both separately and arrive at worthwhile conclusions, versus enshrining into law the act of murder regardless of the circumstances.

IE - if I argue data collection for marketing purposes to solicit your business is ethically different than data collection about you for the government to dispense as they see fit, would you suggest we not have the debate between the differences altogether if there's a questionable moral difference between the use of both?

July 10, 2013 at 12:23 p.m.
alprova said...

Reardon wrote: "let's think a little deeper here."

Okay, let's do indeed.

"Tell me what the difference is between the following scenarios:"

"-Voluntarily supporting a human being with my money, and -Being forced at the barrel of a gun to support a human being with my money."

The money you pay in taxes is pooled to be used as Congress appropriates it to be spent. You have no idea where your money goes. Your taxes might wind up paying the salaries of military members, or for education of your own children, or put into the roads that you drive on each day.

It's quite arrogant to assume that your meager amount of taxes only goes to support the poor.

"...you understand the difference between charity and government handouts, and hopefully partially why someone would object to pro-baby-in-the-womb murder and still not support political gift-giving (using my tax dollars) to irresponsible people."

There is not even close to the amount of charity that is needed to begin to raise every child who is aborted, much less those that are delivered.

It's simply amazing to read the thoughts of someone who knows that every conception being considered for abortion or by that of someone who has not the resources to raise a child, is an act of "irresponsibility."

Are we to pass a law that prevents the poor from having sex?

That's one that the Republicans haven't proposed...YET.

July 10, 2013 at 12:50 p.m.
alprova said...

Maximyth wrote: "The far rights obsesssion with protecting the unborn ends when they are born." Alprova, this loser mentality."

Do I dare ask you to offer any proof that my simple sentence is untrue?

"This negative lack of faith in the spirit, energy, drive, determination, and ultimate success of the INDIVIDUAL without any assistance from a nanny state government is not only revolting, anti-American, it is vomit inducing."

So are your creative mind mumbles, but please...carry on.

"The only last trimester abortions that I wish would have occurred would be on you, Obama, Clay, and Bill Mahr. All are a-holes and would not have been missed in the least."

I see. So YOU are a-okay with third trimester abortions?

"Wow, how can someone be so cynical to think that 1.6 million abortions a year statistically impacting all of Alprova's precious guvment safety net programs such Social Security, Medicare, and the IRS is something our government should should support is really, really sick!"

Bingo!!! There's that post birth support objection right there!!!

Neither one of us could come up with accurate numbers, but it makes a little more sense that 1.6 million more kids born to mainly poor children would have a definite impact on any and all support systems that are available out there, does it not?

"The positive human potential being lost with each abortion is a stain upon our country, our economy, our heritage, our culture and our very souls."

Here's a newsflash for you; If it is not your child, you have no say so in the matter.

"May Lord have mercy on those supporting and actually killing the unborn in the United States. They will need mercy come the judgement day. Now ya'll go to work!"

May the Lord have mercy upon all you who decry the public support of children who are born into poverty, totally contradicting your pro-life proclamations.

July 10, 2013 at 1:04 p.m.
Reardon said...

Al -- please look deeper than the surface issues:

Your point is invalid.

The fact that tax dollars are pooled, appropriated, and diluted to the point of claiming I'm "arrogant" is not an argument.

It's a distraction from the principle of point.

Just because it's so diluted it's meager, is NOT a reason not to have a substantive debate about the ETHICS, morality, or its impact on natural rights.

Machiavellian-ism on display.

You are drawing your own conclusions without reading more carefully into the purpose of my statement.

To clarify, I was referencing pro-baby-in-the-womb murder in regards to being ethical, or more specifically, how a human being a few seconds old, merely inches away from the vagina, has more rights than he did seconds ago, just because he was encapsulated by flesh and organs.

Also, as you are so typical of doing, you do not delineate between volitional charitable giving and forced funding.

The public at large is quite capable of providing charitable funding for things such as helping single mothers with children who cannot support themselves, assuming family and friends are incapable.

Why do people think Government has to be the end all Provider?

July 10, 2013 at 1:09 p.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "If giving other people's money away constitutes generosity, let me steal Alprova's car, sell it, and give the money to Choices to provide oil changes for single mothers."

Sir, I pay a substantial amount of taxes each year, and have for 38 years. The difference between myself and others, is that I don't have an ounce of objection to them being used to assist the poor.

It's rather telling to me that you would even propose to steal one of my autos.

"Have you actually fact-checked to see what pro-lifers will do for women in difficult situations? Do voluntarily with their own resources?"

Don't even try that one. Many people contribute to charities and I'm sure that there are some who may even assist on a more personal level, but if this nation's poor children had to subsist totally on the charitable acts of others, we would be scooping them up by the dump truck loads when they die on the streets.

July 10, 2013 at 1:14 p.m.
alprova said...

Limric wrote: "Not that I care," but you really never have anything Intelligent, clever, sharp, knowledgeable, bright, sensible or perceptive to contribute - do you Plain truth."

"Fatuousness however – you donate in abundance. And with so few keystrokes too."

"Y'know, that takes talent; or something. Hats off to ye."

PT, you've got to admit that he burned your ass, but good...

July 10, 2013 at 1:19 p.m.
alprova said...

PT wrote: "^^^^ (warning: limpic and alpo subscribe to the axiom "why use 50 words, when 5000 will do?)"

It's my keyboard, I pay for the privilege to post in this forum, and I intend to get my money's worth.

Shall I send you some cheese to go with that incessant whine?

July 10, 2013 at 1:23 p.m.
limric said...

Reardon,

”Setting aside the debatable question of terminating a pregnancy due to high risk of death to the mother, is a human being under an inch or two of skin and membrane ethically inferior to a human being an inch or two outside of the vagina? Yes or no?”

Using the words ‘ethically inferior’ is a red herring. One ‘human’ is born and living on its own whereas the other is not. Trying to steer a debate, and using such to fit a pre-concieved narrative is not a hook with any bait. Ah ain’t biting it.

I will answer your question, “And then go on to explain, now that you have clearly established your position, why "Murder is murder… unless it's not," for this scenario. It is true for ALL scenarios.

”A is A. Murder is murder.” That’s your wording. What if the woman is raped? What if a thirteen-year old conceives through incest or a tryst with Maximus? What if the fetus is seriously deformed (due to a tryst with Maximus) and unlikely, or likely to survive anyway? If then, A is A. Murder is murder - there can be no exemptions. This is where the ‘unless it's not’ fits in? Do you believe that a Pat Roberson type wouldn’t rush to a clinic following one the above ‘scenarios’? If so, you are seriously naïve.

BUT. Your statement quote: ”[But to murder for the sake of convenience] is a totally different debate of which actually matters.” is supposition and hyperbole in its purest form. You are in essence saying, (sic) ”Women run to Planned Parenthood like it was a 7-Eleven. I’ll take a soda, a bag of chips and an abortion please.” If this is your idea of substantive debate, we’re done.

People like me are not ‘pro-abortion.’ We are ‘pro-choice’. There’s a difference. There’s a word Libertarians like to bandy about. It’s called liberty, freedom from govt. interference. You know – American values…like ‘Constitutional Rights’!

Alprova, Is that "incessant whine" – or incestuous wine? ;-D Whoo ha ha cough cough.....Burp!

July 10, 2013 at 1:34 p.m.
degage said...

Al, I wonder why you were ask to pay for posting here and those like myself have not. Could it be you dominate the forum with your opinions? I take it that Easy and dude must have been ask also and declined to pay. If or when I am ask to pay I will no longer care to post or read other post. At this point you and limric are the most amusing on here. Good for a laugh a day.

July 10, 2013 at 1:34 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo: I don't see it that way. But he works hard at it. Must get long breaks at the public trough.

July 10, 2013 at 1:42 p.m.
alprova said...

Reardon wrote: "Your point is invalid."

Is it?

"The fact that tax dollars are pooled, appropriated, and diluted to the point of claiming I'm "arrogant" is not an argument."

Who's arguing? I stated a simple fact. The amount you likely pay in taxes on a yearly basis does not begin to support one child for more than a few months.

None of us has any idea where the amount we pay in taxes is used by the Government. People who decry what the Government spends THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH, always make the assumption that it is their money that goes to pay for it.

I guess you'd pop a vein if I remind you that once they receive it, it is no longer your money. It's the Government's.

"It's a distraction from the principle of point."

Your distraction is my simplistic and final truth.

"Just because it's so diluted it's meager, is NOT a reason not to have a substantive debate about the ETHICS, morality, or its impact on natural rights."

Why debate it at all? You're not going to change a thing, the poor will continue to be supported despite any and all objections, and you're going to continue to be pissed about it.

"You are drawing your own conclusions without reading more carefully into the purpose of my statement."

Sir, I am a realist. Debates over that which you hold near and dear over the years have been fun, but I'm growing older, sicker, and am totally tired of debates that never result in one changed mind.

"To clarify, I was referencing pro-baby-in-the-womb murder in regards to being ethical, or more specifically, how a human being a few seconds old, merely inches away from the vagina, has more rights than he did seconds ago, just because he was encapsulated by flesh and organs."

It's not your flesh, your organs encapsulating it, nor will it ever be your responsibility to care for it for approximately 18 years in the future.

Is it "ethical" to subject an embryo to a lifetime of disappointment or probable hardship, if that mother is not prepared in any manner, to raise that child?

Here's a thought: Maybe a woman is more willing to exchange a moment's worth of morality, rather than to endure years worth of sour looks on the faces of those behind her when she whips out her EBT card in a grocery store.

"Also, as you are so typical of doing, you do not delineate between volitional charitable giving and forced funding."

As I have typed many times, I willingly and gladly pay my taxes and have not an ounce of objection to them being used to support those who have little to nothing, especially when children are involved.

"The public at large is quite capable of providing charitable funding for things such as helping single mothers with children who cannot support themselves, assuming family and friends are incapable."

Who knew that there was all these massive amounts of cash languishing in banks accounts, totally being unspent?

July 10, 2013 at 1:49 p.m.
Maximus said...

Alprova, you idiot, my point was that most of the 1.6 million aborted U.S. citizens would have become productive tax paying citizens instead of the cynical, we can't get along without Barry The Welfare Pimp, Dummycrat view that we are better off killing the kids from poor families because they would be a burden on society by joining the welfare roles. Too bad Obama's white hippy dippy Communist Mom from Iowa did not have the same view. She certainly earned less than the poverty level over the course of her short life. Damn, why didn't she abort Obama! She should have if she held the same view as Alprova. Kill it, it won't amount to much any way. Our country is better off without this bastard Obama....again, if only his Mother would have held the same view.

July 10, 2013 at 1:59 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

After lurking for a couple of months, I have to respond:

If a fertilized egg is indeed a human, and due all the rights that any other human has, then pro-life efforts must be consistent:

All women will be required to undergo regular pregnancy testing. A large percentage of pregnancies are never detected, because they end in natural miscarriage. This may be in some cases the fault of the woman herself-engaging in risky behavior like extreme dieting, drug use, or extreme sport training. These women will have to be held accountable for their miscarriages. It will be up to a court of law to determine if the miscarriage was due to the criminal actions of the woman, and then she will be charged with murder. Also, anyone that does that woman harm and causes the miscarriage is guilty of murder, no exceptions. Another reason why we should ALWAYS know when a pregnancy occurs. Who will keep and monitor these records? Health department? Police?

No method of birth control that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg can be legal. Many methods can both interfere with fertilization OR implantation. But we cannot take chances, so only those that work only be preventing fertilization can be legal. Curious how this will be enforced, but, hey, not my problem.

Of course, we can do all in our power to prevent unintended pregnancy, knowing that there still will be first term abortions. Second and third term if the mother's life or health is in danger. Finally, it will be a private decision between the woman and her doctor. What a concept.

Oh, by the way, humans are not in danger of going extinct. Sea turtles are. Because of us.

July 10, 2013 at 2:05 p.m.
alprova said...

degage wrote: "Al, I wonder why you were ask to pay for posting here and those like myself have not."

There is a trick to get around the paywall, at least until the TFP discovers it and fixes it. Your browser default settings determine the prompting of the paywall.

"Could it be you dominate the forum with your opinions?"

I've wanted to support the site for sometime. I volunteered the moment the paywall popped up. My subscription gives me access to the E-edition as well.

"I take it that Easy and dude must have been ask also and declined to pay."

Could be. I've seen a great many people come and go out of this little sandbox.

"If or when I am ask to pay I will no longer care to post or read other post."

I'll be sorry to see you go. It costs money to provide a site like this and it deserves a few bucks a month to support it. My eyes are such that I cannot read the printed version of the paper most days, so I read it online. I still have two copies delivered to my business each day for those that hang around during the day.

I like the TFP and consider it a great newspaper. I'm glad to support them.

"At this point you and limric are the most amusing on here. Good for a laugh a day."

I'll take that as a compliment, even though it may not have been meant to be received as such, so thank you very much.

July 10, 2013 at 2:10 p.m.
alprova said...

Maximyth wrote: "Alprova, you idiot, my point was that most of the 1.6 million aborted U.S. citizens would have become productive tax paying citizens instead of the cynical, we can't get along without Barry The Welfare Pimp, Dummycrat view that we are better off killing the kids from poor families because they would be a burden on society by joining the welfare roles."

Whom have you ever witnessed, that has ever endorsed the "killing of kids from poor families, on that basis alone?"

It's not your kid, your body hosting it, and definitely not your choice to make. It's their choice, it always has been, and it always will be.

"Too bad Obama's white hippy dippy Communist Mom from Iowa did not have the same view. She certainly earned less than the poverty level over the course of her short life. Damn, why didn't she abort Obama! She should have if she held the same view as Alprova. Kill it, it won't amount to much any way. Our country is better off without this bastard Obama....again, if only his Mother would have held the same view."

The sad fact is that no matter the amount of vitriol you spew about the President, he will forever and a day be 100 times the man than you will ever be.

It's hilarious to witness every demonstration you offer in objection to abortion, to be followed by a diatribe about those whom you feel should have been aborted.

You're nothing if not a completely conflicted, hypocritical soul.

July 10, 2013 at 2:24 p.m.
alprova said...

Ikeithlu wrote: "All women will be required to undergo regular pregnancy testing. A large percentage of pregnancies are never detected, because they end in natural miscarriage. This may be in some cases the fault of the woman herself-engaging in risky behavior like extreme dieting, drug use, or extreme sport training. These women will have to be held accountable for their miscarriages."

Legislation to that effect has been introduced in three states.

Mississippi, Utah, and Georgia have had bills introduced that makes miscarriages a prosecutable offense, up to and including the death penalty, if a woman is found to have caused the miscarriage due to any reckless conduct.

Thankfully, they have gone nowhere, but it shows that the Republicans will stop at nothing in their incessant quest to regulate the reproductive organs of every single woman who has the ability to become pregnant in this nation.

By this time next year, a Democrat will only have to point their finger at an opponent and say, "He/she is an anti-abortion advocate" and nothing more, and the Democrat will win.

So keep up the quest conservatives. Keep it fresh in the people's minds. Every single time that conservatives cross that sacred line, they get pushed back to fall on their asses.

July 10, 2013 at 2:44 p.m.
Maximus said...

Alprova, the best revenge is living well without government assistance especially from our weakest ever POTUS Barry The Welfare Pimp and I assure you that......I DO! Your verbal gymnastics around the sad eletist liberal view that killing 1.6 million U.S. citizens each year via abortion on demand is "cost effective" is a canard at best and revolting. Obama is going down in flames. Well deserved. How do you like Obamacare NOW? What a furking joke! Oh and how about that foreign policy? Lurch (John Kerry) goes on his yahct and takes his drunk wife to the hospital while Egypt burns. So very funny! Oh...is Hillary Clinton dead or in a nursing home?

July 10, 2013 at 3:17 p.m.
Maximus said...

Obama 100 times more the man than I am. From Alprova. Well let me see....I am not a lying, Marxist, Chicago thug, class warfare, eletist politician without a soul or character like Barry The Lying Thug Marxist Welfare Pimp is. Alprova your love of Obama defines your ignorance. OK I'm off to play nine. See you loser victimhood liberals later. :))))))

July 10, 2013 at 3:23 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

limric said...

["Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you’re just what they’re looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."] ~George Carlin

George Carlin (May 12, 1937 – June 22, 2008) was an American stand-up comedian. NEED I SAY MORE?

July 10, 2013 at 3:24 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said...

because there is all this objection to public assistance for single women with children, I find the anti-abortion folk lacking consistency in their arguments for preserving all life.

I Agree. Regardless an opinion on abortion I don't understand how anyone thinks they should be allowed to control what someone else does when it does not affect them in the least. Educate them all they are willing to be educated but the choice is theirs. I resent those that dictate to me in matters that will have no negative impact on them.

Where does the tax money go? You say there is no way to know. Does it not stand to reason the same percent of my tax dollar is spent in proportion of the total tax money spent. IE. 10% of government spending is on some activity such as defense then 10 cents of my tax dollar goes to defense etc. etc. There are many areas where the return or benefit to the country is zero. There is waste and fraud in the billions. Congress authorizes spending without being clear on how and how much is to be spent then the managers of the spending are pp manager. You know the process, what we spent last year plus an increase. Spend or lose it is the criteria.

July 10, 2013 at 3:28 p.m.
jesse said...

George Carlin was MUCH more than JUST a stand up comedian!!!

I would rank him right up there w/Mark Twain and Lenny Bruce as a satirist!

July 10, 2013 at 3:29 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

How many people who participate in this forum moan and groan about the Government social programs that support the poor.

(The helpless poor or the willful poor?)

How many times have I read words like "welfare brood mares," used to describe poor women with children?

(On this forum ... Once?)

(Does that really matter if you employ a broad brush?)

July 10, 2013 at 3:46 p.m.
alprova said...

"Alprova, the best revenge is living well without government assistance especially from our weakest ever POTUS Barry The Welfare Pimp and I assure you that......I DO!"

I've never accused you of not supporting yourself, however, I'm quite sure that it is not in the lifestyle that you have invented in this forum.

"Your verbal gymnastics around the sad eletist liberal view that killing 1.6 million U.S. citizens each year via abortion on demand is "cost effective" is a canard at best and revolting."

I have not presented at any time, that any number of abortions are "cost effective." My argument is quite simple. Unless you are a total hypocrite, no child ever aborted shared your DNA, was ever entombed in your body, unless you are lying about your true gender, nor was any aborted fetus your responsibility to raise, had it been born.

"Obama is going down in flames. Well deserved. How do you like Obamacare NOW? What a furking joke!"

Your opinions will never become fact.

"Oh and how about that foreign policy? Lurch (John Kerry) goes on his yahct and takes his drunk wife to the hospital while Egypt burns."

You have no evidence whatsoever that what happened to Teresa Kerry was alcohol related, and I'm sorry to inform you that the events ongoing in Egypt is not the responsibility of the United States.

"Oh...is Hillary Clinton dead or in a nursing home?"

Just restin' up for the big run to be elected the first woman President, 'cause the Republicans have no one that could begin to be electable by a majority of the voters in this nation.

July 10, 2013 at 3:55 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Alpo, I wouldn't bet the lot on Hillary. America will wean itself of the leftist ether.

July 10, 2013 at 4:06 p.m.
limric said...

HA!

If the woman in the cartoon opens the door and goes into the OB-GYN-GOP room - the only thing she’ll find there is the ‘Freedom of Choice’ machine from Clay’s July 7th offering.

And then…CLAK…the door locks behind her.

Ooh ooh ooh, And on the wall facing the machine hangs a 36 X 36 purplish velvet painting (or whatever they're passed off as) of Saint Ronnie.

July 10, 2013 at 4:13 p.m.
Maximus said...

Obama, Hillary Clinton, and now Kerry has turned Egypt, a longtime U.S. alli, into a boiling pit of uncertainty for both the United States Middle East strategy and its own people. Alprova, just ask the people of Egypt and see who they blame their hell hole situation on.....Obama. I thought Barry was supposed to be sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo loved around the world. Not so much. He had to meet with Bush in Africa just to add some juice to his trip. The world knows a lying no character thug when they see one.....Barry The Welfare Pimp!!!!!! As for Hillary Clinton running for President...Alprova it is so very gay for any man to support Obama much less Hillary The Benghazi Utube Video Lying Pig. No wonder Bill did and still is screwing around on Hillary....what a lying dog in a tight pant suit!

July 10, 2013 at 4:25 p.m.
limric said...

"Obama, Hillary Clinton, and now Kerry has turned Egypt, a longtime U.S. alli(sp), into a boiling pit of uncertainty for both the United States Middle East strategy and its own people."

HOW Maximus?

July 10, 2013 at 4:37 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

jesse said...

George Carlin was MUCH more than JUST a stand up comedian!!!

I would rank him right up there w/Mark Twain and Lenny Bruce as a satirist!


Satire is an art form where people, events, or social mores that the artists see as opposing their views are attempted to be held up to ridicule and shame to lessen their standing in the public’s mind. It is usually employed in a humorous and mocking manner which is a very powerful mode especially with observers that are of a like mind or of a low information type that can be easily swayed.

I have laughed at things uttered by the above individuals but never considered them to be serious and factual commentators on politics or the human condition.

July 10, 2013 at 4:43 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Would not place Carlin and Twain in same sentence.

July 10, 2013 at 4:55 p.m.
tifosi said...

MaxiFraud said: "Obama 100 times more the man than I am. From Alprova. Well let me see....I am not a lying, Marxist, Chicago thug, class warfare, eletist politician without a soul or character like Barry The Lying Thug Marxist Welfare Pimp is. Alprova your love of Obama defines your ignorance. OK I'm off to play nine. See you loser victimhood liberals later. :))))))"

As you always say MaxiFraud, "living well is the best revenge". President Obama makes a lot more money than you, lives in one of the finest houses in America, has a limousine, jet (actually two 747's), helicopter and has a staff that is second to none. He also beat the GOP candidate twice and has made you a miserable wreck whining about it. His financial security is set for life too. Sure got you beat!

July 10, 2013 at 5:35 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

It's called a democracy for a reason PlainTruth. A candidate finds out what voters want and then creates a plan to deliver. Been that way for 237 years. Is that strange to you?


If our representatives’ only task is to “give the voters” what they “want” then a plebiscite is a lot less expensive and quicker.

July 10, 2013 at 5:45 p.m.
tifosi said...

Explain how millions of voters taking time out of every day to investigate, debate and vote on every issue that comes up is less expensive. Our nation would lose billions of dollars in productivity every day.

July 10, 2013 at 5:52 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

Explain how millions of voters taking time out of every day to investigate, debate and vote on every issue that comes up is less expensive. Our nation would lose billions of dollars in productivity every day.


What investigation and debate as your original question posited that the voters already knew what they want and that the politician only had to find out what and give it to them. Most won’t vote and a large number will vote on emotion and the 10 minutes of fluff they see on the evening news.

As far as voting goes don’t we want to operate on the honor system that no ineligible voters would violate our trust and very few if any have done so. They could simply register their vote by any electronic means as they are waiting in line at Starbucks.

Or maybe we could elect representatives that are true leaders and give us “what we truly need and not what we want?”

July 10, 2013 at 6:14 p.m.
jesse said...

JT&PT If all you got out of Carlin and Bruce was a chuckle then the kindest thing i can say is you weren't paying attn! They make you laugh and should make you THINK!!

Lewis Black fills that niche today!

July 10, 2013 at 6:16 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

jess: That's why they make Bud & Bud Light.

July 10, 2013 at 6:19 p.m.
tifosi said...

"Or maybe we could elect representatives that are true leaders and give us “what we truly need and not what we want?”

Sounds like a surefire way to lose an election.

July 10, 2013 at 6:23 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Tiffs: Could you find yourself voting for Hillary?

July 10, 2013 at 6:29 p.m.
tifosi said...

Possibly. Depends on a lot of factors and if the GOP can provide a better candidate than in the past.

July 10, 2013 at 6:38 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

alprova said...

The far-right's obsession with protecting the unborn ends when they are born. Is that a fair statement?

(No.)

The evidence to that statement is contained in the comments of our own local right-wingers.

(The very limited anecdotal evidence you have collected here is sufficient to project your conclusions on the general population of the politically right?)

The anti-abortion crowd, with little exception, loves to believe that they are pro-life, but their concern often ends with the birth of any child.

(If you see a person drowning and you are capable you should rescue them and provide them with something to dry themselves and temporary cover from the environment if they have none. However in our present welfare state you have no obligation to take them home and support them the rest of your or their lives.)

Outside of public assistance, those opposed to abortion contribute nothing to a mother to be able to provide for the cost of raising that child to adulthood.

(You have no way of verifying that and I would say that very little effort would be needed to find people or private organizations locally that do just that)

There are some private resources out there to assist a mother while she is pregnant, but those resources dry up the minute their child is delivered.

(See the above)

I'm totally opposed to abortion as a means of birth control, without all other options being weighed first, but in the end, I have to side with a woman's right to choose what is best for her, if that is her choice.

(Without any restrictions from viability to delivery?)

And because there is all this objection to public assistance for single women with children, I find the anti-abortion folk lacking consistency in their arguments for preserving all life.

(I think there is objection to single mothers and fathers that are irresponsible in producing and continuing to produce children they have no way of supporting. I think there is an adequate amount of financial support for single mothers both public and private. Studies have shown that those on the right or conservatives give as much and many show they give more to charity than those on the left.)

I've met people recently who had six to seven siblings. All came from poor families who somehow were able to provide for them and to raise them. How they did it, God only knows.

(That gives the lie to the position that the poor are without the ability to survive and even thrive without cradle to grave government assistance.)

(cont)

July 10, 2013 at 7:12 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

(cont)

Being poor is not a sin. But you would not know that based on the commentary coming from those who demean the poor on a daily basis in this and many other forums, most often than not, coming from those claiming to be religious.

(Being poor is of course not a sin or even necessarily a social failure except for those that will not make any effort to extract themselves from that condition. I think you would be hard pressed to produce many quotes to that effect.)

If one is truly pro-life, then one also needs to understand that with the birth of any child, the cost of raising that child presents a tremendous challenge to that mother.

(And young women and men need to be impressed upon and even shamed or punished for their irresponsibility to produce children that will prove to be a great financial burden on society. That’s nothing more than child abuse that would place most other people in jail.)

July 10, 2013 at 7:13 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

"Or maybe we could elect representatives that are true leaders and give us “what we truly need and not what we want?”

Sounds like a surefire way to lose an election.


Exactly .... that’s how we got to where we are now. A voter who votes in the general interest of the country and not for their own personal gain is currently seen as an idiot.

July 10, 2013 at 7:18 p.m.
tifosi said...

Do you really think voters today are any different today than in the past? Or, are you just disappointed in the last outcome and want to rationalize it in a way that makes you feel better?

July 10, 2013 at 7:33 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

moon4kat said...

Whether to have a child is a decision that should be made by the woman who has to go through pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood. If she thinks she can't handle those roles, I'll take her word for it. It's certain that the GOP isn't going to take care of the fetus after it's born.

(Then she should make up her mind before viability unless delivery after that point truly endangers her life. After that decision point I would look to her to provide for the baby’s care by marriage to it’s father if not already, childcare assistance from family or friends as she becomes employed, or adoption.)

The conservatives rant about protecting life, until it's born, then they are content with subjecting it to neglect and abuse.

(Do you have any data that shows that conservatives subject babies or children to more abuse and neglect than those on the left or that it is even prevalent among them?)

July 10, 2013 at 7:36 p.m.
tifosi said...

There is no way I can support a candidate that uses religion as a way to reach voters.

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” ― Thomas Jefferson

July 10, 2013 at 7:37 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

Do you really think voters today are any different today than in the past?

(Yes I certainly do)

Or, are you just disappointed in the last outcome and want to rationalize it in a way that makes you feel better?

(Not disappointed just a realistic appraisal of an electorate that is verifying the words of one of our founders:)

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and more frequently fall than that of defrauding the government.

Benjamin Franklin

July 10, 2013 at 7:49 p.m.
tifosi said...

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

That is exactly what they were doing when they elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt to help end the Great Depression. President Obama studied the Depression quite extensively and determined a course that significantly shortened our current dire circumstance. Our economy is growing, stock market is booming and slowly jobs are coming back. Today, people do not want to elect people of the party that led us into the severe recession and created an even larger lower class without jobs. Makes sense to me.

July 10, 2013 at 7:55 p.m.
tifosi said...

The New Deal was a series of domestic economic programs enacted in the United States between 1933 and 1936. They involved presidential executive orders or laws passed by Congress during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs were in response to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 Rs": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is Relief for the unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.

The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of nine Presidential terms from 1933 to 1969). The Republicans were split, with conservatives opposing the entire New Deal as an enemy of business and growth, and liberals accepting some of it and promising to make it more efficient.

July 10, 2013 at 7:59 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

tifosi said...

There is no way I can support a candidate that uses religion as a way to reach voters.

(So you are in support of denying those, of religious belief, to not have their grievances heard if they are based on their faith?)

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” ― Thomas Jefferson

(The wall of separation is to prevent the government from becoming entangled with religion by supporting one over the other or by suppressing or supporting any religion. It is not to prevent citizens of faith or their organizations from participating in their government. Religious organizations can seek tax exemptions from the government if they agree not to be activists in the electoral process. On the other hand they are free to push their political agenda if they choose not to seek such exemptions)

July 10, 2013 at 8:05 p.m.
tifosi said...

I have heard and read material at Republican Party HQ in Cookeville tell people that good Christians vote for President Bush.

We are digressing from your original point. Ben Franklin had never experienced an economic recession.

July 10, 2013 at 8:13 p.m.
rick1 said...

Government polices prolonged the Depression.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html

July 10, 2013 at 9:23 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

So the best posters are those best at navigating thru Wikipedia & Google, then pasting here? Seems a bit lame to me. How about some genuine thoughts for a change?

July 10, 2013 at 9:25 p.m.
acerigger said...

What's wrong with this picture? Jodie Laubenberg(Tx. anti-abortion legislator) has been arguing in favor of her proposed abortion restrictions under the logic that life begins at conception. “If you believe that (a fetus) is a human being, then that human being also has rights, and we must protect that baby’s rights,” Laubenberg said earlier this month. But she doesn’t necessarily take that stance when it comes to poorer women’s fetuses. In 2007, she proposed requiring pregnant women to wait three months before becoming eligible to receive prenatal and perinatal benefits under the Children’s Health Insurance Program. When Democratic Rep. Rafael Anchia pointed out that change would kick more than 95,000 low-income women — and their unborn children — out of the government program, Laubenberg responded, “They’re not born yet.” When Anchia suggested her amendment wasn’t pro-life, Laubenberg yelled at him — but later withdrew her amendment. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07/10/2277531/rep-jodie-laubenberg-texas-abortion-bill/ can we spell "hipocrite"??

July 10, 2013 at 9:25 p.m.
tifosi said...

Goodnight Mrs. Calabash wherever you are.

July 10, 2013 at 9:42 p.m.
acerigger said...

HYPOCRITE

July 10, 2013 at 10:22 p.m.
GratefulDawg said...

"What's wrong with this picture? Jodie Laubenberg(Tx. anti-abortion legislator)..." --acerigger

Ace, did you see Laubenberg's reply to the need to provide exceptions for cases of rape in the latest round of anti-choice legislation in Texas? She said: "We have funded what's called rape kits that will help the woman, basically clean her out. And then hopefully that will alleviate that." Hopefully.

So Jodie can now join the likes of Todd Akin and his theory of rape-detecting lady parts in the did they really say that hall of shame. Sharon Barnes, with her idea of rape being a blessing from God, is also in. Louie Gohmert compared sex education with a communist revolution, so he's in as well. Michael Burgess claimed that a male fetus will often masturbate in the womb, so I guess he is in as well.

Complicated issues + stupid people = ClusterF*%^

July 10, 2013 at 11:59 p.m.
acerigger said...

Yeah Dawg,I'm glad to see these lunatics being exposed or exposing themselves! Maybe people won't be so quick to vote them into office next time.Who knows though?

July 11, 2013 at 10:20 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.