From My Inbox: WRRAP Says Thanks; UPDATE

posted by Katha Pollitt on 03/31/2009 @ 3:53pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (97)

Subscribe Now

Despite hard times which have made philanthropy hard for many, readers responded to the appeal in my last post for donations for the Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project, which helps low-income women from all over the country access abortion care. Here's an e mail I received from WRRAP yesterday, with some details about the situations of the women they've been able to help, thanks to you.

Too often, the debates surrounding abortion obscure the women themselves. Right now, for example, we are hearing a lot from pundits like Will Saletan, who argues that women have unwanted pregnancies because they are careless about contraception, conjuring up a picture of lackadaisical sluts who just can't be bothered to take their pill. Real life is more complicated: chaotic lives, poverty, social isolation, lack of regular access to health care, ignorance, misinformation, drugs, alcohol, male violence and hopelessness all play a part, along with the simple facts that every method has a failure rate and nobody's perfect. Similarly, it is hard for some people to imagine women so poor that they cannot come up with, let's say, $500 for a first-trimester abortion -- don't they have friends? won't the man help? Can't they just put it on a credit card? Hello, this is a country where millions rely on food stamps and soup kitchens! Where people can't pay their utilities or their rent!

The descriptions of WRRAP clients below are a tiny window into the struggles of low-income women. More information, and a donation button, can be found at www.wrrap.org.

UPDATE: Keep it up, trolls. Your callous, ignorant and sexist comments have inspired readers to donate over two thousand more dollars to WRRAP since this post went up.

Subject: Thank You is Not Enough

Date: March 30, 2009 12:16:05 PM EDT

To: katha.pollitt@gmail.com

Dear Katha:

Your mention of our work brought us donations totaling $955. It was money that was greatly needed and was put to immediate use.

These are the just some of the women we helped since over the last 2 weeks:

A 38 year-old woman with one child from MI. She and her husband are starting a new business that hasn't yet generated income. Her family and friends are helping them and they needed very little money from us.

A 29 year-old low-income woman who works but her insurance will not cover abortion services.

An 18 year-old doing part-time work with no insurance. Her parents are unemployed. The man beat her and left when he found out she was pregnant.

A 17 year-old student who can't tell her mother. She went through the system and got a judicial bypass.

A 20 year-old with one child who lives with two sisters and three other children. Works part time at McDonald's and the man will not help.

A 28 year-old who is a multiple cancer survivor. She and her boyfriend are living in their car.

A 29 year-old with three children. She works part time and receives $200 a month in child support.

A 40 year-old with four children. She makes only $500 per month. Her low-income mother helps her with rent and bills. The man left.

A 34 year-old with the mental capacity of a 6 year old was raped. Her sister is her guardian and is one of the working poor.

A 34 year-old with 5 children lost her job, her insurance, her home and stays with friends while her kids are with their grandmother.

A 26 year-old with one child, lives with her mother on Medicaid and little or no child support. Fetus had profound anomalies that were incompatible with life.

Over 50% of these unwanted pregnancies were the result of failed birth control.

We are so grateful to you and your readers for your generous support of poor women in crisis.

Joyce Schor

Judith Krain

Comments (97)

I believe the Right has a solution to the problem, Ms Pollitt....

all those women get to become the daughter of the Governor of Alaska!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 3:56pm
A 34 year-old with 5 children lost her job, her insurance, her home and stays with friends while her kids are with their grandmother.

Talk about irresponsible-she has no business even dating while she has 5 children to raise (just ask Dr. Laura).

Then you have teenagers-again, irresponsibility

people who are cohabitating.

All the things that pastors like myself warn about as producing negative consequences.

Yet the left wants to reward both poor behavior and poor decision making by murdering the child.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/31/2009 @ 4:51pm
Well, sadly, with just the data here we can conclude:

$955.00 = 11 dead. Individual life = $86.82

If all of the abortions were black we'd get extra credit from Margaret Sanger!

But I suppose it's good enough that these murdered babies would have been poor. See? Who says this isn't justified!

This has been a real day brightener! Thanks!

Posted by freiheit1 at 03/31/2009 @ 5:24pm
Katha Pollitt,

Your article is the standard lib tactic when you promote your views on this subject.

You on the left always highlight situations where people were in difficult circumstances and made a traumatic choice for abortion.

But you on the left advocate wide open availability for abortion for anybody at anytime during the pregnancy no matter what.

And over and over again we hear that it is the individual woman's "choice", it is her body, hers alone, and nobody dare interfere or question this or even have an opinion on it.

And that it is her body, overlooking that there is a BABY in the body which is a separate entity that has no say whatsoever in this process.

The personal circumstances do not matter, a woman has a right to "choose" (nuke or murder her unborn baby) whenever she wants.

It is only when trying to promote this that you always highlight people or circumstances that are difficult or traumatic.

You never mention those who "choose" because the pregnancy is an inconvenience or will interfere with their life or financial plans... that does not matter apparently because you want law to be blind to this.. if the woman wants to nuke her baby, you want her to have the "reproductive rights" to do so.

And I am sure you would like this all to be taxpayer supported, with people who are pro-life having to pay when women nuke their unborn child.

Kind of one sided and disgusting behavior on your part.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 7:20pm
Watched the video Lake of Fire after your previous post on the abortion issue.

The hypocrisy and sociopathy of the anti-choice movement on display in the video was just plain apalling.

As noted in the video, the anti-choice movement historically and currently is filled with those who believe in imperialistic wars that kills and maims thousands of innocents (including children), do not believe in social welfare, do not believe in public education, believe that women are subservient to men, and men to God, do not believe in public healthcare, do not adopt or offer to adopt children as an alternative to abortion, believe that murder of abortion service providers is justifiable homicide, believe that criminal destruction of property, harassment, and defamation are justifiable in pursuit of their cause, believe in leaders that have ties to armed militia and anti-tax and separtist movements, on and on.

For the most part, the anti-choice crowd really doesn't even deserve to sit at the morality discussion roundtable on this issue.

It is good to see that your post had an impact - quietly and with dignity.

Posted by OneVote at 03/31/2009 @ 8:18pm
Katha, Thank you for your courage and for the inspiration and for the stories, and for reminding us how privileged many of us are since we have the luxury of reading you over the internet. You remind us how much suffering--both material and emotional--is still out there. The comments posted against WRRAP and your column just show how quick the righteous are in judging others. Since their views stem from so called Christian values, I would tell them what Christ said: it's easier to see the mistakes that others do than see our own failings. By passing such judgment on these women they just show how ideology has taken over what should be Christian compassion for others: ideology has blinded them to the point that it has become a travesty of Christian values. In this sense, your help--and WRRAPS-- comes from a much more compassionate perspective than that of those righteous fanatics. Keep it up!

Posted by goodforyou at 03/31/2009 @ 8:19pm
See, after a lot of TALK from guys like FREI and SJCHER...ask them the REAL question and see how they hem and haw.

That being "So, guys, given your druthers and best case scenario...you'd like to see abortion made illegal again?"

Their answer is telling. If "Yes", then they've got to explain if that doesn't simply mean the POOR (who can't travel to Canada or buy RU-486) will face illegal and dangerous "back alley" abortions...while the Middle Class and Rich will make those "weekend trips"...

and it's simply a matter of the "pro-lifers" FEELING better about themselves, and not actually stopping abortions.

Or they say "No" and it's all talk.

BTW, I don't include Larry (antisoc) because we know he doesn't think re-criminalization is a viable option ("now").

Posted by Mask at 03/31/2009 @ 9:01pm
"people who are cohabitating"

oh no! not cohabitating!

Posted by darladoon at 03/31/2009 @ 10:09pm
it's so funny reading a "pastor" opposed to abortion who celebrates (!) the use of cluster bombs.

Posted by darladoon at 03/31/2009 @ 10:10pm
The hypocrisy is ALL on the leftist who would rather Kill Babies and perpetuate the Abortion agenda!

1994 (remember?)In a recent speech, U.S. Rep. Newt Gingrich (R--Ga.), the new Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, said that one way of caring for abandoned and neglected kids might be to build more orphanages--institutions that once took care of large numbers of parentless kids.

Gingrich presented orphanages as part of a larger Republican plan to reform welfare--the system of government payments to jobless and poor people, including many single mothers Under the Republican plan, welfare payments to able-bodied people would be halted after two years if they do not find work.

The Republican welfare-reform plan would also cut off aid to unwed mothers under age 18. Currently, under Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), unwed mothers receive an amount of money based on the number of children they have. Each child under AFDC receives an average of $374 per month.

In 1994, more than 9.5 million children received AFDC. But if Congress passes the Republican welfare-reform plan into law, an estimated 5 million of those children will eventually be cut off from AFDC. The money the government saves from the cutoff would then go to state governments "to establish and operate children's homes," as well as to support adoption and foster-care programs.

"America should tell [unwed teenage mothers] `We'll help you with foster care, we'll help you with orphanages, and we'll help you with adoption," said Speaker Gingrich. But, he added, the government will not help them with cash payments through AFDC.

Posted by comancheamerican at 04/01/2009 @ 12:32am
How did the left and Demoncrats treat this suggestion..read it for yourself! The Lies don't stand in the face of the thousands of Christian churches and organizations ready and willing to aid pregnant women!

Posted by comancheamerican at 04/01/2009 @ 12:33am
comanche, there's a very good reason why gingrich's "plan" didn't come to fruition: because it SUCKS.

Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 01:01am
Easier and cheaper killing the unborn isn't it! Thanks for the gutteral intellectual argument darlaloon!

Posted by comancheamerican at 04/01/2009 @ 01:29am
There is no such thing as "Reproductive Rights." There are only the rights specified in the Declaration and Constitution, and the are available to all. And they include the freedom to choose. Every time some some yutz decides they're entitled to something, they call it a "right."

Katha, please stop adding shit to the Constitution. You're not qualified to do so.

Posted by william.harry13 at 04/01/2009 @ 06:31am
Okay, RIO...try you.

Do YOU want to see abortion re-criminalized? And if so, how effective will it be in reducing abortions?

(No...don't expect an answer from him either, really, but give it a shot!)

Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 08:19am
"Over 50% of these unwanted pregnancies were the result of failed birth control."

Really?! "WHICH" birth control method failed?

I know both Medicaid and Medicare will pay for Tubal Ligations as long as as the young woman is over the age of 21 and she signs a consent form 30 days prior to having the surgery. I think in some states the wait time is a little longer. This is probably the best method for those who have difficulty keeping up with their monthly regiments.

One of my younger sisters had it done after the birth of her second daughter and she was on Medicaid. That was 21 years ago.

Posted by ACook at 04/01/2009 @ 12:24pm
<<See, after a lot of TALK from guys like FREI and SJCHER...ask them the REAL question and see how they hem and haw.

That being "So, guys, given your druthers and best case scenario...you'd like to see abortion made illegal again?">>

No, abortion cannot be recriminalized.

My issue, as you know, Mask, is the attempts of proponents to frame abortion as something other than the murder of an innocent human being. My take on the whole abortion "movement" is at its core it is all about genocide of minorities and the poor, all framed deceptively in the issue of "freedom of choice".

As with the failed "War on Drugs", the only way to end abortion isn't more laws. It is the elimination of demand. In the end that is a moral issue, not legal.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 12:57pm
"My issue, as you know, Mask, is the attempts of proponents to frame abortion as something other than the murder of an innocent human being"

there are close to 4 billion women in the world. and i'm guessing at least 1 billion of those women can produce offspring. and i'm also guessing that, right at this moment, most of those 1 billion women can absorb some sperm. therefore, in 9 months, we can have another 1 billion babies.

and we can do this over and over and over again.

so, if women can accomplish this, repeatedly, where is the value in it?

the answer? there is no value. just as there is no value in me planting 1 billion seeds in my garden today.

Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 1:26pm
freiheit, antisocialist, comanche---

we women can create life whenever we want. we are baby-making machines.

however, we don't have to do it. it's our choice. just as it is my choice not to plant seeds in my garden today.

Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 1:27pm
No argument about it being your choice Darla.

However, I would argue the morality of your choice. You can't "create" life whenever you want... Women and men (did you forget the male role again?) don't "create" life any more than you "create" life when you plant seeds in your garden.

That life is God's creation. But if you don't believe in God, or you believe you are your own god, you can't understand that. Shame really. There's a lot of that not believing in God going around these days. In each of the 11 examples profiled in the letter to Kathe above, there is clear evidence of a denial of God and God's Law amongst at least one, if not all of the protagonists. The result is the murder of an innocent life.

Have a great afternoon Darla.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 2:09pm
Just like Nancy Pelosi said, people are an expense to the government and the less of them we have, the better. Thus, abortion is to be encouraged in all cases, especially amongst the lower classes, and with universal health care, finally our government can make some rational decisions about when it's just better to let people die without the assistance of meddlesome doctors and people who want to pointlessly prolong their lives. Long live progressivism and the brave new world!

Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 2:36pm
and the less of them we have, the better.

the fewer of them...

not very bright, are you? I remember now, gibberish is your native tongue.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/01/2009 @ 2:46pm
No, abortion cannot be recriminalized.-----Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 12:57pm

Then aside from merely offering YOUR opinion, you have no desire to see it implemented as public policy? Ergo..."just talk"?

Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 2:50pm
Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 2:36pm

Strawman and "slightly altered" Nancy Pelosi "quote" aise, PONTI....

Are you a talker or a doer on ending abortion?...i.e. do you want to see it recriminalized?

Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 2:51pm
Posted by emile duBois at 04/01/2009 @ 2:46pm

"not very bright, are you? I remember now, gibberish is your native tongue."

Nancy Pelosi is the top of your Party in the House, and you tell ME I'm not very bright? I've got a new definition for chutzpah to submit to Wikipedia!

Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 2:51pm
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 2:51pm

"slightly altered" Nancy Pelosi "quote" aise, PONTI...."

How is it 'slightly altered'? Did Nancy Pelosi NOT say that abortion was a good idea because it reduced the cost of government? You are aware of this statement by the top House Dem, are you not?

Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 2:53pm
last I heard Pelosi and the dems are in the majority. you on the other hand are a fossil, and your party will go the way of the Whigs.(you can look it up)

Posted by emile duBois at 04/01/2009 @ 2:53pm
Gee, MASK, it seems to me that Nancy Pelosi is saying below that increasing funding for 'family planning' (i.e., contraception and abortion) will reduce the cost of government by decreasing the number of mouths to feed. Is that not how you read it?

" STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus? PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government. STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that? PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy."

Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 2:57pm
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 2:51pm

"Are you a talker or a doer on ending abortion?...i.e. do you want to see it recriminalized?"

I really don't know for sure, MASK. But I do know that people should be given the full info on abortion, and they are not being given that now. For many, it seems, abortion is being pushed as no more significant than any other outpatient medical procedure. The pro-abortion folks are even pushing for abortion for minors without consent of parents, meaning if you have a 13 year old daughter, you could come home one day to find your daughter DEAD from an abortion procedure gone wrong when you did not even know she was pregnant. And pro-abortion folks regularly seek to keep women from being informed about exactly what an abortion entails, and how it stops a beating heart.

Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:04pm
"did you forget the male role again?"

i don't need a "male" or a "male role," just sperm. and there are things called 'sperm banks.' perhaps you've heard of them.

"That life is God's creation"

oh, really? evidence?

"Did Nancy Pelosi NOT say that abortion was a good idea because it reduced the cost of government?"

never mentioned abortion. and you even provide the quote for us, thank you. you must feel pretty stupid now....

Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 3:05pm
Posted by emile duBois at 04/01/2009 @ 2:53pm

"last I heard Pelosi and the dems are in the majority. you on the other hand are a fossil, and your party will go the way of the Whigs.(you can look it up)"

Yeah, and in 1933 Hitler and the Nazi Party were voted into the majority of the Reichstag, while those in favor of democracy were in the minority. Did that situation also make the democrats 'fossils' at that time?

The point is, if you missed it, that bad ideas sometimes do triumph.

Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:08pm
Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 3:05pm

"Did Nancy Pelosi NOT say that abortion was a good idea because it reduced the cost of government?"

never mentioned abortion."

Is abortion no longer part of 'family planning'? Go back and read the quote again.

Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:13pm
in 1933 Hitler and the Nazi Party were voted into the majority of the Reichstag,

wrong.

the nazis were not in the majority. they won 37.8 % of the vote, and 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag. they were the largest party, it is true, but they did not win a majority.

see what I mean, not too bright, and not well informed.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/01/2009 @ 3:15pm
Posted by emile duBois at 04/01/2009 @ 3:15pm

Sorry, I meant plurality, not majority. The point stands.

Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:24pm
Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 3:05pm

So what if "sperm banks" and orphanges didn't exist?

Posted by ACook at 04/01/2009 @ 3:26pm
Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:24pm

PONTI History, emile. Slightly different from what he posts from what the facts were...like "clearly remembering" Tom Brokaw after Carter's loss in 1980...

when it was Peter Jennings after the 1994 Congressionals.

"The point stands."----Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:24pm |

LOL

Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 3:32pm
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 3:32pm

You haven't got much else to hang your hat on, MASK, so grab what you can.

Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:34pm
Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 3:32pm

Interesting that emile thinks he's reputed my points by pointing out grammatical errors, while you think ALL my posts are refuted by a single mis-attributed quote in a post I wrote months if not years ago.

Like I said, I can't blame you or EMILE for grabbing at whatever straw you fokscan, because I regularly beat you like a rented mule when it comes to the substantive arguments.

Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:41pm
Posted by william.harry13 at 04/01/2009 @ 06:31am

Read the 9th Amendment to the Constitution, idiot:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Posted by cka2nd at 04/01/2009 @ 3:42pm
Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

you're just not very bright, end of story.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/01/2009 @ 3:48pm
Posted by emile duBois at 04/01/2009 @ 3:48pm

"you're just not very bright, end of story."

Brilliantly argued, as I've come to expect from you, EMILE. "You're stooooopidd!'

Learned that in kindergarten, did you, and never progressed?

Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:51pm
You on the left always highlight situations where people were in difficult circumstances and made a traumatic choice for abortion.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/31/2009 @ 7:20pm

Um, it's basic public relations and marketing, sjcher. Everyone highlights the most tragic cases, across the political spectrum and including all of the charities, too.

Ms. Pollitt was tying to raise funds for organizations that assist women who can't afford an abortion. But if you think abortion rights supporters as a group never mention people for whom "pregnancy is an inconvenience or will interfere with their life or financial plans," you're dreaming. By the way, please define "inconvenience" in this context.

Posted by cka2nd at 04/01/2009 @ 3:54pm
<<Then aside from merely offering YOUR opinion, you have no desire to see it implemented as public policy? Ergo..."just talk"?

Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 2:50pm>>

Well, I suppose I am foolish offering MY OPINION on an OPINION BLOG! LOL!

Morality can't be effectively legislated into "public policy" Mask, don't you agree?

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 4:04pm
It is merely religious dogma (i.e., the belief in the existence of an immortal human "soul") and philosophical flummery that underscores the anti-abortion position that there is no difference between a 12-week old fetus and a one-minute old baby when it comes to the right to live.

And I would gladly say the same (or thereabouts) to the animal rights advocates who see no difference between a dolphin and a human being.

By the way, the stupidist T-shirt I ever saw at a demonstration showed a drawing of a dog's paw and a human fist both raised on high, with either the slogan "Animal Rights Forever" or "For Animal-Human Solidarity."

Posted by cka2nd at 04/01/2009 @ 4:04pm
"Is abortion no longer part of 'family planning'?"

she never mentioned abortion, you did. read the quote, which you posted, again.

Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 4:21pm
Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 4:21pm

"read the quote, which you posted, again."

I did, DARLA. And I ask you again: when Nancy Pelosi says 'family planning' will help stimulate the economy by cutting down on the need for government services to children, do you think she is only referring to contraceptives? Because as I understand it, the term 'family planning' and similary usages (e.g., 'Planned Parenthood') means both contraceptives AND abortion. Don't you?

Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 4:30pm
Posted by cka2nd at 04/01/2009 @ 4:04pm

"It is merely religious dogma (i.e., the belief in the existence of an immortal human "soul") and philosophical flummery that underscores the anti-abortion position that there is no difference between a 12-week old fetus and a one-minute old baby when it comes to the right to live."

This is what has started to bother me, though. If we can agree that a 90 day fetus is killable, why not a 91-day fetus? What about a 120-day fetus? What about a 120 day fetus that is aborted but is breathing on its own and must be killed, or maybe not, before it is thrown in the dumpster out back?

Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 4:34pm
Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 4:34pm

Ponti, you are screaming into the wind. Your logic is correct, but someone like cka2nd isn't going to hear you. I was once just like him. From what I can discern, he is oblivious to the fact that it is the very realization of a moral authority outside of man - which he denies - that holds society together.

He feels rational in his belief that a fetus isn't a living being with an immortal soul (none of us have one, right?), but fails to consider the short steps from abortion on demand to the existence of the Endloesung in a Godless world.

Mankind is incapable of moral authority on its own. Mankind is not innately good. Abortion is just an other manifestation of a denial of God. And an affirmation of the existence of Satan amongst us.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 5:29pm
The Ignorant fail to see that the live they DEVALUE may soon be THEIR own!

Posted by comancheamerican at 04/01/2009 @ 5:34pm
oops, the lives

Posted by comancheamerican at 04/01/2009 @ 6:09pm
Posted by pontificus at 04/01/2009 @ 3:41pm

A "mis-attributed quote"????

PONTI you said you "clearly remembered" it.

If it was a "I see to recall" or "Didn't Tom Brokaw say...", you'd have a case.

But you were trying to imply that something you heard Limbaugh tell you once was one of YOUR "clear memories"...when you (A) had the facts wrong and (B) clearly DIDN'T remember it, just MIS-remembered what Rush told you.

Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 6:40pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 5:29pm

If Mankind is "not innately good", then we are flawed, right FREI.

Which means any product of Man is flawed....including BOOKS written by Man.

Any book written by Man.

Logical, no?

Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 6:44pm
"Because as I understand it, the term 'family planning' and similary usages (e.g., 'Planned Parenthood') means both contraceptives AND abortion. Don't you?"

it means contraceptives, information and education, but does not *necessarily* mean abortion. it could very well mean abortion, but not necessarily.

but my point was: she never specifically mentioned "abortion." you mentioned that, not her. key difference.

"he is oblivious to the fact that it is the very realization of a moral authority outside of man - which he denies - that holds society together"

oh, now it's a "fact" that there exists a "moral authority" outside of man "which olds society together."

so, if there is an authority "outside of man," and yet man continues to do immoral things, then what function does this authority have then?

Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 6:44pm
"Mankind is incapable of moral authority on its own. Mankind is not innately good. Abortion is just an other manifestation of a denial of God. And an affirmation of the existence of Satan amongst us."

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 5:29pm

Freiheit, that's very true, however, a thought occurred to me, 'why not step aside and just let the liberals destroy themselves?' Think of it...why should we conservatives care if a liberal decides not to procreate? That's huge plus for us.

I say let them do what ever it takes to stop having babies. Because twenty years from now their numbers will have contracted so much, they'll be a super minority in both the House and Senate.

Posted by ACook at 04/01/2009 @ 7:08pm
Hey Darladoon, you either get it or you don't. If you don't believe a moral authority outside of man exists, well, good for you. Apparently the signatories of the Declaration of Independence wouldn't have agreed with you, but you've proven yourself to be very wise through your prolific postings here... Haha, April Fools on that wisdom part! :-) Relax Darla, you are allowed to kill all of the unborn you want. Chill. O my though, what if the Federal Reserve starts running all the sperm banks you referred to earlier!??!!

-----------------------

Mask, are you 8? So here, let me guess, your point is if man is flawed, and man writes BOOKS, like, um, eh, wait... The BIBLE?!, like, maybe there's no, like God, right?

You're spending too much time in Darla's second hand smoke dude. ;-) Hey, either you believe in God or you don't. You have the gift of a free will to open your eyes, or not. Choice.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 7:11pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 5:29pm

One more thing, we'll be able to get rid of all those cradle to grave programs. The money saved will benefit our children.

Posted by ACook at 04/01/2009 @ 7:13pm
Oh, I forgot to mention Mask, I would refer to us as "fallen" rather than your characterization as "flawed".

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 7:16pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 7:11pm

Didn't mention God yet, FREI.

YOU mentioned Satan though and HE's in the Bible.

So, if Man is "fallen", then how did he write a PERFECT book?

Posted by Mask at 04/01/2009 @ 10:09pm
Posted by ACook at 04/01/2009 @ 7:08pm

Actually, as I've said before, I come from a big family (only one Republican, thanks heaven!) and like big families. And I actually wish more leftists would procreate prolifically (I don't really care about the liberals too much). None of which means I think abortion should be against the law or made any more difficult to get than any other medical procedure.

Posted by cka2nd at 04/01/2009 @ 10:09pm
"I say let them do what ever it takes to stop having babies"

oh yeah, 'cuz conservative women NEVER have abortions!

"Hey Darladoon, you either get it or you don't"

it's just that simple, right?

Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 10:10pm
Yes, actually. It really is that simple.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 10:22pm
So, if Man is "fallen", then how did he write a PERFECT book?

That's a great question Mask. Maybe if we read the book we'd know.

Have you read the Bible cover to cover? (I sure haven't.) Or are you a cherry-picker, selecting out of context phrases to support your arguments and lack of faith?

Just curious.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 10:28pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 5:29pm

... someone like cka2nd isn't going to hear you. I was once just like him. From what I can discern, he is oblivious to the fact that it is the very realization of a moral authority outside of man - which he denies - that holds society together.

--Setting aside that any "realization of a moral authority outside of man" is a matter of faith, not provable fact, the idea that such an outside moral authority "holds society together" is questionable at best, given the history of religious intolerance and violence, both within and between societies.

He feels rational in his belief that a fetus isn't a living being with an immortal soul (none of us have one, right?),

--That's right. We have consciousness based on the biological processes of our bodies and it has a beginning and an end.

but fails to consider the short steps from abortion on demand to the existence of the Endloesung in a Godless world.

--I see the short steps to "the Final Solution" in many things, primarily the attempts by the ruling class to hold on to power and privilege by any means at their disposal, including fascism. I also note that a world overrun with God condoned slavery well into the 19th Century, the Thirty Years War, the Inquisition (including the expulsion of the Jews of Spain), centuries of imperialism and the March of Folly into World War I, where God was on everyone's side.

Mankind is incapable of moral authority on its own. Mankind is not innately good. Abortion is just an other manifestation of a denial of God. And an affirmation of the existence of Satan amongst us.

--I'd never argue that mankind is innately good, but we can establish moral authority, a moral contract if one will, as Jefferson posited between the ruler and the ruled.

Posted by cka2nd at 04/01/2009 @ 10:29pm
You know Mask, I've been influenced by "The Screwtape Letters". That book led me to be interested in the Bible. CS Lewis is fallen just like you and me.

Fallen doesn't mean failed Mask. Even a couple of fallen, loser Nation's blog addicts like you and me can do God's work without even knowing it!

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 10:33pm
Hi cka2nd, You know, we're not really that far apart. I, as you, recognize the history of religious intolerance and violence, both within and between societies. But, apparently unlike you, I believe those actions exploited God, not represented God or God's law.

Many so-called "religious" throughout history were nothing more than infiltrators, as distant from God's light as possible.

I think you underestimate the intelligence of evil to pit us against ourselves. We all underestimate that. We face the mindset that can frame the murder of the unborn as freedom. Wow, that's powerful and dangerous stuff.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 10:46pm
"Many so-called "religious" throughout history were nothing more than infiltrators, as distant from God's light as possible"

if God is light, and light doesn't discriminate; and if God is omnipresent, and also cannot discriminate; wouldn't even infiltrators absord both God and God's light?

Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 11:29pm
The greatest act of hubris is to have the firm belief that you know whether or not a god or gods exists, and that you know what a god's morality is. No one knows those answers, no one. And there sure has been a lot of wasted time trying to prove god's existence, and many millions of lives stunted and snuffed out by those who suffer under the supreme delusional hubris of "knowing"god.

Posted by theo51 at 04/01/2009 @ 11:47pm
Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 11:29pm

Golly Darla, wouldn't it be more relevant and interesting to debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin??!!??

-------------------- Posted by theo51 at 04/01/2009 @ 11:47pm

I understand what you wrote perfectly Theo51. I believe throughout history the stunted lives and suffering you cite happened and happens, caused not by people who "know" God, but by people confused by their own lack of faith and belief.

The only way to prove the existence of God is to live a life of example and humility. I'm trying, but I'm not even close yet.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 12:34am
Posted by freiheit1 at 04/01/2009 @ 10:28pm

Why should I read a book "cover to cover" that's OWN INTERNAL LOGIC tells me could not possibly be "God's non-erroneous and edit-free" word.

If the Bible says all men are sinners, and men wrote the Bible, then logically there's no possible way the Bible could be error-free, since men are not error-free.

Ergo any ideas based off the assumption that the Bible is absolute fact are false...including ideas on a supernatural being called "Satan" or anything that Clive Staples "Jack" Lewis might derive from such a book.

Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 07:59am
Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 07:59am

Well, there you have it then. Seems you have it all figured out.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 08:21am
Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 08:21am

No, just logic. Any refutation from you?

Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 09:08am
Why would I want to refute your opinion about the Bible?

I see strong evidence of God on earth every minute of the day. You don't apparently. I also see evidence of what life is like without God. Without God, at least here on Kathe's blog, life is about $86.82...

Good luck with your logic Mask. I'm glad you've seemed to have it all figured out for yourself. I just happen think there's more.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 09:36am
Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 09:36am

FREI...I wasn't talking about "God".

I was talking about the Bible.

Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 11:10am
Posted by cka2nd at 04/01/2009 @ 10:09pm

It's always good to hear from others who, like myself, come from large families. I'm one of 12 children. And I'm glad you understood my point. It breaks my heart to know that abortion has made life become "so casual", that to some - it's not that important or a complete non issue. :-(

Never could I imagine anyone on this thread would be so unimportant or less important had they not been born.

Posted by ACook at 04/02/2009 @ 11:31am
Why does it matter what you were talking about, Mask, if you don't believe in either?

Really, your lack of belief makes it logical for you to accept, for example, that abortion is okay. That fetus is just a glob of worthless cells (well, not worthless, but about $86.82) that is not a human life. That's only logical, right?

Don't sweat it. Lots of people believe as you do that there's no God and that the Bible isn't relevant. Embrace and celebrate abortion if it feels right to you.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 11:41am
Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 10:10pm

Dear, I was being sarcastic. I deplore the very idea of abortion. It's a horrible procedure even in the so- called "best of circumstances".

And, if you ever decide to bring a life into this crazy world of ours, let me know. I'll be more than happy to send you a very beautiful gift.

Posted by ACook at 04/02/2009 @ 11:44am
Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 11:41am

FREI, pick ONE topic and we'll discuss it.

But "God is real and the Bible is literally true and therefore, abortion is bad" are THREE topics. Not one.

Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 12:20pm
Oh, but Mask, buddy, I disagree. It's all the same topic. And it is pretty simple. As I said earlier, either you get it or you don't.

I'm not an evangelist, I have yet to read the Bible cover to cover and just don't have a pressing need to discuss your logic, or defend mine.

How you satisfy your belief that abortion isn't murder is your business. As you were quick to point out, I'm just voicing my opinion. Abortion is legal in the US. Relax. Millions of potential human beings are terminated every year and it's okay in your book. What's the problem?

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 12:48pm
Oh, but Mask, buddy, I disagree. It's all the same topic. And it is pretty simple. As I said earlier, either you get it or you don't.----Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 12:48pm

So it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe in God, without believing in the Bible?

Or believe in God without opposing abortion?

Or even oppose abortion without believing in God and the Bible?

It's a package deal? All three or none at all?

(Now...contradict your statement above)

Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 1:14pm
I'm sorry Mask. I'll repeat, either you get it, or you don't.

Make up all the assumptions you want. Turn it into a binary operation. Get a pilates mat out for the subject. Channel Perry Mason, I don't care.

I can't make you see what I believe is right in front of your nose.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 1:49pm
Then please stop preaching on and on and on about the subject!

Posted by BlackFrancis at 04/02/2009 @ 1:58pm
Posted by BlackFrancis at 04/02/2009 @ 1:58pm

Okay.

Hey, by the way, no one yet has commented how Pollitt's mention of WRRAP's work raised a mind-boggling $991.00. Wow, now there's some serious liberal philanthropy at work. VERY impressive! Like, that's up there in middle school bake sale territory!

Could it be Pollitt's readers aren't jumping at the opportunity to fund the murder of a stranger's unborn child? Or, is it because most liberals are advocates when spending other people's money? Haha, that latter is my guess.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 2:08pm
Another note in Kathe's inbox:

Dear Ms Pollitt, Thank you from my heart for bringing awareness to generous people who contributed money to fund my violent death through abortion. I was a growing child in a 38 year-old woman from Michigan who was already burdened with one child she foolishly chose to keep. She and her husband are starting a new business that hasn't yet generated income and I would have only been in the way. I'm glad I was never born and I have you and your readers to thank.

Sincerely, A dead child.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 2:18pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 1:49pm

What "assumptions"....I'm reading what YOU are posting.

I said- "But "God is real and the Bible is literally true and therefore, abortion is bad" are THREE topics. Not one."----Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 12:20pm

You replied- "Oh, but Mask, buddy, I disagree. It's all the same topic. And it is pretty simple. As I said earlier, either you get it or you don't.----Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 12:48pm

Now, what else does one "assume" but you believe that it is a fact that ALL THREE ideas are obligatory to each other.

I asked three possibilities...will ask ONE of you again-

Is it possible to believe in God and not believe in the inerrancy or even relevancy of the Bible?

Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 2:23pm
Mask, why ask this question when you already have your answer queued up? You don't give a hoot what I think, you are interested in winning your point and proving your logic above faith. I'm cool with that. But, I'm just not interested in walking around in your maze. Faith, much like love, is not necessarily logical.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 3:28pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 3:28pm

Why do you keep avoiding the question, FREI...

except that it would contradict your earlier statement or would prove a fallacious argument?

You want to link "belief in God" with "belief in the Bible" with "opposition to abortion" and can offer NOTHING, especially not logic to back that up.

Because there ARE people who believe in God and not the Bible (Muslims, Hindus, non-Judeo-Christians). There ARE people who believe in God, but believe abortion at some stages is not "murder". I'm sure there are even people who don't believe in God or the Bible, who believe abortion is wrong.

and you know it, but want your supposed moral high ground based on Christianity.

Posted by Mask at 04/02/2009 @ 3:51pm
Haha, see, your answer WAS queued up.

Problem is, I never once used the word Christian or Christianity. And I admitted on at least two occasions of having not read the Bible cover to cover. And I made it clear I'm not an evangelist.

See, this whole exercise here is as satisfying as trying to convince a Frenchman that Baseball isn't really boring. He either gets it or he doesn't.

And Mask, you just don't get it. In my opinion.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 4:03pm
Could it be Pollitt's readers aren't jumping at the opportunity to fund the murder of a stranger's unborn child? Or, is it because most liberals are advocates when spending other people's money? Haha, that latter is my guess.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 2:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Poor baby killers just can't get by on the $100,000,000. of taxpayer dollars they recieved last year which is coerced from all of us who are against such use of our money! They can't exist without this coerced money!

Posted by comancheamerican at 04/02/2009 @ 4:58pm
war mongers just can't get by on the $trillion of taxpayer dollars they received last year which is coerced from all of us who are against such use of our money! They can't exist without this coerced money!

Posted by emile duBois at 04/02/2009 @ 6:14pm
i don't need a "male" or a "male role," just sperm. and there are things called 'sperm banks.' perhaps you've heard of them.

Posted by darladoon at 04/01/2009 @ 3:05pm

ROFLMAO! Stupid liberal statement of the month.

Uhhh...Darla? Where do the sperm banks get that sperm from? Um...men? Perhaps you've heard of them...

Posted by usc1 at 04/02/2009 @ 10:09pm
Could it be Pollitt's readers aren't jumping at the opportunity to fund the murder of a stranger's unborn child? Or, is it because most liberals are advocates when spending other people's money? Haha, that latter is my guess.

Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 2:08pm

Actually, Frei, it has been fairly extensively documented that Republicans give more to charity than democrats...that's probably the reason for the perceived lack of "compassion" on the part of the dems...too busy giving to government...

Posted by usc1 at 04/02/2009 @ 10:20pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 04/02/2009 @ 4:03pm

I'm sorry, you were discussing Judaism and just the Old Testament in your discussion of the Bible????

Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 08:16am
the same people who scream loudest about saving the "unborn" don't want to pay for the health insurance for children, the "born".

and morality, the poseurs, is really another word for holier than thou.

stick your god up your ass.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 10:09am
war, war, war, that's all we hear from the god people here.

Jesus, of course, was known as the prince of peace. he was also more about forgiveness than justice. pssst, don't let it get around.

Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 10:38am
"Jesus, of course, was known as the prince of peace."----Posted by emile duBois at 04/03/2009 @ 10:38am

Wrong!

"Men, all this stuff you've heard about Jesus not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of war, is a lot of horse dung.

Jesus traditionally loved to fight. All real Christs love the sting of battle."---Book of Patton 3:17

Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 3:07pm
Actually, Frei, it has been fairly extensively documented that Republicans give more to charity than democrats...that's probably the reason for the perceived lack of "compassion" on the part of the dems...too busy giving to government...

Posted by usc1 at 04/02/2009 @ 10:20pm

And yet it is the nations and states run by either leftists or liberals that tend to have the best social outcomes in health care, education, infant mortality, etc., etc., etc.. Maybe that's because both liberals and leftists believe in some real degree of social responsibility, as opposed to the laissez faire economic and social welfare policies of today's conservatives and libertarians. Charity is not and never has been an adequate solution for society's ills, nor a replacement for good social policy.

Posted by cka2nd at 04/05/2009 @ 5:00pm
Another item for the hypocrisy file. Imagine if George Bush had started to wonder what 'the term was in Austrian'.

"Barack Obama, linguist:

At a news conference afterward, Obama said his debut on the international stage had convinced him that "political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate," where he served before entering the White House.

"There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian -- wheeling and dealing, and people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics," he said in response to an Austrian reporter's question.

Via Andrew Stuttaford, who adds: "Tricky language, Austrian.""

Posted by pontificus at 04/06/2009 @ 3:24pm