Monday, January 26, 2009

Can euthanasia be far behind?

Nancy Pelosi said that one way to save money is to have more birth control. On This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

"The family planning services reduce cost," Pelosi said, "One of the elements of this package is assistance to the states. 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."
"So no apologies for that?" I asked her.
"No apologies. No," Pelosi said. "And this is a, to stimulate the economy, is an economic recovery package and as we put it forth we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Wow. Maybe Nancy can crank up the capital punishment bill again. And hey, is there any way we can maybe release a few of those birds with that killer bird flu here? Just until the recession is over, of course.


Liz said...

Hey now. There's a lot more to "family planning" than abortions: the birth control pill, a variety of contraceptives, the morning after bill (which is NOT an abortion) and plain old education.

Nowhere did I see the mention of abortions being the answer?

I'm guessing you would have had a lot more than two daughters had you not used "family planning."

Jack said...

I've got no beef whatsoever with birth control, contraception and so on. But Pelosi is suggesting that we can "save the economy" by having less people walking around the planet. To me that's a pretty frivolous reason to prevent children from entering this world. It's difficult to look into the eyes of my granddaughter and think "jeez, we could keep this economy strong if she weren't around".

mberenis said...

I like this blog! Good Job! I'm into game blogs, are you? Check out my latest blog and see if your a winner! Unlimited Entries! No Email Required! Instant Win or Lose! ""


$10,000+ Cash Prizes

No Email Required! Instant Win or Lose! Unlimited Entries!

Anonymous said...

In a way Nancy Pelosi is unwittingly correct. If contraception had prevented her birth, there'd be less profligate spending in Washington. We WOULD save money.

Jack said...

Good one!

Kate said...

Ok, this is ridiculous. Contraception is to prevent unintended, unwanted pregnancies, and your granddaughter was rather obviously obtained with difficult measures. I know because I remember injecting myself in the thigh with all the shots necessary to make it happen. So don't ever use my daughter to make your inaccurate points again. And don't worry, Obama threw women under the bus and appealed to the House to get rid of this stuff anyway. God forbid women get money for family planning (which I wholeheartedly support as a part of economic stimulus, because if women who don't want kids don't have a cost-effective way of preventing them, they'll have them and that will be hard on them as moms and hard on the economy for having to support them).

Jack said...

Please exchange the words "my granddaughter" with the words "any infant".

Truth is, my OPINION is not inaccurate. Opinions are based on a person's set of beliefs. And my belief, which I state in the post, and in a response to Liz, is that Pelosi should not equate "saving the economy" with "preventing childbirth".

Your equating preventing unplanned births because it's "hard on the economy" is also, I think, simply the wrong way to put it. It bothers me equating money with life - that's why the euthanasia reference in the post.