Sunday, October 18, 2009

More Ironies of the Pro-life movement

I've gotta stop reading SUZY ALLCAPSLOCK's blogs. I know, I really should. Call it morbid curiosity, I guess. Here is her convaluded entry from this morning if anyone is as morbidly curious as I am.

Basically, she is, of course on the Sawah bandwagon saying the U.S. shouldn't reform health care. She says that leaving it to the free market would be patient centred. She says: "Instead of working contrary to the free market, let’s embrace the free market."

Embracing it? More like allowing it to run the country. She opens by giving offering a minor reason for the Global recession. That was how this recession got started. Ronald Reagan allowed Don Regan of Meryll Lynch to run his government; subsequent governments allowed Wall Street to continue governing, right up to Georgie, who was basically the useful idiot for Goldmann-Sachs. The recession was basically caused by the deregulation of the banking industry, allowing them and Wall Street to ride rough-shod all over the country. Unabashed Capitalist greed was the cause  as Michael Moore demonstrated in his last movie.

According to many of  SUZY ALLCAPSLOCK's postings, she claims to be a devout Catholic. Yet, another irony here, she advocates for greed which clearly go against the teachings of Jesus.  As those priests and that bishop in Michael Moore's last movie pointed out, capitalist greed  is immoral. Perhaps she and others are waiting for Andy Schlafly to rewrite the bible to suit their whims

Market-oriented, patient-centered is indeed an oxy-moron. 

Funny how this posting doesn't address the insurance company practises like denying for pre-existing conditions. Even denying for silly ones, like acne. It discriminates against women. Pregnancy, c-sections & being a victim of domestic violence are considered pre-existing conditions as I wrote about in a previous posting. It doesn't cover pre-natal care. Here in lies another irony of the Pro-lifers. How could she and others like her be staunch pro-lifers & yet advocate insurance practises not covering pre-natal care??? If you're advocating Pro-life, shouldn't Suzy and others like her be advocating for Health care reform? That pre-natal care be covered at 100%? I would love to see how the pro-lifers like Suzy justify this one.

I would like to further touch into this irony of Pro-lifers, like Suzy. She has pretty stated in a previous posting that not only attacked women who by mistake get drunk at party, but also stated that the whole pro-life cause must supercede the well-being of a child. I guess we shouldn't be surprised at any cold hearted or misinformed thing she (and of course, others like her)

The Pro-life movement so obviously supports the real death-panels known as the American Health Insurance industry, not the ones living in Sawah's imagination. We all know American Health insurance corporations cut people off the moment they ask for coverage as soon as they're hurt or sick. 
What is their problem with reform state-side? Health care for all should fit with the pro-life modus operendi, shouldn't it? 

Sadly, It doesn't. Just another irony of the pro-life movement. They advocate murder of actual human beings while they have their fetus fetishes. They advocate violence. Hell, on Twitter, I ran into a pro-lifer who goes by the handle, RightGirl who tweets that she's "against humanity". It does indeed summarize their movement and Suzy so shows their true colours.

The rest of the industrialized world covers all its' citizens. Health care is a right, not a commodity. Free markets & capitalism should never even be a factor in health care and in religion.

The real irony about the Pro-lifers is that those on the Pro-choice argument such as myself care more about the sanctity of life than they do.


jj said...

They might parrot the free market rhetoric of the day, but there's only one reason anti-choicers oppose the public health care option in the states -- they're afraid it might fund abortion. If abortion was removed from the equation, they'd be just fine with it.

Anti-choicers are not free market libertarians by any stretch of the imagination -- they tend to be authoritarian socialists who see nothing wrong with the government involving itself in the private lives of citizens, or dictating what books or movies private companies can sell, or government censorship of the internet, all for the so-called "greater good".

CK said...

JJ, you're right; anti-choicers aren't free market libertarians & would probably even be activating health care reform,even single payer & hopefully, have the logic to make sure every pregnant woman gets pre-natal care covered, except of course for SUZY ALLCAPSLOCK. A walking contradiction that one is.
Hell, folks like Georgie & See Sawah wun are walking contradictions: they have no problem censoring books, movies, etc but are just fine allowing banks, insurance companies running the country with absolutely no regulation.
JJ, did you read her post from this morning?