Next misogynist liberal attackee? SC guv candidate: female, pro-life, and beautiful
UPDATE, 4:15p: Haley is currently the SC House Majority Whip. Here’s her bio.
_______________
by Carder
Keep your eyes on Nikki Haley. She’s principled, driven, and wonderfully pro-life.
Among her other attributes…
While unapologetically pro-life, she is first and foremost known as a fiscal conservative. She is the type of candidate conservatives claim they want, as well as the type of candidate libertarians claim to want.
While she won’t please everyone – the only candidate who ever tried is now in the White House making everyone mad – she gets checks in all the major boxes: life, tax cutting, government cutting, honesty, and uncompromising on the need to reform.
Do you think she’ll be anywhere near as attacked as Sarah Palin?
[Photo attribution: redstate.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
So what is she now? Just a Gubernatorial Candidate?
Fiscal and social conservative. Need them more now than ever.
Let’s not talk too much about her looks. Then again, at least she is not so distracting as Molly Yard.
;-)
Greg, I’ll add her bio. Thanks.
They’ll probably try to rip her apart. The only question is if the Republicans help them do it.
The instant she attempts to run for president or vice prez, brace yourselves.
She’s like another Bobby Jindal: of Indian descent but considers herself an American through and through.
But I think it still won’t be as diabolic as the lashing that Palin got for one simple reason:
Trig.
Good point, Carder.
why are prolife women ALWAYS so good looking!???
Jill you are the same! ;)
ps: I think the answer is that it reflects an inner beauty!!
Undoubtedly, she’ll be torn apart in the media and political arena. I hope she sticks with it. We need more politicians like her.
I really don’t give a hoot what the man or woman looks like who wants my vote. I am interested in what they believe and why and more importantly they decisions they have made.
pbho aint a bad looking guy. Sebelius aint a bad looking lady.
Whooop tee flippin doooo!
They are both rudderless ships devoid of moral compass and lacking an anchor.
yor bro ken
They are both rudderless ships devoid of moral compass and lacking an anchor.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at August 3, 2009 6:52 PM
hear hear!
“While unapologetically pro-life, she is first and foremost known as a fiscal conservative. ” Of course. Pro-lifers care SO much about the unborn, but don’t give a rats’ once they are born! No post natal care, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no head starts no nothing…
Sal, 11:50PM
How about some sources to back that up.
Also, point out the social problems that have been drastically reduced or eliminated all together because of 36 years of legal abortion.
BTW it was the PC folks who reminded us how much more economical it was to dispose of the unborn than to have to pay for post natal care, food stamps, welfare, school lunches, etc.
HI Sal. Suppose everything you claim above is true. How does it logically follow that abortion is therefore a moral act? In other words, how does my not caring about the born children make abortion a moral act?
Also, do you fault Susan G. Komen for not giving a rats’ about testicular cancer? Is it wrong to stand up against violence against women if you don’t also stand up against violence against men?
No post natal care, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no head starts no nothing…
Posted by: Sal at August 3, 2009 11:50 PM
I find this hilarious in light of the healthcare discussion going on now. Apparently you need to be reminded that most, if not all, of the people who are a-okay with abortion are also trying to cut healthcare for those they deem unworthy. Your dear POTUS is at the top of that list: “A triple bypass for a 65 year old? Give him a cheeseburger and send him on his way…”
Sal is right on target . When conservatives talk about “making government smaller” and rail at welfare etc, they’re just using code words for weakening or even destroying the safety net for the poor and those down on their luck in America, which is already fairly weak.
And what happens when poor pregnant women don’t have the means to take care of their unborn children or those they already have ? They have abortions .
But if the US government subsidized these poor pregnant women, married or single, many of those abortions could be prevented .
But noooo- conservatives don’t want that for poor pregnant women . That’s socialism, and we don’t want that in America, do we ?
And they still have the nerve to demand that poor women give birth to children no matter what the circumstances !
We Jews call that Chutzpah !
Nikki Daley may be a lovely young lady,
nice, well-meaning and sincere, but I don’t want politicians like this in America . I’m no misogynist . I just dissaporve of what she stands for .
Another “poor pregnant women” rant? Why don’t you help them Robert?
“And what happens when poor pregnant women don’t have the means to take care of their unborn children or those they already have ? They have abortions .”
Cite your source, Berger. Those very same women might opt for adoption instead. Not every poor woman is out terminate her pregnancy. In your world, perhaps.
“But if the US government subsidized these poor pregnant women, married or single, many of those abortions could be prevented .”
The govt. already has, dear Robert. It’s called medicaid. Demonstrate where that has significantly, and I mean significantly reduced the 1.5 million-abortions-a-year statistic due to government subsidizing.
Good luck.
“Sal is right on target ”
Why don’t you answer my question then, Robert? How does it follow that if I don’t care about poor people, abortion is therefore a moral action?
“She’s like another Bobby Jindal: of Indian descent but considers herself an American through and through”
===========================================
Unlike president abortion who, culturally, did not grow up American or even grow up IN the CONUS.
“And they still have the nerve to demand that poor women give birth to children no matter what the circumstances !”
==========================================
Replace “give birth” with “abortion” and see if the shoe fits…
Robert Berger, 9:30am
Since you consider Sal so on target,kindly address my 3:28am post.
Apparently abortion is OK in “your world”.
How many poor women do you know personally who have aborted? How many women overall do you know who have aborted?
Sal is right on target . When conservatives talk about “making government smaller” and rail at welfare etc, they’re just using code words for weakening or even destroying the safety net for the poor and those down on their luck in America, which is already fairly weak.
Posted by: Robert Berger at August 4, 2009 9:30 AM
This just proves you don’t know what you are talking about. The conservatives were the ones trying to get people out of the welfare box. They wanted a federal mandate that said unemployment could be given to those who had lost their job but wanted to go to school to learn a new skill or finish their education. It was the liberals that blocked every road.
Some states do allow it now. But guess what? Illinois, that bastion of liberal thought that good old Obama spent years in its Congress, won’t let you collect unemployment while going to school. What better way to make sure you won’t need unemployment again than to gain an education?
Oh yes, blame those nasty old conservatives for keeping people down.
You did this last time, Berger. You get challenged on unsubstantiated views, and nary a peep.
Hi Kristen,
Another interesting point. Over the objections of Washington DC parents and students a school choice or charter school program, I’m not certain which it is, will be discontinued and students forced to attend Washington DC public schools.
Never mind that this program has produced students who not only graduate high school but continue on to college.
I strongly suspect Obama and the Democrats being beholden to the teacher’s union behind this action as there is no other reason.
However Washington DC parents will have the “choice” to dispose of their unborn children, but not educate them, as they see fit.
Mr.B. was speaking of concern for the poor and welfare dependent?
Posted by: Mary at August 4, 2009 3:46 PM
That’s right! I forgot all about that. It’s amazing to me that people can’t see how the liberals want to keep the masses poor and ignorant.
But if the US government subsidized these poor pregnant women, married or single, many of those abortions could be prevented . But noooo- conservatives don’t want that for poor pregnant women .
Posted by: Robert Berger at August 4, 2009 9:30 AM
Robert, the liberal democrats in Washington don’t seem to share your views about subsidizing economically disadvantaged pregnant women. Have you read their proposed health care takeover bill known as America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009? In section 1713 (page 768) of the house version of that bill, low income women pregnant for the first time or who have a child under age two are being targeted for home visits by “trained” nurses. These nurses are to provide “services” that have been proven “effective” based on “evidence” to achieve a variety of objectives, including “reducing dependence on public assistance.” The focus is “increasing economic self-sufficiency,” not subsidizing them.
By the way, prolifers should be concerned about that section of the bill because one of the stated objectives is “increasing the interval between births.” It’s no surprise that the next section of the bill provides for women not otherwise eligible for benefits under the bill to access “family planning services” if such services are provided in a “family planning setting.” In other words, PP and similar entities will be the point of intake instead of primary care. Pregnant women are not eligible for these “family planning services” but, if I understand it correctly, individual states may override that provision.
“In other words, PP and similar entities will be the point of intake instead of primary care.”
Fed Up,
Could you please explain what you mean? Thanks for your comments.
Hi Janet. What I meant by point of intake is the type of setting where the woman (who otherwise isn’t covered under the bill) can seek services that would be covered. She isn’t covered for a traditional primary care or ob/gyn office visit if she wants BC but she will be covered for a visit to a family planning setting like PP. Hope that made sense.
Seems like a nice PP payback, doesn’t it? Her point of intake (where she goes to start receiving care) is likely to be a proabort setting. How very convenient should the method they choose to dispense to her fail.
Posted by: Fed Up at August 4, 2009 6:28 PM
I love that. Isn’t one of the “problems” with our current system that womens health isn’t covered? Meaning pap smears, mamograms, etc..
So this is how it’s going to be better? It’s just a drive-in for birth control.
And “increasing the interval between births?” How long is it before someone isn’t covered because the spacing isn’t far enough apart?
Kristen, I’d have to read the bill again, but I think some services in addition to family planning per se are covered. I seem to remember something about cervical cancer. But your point is well taken. I got the sense that it was primarily family planning. It’s probably in there to work around the problems PP has with Medicaid in some states.
I’m not concerned about loss of coverage related to the birth interval. I’m concerned about the government having an agenda to counsel pregnant women on the need to better space out their children. To what extent will abortion be presented as an option to increase the interval and accomplish the other goals stated for those home visits?
mr. Berger and Sal,
How about a rundown on your charitable giving for the last 5 years?
When is the last time you bought a homeless person a meal or gave a hitchhiker a ride?
Did you contribute your fair share to United Way?
Did you participate in the ‘race for the cure’?
When you self righteous artificial flowers demonstrate you have voluntarily contributed to the needs of others then you can preach to us about having compassion for the less fortunate in our midst.
Since the 60’s and the era of the ‘great society’ the federal government has pumped hundreds of bilions of dollar into social programs and what do we have to show for it?
The great ‘one’ with the help of his liberal friends in congress has put us two trillion dollars in debt in six months.
“Yes we can!” (Yes you did!)
yor bro ken
“And what happens when poor pregnant women don’t have the means to take care of their unborn children or those they already have ? They have abortions” -Robert Berger
Robert,
I’m a poor pregnant woman. And I have a son. We’re keeping them both. No termination, no adoption. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all, and we’re working at making our finances work (just like we did when we became pregnant with our first).
My mother was a poor pregnant woman, 10 times over. One she miscarried, the rest she gave birth to. And kept. And my parents provided for us. And not one of us went without a full belly, despite my parents never breaking above the poverty line when I was a child. We didn’t always get all the toys we wanted, or vacations, but we never suffered.
My grandmother was a poor pregnant woman 12 times over. She lost 3 to miscarriage but carried and raised 9. None of them ever went for food. My grandfather worked to support them all. And they made it.
Of course, my aunt is a wealthy mother, and was wealthy both times she got pregnant. Her sons are rotten as can be, her husband’s primary goal in life is to make more money, and her kids have spent their lives acting out to try to get mommy and daddy’s attention, despite the many many many other advantages they had.
Personally, I believe the adversity you face as a poor pregnant woman isn’t as overwhelming as you seem to think. It has thus far brought my husband and I closer to each other and made us appreciate the joys our son brings us all the more.
I thank God we didn’t consider abortion.
MaryRose,
Thank you so much for your comment! :)
Abortion truly is a lack of hope.
Haley probably won’t be “attacked” like Sarah Palin, as long as she doesn’t make herself such an easy target every time she opens her mouth.
Lots of middle class women have abortions, why are pro-choicers always ranting about poor women having them?
Carla,
It always grates on my nerves when people claim that poor women who get pregnant have abortions. In my experience, those women who have abortions come from all different classes, and the one thing they have most in common is that they see no other feasible option.
Of course, it doesn’t help statistically to look at where abortion clinics choose to operate. Planned Parenthood in my city has far more clinics in poor neighborhoods than in wealthy ones.
I’m happy to be able to share the experiences of myself and some of my family members. Of course, we’re not the norm, but the point was to express that the $$ doesn’t make the parent.
Agreed. I am sure we all have family members in our family trees that had up to a dozen children. Rich? Hardly.
Way back when a larger family seemed to be the norm.
Carla,
We’re Irish Catholic. Big families in my life are still the norm ;)
But I can recognize that in the world, we are in the minority. Unfortunate, really. I consider myself luck to have to many siblings. XD
“Way back when a larger family seemed to be the norm.”
It sure helped when it came to housework. I heard a report last night that the largest expense raising a child is housing. If you already have a house, why not fill it up? (That’s a rhetorical question.)
Janet,
That’s a beautiful way of phrasing it, Janet! If you have a house, fill it! :)
My DH and I were actually discussing the irony that most of the largest houses are inhabited by families of 4 or fewer. Personally, I always loved the everyday noises of a big family in a small house XP … I actually felt lonely when I moved into a dorm room!
Janet,
Yes. We filled ours up. LOL
MaryRose,
Ha :) I was told my great great greats(farmers in ND)had scads of children to work the land and take care of their parents in their old age.
Carla,
It’s all about making a long-term investment, isn’t it? ;) I suppose in our instant gratification-motivated society, that concept is becoming more and more foreign…
Robert Berger,
I’m going to continue to respond to your arguments as if we are having a debate, although thus far you seem unwillingly to actually participate.
“Sal is right on target . When conservatives talk about “making government smaller” and rail at welfare etc, they’re just using code words for weakening or even destroying the safety net for the poor and those down on their luck in America, which is already fairly weak.”
I find it narrow-minded to believe that the only possible solution to poverty in America is increased government involvement and acting as though anyone who offers alternative solutions is really just trying to stick it to the poor. This isn’t a comic book where one side is a bunch of villians roasting hot dogs over the fires of burning orphanages while the other side is distributing candy and puppies to school kids. The debate is over which economic principles will yield the best results for everyone. Assuming the worst about the motives of those who disagree with you is rather immature.
“And what happens when poor pregnant women don’t have the means to take care of their unborn children or those they already have ? They have abortions .”
Similiar to MaryRose’s experience, I’ve been a poor pregnant woman twice (one miscarriage, one living son). Through much sacrifice and hard work, my husband and I are able to provide for ourselves and our son. Since we didn’t consider killing our own children to be a viable option, we do what’s necessary to take care of ourselves.
“But if the US government subsidized these poor pregnant women, married or single, many of those abortions could be prevented .”
You mean like SOBRA Medicaid, WIC, Section 8 and Food Stamps? Those programs exist specifically to provide food, housing and medical care to poor pregnant women and their children. So you tell me, why are women turning down aid in favor of abortions?
“But noooo- conservatives don’t want that for poor pregnant women . That’s socialism, and we don’t want that in America, do we ?”
You should get an award for the most strawman arguments on this site. Of course conservatives want assistance for poor pregnant woman. As I said earlier, the debate is about how best to provide these resources and to offer long-term solutions. Collecting tax revenue, funneling through adminstrative channels and then redistributing it is not the only way to combat poverty. You seem to believe that the only way to prove our sincere concern for poor pregnant women is to support this style of government. Awfully dogmatic of you, don’t you think?
“And they still have the nerve to demand that poor women give birth to children no matter what the circumstances !”
Ha, oh wow. Childbirth doesn’t happen because somebody demands it. There is no outside force causing women to become pregnant and bear children. The only thing that will stop a healthy pregnancy from resulting in a live birth is the demand of abortion and the forceful dismemberment of the unborn baby. And I’m glad you brought up circumstances – do you honestly believe that temporary, changeable circumstances are a reliable standard in determining who lives and who dies? Wouldn’t one’s humanity be a more solid indicator of worthiness?
“I’m no misogynist . I just dissaporve of what she stands for.”
I believe you that you are not opposed to this particular politician due to her gender. But abortion is riddled with misogyny. Abortion provides yet another format for men to use, coerce and abandon women. Framing pregnancy as little more than a medical problem corrected by elective surgery is disrespectul to the very fundamentals of womanhood. Women are pitted against their individuality and ambitions and the lives of their unborn children, as if a woman’s value is proven only in how closely she can resemble a man’s lifestyle. “Women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy,” (-Patricia Heaton), but instead are taught to view their unborn child as a burden to exterminate. Already marginalized groups such as teen mothers, single mothers, mothers of large families, and mothers with special needs children face even more disapproval and intolerance from a culture that tells them their children should never have been born. Studies indicate that post-abortive women are at a higher risk of drug abuse, psychological problems and suicide than the general population. Studies also link infertility with abortion. So many women who were told that they should go ahead with an abortion because they can always have a baby on their timeline are now realizing that they killed the only baby they’ll ever carry. Abortion hurts women. If you are concerned about misogyny, perhaps you will consider a stance that respects the lives of women and their unborn children.
I’d like to address Robert Berger’s take on a “humane” way to end a baby’s life.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54799-2005Apr14.html
This article discusses pain associated with the drugs used in lethal injection of prisoners, the third used to “stop the heart” is potassium chloride, which was an alternate to Tiller’s digoxin, working in the same way to induce cardiac arrest. Except Tiller’s victims did not receive any anesthesia.
Also for RB, Sarah Brown’s story:
California Right to Life
Baby girl Sarah was born on July 15, 1993, in Wichita, Kansas. She had survived a late term abortion attempt on her 15 year old mother. The infant’s mother had been brought nine hundred miles by her parents, to the office of George Tiller, infamous late term abortionist of Wichita, Kansas. This is the same clinic and the same abortionist who recently was contacted by Arizona authorities to commit a late term abortion on a 14 year old Arizona ward of the courts who was 26 weeks pregnant.
The partial-birth abortion procedure was not yet in vogue. Sarah, as she was later named by her adoptive parents, was already positioned in the womb to be born. The abortionist injected the baby’s head, in two places, the left side of her forehead above the eyebrow and at the base of the skull, with potassium Chloride, leaving permanent burn marks and needle track scars. The pregnant 15 year old left the office with the admonition to return the next day for the completion of the abortion.
Much to everyone’s dismay, the baby had not died in the intervening hours, but was still alive. The 15 year old was sent to the local hospital where the baby was eventually born. The delivery room staff, familiar with handling Tiller’s mistakes, wrapped up the baby, set her in a bassinet and left her without attendance. The 15 year old girl and her parents went home.
Twenty-four hours later though she had not been cleaned up, the umbilical cord had been improperly severed and she had had no nourishment, Sarah continued to live. A nurse in the newborn unit of the hospital finally took pity on the child. She called an attorney with whom she was familiar and explained the situation. The attorney called Bill and Mary Kay Brown and asked them to come to the hospital and rescue this remarkable child.
Though hospital staff predicted that the baby would not survive more than 8 weeks, Bill and Mary Kay and their seven children took Sarah home, adopted her and loved her till the day she died of kidney failure, at age five. If she had received attention during that 24 hour period, some of the effects of the brain damage might have been lessened. Only when the Brown’s filed for adoption was the child issued a birth certificate.
The potassium Chloride destroyed the left portion of Sarah’s brain leaving her blind, unable to walk and totally dependent upon the love and care of others. She required 15 different types of medication, two and three times a day, to synthetically replace what had been destroyed. Bill and Mary Kay took turns, even through the night, repositioning Sarah in her bed so that she never got bed sores. She required an apnea monitor and a heart and lung machine recording her oxygen levels. Because of the damage to her brain her physical growth was impaired. At age five she weighed 25 lbs and was the size of a two year old.
The Browns’ insurance company refused to include Sarah in the family’s coverge. She was provided with health care coverage by Bill Brown’s company, but at age 4, removed from coverage when her medical expenses became too costly. Mary Kay claims that it was, once again, the pro life community and local, private agencies who provided the most financial and compassionate support.
Sarah had two funeral services, one in the Southern Baptist church of her father, Bill Brown, and the second in the Catholic church of her mother, Mary Kay, presided over by Wichita Bishop, Eugene Gerber. Between the two services eight hundred people attended Sarah’s funeral.
Mary Kay claims that the hardest part of caring for Sarah was the verbal abuse the family endured from strangers. From, as she put it, other pro death people. The Browns moved from Wichita to Valleycenter, a rural farming community, because of a particularly ugly encounter with someone claiming that the Browns had done Sarah an injustice allowing her to live.
According to Mary Kay, Sarah was never viewed as a burden by any member of her family. What with seven other children and help from members of the local and pro life community, there was always someone around to hold, talk to or touch Sarah. During the adoption procedures it was necessary to subpoena the birth mother’s medical records. There was nothing in the record to indicate that any of the medical problems faced by Sarah were genetic or inherited in any way. She would have been a normal, blue eyed, reddish blonde haired little girl.
Mary Kay’s brother summed up everbody’s feelings at the funeral when he declared that George Tiller had succeeded in killing Sarah, it just took him five years.
Mary Rose, you were lucky. Many other pregnant women are not,and that’s why they have abortions.
And to call me “narrow-minded” just because I advocate more government help for poor pregnant women and the poor in general is ludicrous. I’m not even offended by this.
Do you really think that private charities can provide for all of the poor, and for poor pregnant women? If so, you’re deluding yourselves.
Don’t get me wrong.I’m all for private charities. But without more government help,
we’re not going to reduce abortions significantly,let alone stop it altogether.
I don’t WANT abortions to happen. I just realize that it’s absolutely impossible to stop abortion altogether,and that making it illegal will only make a bad situation far worse.
Like it or not,abortion is here to stay. It has always existed and always will.
To call it murder is ridiculous,as well as to compare it to slavery.
Would you consider it murder if a poor pregnant woman caused her own abortion without a physician? I certainly wouldn’t. It’s an act of desperation, not murder.
Robert,
Did you even read my comment? If so, you really need to go back and read it again.
“And to call me “narrow-minded” just because I advocate more government help for poor pregnant women and the poor in general is ludicrous.”
I did not call you narrow-minded for advocating for government help for the poor. I said it was narrow-minded of you to suggest that those who offer alternative solutions that don’t include expansion of government are really trying to stick it to the poor.
“Do you really think that private charities can provide for all of the poor, and for poor pregnant women? If so, you’re deluding yourselves.”
I already answered this. Let me rephrase it for you: I applaud private charity and also acknowledge that private charity cannot completely provide for poor pregnant woman. In addition, I asked you this: how does the limited resources of private charity justify the taking of innocent lives? It would be swell if you actually answered the question this time.
“Don’t get me wrong.I’m all for private charities. But without more government help,
we’re not going to reduce abortions significantly,let alone stop it altogether.”
A) The government are not super heroes with abilities that we mere taxpayers do not possess. They exist to represent our interests, not to give us magical solutions to life’s woes. All of their resources are OUR resources. I am not opposed to government involvement via the wishes of the voters, but innovation comes from the private sector.
B) The best way the government can help significantly reduce abortions is to enforce a law that protects all human life, including unborn life.
“I don’t WANT abortions to happen. I just realize that it’s absolutely impossible to stop abortion altogether,and that making it illegal will only make a bad situation far worse.”
If you don’t want abortion to happen, then why do you want it to remain legal? Why not focus on changing the cultural and social circumstances that make women feel pressured to abort? Yes, it’s true that making it illegal will not stop all abortion. Making rape illegal has not stopped all rape. Would it be in our best interest to keep rape legal since it’s going to happen sometimes anyway? That’s a rhetorical question.
“To call it murder is ridiculous,as well as to compare it to slavery.”
I’ve already addressed this by citing embryology textbooks that prove that human life begins at conception and by explaining how the denial of personhood in instances like slavery parallel denying personhood to unborn humans. It’d be nice if you could respond to my arguments instead of merely repeating what you already said.
“Would you consider it murder if a poor pregnant woman caused her own abortion without a physician? I certainly wouldn’t. It’s an act of desperation, not murder.”
I would consider it both desperation and murder. (And no, I would not advocate for criminal charges to be brought against the woman – I would instead suggest she undergo a psych evaulation and enter an intensive therapy program.) There are plenty of murder scenarios that would be considered an act of desperation – an abused wife shoots her abusive husband, for example. Since we feel sorry for the wife and understand her desperation, does that mean we should provide access to lethal injections for abused wives to administer to their husbands in their sleep? After all, since murder is going to happen regardless, our responsibility is just to make it as safe as possible, right?
Social Conservatism goes hand and hand with fiscal restraint. The reason we have a plethora of poor single mothers is because we have now three generations of dopey women (including my fellow Boomers) who have surrendered and embraced the Sexual Revolution.
God set up a wonderful safety net of His own called “the family”. Boys actually once were expected to grow into manhood and assume responsibility as a MEN becoming husbands and a fathers not merely sleep overs and sires. Women once knew the power of keeping the drawbridge up until commitments were made by her knight.
Poverty goes hand in hand with this insidious Sexual Revolution. As it weakens familial bonds the State must step in with more and more programs to replace the roles once played by father and mother toward their young children, and later, the responsibilities once shouldered by adult children of aging parents. It is Lenin, Gramsci’s and now Obama’s dream come true. The State grows in power as the family yields
There ain’t no such thing as “free love” nor “free lunch”. Both are lies told to enslave you.
Mary Rose, you were lucky. Many other pregnant women are not,and that’s why they have abortions.
-Robert Berger
You’re right; women who have abortions are not lucky. There is no luck involved with rejecting a gift.
When I found out I was pregnant, I never considered abortion an option. THAT is what made the difference. I persevered. I believed in my own ability, my husband’s ability, and the plan of the Lord. It was not a matter of luck (ftr, when we found out we were pregnant, we were running a newspaper route. There is practically no interview for this job, but it BARELY pays any bills at all, and only that if you overburden yourself. It’s hard work. We made it through.)
We have borrowed money from family, scrimped and worked ourselves to the bone. When I was 8 months pregnant, I was throwing papers from door to door. I would not give up that experience for anything, and even less would I give up both that experience AND my son. What I did required no skill or training. Seriously, the interview was, “This is a long-term commitment, not a 3 week job” and the assignment of the routes. It required only the knowledge that I was responsible for the child in my womb for me to actually do it.
You think that this was luck? In a respect, you’re right. I was lucky to be raised by people who valued responsibility and hard work. I am lucky to have parents who always showed me that life was to be valued. I am lucky to have been blessed with an adorable and amazing 1-year-old who never ceases to impress those he comes into contact with, my husband and myself least of all.
But as for our financial situation improving, that was merely hard work, responsibility, and dedication.
So, Mr. Berger? How much luck was involved in our financial situation turning? I’m still waiting to hear your response.