Re: Abortion

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marie A.) writes:

>
>Getting to drive a Mercedes 500SL is also a problem for women of
>limited means. Should we furnish them one at taxpayer's expense? I'd
>fight against that tooth and nail, too. So what? Does that then make
>me responsible for the fact that they're driving clunkers? This makes
>every bit as much sense as what you just said, Larry. Liberals are
>fond of suggesting that those who object to subsidizing social
>pathologies share in the blame for them. Not so, dear boy, and I
>notice you do this quite often. Please explain why your crowd blames
>everyone except those who get themselves in these jams. Explain this
>to us, Larry. Why won't you attack the behavior that leads to these
>problems? Is it because you endorse the behavior, sir?
>
>Cordially, Marie
*************************************
I don't know about Larry, Marie, but I get a bit angry with such attitudes when
I see multitudes of people starving to death because dictators confescate food
and distribute it to their armies, instead of to the people who need it.  The
same with medical supplies and anything else given freely by the rest of the
world trying to help.   And even if we are the richest country in the world, we
still have the disenfranchised and the poor, the disabled and the starving
among us.  Are you trying to tell us that they are ALL arbiters of their own
circumstances?  

And once again, Marie, we see the desire to use judgement and condemnation, to
solve "all our problems."  I don't like that attitude one bit, and that is why
I am angry when I see you suggest such things.  You appear to think that
conservatives offer a "hand up," as opposed to a "handout," and that liberals
just give "handouts."  

You want to know the difference?  When a liberal gives a "hand up," they make
sure that the recipient can reach the hand in the first place.  Ultra
conservatives appear to simply throw life preservers and tell the recipient
that they are on their own.