Is she serious???

Forums: Politics, Abortion, U S Politics, Stimulus Package, States
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Apparently, Nancy Pelosi thinks that contraception is good for theeconomy.

Quote:

"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."

Since abortion fits into this category, I can only think that she thinks abortion will help the economy also.
Based on what she is saying, the fewer people there are, the better the economy will be.

So, shouldnt we start randomly killing people and their children to aid the economy?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/pelosi-defends.html

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 3,067 • Replies: 29

[+4] - Butrflynet - 01/26/2009http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraception [quote]Main Entry: conÂ·traÂ·cepÂ·tion Pronunciation:...

@mysteryman,

well, the conspiracy theorists would have you believe that's exactly what the NWO has in mind

the sad fact is, in reality it's a true point, less people world wide would be a better thing for everybody

1 Reply

I'm hearing that there is a lot of pet projects being thrown into this stimulus package. This looks like an example of that.

The tidbits of this package that I'm hearing about on the news makes this package look like a bad deal. I'd heard that only 26 billion of the 850 billion would be spent in 2009!?!?! There's no need to rush this thing if we're not going to stimulate the economy THIS YEAR.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Apparently, Nancy Pelosi thinks that contraception is good for theeconomy.

Quote:
"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."

Since abortion fits into this category, I can only think that she thinks abortion will help the economy also.
Based on what she is saying, the fewer people there are, the better the economy will be.

So, shouldnt we start randomly killing people and their children to aid the economy?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/pelosi-defends.html

The fewer babies born to people who can't afford those babies, the less of your tax dollars we will take to support them. That's a bad thing, MM?

Enough with the Appealing to Extremes already, lol

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

the sad fact is, in reality it's a true point, less people world wide would be a better thing for everybody

But Nancy wants less black, brown and yellow people world wide.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

So, lets kill babies because it is good for the future economy, and you agree with that?
That doesnt say much for you, IMHO.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

So, lets kill babies because it is good for the future economy, and you agree with that?
That doesnt say much for you, IMHO.

How long are you going to keep appealing to extremes, MM? It doesn't say much for your rhetorical abilities.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraception

Quote:

Main Entry: con·tra·cep·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌkän-trə-ˈsep-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: contra- + conception
Date: 1886
: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation " con·tra·cep·tive \-ˈsep-tiv\ adjective or noun

I do believe the lady meant exactly what she said. Contraception, things like condoms, birth control pills, etc., that prevent conception and the need for abortion, funding of abortion, or the aid to adults unable to support large families during this financial depression.

It is a proactive solution that squarely addresses your concern about abortion. It prevents the need for them and also allows families to make their own decisions about their family planning and financial circumstances.

1 Reply

Maybe Nancy wants to breed them for food... babies are easy to make and McDonald's is opening new stores...

http://www.septicisle.info/uploaded_images/soylent_green-749218.gif

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So, shouldnt we start randomly killing people and their children to aid the economy?

What's your address, mysteryman? Just in case I want to do something in a random manner. (Your children, if you ever figured out how to sire some, are safe)

2 Replies

@gustavratzenhofer,

Fear not MM, Gustav is only good for random acts if kindness.

0 Replies

@gustavratzenhofer,

I live in Morganfield Ky, and I'm in the phone book.

As for children, I am unable to father children, so thats not an issue.

1 Reply

1 Reply

@gustavratzenhofer,

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

<Puts shotgun in truck and heads southeast>

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/2635111748_97a9487c7e.jpg?v=0

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

nd I'm in the phone book.

Are you "Fred" or "Cyrus" Mysteryman?

0 Replies

@Butrflynet,

I agree, but since so many people consider abortion just another form of contraception, how do we know that she wasnt including abortion in her remarks?

1 Reply

Mysteryman is a veteran, a firefighter, and a truck driving man. His wife recently lost a good friend and is in mourning. Nancy Pelosi is a half a bubble off plum. With that type thinking, she is inteferring in the lives of women who should be able to make their own decisions, and the idea that it is justified by a stimulus package is terrible.

1 Reply

@Letty,

Half a bubble off plumb; that's the first time I've heard that one, Letty. Does it equate to half right half wrong?

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

You don't. That's where the bi-partisan effort comes in finding an agreeable solution rather than tossing the whole thing out. All it would take is the parties to agree to a line in the proposal that the funds are not for abortion after the fact, they are for the prevention of conception.

0 Replies

MM - I'm confused here. You're working yourself up about things that she (emphasis here-->) DIDN'T say. Is that correct? No matter your suspicion, try to keep things in bounds. If your concern is centric about abortion in this case, do as Butterflynet suggested and write to your congress person/senators and request that they fight to insert specific wording to make the distinction that this is only for contraceptives.

Beyond that, her point is correct.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Is she serious???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know