"Many thousands of unborn children have been saved..."

Oh please. While I'm certainly against state funded heath care, I'd be surprised if even ONE pregnant female decided not to abort because the wait was longer or she had to drive a little farther.

Interesting to note, that the obviously biased report from the Chronicle doesn't use the word abortion even once... unless they consider that "birth control". I guess they do...

The same paper (more suited to the bottom of a bird cage than wrapping fish) has a FRONT PAGE infomercial for contraception.

my god...your grammar in terrible!

Eenglesh ees me therd langwage. Unless yu cownt Malagasy slang az a langwage, thenn i'ttz me forth.

Anything that's bad for Planned Parenthood is good for normal humans.

I thought poor-choicers always associated the closing of an abortion clinic with a more limited access to abortion.

If pro-aborts are going to start saying it has nothing to do with abortion access, I won't let them in on the truth...

Oh please. While I'm certainly against state funded heath care, I'd be surprised if even ONE pregnant female decided not to abort because the wait was longer or she had to drive a little farther.

The second part of your statement nullifies the opening line...if you were truly against state-funded medical prodecures, you would have applauded the senator's action for its reduction of state funding for a specific medical procedure type.

Kennethk, reread what I wrote. Just because I am against government health care funding doesn't mean I'm going to agree with ridiculous speculation about "many thousands" of children being saved. The facts of this story simply do not justify such a conclusion.

But since you brought it up: statist intrusions on medical care is a political reality. I may be against it, but to the extent that it does exist, it should at least be administered rationally. So, no, I don't applaud the senator.

Kennethk, reread what I wrote. Just because I am against government health care funding doesn't mean I'm going to agree with ridiculous speculation about "many thousands" of children being saved. The facts of this story simply do not justify such a conclusion.

I'm aware of that, and I'm not arguing for or against the conclusion that Conde has drawn. Is it plausible that some unborn lives were spared as a result of clinic closures? Likely, yes. How many? Probably not as many as one would hope.

I have read and re-read what you wrote, and I come back to my prior statement. Any reasonable person should realize that when you structure a statement in the manner of "I think X, but Y", the "but Y" nullifies the validity of X's articulation. In that regard alone, you have undermined your stated lack of support for state-funded medical procedures.

But upon invitation, you have done so again:

But since you brought it up: statist intrusions on medical care is a political reality. I may be against it, but to the extent that it does exist, it should at least be administered rationally. So, no, I don't applaud the senator.

As a Canadian, I can attest to the reality of state interference in medical services provision more than most Americans will probably ever realize. I know very well of what you speak.

I agree with you that it should be administered rationally, but what I disagree with is the tacit definition of rationalism you are, I suspect, attempting to apply here. State funds going to medical services should be directed to those medical services that most directly benefit the state.

Ending the lives of future taxpayers at (or just prior) to time of birth does not benefit the state. Indeed, state funding of abortion is almost like throwing money into a bottomless pit -- it doesn't solve anything. It diminishes the birthrate (a negative consequence), but doesn't do anything to diminish the pregnancy rate. If the state were going to thrown money into medical services related to birth control and pregnancy, the money would be better spent on education...or, indeed, on relieving the socio-economic factors that tend to drive the pregnancy rate up in certain demographics.

Any reasonable person should realize that when you structure a statement in the manner of "I think X, but Y", the "but Y" nullifies the validity of X's articulation. In that regard alone, you have undermined your stated lack of support for state-funded medical procedures.


You have it exactly backwards. Example:

Ken: I believe that cauliflower sandwiches are disgusting and result in the death of thousands of Texans every year.

Sean: I agree that cauliflower sandwiches are gross, but I doubt they have caused any worse damage than indigestion.

See how one can agree with a premise but be dubious about a hyperbolic conclusion? I think reasonable people will realize this.

But more to the point, this senator did NOTHING to reduce state funded health care. He simply diverted the funds from one type of medical facility to another. Now they are giving some of it back. Exactly what should I applaud about that?

You have it exactly backwards. Example:

Ken: I believe that cauliflower sandwiches are disgusting and result in the death of thousands of Texans every year.

Sean: I agree that cauliflower sandwiches are gross, but I doubt they have caused any worse damage than indigestion.

See how one can agree with a premise but be dubious about a hyperbolic conclusion? I think reasonable people will realize this.

As I say again, I'm not arguing for or against Conde's conclusion, and I think by my prior statement I have amply expressed that it is not a hyperbole that I necessary agree with. If anything, to paraphrase your example, I have pointed out that it is possible that a few people have perhaps died from eating cauliflower sandwiches -- allergies exist, after all. I don't subscribe to the hyperbole...and I would appreciate it if you would quite trying to pigeon-hole me into the camp of those who do.

But your example does not do justice to your original statement, even when we consider what you follow up your example with:

But more to the point, this senator did NOTHING to reduce state funded health care. He simply diverted the funds from one type of medical facility to another. Now they are giving some of it back. Exactly what should I applaud about that?

Even if all he did was transfer the funds between services, he has still transfered funds from a less essential service (one might even go so far as to call abortion a non-essential service in more or less all statistically significant circumstances) to a more essential service, to a service on which the money is better spent. If you are no supporter of government involvement in medical care provision, you should -- as someone who values, I thus assume, private business and its smooth operation -- nevertheless applaud a reinvestment of funds into a service with a higher measureable return value.

Hyperbole, polemic, melodramatic, call it want you want to.

In the end, if a child's life was saved, it is cause for rejoicing.

Sadly, Texas is in trouble again, Hitler's Fertility Clinic just opened in Texas!
www.crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com