[hvp05 (Premo)]

I was browsing our esteemed local HoR candidate's website and have some questions that I would like to pose. I will first quote the section of [the page of] interest then my question.


From the section "The question of abortion.":

Originally Posted by JPC sr

We could say only one abortion and no more, as one in a life time and not one abortion each year. So there could be a mistake and a reason to kill the fetus once but not over and over again.

Are you saying you would allow only one abortion in a mother's lifetime? (I thought you were 100% anti-abortion.) Also, how exactly would a fetus be killed "over and over again"?

We could require that the parents are offered steralization as tubes tied or other means of stopping pregnancy. If the parent wants an abortion then that must mean they do not want a child and so they can not be coming back in six months or a year asking to kill another embryo.

I am again somewhat befuddled by your wording. Are you saying it would be acceptable - for the government, presumably - to have a woman's tubes tied towards the end of preventing an unwanted pregnancy? I thought you believed such actions were performed only by "Nazis" and went against your religious belief that god said, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." What exactly were you trying to say?

We could open orphaniges that take unwanted babies. Not misuse their body parts.

Orphanages already do that, so what is it that you aim to change? Also, where you said "body parts" you linked to this site. Did you actually read this page? Did you believe you understood what is written?

Two things immediately caught my attention, chiefly, the site states, "... embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body." That means a rather specific type of embryo, and not just any given embryo as you seem to imply. (We can debate when the embryo is "alive" all day, which is beyond the scope of my queries.)

Secondly, your use of the terminology "body parts" is rather poorly used, as the site you linked notes: "The embryos... are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst." Here is a photo of one such ball of cells. Can you tell me where the "body parts" are?

We must recognize that there are many justifications for the parents to want an abortion, but there is flimsy and weak justification for the Doctors to kill the un-born. The crime is not in the parents but is directly in the Doctors. The parents have stress and pressures to seek an abortion but the Doctors are cold sober in their vicious act.

These statements are similar to your deflections of blame against parents in child support cases. So let me ask: is a parent ever responsible for an abortion? They do have to allow it, after all; doctors are not running around in the night, sneaking into bedrooms, aborting babies and taking the money. What of a mother who is financially stable and could easily raise a child, but chooses to have an abortion because she does not wish to be "bothered" at that point in her life? Does she not bear some of the decision's burden, or does it all still fall on the doctor?



On an unrelated note, you also linked to this page on another part of your site. Did you read past the headline - "'Deadbeat Dad' Database Endangers Everyone" - and the first sentence wherein Republicans are mentioned? Since I don't imagine you did, you may want to know that this article does nothing to support your case against child support. In fact, it states, "Hitting up deadbeat dads -- and deadbeat moms as the case may be -- would seem to hold great promise. Even if the amount of child support collected is small, the simple act of holding deadbeat dads liable should make them ponder more carefully their decision to have children."

The article is really addressing two questions: "But where in the Constitution does Washington get the power to order states to create employment databases?" and, "And is it appropriate to impose such a regulatory burden on private business?"

This article is actually about the broader issue of states' rights, and really has little to do with deadbeats. And it certainly is not aiming to let deadbeats off the hook - as you wish to do. I would guarantee if the author of this article knew how you are using it, he would be outraged.



So, Candidate Cusick... will you answer any of my questions?