« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Matt Yglesias’ Strange Views On Human Life

By: scipio62 (Diary)  |  January 7th, 2010 at 12:22 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Lefty moron Matt Yglesias has a post insulting Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) called “Stupak’s Strange Views on Human Life“. Yglesias doesn’t understand Stupak’s opposition to the pro-abortion Senate version of the health “reform” travesty.

But never let it be said that a leftist like Yglesias really cares to understand. He bases his whole thesis on a ridiculous premise, then an outright lie:

The expansion of health insurance contained in this bill will save lives. But unless it also includes some restrictions on the ability of insurance plans to cover abortions, Bart Stupak will kill it.

Yglesias is an idiot if he thinks the hunk of crap secretly being put together in the bowels of D.C. will save any lives. We already know the “death panels” (rationing) will be in the bill. The transparency of this “reform” was shot to pieces months ago when The One made a secret deal with Pharma to get their support; it’s gotten worse since with all the secret deals put together by “pimp” Harry Reid (D-NV) to get “aye” votes from whores Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) (which has raised the ire of the idiotic Senator of my state, Blanch Lincoln (D-AR), who still voted for this despite all these deals). Add that the Mayo Clinic in Arizona will stop accepting new patients on Medicare. Forget what Yglesias is saying about this saving any lives. Ain’t gonna happen.

As far as this plan restricting insurance companies from not insuring all abortions, forget it. That is a lie by Yglesias. As I understand it, all that is restricted in the Stupak plan (like the Nelson amendment that went down to defeat last month) is any federal funding going to subsidize insurance plans that have abortions; abortions can be covered by insurance plans, provided those plans have zero federal dollars to subsidize them. With Yglesias using a ridiculous notion and a blatant lie as his basic premises, he comes out with this bit of bull thinking this is the end result of Stupak’s views of life:

Taking political action to save the lives of children and adults is morally praiseworthy, but the obligation to take political action aimed at securing legal restrictions on abortions is paramount and actually overrides obligations to aid the poor and the sick.

I have to wonder how dorks like Yglesias come up with their conclusions. How many lives have been lost thanks to the unrestricted abortions allowed by Roe v. Wade? Estimates are about a million a year going back to 1973 when the ruling came down. Yglesias wants these to be subsidized, yet, like most pro-abortion-on-demand leftists, refuse to recognize that lives are ending. And he’s worried about Stupak stopping “reform” that Yglesias says will save lives? On what planet does this jerk live on?

Yglesias refers to Stupak’s view of life as an “idiosyncratic political position.” I would call Yglesias view of life as support for Stalinesque policies.

(Hat tip: Memeorandum)

Tags: ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    Let’s SWAG a cool million a year for 46 million. Plus if half of those aborted children were girls, the ones over 30 would have had 2.2 children each on the average. That’s another 17.6 million. Total is 63.6 million children at a minimum. Actual abortion numbers are more like 1.3 million per year, and women start having children a lot younger than 30, so there would be well over 30% more than that.

    63.6 million children with beating hearts who never got a chance to live. That’s a holocaust. And it affects inner city children, and black children, disproportionately over every other group. Why does anybody let Yglesias get away with his genocidal ideology without a challenge?

    • marinevet03

      But 1973 was 36 years ago, not 46.

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

        (36 * + 0.5 * 2.2 * (36-30)) * 1 Million

        42.6 million plus the odd 30% from the more reasonable 1.3 million per year rate.

        Still a holocaust.

        Stalin, who said that a single death is a tragedy and a million deaths are a statistic, was wrong. That is only true for malthusian progressives.

        • scipio62

          And I’ll forgive your math faux pas (although my dad, a former math teacher, might not…lol).

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

            Perhaps he’d like that part. :)

          • scipio62

            From what he told me (he taught in a different school district than the one I went to), he was tough. He used to dock points for spelling errors on word problems.

        • marinevet03

          I just wanted to point out the slight error in your calculations.

  • Brian Hibbert

    because I suggested that parents should have the same amount of control of a 12 YO daughter’s decision to have an abortion that the schools require for giving her aspirin. (IE written permission with doctor approval).

    He’ll resort to dirty attacks when he can’t dispute facts and logic.

    • scipio62

      Like Kos, Greenwald, Benen, and all those leftoid jerks.

    • scipio62

      Should have said that first.

  • aesthete

    I remember reading a post that he made where he attempts to “sum up an intelligent version of libertarianism” in response to Tyler Cowen’s post, which admirably attempts to cast progressive thought in the best possible light. Tyler’s post was extremely charitable to progressivism, and summed up reasons for which someone might come to embrace progressivism (reasons that I don’t share, but I digress). Yglesias, OTOH, decides to take this challenge and construct a weird, manipulative view of libertarianism underwhich libertarians are racist, don’t care about others, and put little value on human life.

    This one should have been an easy one for any progressive, and could have gone as follows: “if you accept the premise that a fetus is a human being and ought to be treated as such under law, and you accept that the government should do something to reduce the # of deaths caused by a lack of coverage, then the # of lives saved by this bill should at least equal the # of abortions enabled by subsidy. This is, of course, notwithstanding the other moral concerns of potentially funding manslaughter, the targeting of inner cities for this funding, etc. that would be associated with subsidy of abortion.”

    Of course, that would require that Matt be impartial for a couple of seconds, which is apparently expecting too much from the Harvard grad.