Pro-Aborts' "Stupid" Drive to Keep Seniors' Abortion Coverage
Someone should tell the folks writing NARAL's petitions that marijuana isn't legal (yet). They actually have posted a petition - and almost 32,000 people have signed it - which reads in part:"Anti-choice extremists at the Family Research Council are launching an outrageous media and lobbying campaign claiming that Congress' health-care reform bills will deny seniors the medical care they need in order to pay for abortion."
Yes, you read that correctly - NARAL is worried that seniors might lose their medical coverage for abortion.
I'm very sure that Family Research Council is not worried that seniors will be paying for their own abortions. Seniors paying for abortions out of their medical coverage, after all, does not seem to be a very large demographic.
FRC has been airing very powerful ads showing that abortion coverage and rationing of care for the elderly are both major (separate) problems in the current health care reform plans. But apparently NARAL's media division really thinks FRC could be so stupid as to think that senior citizens are paying to have their pregnancies aborted.
And NARAL is happy to launch petitions referencing this as a real issue!
Often in the debate over abortion, the pro-life movement is caricatured as "unscientific".
Well, maybe we can begin to make the charge that the pro-abortion movement is illiterate and biased.
Pro-Aborts' "Stupid" Drive to Keep Seniors' Abortion Coverage
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Actually, you didn't read it correctly....
Thomas, let's look at the NARAL "statement" again:
"Anti-choice extremists at the Family Research Council are launching an outrageous media and lobbying campaign claiming that Congress' health -care reform bills will deny seniors the medical care they need in order to pay for abortion ."
Now, by my interpretation, if I am indeed reading it correctly, NARAL is suggesting that the Family Research Council is claiming: that in order to provide/pay for abortion coverage in a Federal Health Bill, Congress will deny/limit the funding to senior healthcare , within that same bill.
Granted, the NARAL statment should have been structured differently to get their point across more effectively (even just a comma after the word 'need' would have "fixed" the confusing sentance).
Back to you Thomas:
"Well, maybe we can begin to make the charge that the pro-abortion movement is illiterate and biased"
And maybe you were so eager to discredit those of us who believe that abortion should remain legal and a personal choice, that you mis-read the petition and jumped to an erroneous conclusion.
So, who's really the "stupid" one here Thomas?
- JBarnett
October 22, 2009 7:29PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Actually, he read it as written.
Is it really Mr. Peter's responsibility to correct the opposition's punctuation? How can you suggest that he is the stupid one for reading what was written? I think not.
On the other hand, the petition does suggest that it is a dichotomy: Either fund seniors, or fund abortions. On one side of the coin, you can save seniors' lives by saving babies ' lives, or you can kill seniors by killing babies. I know which side of this debate I'll be choosing.
- SolarSanitizer
October 23, 2009 2:11AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And I happen to disagree with you
Solar, I had no trouble understanding the intended message of the NARAL statement; even with the poor sentance structure. The critical 3 words in the statement are "in order to" which indicates giving up one thing in favor of another. Any reasonable, educated adult would also understand what NARAL is saying.
Mr. Peters' is criticizing NARAL for criticizing the Family Research Council's "Pro-life" media campaign (barely commenting on NARAL's support of legalizing marijuanna, which is the primary focus of the petition).
His logic stumbles with his title and asssumptions: Pro-Aborts' "Stupid" Drive to Keep Seniors' Abortion Coverage.
"Pro-Aborts'" The term is offensive, snide and derisive (as it's meant to be by the " pro-life " supporters who use it).
""Stupid" Drive to Keep Seniors' Abortion Coverage." Used in reference to a petition supporting the legalization of marijuanna.
He's grasping at an excuse to promote the "anti- abortion " position while also seeking to discredit the " pro-choice " position; which he's at liberty to do. However, he's going to have to do better than this not to look the fool.
He sums up: "Well, maybe we can begin to make the charge that the pro-abortion movement is illiterate and biased".
Granted, it's an opinion piece, but it comes across to me as a very weak attempt to sound reasonable when in fact it's childish and a deliberate misinterpretation of the NARAL petition. He posted to a public forum; rebuttal should be expected. Especially when the "logic" of his argument is so obviously reaching.
- JBarnett
October 23, 2009 4:59PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And another thing....
Pot should be legal .
Grown and distributed by the Federal Government, heavily regulated regarding public use (how,when,where) and even more heavily taxed. Our Federal deficit would be gone in no time and a huge percentage of the "drug crime " in the U.S. would be eliminated.
- JBarnett
October 22, 2009 7:42PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.