Republicans are against abortion. Why would nine Republicans vote against a bill in Congress (HR 7791, the Access to Baby Formula Act) that would help lower-income women secure baby formula for their babies?

Here is their statement

These Nine Republicans Voted Against Expanding Access to Baby Formula (newsweek.com) (https://www.newsweek.com/nine-republicans-vote-baby-formula-1708062)






The bill does nothing to address the shortage . It was designed as a stunt so the Dems can get on a soap box and claim Repubs don't want poor babies to get baby formula.

As a liberal dem just did on this site.

Clueless knew of the shortage and the issues involved mid year last year and did nothing about it until yesterday . Bills to streamline regulations to speed up domestic production and waive import restrictions will get an adequate supply of formula to ALL babies . WIC and other programs already provide formula when there is an adequate supply.

There is no adequate supply.

correct .....hence the bill passed is political posturing and not a real solution .In fact the WIC program contributes to the problem (more on this later )

This is a classic case of bureaucracy slow walking like a turtle and general incompetence . In 2 years between 2019 and 2021 the FDA received consumer complaints about children testing positive to cronobacter The company found contaminant in one of the batches just days after a 2019 inspection by the FDA.

September, in 2 separate inspections, the FDA discovered contaminants in the plant and violations . The first reported illness of a child was also in September .

October a whistleblower warned the FDA about safety issues at the plant including allegations that Abbott falsified records, released untested formula, employed lax cleaning practices, misled auditors, failed to take corrective measures and lacked good systems for tracing potentially contaminated products.

Still it took until February of this year for the FDA to start taking action.

Clueless took action this week invoking the Defensive Production Act which will allow more imported formula. However ,the supply chain has been an issue that is getting worse since covid ;and there have been many issues with contaminated imported formula .As you recall ,300,000 Chinese babies were poisoned by formula in 2008 . At very least imports should be subject to inspection by US inspectors BEFORE being shipped into the country .Instead his act will allow fast tracking of the product through customs .

The answer is to first get American production back up and running . The FDA has an agreement with Abbott to reopen the plant . But it is 2 weeks away.

The bigger problem is that consolidation reduced competition in the industry . There are only 3 producers in the country (Abbott, Gerber, and Mead Johnson). Millions of families use baby formula but few companies supply it . Abbott has a 40% market share .

1989 Congress passed laws requiring states to use competitive bidding to select one company to provide formula covered by the WIC program. This led to the bid winners getting a tremendous competitive advantage in the market. Thus the consolidation .The 3 companies mentioned are the ones that won the bids .Their control over the market has disincentivized the creation of new brands


Congress instead of posturing with silly laws that will not solve the issue should examine anti-trust laws and update them to apply to the 21st century market. It is an amazing thing . When there is a crisis the government solution inevitably is loosening regulatory red tape . One day they will realize that it is the red tape that often contributes to the crisis.

WIC baby formula rebate program ,which generates up to $2 billion a year from the manufacturers ,drive up the cost of the baby formula to all non-WIC customers. The government pockets the rebates instead of serving more WIC recipients

WIC serves almost half the infants that use baby formula . Do the Dems plan on having every person in America serviced by welfare ?

WIC serves almost half the infants that use baby formula .So much for the non-thinking argument that conservatives don't care about feeding born infants, an argument made by the crowd that sees no problem in killing 900 thousand innocent human beings a year for the crime of being inconvenient. And then, in the classic liberal dem strategy, they accuse others of being non-caring. Stunning.

In 2018, 1.7 million infants (45 percent of all infants in the United States) were eligible for WIC. Ninety-eight percent of eligible infants participated in the program, meaning their WIC benefits were received or picked up. (People who are enrolled but whose benefits are not received or picked up are not counted as participants.)

WIC Eligibility and Coverage Rates - 2018 | Food and Nutrition Service (usda.gov) (https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/eligibility-and-coverage-rates-2018)

You're barking up the wrong tree. WIC funds or not, there's not enough baby formula. What do you suggest feeding those millions of fetuses that get born?

Another typical lib strategy. Elect an incompetent boob who oversees the disappearance of much of the baby formula supply, and then ask someone else what they intend to do about it.

Classic.

my bark was responding to the OP . As for doing something about it ;I already gave a recommendation .

Congress instead of posturing with silly laws that will not solve the issue should examine anti-trust laws and update them to apply to the 21st century market. It is an amazing thing . When there is a crisis the government solution inevitably is loosening regulatory red tape . One day they will realize that it is the red tape that often contributes to the crisis.

That of course is a long term solution that the swamp critters will not adopt . Shorter term I guess Clueless is doing all he can do . He is begging other nations to solve it ;just like he is doing with oil .

The Dems in Congress are also doing what they do best ....throw money at a problem and do political posturing .

Nope. Breastfeeding has to become what new mothers do.

The stats don't lie . Baby formula is a $4.1 billion dollar industry in the US

and now a word from my favorite gum-show reporter in America .



Meanwhile, it was recently reported the Biden White House spent six months coming up with the nickname “Ultra MAGA” to go after Republican candidates.
The people who run strategy for the White House seem to have forgotten how to place themselves in voters’ shoes and experience everyday problems that impact families and communities. For them it is nothing but political calculation: They went to strategy school, not governing school.
Youngstown State University professor Paul Sracic says Biden has become a sort of anti-Harry Truman: “Where Truman insisted ‘The buck stops here,’ Biden is constantly trying to shift blame onto others; from Putin to ‘ultra-MAGA’ Republicans, Biden is hoping that Americans don’t hold him and his party responsible for things like inflation, the baby milk shortage, or the border crisis.”
Mr. Biden’s calculation, Mr. Sracic says, will not work.
Truman’s phrase was not an offer to take responsibility, but an acknowledgement of reality: When things go well in America, the president gets credit, and when they go wrong, he also gets credit.
“With parents scrambling to track down formula following the collision of supply chain issues and a massive recall, they want answers on how this could happen with such a life-critical product,” said Mr. Sracic.


Salena Zito: Rhet­o­ric ver­sus re­al­ism at the pump, and in the for­mula aisle | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/insight/2022/05/22/rhetoric-versus-realism-pump-formula-aisle-salena-zito/stories/202205220037)

How is it that we have these shortages, Mr. Pres? Why has gas gone up 150%? Why is inflation raging? How did you manage to so mismanage the Afghan withdrawal? Why can't you even begin to control the southern border?

Answer? "It was all those Ultra MAGA repubs!!"

Somehow I don't think that is going to fly in November.

How is it that we have these shortages, Mr. Pres? Why has gas gone up 150%?
These are world problems.

Inflation is not a worldwide problem. The Afghan withdrawal was strictly a Biden debacle. The shortages of baby food are not world problems. And gas has gone up due, in some measure, to the terrible energy policies of the Biden admin.

Please watch the news and read a newspaper or two.

We're not talking about baby food; the shortage is baby formula. My brother, sister, and I were raised on homemade formula. We three are still alive. And yes, factory-produced baby formula is in short supply throughout the world.

Thank you for that information rich reply.

Breastfeeding is the only solution. Wives are to be submissive and must stay at home to prepare nourishing meals, keep a clean house, and breastfeed all the offspring until they reach age two.

competent governance is the solution . Gas nationwide is $4.60/gaL in Cal it is over $7 .

Clueless today said this was part of the process to a clean energy economy . Sometimes the Dems accidentally tell the truth about their policies .


'When it comes to the gas prices, we are going through an incredible transition that is taking place, that god-willing when it's over, we'll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels,'

The cabeza de pinga actually praised higher gas prices

Clueless today said this was part of the process to a clean energy economy . Sometimes the Dems accidentally tell the truth about their policies .Exactly. The truth has come out. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that AOC is directing all of this.

This baby formula shortage certainly seems to be the result of incredible ineptitude by the Biden administration.

Inflation is not a worldwide problem.
Yes, it is. Keep up!!!

The Afghan withdrawal was strictly a Biden debacle.
Why didn't Trump get Mark Frerichs out?

The shortages of baby food are not world problems.
Yes, they are.

And gas has gone up due, in some measure, to the terrible energy policies of the Biden admin.
It was going up long before Biden.

Inflation in most of Europe is not as high as here. Keep up!! Use those browser skills you have bragged about.

You can't blame Biden's total incompetence on Trump. Take some responsibility.

No they are not. Military transports are flying in baby formula from Europe beginning today. It's been on the news you claim to watch. As Tom recently documented, our problem stems from the FDA shutting down one of the primary facilities for baby formula manufacture and then taking many weeks to get it back open which has still not been done.

Gas price on the day of the 1/6 incident was a little over two bucks a gallon. Your ceaseless efforts to undergird Biden are doubtless well intentioned but completely insufficient.

Also on the news was the story of the Biden admin cancelling the sale of new oil leases. Thanks a lot, Joe.

Where is the much promised and long delayed legal opinion???

Also on the news
What news show?

Mark's family pleaded with Trump to get Mark free. He shrugged his shoulders in helplessness.

I don't think you know what Trump did about Mark F. Do a little work and you can find out why we have not gotten him back. At any rate, multiply that by several thousand and you have some idea of Biden's terrible ineptitude. Ineptitude by a liberal dem admin that you are eager to defend and seemingly would not criticize under any circumstances.

News about the baby formula debacle? OK. I'll do your work for you. Do you really have all of these impressive internet skills you brag about? I ask that since it took me all of five seconds to find this for you from ABC. You must, must, must begin to keep up better. And if you read the article, you'll find out why we are in this mess to begin with.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/access-baby-formula-act-explained-nationwide-shortage-leaves/story?id=84878456#:~:text=A%20shipment%20of%20infa nt%20formula%20arrives%20via%20plane,days%2C%22%20 White%20House%20press%20secretary%20Karine%20Jean-Pierre%20said.

Thought this might interest you. Notice that with Trump, gas prices were declining, but under Biden prices have exploded. His efforts at blaming Russia won't work since prices have increased almost every month since his administration began.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/204133/retail-prices-of-motor-fuel-in-the-united-states-since-2009/

Biden's latest comment about the gas prices. The truth seems rather plain.

"Here’s the situation. And when it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over."

Note that God is evidently behind the rise in prices. How convenient. It's either God or Russia. You can take your pick.

Note that God is evidently behind the rise in prices. How convenient. It's either God or Russia. You can take your pick.
Your lack of reading comprehension is horrifying.

You would be much better served to be horrified at the inefficiencies of the Biden admin.

Little can be done about Mark Frerichs. He was abducted after the last prisoner exchange . He was NOT abducted by the Afghan Taliban . He WAS abducted by the Haqqani network which has some affiliation with the Taliban;but operates in the border land between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Haqqani are a criminal network much like the Mafia ;and not part of the Afghan government. leadership.

He was abducted some time near the beginning of February 2020 The previous year in November Trump had made a prisoner exchange for 2 western professor (one American one Aussie) hostages in exchange for 3 high ranking Haqqani leaders who were being held by the Afghan government..... and 10 Afghan nationals who were being held by the Taliban.
That was the last prisoner exchange ;and it was controversial ....very one sided when you consider the influence of the Haqqani' released .
Frerichs was abducted after that . He was abducted because well the Haqqani had run out of high value western hostages . Again ,the Haqqani are a criminal gang that is no different than any of the cartels South of the Border . Local governments don't have the power to control them and Americans short of an invasion can't do much about them either .The Haqqani hold all the cards because they operate in the lawless region of 2 failed states .The US was very reluctant to cross into Pakistan with the exception of when we executed OBL. That was a successful covert operation that would be extremely unlikely to duplicate . Nobody knows where Frerichs is being held . When his name came up in the final negotiations of the peace deal ;the Taliban continuously denied they had him or knew of his whereabouts .
Perhaps the peace deal should not have been signed . It green lighted the final Taliban offensive . Once Clueless did his chaotic evacuation ,whatever leverage we had (and very little it was ) was gone .

As I understand the argument, it was OK for Biden to leave behind many hundreds of American nationals and Afghan allies since, after all, Trump failed to get ONE person out that no one was able to find.

But Trump can do ANYthing!!!!

that is your best response? I am frequently wondering why I waste my time .

that is your best response?Rather sadly, that seems to be true. Anything is better than actually taking the plunge and being even mildly critical of a liberal dem. It's what I chiefly dislike about trying to talk with liberals. They dislike and even fear the truth, so we end up in the weeds in useless discussions and with comments about "reading comp", "cherry-picking", or being a "literalist".

This was really the worst. "Breastfeeding is the only solution. Wives are to be submissive and must stay at home to prepare nourishing meals, keep a clean house, and breastfeed all the offspring until they reach age two." I can only reply, "What??"

that is your best response? I am frequently wondering why I waste my time .
The Haqqani was willing to trade our prisoner (their guy) for Frerichs. Why didn't we?

Show evidence of the claim and what they wanted in exchange . Which prisoners did they want released ?

I have been critical of the exchange of senior ranking terrorists for the likes of American traitor Bo Bergdahl . So I would be interested in the claim that the Haqqani wanted an exchange ;and who they wanted in the swap .

who they wanted in the swap .That was indeed the sticking point.

The Afghan withdrawal, however, had no sticking points. It was simply botched from start to finish. So why we are talking about one man? Well, it is because it is an opportunity to deflect from Biden's failure. For that matter, why hasn't Biden gotten him out?

Never mind I will answer my own question . The Haqqani want the release of convicted drug lord Bashir Noorza ,another uneven deal . He was charged with attempting to smuggle more than $50 million of heroin into the US .He was sentenced for a life sentence in GITMO . Sorry I don't see that the exchange is in a compelling US interest . Mark Frerichs.knew the risks of working in Afghanistan .

I spent 2 summers in a potentially hostile nation in the ME that later became a hostile nation in the 1970s . My family knew that we were on our own if there was problems.

Leaders of the Taliban are pressing Washington to free an Afghan drug lord serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison in exchange for the release of an American engineer, Mark Frerichs, held in Afghanistan for two years now, Afghan and American security, legal, and diplomatic sources said.

The group is also threatening to block the evacuation of tens of thousands of Afghans who hold U.S. citizenship or are eligible for resettlement in the United States until the drug lord, Bashir Noorzai, can go home to Kandahar, according to Steve Brooking, a former official with the British government and United Nations in Afghanistan.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/06/taliban-wants-prisoner-swap-united-states-frerichs/

This was suggested about 36 hours ago. Unfortunately the advice was not followed.

"I don't think you know what Trump did about Mark F. Do a little work and you can find out why we have not gotten him back."

no deal . sorry for Mark . My family had it's own evac plan in place should trouble go down. There was no expectation that the US would bail us out .

It's a hard decision, but I don't think we can start the business of exchanging dangerous criminals for unjustly held hostages.

It appears that the only reason his issue was even raised was as an opportunity to take a swipe at Trump. Perhaps not, but it sure appeared that way.

Democratic Representative Veronica Escobar TX, “there is one party in America that is so tied to the NRA, so addicted to their money and their endorsement, that they are willing to let babies die. And that is the Republican Party.”

Huh?? I wonder if she sees the irony in that comment.

She meant to say: "Too many Republicans believe we must save unborn babies, but if someone wants to kill born babies, go for it!"

except that not one Republican supports killing ,or letting born babies die either . Her statement and yours are strawmen .

Republicans don’t support programs that are used to help women after children are born, such as SNAP or Planned Parenthood or mandated personal/maternity leave time.

so how does that equate with ..."if someone wants to kill born babies, go for it!" ?
Answer is that it has nothing in common .The comparison is extreme inflammatory demagoguery and a clear false equivalency .

Reply (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3880946)

Republicans are against any form of socialism. Thus, they must refuse to use e.g., SS, Medicare and Medicaid, public highways and transportation, ACA, public libraries, public schools, SNAP, and public parks.

Republicans are against any form of socialism. Thus, they must refuse to use e.g., SS, Medicare and Medicaid, public highways and transportation, ACA, public libraries, public schools, SNAP, and public parks.Public highways and libraries are not examples of socialism. Neither are SS or public schools. Socialism is an economic system, not a system of governance or of how to fund government projects. Planned Parenthood does little to help born children. SNAP, which is basically food stamps, has a good deal of repub support, so I'm just not sure where you are getting your info from.


Republicans don’t support programs that are used to help women after children are born, such as SNAP or Planned Parenthood or mandated personal/maternity leave time.Your argument seems to come down to this. It must be OK for dems to want to kill unborn children since, after all, the repubs supposedly don't support programs to help children AFTER they are born. Well, that's not true to begin with, and you must also consider who it is who funds the more than 2,000 crisis pregnancy centers across the country. It is certainly not liberal dems.

more nonsense ;false and almost too ignorant to comment about .A broad definition of Socialism is government ownership or close control of the means of production and property .Republicans are strong supporters of private ownership and property rights

The 1st fallacy in your statement is that All Republicans are against any form of socialism .It is a very broad and absolute statement .Unlike the progressive drones there is no monolithic opinion . The 2nd big fallacy is that all government spending is some kind of welfare program.That is patently false

The common defense is the primary reason for having a government . Without it there is no reason to give up any liberty to a governing entity . Road building ,libraries public schools ,and parks have been legit government spending since the dawn of civilization. Redefining them as socialism is lazy .

SS Medicare are mandated insurance programs where the participants start paying into them the moment they begin earning a living . That they are coerced doesn't make them socialism . It makes them a ponzi scheme and in my humble opinion unconstitutional . Same with ACA . Even though it is an ill conceived unmitigated disaster ,it mostly is a socialist program because the government has tight control over the means of providing the service it outsources the managment to the insurance cabal..... sorta like the National Socialist model of Italy .

I and many other Republicans do not necessarily oppose a program that feeds the genuinely needy . That again disproves your fallacious declaration .

Don't you love it when opposing voices argue with you two?

I would rather have debate on the issues than to live in an echo chamber .

A prime example of believing that which is convenient versus that which is true.

A prime example of believing that which is convenient versus that which is true.
Conservatives know about convenient beliefs very well. (I have been surrounded by them throughout my entire life.)

Democrats; especially the Schmuckster, would rather see school children die than support sensible school safety laws .

Scott snaps at Schumer over gun legislation- POLITICO (https://www.politico.com/newsletters/florida-playbook/2022/05/26/scott-snaps-at-schumer-over-gun-legislation-00035319)

Conservatives know about convenient beliefs very well. (I have been surrounded by them throughout my entire life.)And another shot in the dark.


She meant to say: "Too many Republicans believe we must save unborn babies, but if someone wants to kill born babies, go for it!"How do you know what she "meant" to say?

And another shot in the dark.
Shot in the dark? I was born while parents lived in a very conservative state and later lived in another conservative area in a different state. Family, relatives, neighbors, friends -- mostly conservative. Back then, conservative was a good thing.

How do you know what she "meant" to say?
I'm psychotic.

Shot in the dark? I was born while parents lived in a very conservative state and later lived in another conservative area in a different state. Family, relatives, neighbors, friends -- mostly conservative. Back then, conservative was a good thing."Shot in the dark" was referring to your habit of making broad and non-specific accusations in what seems to be a desperate bid to counter someone else's argument.

"Shot in the dark" was referring to your habit of making broad and non-specific accusations in what seems to be a desperate bid to counter someone else's argument.
So my subsequent Part B reply got me off the hook?

I decided, in the interest of kindness, not to comment on your claim to be "psychotic". Perhaps you meant to say "psychic"?

I decided, in the interest of kindness, not to comment on your claim to be "psychotic". Perhaps you meant to say "psychic"?
I was trying to make you burst out laughing and spit out your mouthful of coffee.

Meanie!! (<:

49359

The push for abortions has been a progressive obsession for more than a century based on their racist eugenics beliefs . Here are but some examples that this is true .

RBG wanted to cull the minority population. She was a closet eugenicist. It is why she supported Roe.Her comment in this Slimes interview is all the proof you need.

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. (Ruth Bader Ginsberg )

The Place of Women on the Court - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=all)

It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: I'm Not Going Anywhere (elle.com) (https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/interviews/a14788/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg/)

This of course has been a well known progressive idea . Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wanted to sterilize imbeciles to purify the human species of defects .He wrote the majority opinion in the infamous Buck v Bell ruling that permitted it .
"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
BUCK v. BELL, Superintendent of State Colony Epileptics and Feeble Minded. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/200)


Co council in the Roe case, Ron Weddington wrote a letter to Bubba 1992 in support of the abortion pill by arguing that Bubba" can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country”..."We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy.We don’t have a lot of time left.” He argued “Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes,” Weddington wrote. “We don’t need more cannon fodder. We don’t need more parishioners. We don’t need more cheap labor. We don’t need more poor babies.” Weddington said, the government will not only have to provide condoms and other forms of birth control, but it “is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions ... RU 486 and conventional abortions.”
(complete letter is Tab F of this Judicial Watch report )jw-ru486-report.pdf (judicialwatch.org) (https://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/jw-ru486-report.pdf)

The clinic I stand in front of about every week has a clientele that is, I would estimate, 80 to 90% black. If conservatives were running it, they would be accused of racism.

The clinic I stand in front of about every week has a clientele that is, I would estimate, 80 to 90% black. If conservatives were running it, they would be accused of racism.
Do you ever ask clients or staff why are abortion wanted? If so, what are the reasons?

We are not allowed to enter the parking lot and great measures are taken to keep them away from us. The clinic workers fear the truth. There is money to be made.

About fifty years too late, but justice is finally beginning to take place. Thank you Mr. Trump for your SCOTUS appointees who genuinely believe in the rule of law rather than just making it up as you go along.

If one of your granddaughters, JL or tomder, is raped and ends up pregnant, she will keep the baby.

Yes, she will. She will do the right thing, thank God. It is certainly far preferred to having a living human being, innocent and defenseless, destroyed right before her eyes.

She will keep it, raise it, despite remembering the pain and seeing her rapist's face every time she looks at the baby.

The SC decision has nothing to do with babies and has everything to do with taking away women's rights.

You are speculating again. There are many women who chose to keep their babies, the products of rape, and testify that it was a gloriously wonderful decision that they are happy they made. Doing the right thing is sometimes painful. "For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

One example. You won't listen to it lest it disturb your preconceived notions, but it's there if you have the courage. Her testimony was, "I've never looked at him (her child) and seen anything but him."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d6KCx2qSFw

You prefer killing the innocent baby while I would prefer executing the rapist.

We're going to find out now, almost certainly by this evening, how wonderfully tolerant and peace-loving the advocates of killing unborn babies are.

Good thing they can carry guns legally.

That's not what the SCOTUS decision referred to.

Ok I'll answer to the rarest of possibilities (Maybe 1% of pregnancies are rape related )


I have no idea what my daughter or granddaughter would do. My daughter knows that fixing a wrong with a wrong is wrong. The rapist is wrong . The woman raped is a victim .So is the baby created .

The woman raped would be a victim entitled to all support legal ,medical ,psychological and spiritual .But in a judicial system that does not punish a rapist with death it is a cruel irony that one of the victims is subject to the death penalty .

The woman raped of course would have the moral right to prevent a pregnancy in the case of rape . Antifertility drugs are very effective within 72 hrs of the attack.

But if a pregnancy did occur then the life of the baby is precious regardless of how it was conceived.

.But in a judicial system that does not punish a rapist with death it is a cruel irony that one of the victims is subject to the death penalty .Exactly correct.

But if a pregnancy did occur then the life of the baby is precious regardless of how it was conceived.
But not to the raped woman.

For a country that holds its Rights and Freedoms dearly, this action, and subsequent State mandates, utterly beggars belief...
Welcome back to the Sixties where women are treated as merely second class chattels....

And even before that when women were men's property because, after all, it says in Genesis that a wife should, Stepford style, cleave to her husband as the head of the house.

You've got it backwards. It actually says this. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." So note that the husband actually does both the leaving and the cleaving. It never says what you claimed, and it certainly does not say that the woman becomes the man's property.

This is where you can say, "Whoops. Made a mistake."

[God] took one of [Adam's] ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man to be man's HELPER.

In Genesis 2:18 it says, “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” The common way in which the term “help meet” is interpreted is to mean that Eve, unlike the other beasts of the earth, was “appropriate for” or “worthy” of Adam and was to be his helper or companion on the earth.

Then in Genesis 3, To the woman He said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Of course, it's all allegory. Too bad so many men take it as truth.

(P.S. Don't mess with a PK!)

For a country that holds its Rights and Freedoms dearly, this action, and subsequent State mandates, utterly beggars belief...

and the primary right to protect is the one being the right to life .

14th amendment :
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.(14th amendment )

The Declaration of Independence :
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


5th Amendment :
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

The decision does NOT ban abortions . It brings the decision back to the states. The court kicked the decision back to the proper place to make the call .......the elective branches of government , The court improperly made the decision in 1973 . The court had no business making a political decision of such a magnitude . This court rectified and reversed a bad call by the Supreme Court .

This is where you can say, "Whoops. Made a mistake."I knew it was too much to hope for. This statement, "And even before that when women were men's property because, after all, it says in Genesis that a wife should, Stepford style, cleave to her husband as the head of the house," was completely wrong. Nowhere does it say that the woman becomes the man's property or that she was to "cleave" to him. You got it completely wrong and seem to be just too proud, I guess, to admit it, even when faced with the fact that it is the man, in truth, who cleaves to the wife. Now it is true that the husband has authority over his wife, in the same way that he has a responsibility to love her with the same love Jesus has for the church. You might want to reference what leadership entails in the NT era.


The decision does NOT ban abortions . It brings the decision back to the states. The court kicked the decision back to the proper place to make the call .......the elective branches of government , The court improperly made the decision in 1973 . The court had no business making a political decision of such a magnitude . This court rectified and reversed a bad call by the Supreme Court .Exactly correct. Now we'll see how well the "peaceful protests" crowd accepts it.

...seem to be just too proud, I guess, to admit it, even when faced with the fact that it is the man, in truth, who cleaves to the wife. Now it is true that the husband has authority over his wife, in the same way that he has a responsibility to love her with the same love Jesus has for the church.
You're having a big problem with that word "cleave", arncha! The literalist hard at work. And you are too stubborn to admit I'm correct. After all, you do believe women are supposed to cleave to men. Men rule!!! Women submit!

I have a big problem with people who make claims that clearly are untrue and are too unspeakably arrogant to simply admit it. You claimed that husbands own their wives and that the wives are to "cleave" to their husbands. Both claims are flatly wrong. If that's not true, then show us where you find support for them. Otherwise, forget it.

In Genesis 2:18 it says, “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” The common way in which the term “help meet” is interpreted is to mean that Eve, unlike the other beasts of the earth, was “appropriate for” or “worthy” of Adam and was to be his helper or companion on the earth.

Then in Genesis 3, To the woman He said,“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

A wife isn't supposed to cleave to her husband?

Ronald Reagan: I've noticed that everybody who is for abortion has already been born. - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBpGac4c6wk)

You go from confident assertions to insecure questions. I guess that’s progress, but still no support for women being owned by their husbands or wives cleaving to husbands.

Tom, Reagan had it exactly right. This has been a great day.

To be clear, wives and husbands are to cleave to each other in the sense of being faithful to each other, to cling to each other, but it is not just for the wife, and it is only stated as such for the husband. So your original proposition was simply not correct, and that's where this whole silly thing got started.

And you are a literalist. "But but but it doesn't say the wife cleaves. It's the husband who is supposed to cleave!!! Genesis says it that way exactly!!!"

So therefore, wives don't have to cleave. Got it!

You were wrong. Period. Women are not owned and it does not say, as you falsely claimed, that wives “cleave”. Nonsense.

But since we are again in non-literal territory, I understand you to be admitting you were wrong. Wonderful, Wondergirl!

I admitted nothing, Mr. Literalist.

If women aren't owned, why aren't they allowed control of their bodies?

If women aren't owned, why aren't they allowed control of their bodies?You claimed, "And even before that when women were men's property because, after all, it says in Genesis that a wife should, Stepford style, cleave to her husband as the head of the house." That is flatly wrong. It is stated nowhere in Genesis that women are property or that they must "cleave" to their husbands. It says, in fact, the exact opposite, that it is the husband who must cleave. Now once you get honest enough to admit to that, we can continue.

That's the entire point of the creation of Eve. Eve. Cleave. Get it???

Doesn't your wife cleave to you? Hasn't she for years?

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Gen 2:24


The passage is talking about the man . He leaves his parental and extended family and cleaves( to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly) to his wife . That means his wife comes first before his multi-generational family . It is as simple as that . It has NOTHING to do with the woman being subservient .

This passage has nothing to do with the abortion debate . Abortion is an unholy act of murdering an innocent baby.

The Dobbs decision has nothing to do with religion or morality . It represents a return to the rule of law. Whatever the issue is ;if it is not in the Constitution under the powers granted to the executive or legislative branch ;then it is NOT subject to Federal Law . The only way to make it Federal would be through the amendment process.

The sure way to know it is not constitutional is when the judiciary ,reading tea leaves ,or scouring the text of the Constitution to find emanations and penumbras ,invent rights that are not in the text . What we had since 1973 was a 9 person unelected ,appointed for life oligarchy in robes creating law instead of their proper function of interpreting laws or orders passed by the elected branches .

The Powers not enumerated to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people.(10th Amendment)

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”
19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (06/24/2022) (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf)

Congress will try to make a logic for Federal law . They will cling to their progressive era love affair with the commerce clause . (Art 1 Sec 8 clause 3)
The Congress shall have power to .....regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.
Janet Yellen made the opening salvo in testimony to the Senate Banking Committee

“I believe that eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades,”

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen makes economic case for protecting abortion rights - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRbW1fWO7cs&t=25s)

It's amazing how many wonderful excuses liberal dems (and, rather sadly, some repubs) can come up with to justify the killing of innocent human beings. It is going down the same road Germany went down in the 30's.

The fifth and fourteenth amendments should have been called on in this decision. Abortion is clearly a violation of both amendments. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

It's amazing how many wonderful excuses liberal dems (and, rather sadly, some repubs) can come up with to justify the killing of innocent human beings. It is going down the same road Germany went down in the 30's.
A leap too far there, what was pursued by Germany in the 30's was a program called eugenics which had much farther ranging consequences. Bringing the Nazis into a discussion has other effects though.

Have a look at the Euro approach, most have some form of legislation in place that allows abortion.
Pages 7&8 give a good break down in a visual tabular format.
https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/European-abortion-law-a-comparative-review.pdf


The fifth and fourteenth amendments should have been called on in this decision. Abortion is clearly a violation of both amendments. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The real question here is the definition of when life begins.
Your contention sees this as at the point of conception, in which case I fully support your contention, despite disagreeing with your position.

what was pursued by Germany in the 30's was a program called eugenics which had much farther ranging consequences.
Eugenics was in the progressive agenda long before the Nazis took it to extremes .
Margaret Sanger ;the founder of Planned Parenthood had a eugenics agenda targeted at primarily the Black population of America ;and well anyone else she deemed diluted the gene pool.

1932_peaceplan_margaretsanger (issues4life.org) (https://www.issues4life.org/pdfs/1932_peaceplan_margaretsanger.pdf)

2.5.1. The Negro Project - Discrimination of African Americans from the perspective of black jazz musicians at the turn of the 20th Century (google.com) (https://sites.google.com/site/discriminationofjazzmusicians/2-4-2-the-negro-project)

This passage has nothing to do with the abortion debate . Abortion is an unholy act of murdering an innocent baby.
What do you plan to do with them once they're born and the mothers don't want them?

Well, I suppose that we could just kill them after they are born if no one wants them. After all, killing is killing, isn't it? One practice is no more heartless, cruel, sadistic, and cold-hearted than the other. [SARC]

I would suggest that women exercise the "my body, my choice" philosophy prior to getting pregnant. I find it strange that we wear helmets, use seat belts, take vitamins, exercise, and do all sorts of other things based on the idea that taking care of our bodies and avoiding unnecessary physical problems is a good idea, and yet there are so many women who don't seem able to protect themselves with birth control. And please don't respond with the tired old reply that birth control doesn't always work. The vast majority of "unwanted" pregnancies result from carelessness. They might even go to the tried and true idea of reserving sex for marriage.

I would suggest that we make adoption a much less expensive and time-consuming process. It would also be wise to develop a national attitude that if you have a baby, you are expected to take care of the baby. "I don't want this child," should be viewed as the pathetic, sorry excuse that it is. And yes, that also applies to the dad.

And babies that result from rape, domestic abuse, incest, bad family planning?

I'm really not sure where you are going with this. Killing the baby because we don't like it's method of conception seems like a bad plan to me. Is that what you are suggesting? If so, then when are you suggesting the killing take place, before birth or after birth?

Answer my question please. You have no ideas what to do with a newborn the mother doesn't want or can't keep?

I don't have answers for all social ills without revisiting tried and true values . The first of these would be that the killing of the innocent is wrong .

Good answer from Tom. I still don't know where WG is going with this. As to your comment about the newborn's mother, I've already answered that. Posts 103 and 104. Please keep up.

There are really only two choices. You can kill the baby or allow the baby to live. The first choice seems ghastly to me. I can only assume WG is ok with it. Go figure.

The mother does not want the baby. She gives birth. What will happen to that baby?

And again. "There are really only two choices. You can kill the baby or allow the baby to live. The first choice seems ghastly to me. I can only assume WG is ok with it. Go figure."

And again. " As to your comment about the newborn's mother, I've already answered that. Posts 103 and 104. Please keep up."

Perhaps you should offer up some observations on what has already been said rather than asking more questions which certainly seem to be both pointless and already answered.

She allows the baby to live.

The mother does not want the baby. She gives birth. What will happen to that baby?

My question has NOT been answered. Please stop putting me down.

She allows the baby to live.

The mother does not want the baby. She gives birth. What will happen to that baby?What currently happens?


My question has NOT been answered. Please stop putting me fown.I'm not putting you down. If you will read post 104 even semi-carefully, you will have some material to respond to.

She allows the baby to live.

The mother does not want the baby. She gives birth. What will happen to that baby?

My question has NOT been answered. Please stop putting me down.

What currently happens?
You don't know?

Babies are adopted or put into foster care, facts known to everyone including you. Only the titanically ignorant would not know that. I trust you do not belong in that category.

Now obstinate and fearful? Yep.

Now it's my turn for a question. Given a choice between adoption and killing the child, which do you support?

Babies are adopted or put into foster care
Wow! Two ideal solutions! *gag* And now there are going to be millions more newborns put into the system that's already sagging.

Now it's my turn for a question. Given a choice between adoption and killing the child, which do you support?
My choice would be a thorough education about preventing pregnancy/birth control beginning in middle school through high school, plus follow-up education on the how-tos and pluses/minuses of pregnancy/childbirth/child raising.

yawn a 50 year debate with no resolution. Let the elected branches decide

yawn a 50 year debate with no resolution. Let the elected branches decide
Apparently you've never been pregnant.

Adoptions "gag" you? Wow. I knew a lot of adopted kids and I never had that thought about them.


Given a choice between adoption and killing the child, which do you support?You dodged the question. That's why I suggested you are fearful. Besides, you must have missed this, but practically all public schools teach sex ed. Those teenagers know more about sex probably than you or I do.

Adoptions "gag" you? Wow. I knew a lot of adopted kids and I never had that thought about them.
The kids are fine, or at least started out that way. Too many adoptive parents I've known never got the message and instruction on how to raise a child properly.

You dodged the question.
No, you dodged mine by asking competing questions of your own. Obviously, YOU are the fearful one.

No, you dodged mine by asking competing questions of your own. Which one?

You referred to adoptions with a "gag". That's pretty sickening. It was your term. Truth is, you prefer to see them killed in abortions.

Here is the question again. Still dodging? "Given a choice between adoption and killing the child, which do you support?"

https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/289947349_10224917313933094_2040918746753858271_n. jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=DMNDHDJwx9YAX-Pn3rR&_nc_oc=AQnyjechEnbxQt7xqSQJgQ6tU0P7UEwOFePNRFDVzdj PpJmcAc4h8hFpUZgi7VXFnsaM0dtJ2PqlZyMMM_w9KMDw&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-2.xx&oh=00_AT98H33Oh7e-z79o0A9gw5xPBQKXDq0o-rvVBH9Wg0WD-w&oe=62BC6FF3

Hilarious!

49377

Saw this post on FB today. Reminded me of our discussion about adoption.


We want to adopt but it cost to much. Can't afford lawyer to help. Wish it was cheap like in the 70s when I was adopted to a wonderful family.

And when a pregnancy is the result of incest, rape, poor family planning because husband doesn't care about that and wants his needs met NOW? The woman is obliged to carry that fetus, with all the accompanying discomforts and even permanent body changes for nine months just because some guy wanted sex (and too often dominance)?

As for adoption being cheap in the '70s -- EVERYTHING was cheap back then. We bought our now $250,000+ house in 1972 for $23,900 -- higher in price than the other two we looked at.

Actually, this Roe overturn will offer the perfect opportunity for couples in the LGBTQ+ community to adopt unwanted newborns that would end up in a loveless foster care system. Years ago, my wonderful SIL and her wife adopted a baby boy who has grown up to be a fine young man and an amazing poet.

Already asked and answered.


"There are really only two choices. You can kill the baby or allow the baby to live. The first choice seems ghastly to me. I can only assume WG is ok with it. Go figure."

" As to your comment about the newborn's mother, I've already answered that. Posts 103 and 104. Please keep up."

THIS question, on the other hand, you have consistently dodged. Please answer it now. "Given a choice between adoption and killing the child, which do you support?" Hopefully you have learned something from your "gag" comment.

Can we please stop repeating the point scoring on both sides.
The SCOTUS decision has been made and history will note the repercussions.

yes indeed . The court is getting better . It took a Civil War to reverse it's bad Dred Scott decision .It took 58 years for the Court to reverse it's bad Plessy v Fergusson decision with Brown v Board of Education . It only took 49 years to reverse it's bad call in Roe v Wade . So the timeline for the court to reverse its worse decisions is improving .

I think they missed it in a major way. Life cannot be taken without due process of law. On that basis, abortion as practiced now should be outlawed.

The tolerant, peace-loving leftists are busy burning and destroying. Shame. Crisis pregnancy centers, basically run only by pro-lifers, are being targeted.

They applied the 5th originally with the invented right to privacy from the Griswald case . And that brings us back to the fundamental divide . Who's life ? I have stated my opinion on this and it is unchanged since 1973 . I don't believe that will ever be resolved.

My State is one of the most conservative in the nation. The new law that will probably be passed is called a "heart beat " law. That means that abortions will be legally allowed up to when a heart beat is detected .....normally earliest around 6 weeks after pregnancy but could be as late as 12 weeks depending on the ultrasound . Texas also has a hear beat law. I think Alabama is the only state that has passed a complete ban (with medical exceptions )

My former state of NY currently allows up to so called "fetal viability " ;usually around 26 weeks after pregnancy .

Nothing prevents the prescription of RU-486 which aborts in a gestation period of 10 weeks . The drug was approved by the FDA which makes it nationally available. I don't believe that specific bans on this would be effective and would require a heavy national police enforcement that would invite intrusive use of police power .

SCOTUS has returned the debate to the states and there is where the fight needs to be engaged .

When the left does vandalism it is a legitimate form of protest . When the right does it it is terrorism .

Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion wrote

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."

Read his whole opinion here .
19-1392 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (06/24/2022) (bwbx.io) (https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/r8NF9h5wja9I/v0)
He deals specifically with 5th amendment issues related to the abortion debate .

Alito's majority opinion takes issue with rights that are not enumerated in the Consititution. Thomas runs with it to address specific issues of "privacy"(contraception) , "gay" and "same sex marriage " rights .

I think it is a mistake to link these to the abortion debate and it plays into the left's hand . The dissents by the 3 libs say that the abortion issue is not a stand alone and that other "rights" will now come under attack . In my view there is a huge difference between whether a gay couple can marry and the murder of a baby.

Chief Justice Roberts changed his opinion in the Obamacare decision partly based on the intimidation campaign that was waged against him by the "mostly peaceful" mob.

They decided to do an encore presentation before this abortion ruling . To his credit he sided with the majority this time . However he tried the Solomon approach and said in his concurrence that although he agreed with the majority ,he would've come down short of overturing Roe.
'

In reference to the Casey opinion, Alito said this. "But the opinionconcluded that stare decisis, which calls for prior decisionsto be followed in most instances, required adherence towhat it called Roe’s “central holding”—that a State may notconstitutionally protect fetal life before “viability”—even ifthat holding was wrong."

That seems to be strange reasoning to me. Since when does "viability" determine life? If we continue down that road, then we could decide that a newborn infant is not really "life" since, after all, it has no way to support itself and is not truly viable in the sense that it certainly cannot live on its own.

Alito said this in reference to the 14th amendment. "The right to abortion does not fall within this category.Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right wasentirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of theStates made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy."

Different subject, but the decision which came out today against the school district which attempted to suppress a coach's right to exercise his religious faith is another victory for freedom.

More compelling reason from the abortion decision.


To support this Act, the legislature made a series of factual findings. It began by noting that, at the time of enactment, only six countries besides the United States “permit[ted] nontherapeutic or elective abortion-on-demandafter the twentieth week of gestation.”15 §2(a). The legislature then found that at 5 or 6 weeks’ gestational age an “unborn human being’s heart begins beating”; at 8 weeks the“unborn human being begins to move about in the womb”;at 9 weeks “all basic physiological functions are present”; at10 weeks “vital organs begin to function,” and “[h]air, fingernails, and toenails . . . begin to form”; at 11 weeks “anunborn human being’s diaphragm is developing,” and he orshe may “move about freely in the womb”; and at 12 weeksthe “unborn human being” has “taken on ‘the human form’in all relevant respects.” §2(b)(i) (quoting Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 160 (2007)). It found that most abortions after 15 weeks employ “dilation and evacuation procedures which involve the use of surgical instruments tocrush and tear the unborn child,” and it concluded that the“intentional commitment of such acts for nontherapeutic orelective reasons is a barbaric practice, dangerous for thematernal patient, and demeaning to the medical profession.”

More of interest.


Roe expressedthe “feel[ing]” that the Fourteenth Amendment was the provision that did the work, but its message seemed to be thatthe abortion right could be found somewhere in the Constitution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance

It's interesting to me that the Court in the Roe decision could appeal to the "liberty" interest in the 14th amendment and yet be appallingly uninterested in the "life" provision.

The Prolife Bill

1. Father is responsible for 100% of ALL pregnancy related expenses including missed work and transportation since mother has to do all the physical responsibility.
2. Minimum child support $1000 per month per child
3. 10% per day for late child support
4. Minimum $1000 fine for each court appearance over non payment of child support awarded to custodial parent for inconvenience.
5. Reimbursement for transportation, missed work and child care for any court appearance over non payment of child support.
6. 100% of attorney fees for any court appearance over non payment of child support.
7. Non payment of child support is a criminal offense requiring an automatic minimum 60 days in jail for any 60 days of arrearage.
8. Any person in 90 days arrearage for child support required to become sterilized.
9. $25,000 fine for the male responsible for an unwanted pregnancy for a child given up for adoption that goes to fund sex education, free contraception and foster care since mother has to do all the physical part.
10. Non custodial parent is responsible for 100% of child care expenses since custodial parent is doing all the physical care.
11. All fees, fines, child support, child care, legal fees etc. automatically extracted from any income (payroll, tax returns, disability income, etc.) in full before any portion goes to the non custodial parents so children are put first.

If you truly care about a fetus you must absolutely care more about a child. If you feel so passionate about not allowing a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy that you have the right to impose your beliefs on HER you absolutely must believe that you have the right to impose responsibility on the FATHER of a child.

Why are you attempting to impose your beliefs on others?

You never did answer this. Is it better to kill the unborn child or better to deliver a live child for adoption?

So a woman bears no responsibility; and a father has no say if his child lives or dies unless he pays a ransom for the child's life . I always thought such extortion was illegal .

The father bears no responsibility if the mother keeps the child she would have otherwise aborted?

I did not say that . Parenting is a shared responsibility .

If you feel so passionate about not allowing a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy that you have the right to impose your beliefs on HER you absolutely must believe that you have the right to impose responsibility on the FATHER of a child.I always find these comments amusing. A person is so offended that others would "impose your beliefs" on women that she feels compelled to...impose her beliefs on men. How does the old saying go? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

So if there's no abortion and the mother keeps the child, what are the father's responsibilities?

Father's responsibilities goes well beyond the ransom list above . It would be a waste of time to itemize them as if it was some kind of a prenuptial agreement . What are the mother's ? Many of course . The murder of her child is not one of them .

I am out of this conversation . Over 50 years this issue has been hashed and rehashed . Ben is right . No one is going to convince me that the murder of a baby is right and I guess no one is going to convince you that it is wrong .

According to the Bible, that fetus isn't a living soul until it takes its first breath. And that living soul has TWO parents, a mother AND and father, both of whom are supposed to raise the child with love and to become a responsible human being.