Comments on: What they really want

By: SteveG

SteveG — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:19:53 +0000

The New York Times can be relied upon to tell us where liberals want to take the country—to tell us what they really want.

Ha! What an ignorant thing to say.

Did it escape your notice that the NYT editorialized for years in favor of the war in Iraq, a position with which many liberals (not all) disagreed?

“Liberals” are not a hive mind, possessing one consistent set of goals and beliefs, anymore than conservatives are. The NYT does not speak for us.

It is probably true that many (maybe most, but not all) liberals would like health care reform to include coverage of abortion services for the poor. But you don’t need the NYT to tell you that, nor should you conclude that it’s a universal view.

For the record, I count myself a liberal and I do NOT agree with the Times editorial on this issue.

Oh, also:

Even if you do not believe in God—as apparently The New York Times does not— …. Does The New York Times believe that the Declaration, too, is irrational?

The New York Times is not a person; it is a company made up of several thousand persons. Whatever they individually believe about God or the Declaration of Independence, it does not apply to the entire entity.

Report comment to moderator

By: California

California — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:07:27 +0000

Abortion is an elective procedure, it is not necessary. It makes things more convenient for the carrier of life, just like plastic surgery does for the physically less endowed.

Will the health plan be covering plastic surgery?

Report comment to moderator

By: DavidSess

DavidSess — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:10:36 +0000

Bashing the New York Times is a worn-out routine.

Report comment to moderator

By: Random Name

Random Name — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:54:05 +0000

Humans evolved to reproduce. Although the data is skimpy, evolutionary scientists speculate that at one time the total number of human beings totalled no more than 50,000. When we were such a small, vulnerable bunch of creatures, our insane fecundity had a value as a survival characteristic.

Our obsessive sexual drive is no longer necessary, and likely to bring us down. I like sex as much as the next person, but we don’t need to roger like crazed weasels any more.

Report comment to moderator

By: Spinoza

Spinoza — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:10:21 +0000

“Medical science has known since 1857 that human life begins at conception.”

But a human’s “life” and person-hood does not begin at conception

“…not all of the objects created by the union of a sperm and an egg are human beings. Objects such as hydatidiform moles, choriocarcinomas, and blighted ovums are clearly not. Neither will every normal zygote will develop into an adult. There are many fertilized eggs that never implant and are “simply washed away” after conception.”

God is apparently the biggest abortionist of all…

Report comment to moderator

By: NJLawyer

NJLawyer — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:10:42 +0000

I think Contented Joy hit the nail on the head with this sentence: ” If the Government funds all abortions, it will just mean more dead poor children, which is probably why the elite want it so much.”

Report comment to moderator

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:06:34 +0000

“Denying access to poor people serves no such “rational” policy”

The rational policy is that it is improper to force people to underwrite the killing of babies in the womb through the taxes they pay.

Report comment to moderator

By: Buddy

Buddy — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:01:48 +0000

80% of babies aborted are from unwed women. What that says is abortion subsidies or supports fornication. Rich or poor, people want to play around and not be responsible for their actions.

Report comment to moderator

By: Cheryl D.

Cheryl D. — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:56:35 +0000

In other words, if you want to even the playing field in a more logical way, make hired assassination illegal for rich people too; don’t do everything you can to let the poor in on the game too, and then pay for the murders with my tax dollars.

Report comment to moderator

By: Cheryl D.

Cheryl D. — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:54:39 +0000

Yes, RSD, a child is more valuable than diamonds. I wasn’t trying to compare value, just saying that it’s utterly ridiculous to say it’s “unfair” that rich people can afford things poor people can’t. That is, by definition, the difference between rich and poor. You might as well say it’s unfair that black people are darker than white people, or tall people are closer to the sky than short people. Rich people can hire assassins easier than poor people can, even assassins of their own children, but in this case the poor aren’t the ones who are disadvantaged.

Report comment to moderator