New Democrat Stimulus Plan~Kill the Children

[lazarus]

The New Democrat Stimulus Plan – Kill the Children


Published: 01-27-09

Carter: Pelosi Calls for Aborting Children to Help the Economy

(WASHINGTON, DC) – In what could be the start of the largest government-led genocide of the new century, President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have joined together to export American liberal’s culture of death worldwide, including to pro-life Catholic democracies that have outlawed abortion.

Obama has issued an executive order overturning the decades-old Mexico City policy, which prohibited the use of federal funds to support overseas abortions.

Pelosi yesterday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos called for inclusion of new federal funding of abortions as part of an economic stimulus plan, on grounds that reducing the number of children being born would help stimulate the economy, telling Stephanopoulos that “contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

“To attempt to stimulate the economy by killing babies is an atrocity,” says Congressman John Carter (R-TX31).

“These actions and statements are an affront to the sanctity of life worldwide, and both President Obama and Speaker Pelosi need to immediately withdraw their remarks and apologize to the billions of supporters of life in this country and around the world. To justify the killing of an unborn child for monetary gain is a monstrosity.”

Link

[lazarus]

(try again)

www.texasinsider.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5949

[Pax]

Wow. Bit of a slant in that article. Another way to put it is that more effective use of contraception -- the Democratic plan is for comprehensive birth control, which includes but is is not limited to abortion -- reduces teen parenting, single-parent households, dependence on the government dole, etc., essentially all the purported benefits of "abstinence education".... are you against abstinence education, Lazarus? I don't think we ever talked about that.

Killing children to stimulate the economy... well, let me put in my own slant here. It's well-proven that wars are stimulative, in that they cause massive government spending into the private sector to create bombs, planes, tanks, etc., and all it takes to stimulate the economy this way is... to kill a few hundred children a year. Well, a few hundred of OUR children. It goes into the many thousands if you include THEIR children in the count, too. Republicans seem to think that's a bargain. You don't?

[oskar]

Bit of a slant in that article.

Is that what you call it down there?
We call that lying.

[Pax]

Actually I just remembered I used to have a word for radically selective interpretation of facts: "creativating."

[gr8designer]

Bit of a slant in that article.

Does Lazarus post any other kind of article? The Phyllis Schlafley article was a bit slanted, too

[Georgina]

Creativating is a cool word.

[Pax]

Oxford English Dictionary here I come? ;-)

[lazarus]

Bit of a slant in that article.

Does Lazarus post any other kind of article? The Phyllis Schlafley article was a bit slanted, too

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, you mean the liberal postings and the "Obama Love-Fest" aren't "slanted" in the other direction?

Thought you might actually want some opposing views here...

[oskar]

Gee, you mean the liberal postings and the "Obama Love-Fest" aren't "slanted" in the other direction?

Do show us some of those "love fests", Laz.

BTW, there was a question for you in another thread. Care to answer it?

[Pax]

Lazarus, I'd be very interested to read your sincere and thoughtfully written opposing posts on the "Obama love-fest" threads regarding your legitimate concerns about the path he intends to take this country... as soon as you post one.

[MacBeth]

In a related topic, Laz.....you are now suddenly interested in dead children? I must have missed that in the war and weapons discussions.

Now I do not believe you are any more pro-dead children than Pelosi is. But your choice of topic headlines says it all - sensation over substance. (or a substitute for it might be a better description)

[Pax]

Lazarus -- I'll meet your concerns this way. I have very specific reasons for saying this is a "slanted" article.

For example, "Obama has issued an executive order overturning the decades-old Mexico City policy, which prohibited the use of federal funds to support overseas abortions."

That makes it sound like Obama is reversing a policy that has been in place continuously over the entire time that the policy has "existed," which, in this case, is 1984. This would be similar, say, to Bush's reversing the 1972 anti-ABM Treaty which ran continuously until its demise at the age of 29 years. However, Obama is just returning the policy to the status it held at the end of the Clinton administration -- eight years ago -- which is not even ONE decade.

While the article is technically accurate in that the Mexico City policy itself is 25 years old, its implementation has been started on stopped more than once over that time, on party lines, and the most recent INactive state was only eight years ago.

The article, by my estimation, makes about a half a dozen claims like this -- claims that, strictly speaking, if you look at them in a very particular way, are all factually true -- but nevertheless are deliberately misleading and sensational. So -- slanted.

Here's my offer to you:

I'll go into detail like this on all half a dozen or so ways that this article does that. You, in turn, do the same for one or more (your choice) of the "Obama love fest" articles. Clearly you feel that they are factually inaccurate in much the same way that I feel this one is. Here's your chance to legitimately, thougtfully, clearly, and usefully air your concerns.

Do we have a deal?