Although you are against anti-abortion laws, you may wish to reexamine the laws of Germany.

The comments by #244 Claus Breckner (although hostile in tone) are not as outlandish as you might think.

The chain of events that Clause theorized may or may not occur here in our Country, but he is correct that such thinking did devalue human life and contributed to Nazi philosophy.

The “rigorous debate of abortion” in this country is a joke compared to what occurred in post WWII Germany.

Post WWII Germany did adapt strict anti-abortion rules and not just because of religious objections. Their intimate history with human eugenics fostered a strong desire for strict moral and ethical codes of human decency and respect to human life.

————————————————-

#251 Comment by pitchforksntorches — 2/8/2009 @ 1:44 pm

All I am saying is that if you are going to be loud and proud against abortion, you’ll need to be as loud and proud in funding and giving of your time to help raise or place the children that are born from your viewpoint/values.

Time or money is not required in order to condemn an immoral act. Such requirements are illogical (people with little time or money cannot condemn immoral practices).

Being against murder does not require employment as a police officer nor donations to a victim’s fund.

Being against (or “for”) abortion does not require that a person adopt a child or give any money. Yet such a person could insist on the protection of a child (as in this case) and remain logically and morally consistent.

Possibly you are seeking a practical solution that would enormously reduce abortion. If such is the case, then I suspect there is large agreement in this area and certainly time and money would be a requirement for those who wish to implement such a solution.

And I would most passionately argue that this is so representative of what takes place inside the womb conveniently hidden from sight, that both acts are an outrage and yes, murder.

And as much as you are passionate in your determination to be a good nurse who informs her patients as well as attempting to not let your personal views affect their decisionmaking,….

Just for the record I am male.
And your right the madness continues. But I hope these whack-jobs that run the Clinic are
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Regardless where one stands on abortion, this is an outrage.And yes, murder.

Thank you for sharing where you are coming from, PFNT. It answers alot. And as much as you are passionate in your determination to be a good nurse who informs her patients as well as attempting to not let your personal views affect their decisionmaking, it is equally so that there are those who due to their own involvement with the issue are just as passionate (what you ascribe as manipulative tactics)and just as determined or even moreso, to not see this occur inside or outside their families because saving a life is quite simply, worth it.

And of course the legal definitions are in a continual state of flux. We can kill 35 weeks inside the womb, it’s a criminal act outside… again the madness continues.

I hope you’re not suggesting that a big pro-choicer — if not, given his fervent stance on late-term abortions, even a pro-abortionist — like the guy now in the White House therefore is more generous and compassionate that some of the so-called “fire and brimstone” folks you’re sniffing at.

http://www.rdtc.com:

An important thing to note about Obama’s return is the extremely small percent of their AGI that they donate to charities. From looking at the chart below, you can see that in 2001 and 2002 they donated less then 0.5% of their income. An Obama spokesperson claimed, “as new parents who were paying off their large student loans, giving $10,000 to charity [from 2000 to 2004] was as generous as they could be at the time.”

However, it is interesting to note that they made over $1.4 million in 2005 but still donated under 5% of their AGI to charity. This is a far lower percent than the Clinton’s donations in 6 of the past 7 years.

philanthropy.com:

Sen. Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, have given an average of $369 per year to charities during the past decade, according to tax returns posted today to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign Web site.

Senator Biden, the Democratic nominee for vice president, claimed $995 in charitable gifts in 2007 on the joint return with his wife. That figure is 0.3 percent of the couple’s claimed income of nearly $320,000.

By comparison, Sen. John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee, in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.

Bleeding Heart Tightwads

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 20, 2008

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.

Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.

When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

That was a good post, for several reasons. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this complex and difficult topic.

I have always detested how politics invades this topic. Suddenly a blastocyst is no longer “human life”…because if it was human life, aborting it would be (insert that unpleasant word here).

The other side is important, as you state. I know that there are many grass roots religious groups who offer pregnant mothers assistance and placement.

When I say that, people who see abortion as a privacy right will immediately assail me. And probably call me names besides.

We have become very polarized, on all sides.

I just wish that everyone would see—on both sides—that abortion is a horrible thing. Obviously for the fetus, and obviously (no matter what males like myself might say or think), the woman. And yes, the man involved as well.

It shouldn’t be about “D” versus “R,” but it has become precisely that. Think of Nancy Pelosi’s bizarre (and inaccurate) restatement of the policies of the Catholic Church, in an effort to defend her own political position.

There is no good solution to this, and it remains a tragedy all around.