On Kids and fundraisers: What are the limits?

Posted on November 23 at 8:04 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

I would prefer to simply make a cash donation when asked to purchase for fundraisers rather than purchase the expensive crap they sell and the school only make a percentage of what the kids sell. However, I have been told that that won't count toward the prizes the kids win for selling stuff. How can my $20 cash not count as much as the percentage the school makes off of $20 for wrapping paper?

On Stupak Amendment is an insult to women

Posted on November 20 at 9:53 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

Hey again Mr. detail. I just had to weigh in on this. PLEASE, PLEASE tell me why we have to save babies but not adults. In other words, war is OK but abortion is not. You get to say that people who oppose abortion shouldn't have to pay for it so should those of us who oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be able to say the same thing? If you get to say what your tax money should fund, I should get to do the same thing.

Once we take care of all the people who ARE born you will be able to convince me to worry about a fetus in a womb. But given the horrible situations currently living beings deal with every day, I guess I just don't see how abortion is a more important issue to worry about.

On Stupak Amendment is an insult to women

Posted on November 18 at 7:40 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Hannah:
Many of your points are well taken but I'd like to make sure you understand that a condom is not a reliable form of birth control. A condom PLUS spermicide is a little better. Women get pregnant quite regularly using condoms for birth control. I guess a sort of related question would be, if I used birth control and it didn't work and I chose to have an abortion, would that be using abortion as a form of birth control?

On Stupak Amendment is an insult to women

Posted on November 17 at 10:25 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

evansvillehousewife - you go girl!

On Stupak Amendment is an insult to women

Posted on November 17 at 2:59 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Yes, you did understand my belief that the parents are in charge. But otherwise Mr. detail I think we will need to agree to disagree. I understand that you see a little baby instead of a health care procedure. I'm sorry, that's not the way I see it. Good luck with your efforts to end abortion through legislation. And, if I find any unwanted children lying around that I can manage to wrest from their wretched parents, I will try to contact you.

On Stupak Amendment is an insult to women

Posted on November 17 at 2:03 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

I think you are putting words in my mouth (or more accurately my fingers). I believe the choice to have an abortion is to be made by the parents. Not you or the government or me. Only those people can decide. And your veiled reference to abortion as birth control is just that. It's nice that you can believe that is the only reason to have one. I'm not giving poverty as an excuse. However, poverty is a reason that poor people don't receive the same health care as those who have the means to better access. When you cut off public funding, who loses? Those who have private health care?
In addition, you are taking my support of access to a health care procedure as an endorsement of abortion. My stand is that the only way to end abortion is by changing the way women see themselves, making sure everyone who is sexually active has access to birth control that works, ending rape and incest and eliminating horrible birth defects that cause people who want their baby to terminate the pregnancy. Not by cutting funding or changing laws.

On Stupak Amendment is an insult to women

Posted on November 17 at 1:38 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

So Mr. detail am I to assume that as long as the baby is born alive we are a moral society (according to you)?

And again (according to you) either making abortion illegal or not providing funds for poor women to receive abortions will end abortions?

On Stupak Amendment is an insult to women

Posted on November 17 at 11:49 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

Yeah, ain't that the truth Mr. detail. And there was a 5 year old girl last week who died, supposedly after her mother prostituted her to someone. And how many babies died in the Milwaukee area at the hands of fathers, mothers boyfriends and the mothers themselves so far this year? Some by abuse and others by being slept on. Just being born is no guarantee of a life Mr. detail. Abortion has been so demonized that people who have NO BUSINESS reproducing will tell me when I ask them why they are having this child "I could never kill my baby." One of those virtuous women then abandoned the child she couldn't kill to the father (who never wanted the kid in the first place). He moved in with the grandfather who molested this little girl's aunt. And the father left this innocent child alone with that man.
I will never argue that adopting these babies to loving families isn't the right way to go. But you and I both know that the brave women who make that decision are too few and far between. I am the lucky beneficiary of one of those women who provided me with a wonderful nephew. But once again, making abortion illegal, will not end abortions. If you want to do that, we've got some work to do in terms of teaching women self-respect, guaranteeing reliable birth control to every woman who wants it and figuring out how to eliminate some horrible birth defects like anencephaly that cause women who really want the child they are carrying to choose abortion.

On Stupak Amendment is an insult to women

Posted on November 17 at 10:53 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

If only cutting funding would end all abortions. That is the most painful and punative way to deal with this issue as poor women will bear the brunt of this lack of health care. I will be watching this closely. It may be time to revive Jane, the secret, women-run abortion service that flourished in the midwest in the late '60s and early '70s during a time of illegal, and often deadly abortions.

On Sloppy play allows Buccaneers to blindside reeling Packers

Posted on November 10 at 2:21 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

I don't care what you think of Favre, the Packers would probably never have gotten to the Super Bowl with him since he can no longer play in the real cold weather. He was miserable in both the Chicago game (really, really cold) and the playoff game against the Giants (pretty darn cold) the last year he was a Packer. That was once one of his great assets but not anymore. Minnesota better hope that they get to play all their playoff games indoors or in a warm spot.