Monday, August 08, 2011

Why are the advocates of "reproductive services" against the reproduction of poor people?

The Caring and Compassionate Liberals Who Want to Control the Population of Poor People are in a tizzy over the prospect of the Catholic Church taking over University of Louisville Hospital and Jewish Hospital of Louisville partly because, they say, it would prevent these hospitals from offering "reproductive services" to poor people.

Under Catholic strictures on such things, these hospitals could no longer offer abortion, sterilization, and birth control, the things the Caring and Compassionate Liberals call "reproductive services."

But who is against "reproductive services"? The Kind and Compassionate Liberals Who are Against the Reproduction of Poor People? Or the Catholic Church, which is for the reproduction of everybody?

In fact, isn't it anti-reproductive services the Caring and Sympathetic Liberals want to perpetrate on poor people?

Just thought I'd ask.


Singring said...

'In fact, isn't it anti-reproductive services the Caring and Sympathetic Liberals want to perpetrate on poor people?'

When has contraception ever been 'perpetrated' on anyone? Could you please cite any statistics or data supporting your absurd allegation that liberals want to deny poor people the right to procreate? From where do you get this stuff?

What most 'liberals' would like to see is a society where everyone has access to basic medical services - including the very important service of contraception and other birth control. All liberals want is freedom for everyone to decide - within the law - what they do and don't want to do with their body. You want to do the opposite - you want to tell them what that they are not allowed to use a condom, for example. Why? Because you've 'looked at' what the penis does it 'seems to you' that it 'self evidently' is not allowed to put a piece of rubber on it. And then you expect people to take you seriously.

I take it that in your ideal of a society modeled after the social and scientific level of development of circa 1300 AD, the Pope would be telling everyone what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own bedroom!?

And then you pretend as if liberals are somehow being those who are denying people things?

That is once again a quite remarkable feat of 'logic', Martin.

One Brow said...

To be fair, in the first half of the cetury there were forced sterilizaiton laws on the books in some states in the USA, and the Supreme Court threw them out. The Cothranites of that time were quite pleased, until those same rights became abortion rights, as well. The Cothranites always approve of more freedom to do as the Cothranites think, and disapprove of freedoms to do otherwise.

Singring said...

That's a fair point, OneBrow. I was thinking more in the context of the modern debate (i.e. 60s and beyond) rather than the euthanasia movement of the early 20th century, so I should have been more careful with my wording.