Showing posts with label Pro-Lifers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pro-Lifers. Show all posts

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.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Pro-Lifer puts in Her Two Cents About Obama Winning Nobel On the 'View'

We've heard every ridiculous reason from the notable right-wing fringe as to why they're against Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Everything ranging from 'He isn't George W. Bush' to 'He hasn't done anything' to yes, even the only reason Obama got it was so Europe can re-colonize America: They need America for European Socialism to work. That, by far, is still my all time favourite. 


We heard from King Rush & Prince Glenn, The Tea-baggers & every other Neo-Con. It was only a matter of time before the Pro-lifers would chime in to complete the wingnut hit-parade.


Well, who better to fill in for wingnut Elisabeth Hasselbeck than a brunette version of her?  Rachel Campos-Duffy, a has-been Reality TV star & is a blogger for Anderson Cooper's AC360 blog replaced Lissie today on the 'View'.  She has proven to be the brunette version of Lissie.


When Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar asked her what she thought about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Duffy began with the list of the typical neo-con nay-sayer, finishing off by mentioning Mother Theresa. Following Goldberg's quip about Mother Theresa being a tough act to follow, here is where the fun begins: 




While Mother Teresa worked tirelessly to help the sick and the poor, I think most of us disagree with that statement.  In fact, Mother Teresa's view about never being able to attain world peace until we end abortion,   is  far more radical than  President Obama's views on abortion could ever be. To be fair, Mother Teresa had never met American Neo-cons before. She never met the Evangelical far right. Most pro-lifers are also gung-ho about war and gun toting and, yes, the death penalty. All things even Hasselbeck and no doubt, Duffy support.


If we are going to use a potential nominee or winner's views on abortion as part of the criteria, wouldn't that have also disqualified Al Gore who won it two years ago? Granted, Gore was somewhat pro-life, but never supported overturning Roe v. Wade. He always respected a woman's right to choose. Hell, we may as well even disqualify Jimmy Carter. While he's personally against abortion; he supported the legalization of it and was even criticised by the ACLU for not offering alternatives to abortion. 


Who cares? Right? That's exactly my point; who cares if any  Nobel Peace Prize winner is pro-choice or pro-life. Obviously, those views have nothing to do with world peace or humanitarian efforts or public service. Apples and oranges here.


Duffy, go home to your perfect Brady Bunch world and leave the debating for bigger minds. Same advice Hasselbeck could use.


I briefly looked at the criteria for picking Nobel Peace Prize winners at their web site. There is the usual predictable qualities they look for such as humanitarian deeds, organizing peace movements and human rights struggles, but nowhere does it say anything about a potential nominee or prize winner having to be pro-life; in favour of abolishing abortion. Again, another point to knock that of Duffy.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Pro-Lifer Advocates in Favour of Hellish Life for Children Over Choice!!

I always knew Pro-lifers were not only ignorant & certifiable & yes, violent to the point of being dangerous. But, to have such contempt for children too??


I read JJ's posting this evening on Unrepentant Old Hippie blog & clicked the link & came across Big Blue Wave's Blog. I'm only providing the link solely because some may not believe the quote on her posting I came across below.


I left a very angry comment to her posting, but since she uses the option to approve, oops! I mean censor her comments, more than likely it will never be posted, so I am posting my comment to my posting & unlike her, I would welcome comments. As a matter of fact, I dared her to comment on this posting.


Whoa! A certain quote troubled me greatly: I read it twice to make absolutely sure I didn't misunderstand you: 


"The unborn child, of course, is a non-issue. His welfare is of no consequence. It can't be. It would get in the way of making people accountable for his existence and living up to their responsibilities." 


I always knew the irony of Pro-lifers, that life seems to end at Birth; but that above quote goes too far. It seems you're saying that this child should be born into a terrible life knowing he or she is unwanted & suffering from neglect, resentment, physical & emotional abuse is better than the fetus never coming to be at all?? Oh, I so have alot of trouble with that one.

How can you say "The unborn child, of course, is a non-issue. His welfare is of no consequence...." ??


I'm all for adults taking responsability for their actions, but why put an innocent child through that kind of hell? This child didn't ask to be brought into the world; certainly not into a hellish environment. The child is not to blame for the sins of adults.

Are you saying that these unwanted, abused children are martyrs to your cause??

I work for a social service agency specializing in Child & Family Services: Believe me work where I work...hear the stories...all these children... to you: 'their welfare is a non-issue'?? Wonder if you would change your mind then??

That's right, Missy! Agencies & organizations like the one where I work pick up in caring for these children where you pro-lifers stop caring. These agencies & organizations way more caring than the likes of you & your ilk.

I know you probably won't publish this as you only publish comments from your cheer-leaders; that's ok: This will be posted to my blog for all to see how callous for human life you REALLY ARE!!! How do like that for irony?


Oh, & unlike you, I will allow your comments to be published to my blog; in fact, I dare you to...


Oh, & this wingnut is from Canada!! Are Canadians going to Hell in a Handbasket now??