Stupak Slams His Own Democratic Party (Jaw-Dropping Accusation about Mindset of Party of Abortion)

National Review ^ | National Review

[quesney]

Can't believe the National Review buried this nugget in the article. Disturbing, to say the least.

-----

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days [about the health care plan] have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak (a pro-Life Democrat opposing the bill) says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

----

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzU0MDYxMWEyOTdiNGU1OGU3ZjYzYmE3Y2ZlZDQ5NTY=

[Jim from C-Town]

They will use the same logic to deny people new heart valves and bi-pass surgeries due to their advanced ages and lack of positive monetary contributions to society. Mark my words, if this abortion of a bill passes the paying for abortions will be the tip of the iceberg of the horror.

[cripplecreek]

He’ll be a likely RINO but on the other hand he may feel free to move to the right a bit more if he did switch parties.

He presents a real problem for the democrats. If they throw him overboard the seat goes to a republican. They can’t even push a leftist against him because that seat is as far left as its going to get and would also result in a repubican win there.

[Nuc1]

How anyone can be a member of the evil that is the democrat party is beyond me.

[umgud]

Yo Stupak, you’re in the wrong party. Your pro-life views are in the minority with the dims.

[Cloverfarm]

Ya gotta wonder where the country would be if the aborted children of the past 35+ years had survived.

Many of them would have children of their own, needing homes, furniture, cars, etc.

And the oldest of these kids would be reaching their peak earning years, contributing to society. Their earnings would be taxed and add to the country’s income.

The younger ones would be filling entry-level jobs ... leaving fewer job openings for illegal aliens.

What a big mistake years ago. And it’s snowballing.

I’m afraid we have sown to the wind and are reaping the whirldwind.

[kimmie7]

Birth control pills are abortifacients.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2078815/abortifacient_methods_of_birth_control.html

http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/untold.htm

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

http://www.prolifephysicians.org/abortifacient.htm

[Oldpuppymax]

It has NOTHING to do with money. Since when have democrats become the party of frugality?? It is about the Holy Grail of ABORTION, pure and simple. The money nonsense in nothing more than a pitiful EXCUSE!!!

[RightOnline]

Well...um...that’s not “abortion”, friend. You can’t “abort” an adult. Ahem.

[Girlene]

“If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says

I wonder if Stupak recognizes the significance of their logic? This is the same logic that will be applied to ration health care - the "death panel" concept that people fear in a gov't run health care system.

[Nuc1]

End of life abortion ole bean. The same thing we do to pets when we don’t want them to suffer. As a boomer I must say that there is a certain symmetry that the very monsters the boomers put in office that destroyed the nation are the same ones that want to, and in all probability are, going to kill them in their old age.

[Maceman]

“If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more.

That crystallizes, in a nutshell, the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives see government as a cost that the people must bear. But liberals see people as a cost that the government must bear.

[444Flyer]

Unfortunately, these worshipers of Baal could care less about the lives of innocents.

[ez]

You can abort a life.

[RightOnline]

Eugenics...not “abortion”. Semantics.

[organicchemist]

A fine Twilight Zone episode: The Obsolete Man. Burgess Meredith as a librarian and believer in God, declared obsolete by the State.

[y6162]

“Ummm......too late for that, methinks.”

Aborting means prematurely terminating life. Under the KenyanCare, baby boomers will be allowed to die before their time.

[RightOnline]

No, you cannot. As I just said...you are talking about eugenics, not abortion. You cannot “abort” someone who is already born. “Abortion” means just that....”aborting” a pregnancy.

Words mean things.

[ez]

Definition for abort
- remove fetus: to remove an embryo or fetus from the womb in order to end a pregnancy
- have miscarriage: to give birth to an embryo or fetus before its independent survival is possible.Survival is usually…
- end something prematurely: to bring something to an end or come to an end at an early stage
Check definition number three. he usage was correct.

[Jazz1968]

Yet when it comes time, he will cave and vote yes.

I’m tired of this guy and his games.

[RightOnline]

Naw...I’d even go for “involuntary euthanasia”.

Your definitions for “abort” are being stretched. Example:
“end something prematurely: to bring something to an end or come to an end at an early stage”
...isn’t referring to life. You can abort a takeoff. You can abort a mission, etc. That’s what they’re talking about.

You do NOT “abort” an already-born human being.