TPM LiveWire

Fox News Anchor: If Government Won't Pay For Abortions, Won't We Have More 'Low-income Babies?'

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

On Fox News earlier today, America's Newsroom anchor Alisyn Camerota asked whether banning the use of federal money to subsidize abortions for low-income women would lead to "more low-income babies."

During a segment on Ben Nelson's amendment to the Senate health care bill that would prohibit the use of federal funds to subsidize abortions, Camerota asked: "If there is no federal money used to subsidize abortions for low-income women, doesn't that mean there will be more low-income babies, and do any of these amendments talk about the health care for them then?"

Guest Kate Obenshain of Young America's Foundation sputtered a bit before asking, "Do you mean because more children will be born because the government won't pay to have them terminated?"

Here's the full clip:

Comments (76) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

December 7, 2009 1:07 PM   

Stay classy, POX News.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 1:13 PM    in reply to Beagle

Actually, I'll give the Fox anchorwoman credit for daring to ask their audience to think through the consequences of their actions. You don't want the gov't to subsidize abortions? OK, then who is going to pay for the healthcare for these children?

The Stupak amendment would affect low income families more than any other demographic. If they demand that we "choose" life; how about the quality of life as well?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 1:33 PM    in reply to tonigo

Excellent point in all account... You actually reminded me an argument made in the book Freakonomics where the authors argue for the root cause to the street violence decline in the late 90s was not that the young adults who were committing the crimes grew consciousness over night but the ones who would have been old enough to commit these crimes were never born due to the passage of Wade Vs. Roe. According to their argument, it was low income families that took advantage of that law passing.
My previous comment was... well, a knee-jerk reaction.
Thanks for point your comment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 5:58 PM    in reply to Beagle

Yes, that Freakonomics statistic is exactly what I thought of when David Kurtz asked "Does that sort of crude cost-benefit analysis enter into anyone's thinking." Well, yes. I think pro-choicers use the legal availability of abortion's negative impact on poverty and crime to support abortion rights, and having the government pay for the procedure does make it more available.

Kate Obenshain, whose hair disturbs me, says that poor women will continue to pay for their own abortions. I've no idea how much abortions cost, but I'd wager that a substantial number of babies were born because the parents couldn't come up with the fee.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 11:04 PM    in reply to Beagle

This was my first thought as well.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 3:43 PM    in reply to Beagle

White supremacism rears its head behind classism: the Neo-Nazis are against abortion for caucasians, but all for it for those not sufficiently white.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

EH

user-pic

December 7, 2009 4:23 PM    in reply to JNagarya

are you saying that low-income is the same as non-white? if not, your comment is pretty incomprehensible.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:54 PM    in reply to EH

No. I am saying that folks such as FOX's on-air talking-head bimbos, Neo-Nazis, and other white supremacists hold that view.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 1:10 PM   

It's called testing the limits of propriety.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 3:45 PM    in reply to Rich in NJ

I thought they crossed that line long, long, long ago.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 5:59 PM    in reply to JNagarya

It moves, but there's always a line.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 12:22 PM    in reply to Rionn Fears Malechem

Yeah -- and I suspect that the line, horrified, moves on its own in order to avoid being associated with FOX.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 1:14 PM   

A remarkable shift for Faux News - they typically toe the "race panic" line on abortion, where the higher frequency of abortions among young middle-class white women (due to cost, preference of career over family, etc) will mean "those people" are outbreeding "real Americans".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 3:47 PM    in reply to Matt Jones

Not a shift: the premise reamins Reagan's "welfare queen". The implication is that all those low-income babies are not sufficiently white.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:08 PM    in reply to JNagarya

The implication is that all those low-income babies are not sufficiently white.

If so, they haven't looked at the demographics of Utah. Utah's wave of low-income births from their abortion-averse predominantly-caucasian Mormon/LDS parents has led to the lowest per student spending in the US. Basically, they have too many kids for their tax base.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:52 PM    in reply to hbobrien

You expect FOX's on-air talking-head bimbos to know the demographics in Utah!?

Are you a FOX viewer!? ;)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 5:54 PM    in reply to JNagarya

No, I expect all Americans to.

If you want to infer FOX is anti-American, I wouldn't stop you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 1:23 PM   

The real stupidity here is that there won't be less federal $ for abortion under HCR since there is no federal $ for abortions now. Can't really go below zero.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:24 PM    in reply to erasmus

and these kids already have health care under Medicaid or SCHIP. Does either the House bill or the Senate bill remove coverage from people already under these programs?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 1:31 PM   

Totally fair question.
This is exactly what the Fox cult need to think about when they support zero tolerance for abortions - if they claim control over a woman's body, then they also need to support that woman after the fact.
Otherwise, don't force them to have the baby in the first place.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 3:48 PM    in reply to cinesimon

Nope. They are also against welfare (unless one is a trailer park teabagger) should a woman not have an abortion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:47 PM    in reply to JNagarya

Sure - but the more the consequences of their stupidity is presented to them as something to think about, the better.
Whether they do is another matter - but it's good the question is asked on the TV channel that they're stuck on.
Of course they won't do that often given ratings and advocating the republican argument(regardless of how contradictory to their past policies or ideas) - not thinking, truth or reality - is their only priority.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:56 PM    in reply to cinesimon

I'm all for their stupidity being shoved into their faces -- though the blank-eyed stare is predictable.

All the better -- and funnier -- when they trip on their stupidity and fall flat on their faces in it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:59 PM    in reply to JNagarya

It is a real shame though as far as I'm concerned.
Our national debate is in dire straight at present - all because the right wing seem to think that education somehow means indoctrination.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 5:47 PM    in reply to cinesimon

Agreed. But the only thing they understand is attack, attack, attack, with name-calling and smears -- anything but discuss or debate.

That being the only thing they understand, give it to them in the teeth. They'll either shut up or smarten up. I'm for either.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 1:31 PM   

That was likely a reference to a study reported in "Freakonomics" that linked Roe V Wade to declines in crime rates years later.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 1:39 PM    in reply to Mehitabel

To be fair, I've never heard of the report you mention, yet I've often asked the question of 'conservatives'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 1:40 PM    in reply to Mehitabel

The freakonomics people were as stupid when they wrote their first book as they are today. A lot of that crime reduction was from Lead Abatement programs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 2:24 PM    in reply to delmoi

I'm curious where you piked up the Lead Abatement theory? Not necessarily arguing with you, I'd just not heard it before.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 2:45 PM    in reply to CityGuy

Here's an article on it:

http://www.eh.uc.edu/news/pdfs/DietrichK-Env-News-05-28-08.pdf

The reductions in violent crime in NYC in the 90's probably had more to do with their aggressive lead abatement programs decades earlier than any policing measures.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:00 PM    in reply to DanF

The reduction is most likelly result of myriad factors, not insteaed your reductive distortion, for which you provide no evidence comparing any one of those factors to any or all of the others.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:43 PM    in reply to DanF

I heard that somewhere on MSM. Within the last few days. And the speaker was serious about this. And it is provable, evidently.
I think I will take a harder look at this.

An environmental issue, urban in nature, actually had this much of an effect on children and their development?

I do not mean to bug you, but have you a source for this?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 9:34 PM    in reply to dickday

The source for the original article is http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050101.

I just looked at the summary article from danF, found the names of a couple of the authors and searched on "dietrich wright lead paint."

I haven't looked at the article in depth, but as the Freakonomics folks pointed out, the drop in crime in the early 90s was not just a drop in violent crime, but drops in *all* crime as well as in teenage pregnancies so I'm not sure you can say that the lead paint explained away those declines. Furthermore, the drop was nationwide, not just in NYC so unless there were similarly aggressive anti-lead paint programs throughout the nation (and there may have been), I'm not sure you can discount the Freakonomics argument.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 1:47 PM   

Totally obvious question to be asking, and a totally obvious answer. The answer is yes. Why conservatives didn't figure this out long ago, and analyze the ramifications, is beyond me.

Oh, wait, it's not beyond me. They didn't figure it out because they are blithering idiots.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 2:15 PM   

Ms. Obenshain: "Low income women don't pay for their own abortions and that won't change. The point here is that the government should not be paying for any abortions."

How exactly does that work? On this planet, I mean.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

December 7, 2009 3:35 PM    in reply to imdwalrus

...I'm not sure this is a rabbit hole we really want to be going down, but technically Planned Parenthood bases the prices for all of its services on ability to pay. Other abortion clinics may follow similar policies. This may be what crazy Fox lady is referring to. If so however she's still fundamentally wrong because such subsidized abortions are only available in certain places, for example Planned Parenthood is not available in all states and does not offer abortion services in all states.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 3:55 PM    in reply to mcc

There's no such thing as an "abortion clinic". There are women's health services, including clinics, which may or may not perform abortions.

It is the constant reference to "abortion clinics" which brainwashes the gullible into believing there are people who are only in it for the money.

The media has played a deadly part in that demonization: the clinic in which John Salvi shot and killed several people was in fact a women's health service. But the media's constant characterization of it (and others) as an "abortion clinic" helped him target it.

The same as with the distortion "pro-abortion". I don't know of anyone who is FOR abortion. I can't imagine a woman saying, "Gee, I think I'll get pregnant so I can have an abortion."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 6:36 PM    in reply to JNagarya

Actually, there is if you look in the phone book. Planned Parenthood is listed in the Yellow Pages under, "Abortion Clinics". I kid you not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

December 7, 2009 9:18 PM    in reply to we r all husseins

Only because abortion is one of the services provided. But the point is that those clinics provide a wider range of OB/GYN services than simply providing abortions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 1:06 PM    in reply to slb

Planned Parenthood, as example, is foremost about PREVENTING pregnancy, therefore is about contraception.

I gave up on the local media: it continues to call them "abortion clinics" -- that includes the women "reporters" -- even though I've called and complained about it dozens of times: they are women's health clinics, which may -- or may not -- ALSO perform abortions.

As said: that "inaccuracy" from the broadcast media has deadly consequences.

So my statement stands: there is no stand-alone "abortion clinic".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 2:16 PM   

OK, then who is going to pay for the healthcare for these children?

Live kids are not their priority.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 2:17 PM   

Kate Obenshain is a complete twit. Check out her little rich-bitch expression after the comment about how more "low-income babies" will be born, and her verbal fiddling around just after that while she tries to figure out which GOP talking point to spew.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 2:19 PM   

It costs about $20,000 to bring a child to term and deliver that bay in a US hospital, with no complications.

It costs about $500 for an abortion if done in the 1st tri-mester.

If the pro-lifers want to encourage fetuses be brought to term they should flip that equation I provided above.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 3:58 PM    in reply to rbeats

You mean, like -- gasp! -- SUPPORT health insurance reform!?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 2:47 PM   

A beautiful example of how logic works in a different way for the woman being interviewed compared to most of the readers of this blog.

To the interviewee, the poor woman who needs an abortion 1.) should be ashamed of her poverty and herself; 2.) should not be pregnant because she should not be having sex; 3.) should not expect the government to subsidize her shameful decadence by paying for an abortion; 4.) should marry the father of the prospective baby posthaste; 5.) should not be, ideally.

The poor woman is permitted to get busy lifting herself out of poverty through prayer and hard work.

This logic leads to the tortured expression on her face when she heard the question ... her thinking runs along completely different rails from those of her political opponents.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 2:51 PM   

Oddly, I think the prospect of more "low-income babies" is probably just the way we need the right-wing to look at this issue. It's the only argument that might carry any weight with them. After all, low income voters vote Democratic more often than not (analysis void in Dixie and Appalachia).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:02 PM    in reply to DanF

Provide substnatiation for that claim, as it's the same assertion made by right-wing racists.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 2:57 PM   

Its a rather cold way to think, but its the only issue that Republicans can really see their own cold thinking demonstrated (the "I got mine, I don't care if anyone else gets theirs" thinking). They need to realize that their religious principles cost a lot of money. Health care for lower income babies is only part of it. How about the tax money that pays for food stamps? Or the subsidies for low income housing and home improvement? How about the cost of cops and prisons? Do some of those unwanted babies turn into criminals bred by ghetto and gang life? I bet they do. This was my thinking way back around 1990 when Michigan had Medicaid-funded abortion on our state ballot. It failed. And now we're paying for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:04 PM    in reply to kittychi

They aren't religious principles. They are a holier-than-thou rationalization of their anti-Christian values.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 3:12 PM   

What Faux News should really be worried about is the creation of all those new Democratic voters!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:09 PM    in reply to Dorn76

That's their whole point/fear: "low-income" means, in their Reagan world, African-American. And everyone knows that most African-Americans vote Democratic. That's their dilemma expressed in that question:

1. We don't want more African-Americans/Democratic voters;

2. Low-income women are African-American; but,

3. We're against abortion.

The dilemma would be resolved if they'd take off the mask and speak honestly:

Only white folk shouldn't have abortions. But despite our racism we're so cheap we also don't want to fund abortions for those who should have them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 5:11 PM    in reply to JNagarya

The other reason white folk should not have abortions is so there is a pool of white babies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 3:34 PM   

I'm not familiar with the anchor, so I won't speculate as to whether she normally asks insightful questions, but if this had happened on a "liberal" network, I think she would get credit for a pretty smart carpet-pull. Just because reporters don't usually ask the painful questions doesn't mean those questions are beyond the pale. What's wrong with asking " do any of these amendments talk about the health care for them (low-income children) then?" Assuming all the awkward frontwork was just preamble for context, this is a GREAT question! It gets right to the heart of the hypocrisy of the whole abortion discussion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:13 PM    in reply to Barleymash

Yep: their real question is:

How do we implement our racism by requiring the insufficiently white to have abortions if we won't also pay for it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 5:53 PM    in reply to JNagarya

But "we" aren't paying for those abortions - that is currently how it works, so the questions makes 2 invalid assumptions - and I think that is really why the guest was unable to respond - and when she did she got it right - that those "people" already pay for their own abortions and that the law of the land is that federal money doesn't pay for abortions at all.

The take away from this for FOX viewers, though, might be that the left's accusation that the right-to-lifers don't care about the babies once they are born, or at least not on the policy level, is all just silly, since the argument leading up to it was so silly and the silliest part being that there is something bad about there being more babies in the world.

I think the host was fed a bad bit of script for that segment and didn't quite know how to deliver it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

pbg

user-pic

December 7, 2009 3:36 PM   

Aren't all babies low-income?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 3:38 PM    in reply to pbg

No. GW Bush wasn't. Paris Hilton wasn't. Shall I go on?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:01 PM    in reply to Barleymash

You're conflating "income" with "wealth." Not the same at all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:11 PM    in reply to pbg

They are until they turn 5-6-years-old and begin earning their living/carrying their own weight in child-labor sweat shops.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 3:37 PM   

Ah! And here's a problem TPM ought to look at: Your headline suggests the anchor was concerned about all the low-income babies. It's pretty clear she's only setting up her question, which is actually about PAYING for those babies. I'm not defending her; she may be a twit after all, but I don't think your headline represents the clip very fairly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 3:51 PM   

The problem with their logic regarding abortions is that the 'low income baby' problem is real and they dont ever think about it.

They don't want people to have abortions, they dont want to subsidize poor people, and hate "welfare queens/kings".

Well, how do they think you turn a child that otherwise would be prudent for the mother to have had an abortion (pregnant teens with no job/family stability) into a productive member of society and not just another drain if in their dream world:

1) education is privatized
2) no money to low income homes
3) no health care help for low income families

The best case scenario would be to have an entire army of low income kids that they could send to fight wars... (which is not my idea of a great society)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:20 PM   

Whatever it takes to get the wingnuts behind a woman's right to choose is A-OK with me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 4:56 PM   

Can we reduce tax subsidies to media outlets and cut the rate of ignorant news reporters hired by Fox?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 5:37 PM   

This is like a double stupid back-flip of stupidity. First the stupid question, "if no federal subsidies are used for abortion..." which it is my understanding they are not - so we are already living with the results of that equation, right? To which the other dummy actually rightly replies that those woman pay for their own abortions, and then wonders if the host meant that more babies would be born (which she did, but they woudldn't.) And the host, who clearly meant just that, says no. And the dumbest part is how shocked the guest is by the notion that more babies might be a bad thing, on some level, or at least they should be a responsibility of those telling others what they can and can not do with their own bodies. Did I miss something?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tpr

user-pic

December 7, 2009 7:02 PM    in reply to dndobson

You have to remember: attempting to understand policy positions by appeal to their likely real-world effects is a radical move for the Conservative. In all cases, the Conservative has thus far based policy decisions on whether they appear prima facie compatible with some Received Wisdom; this is a much easier task, especially since there are no standards for correctness; there is no "right answer."

Add to that the points made by other posters -- that the consequences of subsidizing abortion (or not) are informed by other, related policies -- and you're really pushing the envelope. Expecting a Conservative pundit or "analyst" to consider the complex interplay between existing and proposed legislation and evaluate the result is like asking a 3-year-old kid who only speaks English to translate The Grapes of Wrath into Japanese.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 10:31 PM   

I never watch Fox news. I've read Shep Smith takes the position of a decent human being occasionally. I keep expecting to hear he's been fired. Is it possible Alisyn Camerota is another Shep Smith. Her question was excellent and was asked in a polite, non threatening manner. Could there actually be hope for Fox News? Am I voicing heresy?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 10:58 PM   

I just watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Ms Camerota just made his Worst Person list for this very incident. Please disregard my previous post.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 7, 2009 11:16 PM   

Classless is NOT---> Cr@pping out 10 babies and expecting society to feed, house, and incarcerate them, not to mention the millions spent on the average shot up gangsters hospital bill, we, our society, has to pay for that. Even if you are not the one getting shot....

Is it moral to overpopulate and kill the entire planet to satisfy the way sick religions need to rationalize killing everything? And what is Jesus' plan anyway? To overpopulate and burn away every life sustaining resource, is that what "Holy" folk must do?!?

When the Earth goes completely rancid from overpopulation, we won't be weeping for the lost opportunities of those anti-socials without opportunity anyway... We'll all probably experience another die off went the big plague hits..

~(For you religious children, this thing I'm referring to is called plague, also known as the Earths autoimmune response, and assumed to be most effective when accompanied by FEVER... It's not Ole Satan on a Horse like you're thinking, or that non-issue {insert dramatic sting here} The Great Swine Pharmaceutical Cash In!!! But rather, it's what is certain to occur if we continue to overpopulate wo biodiversity. It's what happens, universally, within overpopulated, homogenized petri dish samples. And no, it's not the terrorists fault, and hopefully it will not be the direct result of the NWO oligarchs scientific endeavors either, (I hope!)

This is just how mother Earth purges herself of religious parasites, and the socially and naturally unintelligent diarrhea which is too retarded not to breed so much as to threaten the health of it's host.

I understand that reproduction is fun, and babies are cute, and that the U.S. needs human cattle to compete against Chinese factory working morons - (Look that way to explain why we're dumbing the kids down with "No Child Left Behind", but that's another blog, that one....)...

The fact is, you respect the species, and have hope for your own children, (Yes it's that Imminent), then attempt to develop a natural respect, awareness and intelligence, regarding biology and the fact the this solar system behaves as an organism, or you will be expelled like so much diarrhea...

Seeing as how I'm forced to inhabit the same compacted and sickened bowels, here, I'd much rather you grow a brain and forget the sunday school rationalizations, for the sake of everyone you share this planet with... Your crusade to save welfare babies hastens our planetary demise, not to mention the more immediate spread of gang culture to an elementary school near you!!!

Duh???!!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 1:03 AM    in reply to BrainGobbler

Ooh, you went racist to make a point.

We have a plague going on right now. The one you all want to fight at all costs. It's called AIDS and you all want to excuse the behavior that leads to it and want the government to pay for the medicine to curb it's effects. Why not let mother earth cleanse herself?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 19, 2009 7:59 AM    in reply to ShawninMo

Racism! That's what dumb people say when you cite racial stats.. ok, whatever.. I give everyone a chance, but to deny statistical trends is as counterproductive as retard racism which people engage in to feel better about themselves...

No you will not quiet me with the dreaded "R" word...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 20, 2009 11:15 PM    in reply to BrainGobbler

I'm sorry, it's just that I got so used to being called one for proclaiming personal responsibility, that I thought that's what facts about minorities meant. From illegal immigration and welfare to not voting for socialism, I mean Obama, racism seems to be the tag, rather than logic.

Now more direct to your comment. Excusing killing innocent children, because some of them become gang banging killers (still stereotyping), is completely against what we stand for in this country. We've become such a country of "save the trees, kill the children", that we don't deserve to be called a beacon of freedom. Freedom doesn't equate death.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! Sound familiar? There are no more innocent among us than our children.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 12:30 AM   

Oh my. Poor people are people too. Just because a child may grow up poor, we should kill them? What a retarded line of thinking.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 8, 2009 6:19 PM   

Deliberately or not, I think Camerota nailed the anti-choicer's contradictions beautifully: which form of federal spending does she find more abhorrent? Of course, for most anti-choicers, the only acceptable alternative to abortion for the poor isn't "have the babies, which will then need publicly supported medical care" but rather, "keep your legs closed, you penniless whores!" Poor people are never allowed to have sex, you see -- and if they do so, at least while single, the woman surely deserves to bear the full brunt of the burden, because she was unvirtuous ("Who Would Jesus Shun?"). One might ask these virtue-mavens what the *child* deserves but, conveniently for them, anti-choicers believe that the need to care for life ends at birth.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

December 9, 2009 4:59 PM    in reply to thm61

I'm not sure what contradictions you mean. The parent is responsble for their child, before and after birth. Luckily we have laws against parents killing their children, once their born.

It's a shame that the child isn't a child one minute before birth. That somehow means we can suck their brains out with a vacuum even though they are just as much a person as the same baby is one minute after birth.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 6:32 AM   

racism shouldn't be used to make a point
kamagra m65

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 25, 2010 3:56 AM   

Excellent point in all account... You actually reminded me an argument made in the book Freakonomics where the authors argue for the root cause to the street violence decline in the late 90s was not that the young adults who were committing the crimes grew consciousness over night but the ones who would have been old enough to commit these crimes were never born due to the passage of Wade Vs. Roe. According to their argument, it was low income families that took advantage of that law passing.morrisgolf lessons cambridge

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on