We are all guilty

[woodchip]

We are all guilty of condoning abortion as our federal tax dollars are now supporting it. So in a way, we see another face of the death panel Palin so rightly predicted. I hope all of you that are so enamored of the president you helped vote into office can sleep better knowing you now are giving a helping hand to infanticide. I wonder how the dead babies resulting from this would view the hope and change promise?
I guess if you are a liberal, you don't really care about such things:


\"The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new \"high-risk\" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

It has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of pro-abortion Governor Edward Rendell under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.\"

[Gooberman]

I have to help fund executions. I have to help fund the war in Iraq.

I'll give you your moral \"out\" if you give me mine.

[Nightshade]

So Goob-

Are we to gather from your statement that you would have more sympathy for a child rapist/murderer on death row than for an unborn child?

Just curious.

[TechPro]

Woody, without a link to information that backs up your claims/statements ... you're just noise. (thought you knew this?)

So.... Here's to back up your claims/statements (next time, provide your own):
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6531.html

[Gooberman]

That would derail the thread, if you wish to open up another one comparing death row to abortions I will participate.

This thread is about being forced to fund things that you morally oppose:

Like it or not, abortion is a legal medical practice.
Like it or not, we execute people.
Like it or not, we invade sovereign nations.

I do not get an out. Show me where you stand for consistancy.

[Heretic]

So what about the people who never pay income taxes are they guilty too? There is roughly 43% of Americans that don't pay taxes so I guess were not all guilty after all.

[Will Robinson]

It's either legalized premeditated murder or it is just a medical procedure. You would think the legislative branch of the greatest nation in history could decide which it is, after all, they have no problem dictating when words alone can cause a homicide....

[Isaac]

It's this kind of moralistic gibber-jabber that will keep suicide booths from ever happening.

[Grendel]

Women can create life. It's their body and their choice to do so or not. Males should not be allowed to have a word in it IMVHO.

[Spidey]

Like it or not, abortion is a legal medical practice.

Sure, if it’s done for “medical” purposes.

Medical:
Involving medicine: relating to, involving, or used in medicine or treatment given by doctors.

Medicine:

1. Drug for treating illness: a drug or remedy used for treating illness
cough medicine.
2. Treatment of illness: the diagnosis and treatment of illnesses, wounds, and injuries.
3. Treatment using drugs: the treatment of illness or injury using drugs rather than surgery.

Birth Control is “not” a medical procedure.

[Spidey]

Women can create life. It's their body and their choice to do so or not. Males should not be allowed to have a word in it IMVHO.

That’s one of the dumbest things I have ever heard…for so many reasons, none fewer than…

1. Women only produce half of the genetic material.
2. Women depend on others, especially males to provide the food for the growing baby.
3. Conception doesn’t create life…it continues it…life began billions of years ago.
4. If you think women make life, ask one how it's done. (and I don’t mean sex)

JMHO…lol!

[Foil]

Women can create life. It's their body and their choice to do so or not. Males should not be allowed to have a word in it IMVHO.

The question then becomes: When was the life created?

IMVHO:

The life was created at conception. The choice about whether or not to create life has been made at that point. (Except for rape cases, of course.)

Once the life is created, with new DNA, the rest is development and care. Fetuses are dependent on the mother (so are infants); but they're biologically separate lives.

In my opinion, taking that life should never be a matter of convenience.

--------------

Anyway, back to the original topic:

Whether or not you support abortion, the big controversy here is that a presidential order is being circumvented.

In order to pass the health care bill, there was a presidential order made to prevent taxpayer-funded abortions. Yet the HHS is clearly doing the opposite with the Pennsylvania plan.

I'd expect the HHS to be challenged on this.

[Spidey]

I hate to split hairs Foil, but are you trying to tell me that the non-living sperm combines with the non-living egg…and life begins?

A new individual begins…not life.

[Foil]

I hate to split hairs Foil, but are you trying to tell me that the non-living sperm combines with the non-living egg…and life begins?

A new individual begins…not life.

That's essentially what I meant by "new life"; yes, it's a new individual, with new DNA.

-------------

Edit: In any case, the morality of abortion has been debated to death here.

I think the pertinent issue is the legal one. Is this new Pennsylvania plan going to be challenged because it contradicts the Presidential order?

[Heretic]

Whether or not you support abortion, the big controversy here is that a presidential order is being circumvented.

In order to pass the health care bill, there was a presidential order made to prevent taxpayer-funded abortions. Yet the HHS is clearly doing the opposite with the Pennsylvania plan.

I'd expect the HHS to be challenged on this.

To bad Executive Orders are not binding by the laws that Congress pass. Say Congress passes a law saying that the health care should allow government funded abortions then government funded abortions will go on even if the President issues a Executive Order stating no government funds should support abortions.

Read More

[CUDA]

Women can create life.

SINCE WHEN??? I have yet to meet or hear about any woman that can create life. they can carry and sustain life. life which is a by-product of a union between 2 cells requiring 2 seperate donors. but they cannot create life.

[Lothar]

I think the pertinent issue is the legal one. Is this new Pennsylvania plan going to be challenged because it contradicts the Presidential order?

The health care bill was only able to pass because of the Presidential order that it would not include any funding for abortions.

I don't know if the Presidential order can be enforced, but I'm sure the few members of Congress who changed their HCR votes based on that order are going to make a big stink about this.

[woodchip]

I think the pertinent issue is the legal one. Is this new Pennsylvania plan going to be challenged because it contradicts the Presidential order?

Do you suppose Obama will sic Holder on PA with the same vigor he did Az?

[Will Robinson]

...

I don't know if the Presidential order can be enforced, but I'm sure the few members of Congress who changed their HCR votes based on that order are going to make a big stink about this.

Not if they are typical politicians. The typical reaction would be to feign outrage to cover their butts with their voters but do nothing about it so as to not upset the Party. Yea! Party!

[Grendel]

Women can create life.

SINCE WHEN??? I have yet to meet or hear about any woman that can create life. they can carry and sustain life. life which is a by-product of a union between 2 cells requiring 2 seperate donors. but they cannot create life.

Hm, where would you be w/o the 9 months in your mothers womb ?

I stand by my opinion -- mothers body, mothers decision. Providing the sperm doesn't make you elegible to decide for any woman.

That’s one of the dumbest things I have ever heard…for so many reasons, none fewer than…

1. Women only produce half of the genetic material.
2. Women depend on others, especially males to provide the food for the growing baby.
3. Conception doesn’t create life…it continues it…life began billions of years ago.
4. If you think women make life, ask one how it's done. (and I don’t mean sex)

JMHO…lol!

Life as in an autonomous human being. Not happening w/o the womb where most of the process of the creation of that being happens.

Maybe I should put it in terms you guys can understand:

woman + sperm donation = kid
man + egg donation = nothing

[Nightshade]

That a woman's body is necessary to maintain a human life until birth isn't at issue-

I think the real issue is where we, as human beings, make the decision where this life becomes a fellow human being.

What bothers me is that decisions we'll make will be arbitrary- and of course there are millions upon millions of decisions we all make that HAVE to be arbitrary.

There's a nasty flip side to this- when does a human being STOP being? There are noises in our society about when grandma is no longer a person and it's time to unplug the breathing body.

There is also advocacy for killing a baby AFTER it has been born for reasons other than its ability to survive.

This is euphemistically called \"euthanasia.\"

[Spidey]

“sperm donation” How degrading…men are not “sperm donators”.

Your chart is silly, a more correct one would be…

Woman & Woman = Nothing
Man & Man = Nothing
Woman & Man = Child

[Isaac]

Robot & Robot = bigger robot

[Foil]

I stand by my opinion -- mothers body, mothers decision.

It's the new child's body, and IMHO, neither parent's decision. (Unless the abortion would prevent both mother and child from dying, then it's a medical necessity.)

It's carried/nurtured/fed by the mother in utero, but it is not part of the mother's body. (Note again that the child has separate DNA, separate nervous/blood/musculoskeletal systems.)

[AlphaDoG]

I think the real issue is where we, as human beings, make the decision where this life becomes a fellow human being.

It's funny how people have NO problem calling a single celled amoeba LIFE, while at the same time declare that life begins outside of the womb when it concerns a human being.

[Jeff250]

The question isn't when does it become alive, it's when does it become a person.

[Will Robinson]

My favorite paradox is the same people who tell me I shouldn't wear fur or leather or eat hamburger and want civil rights for pets will insist abortion is a right.

but to stay on topic, while it isn't against the law it is a medical procedure so I can see it being covered and anyone who thought Obama was trying to keep the fed from actually funding it should have their voter card revoked on grounds of mental incompetence.

[Spidey]

The question isn't when does it become alive, it's when does it become a person.

When does it gain a soul, oh that’s right…you don’t believe in the soul. It then becomes an arbitrary decision, with your parameters being just as valid/invalid as anybody elses, and seems to be asked for the sole purpose of justifying abortion.

.........................................

If a plumber built a staircase, would you call it plumbing? Just because something is performed by a doctor, doesn’t make it a medical procedure…what do you call it when a doctor is mowing his lawn?

As I pointed out before, “medicine” involves curing illness.

And…if you think I’m hung up on semantics, you would be right, because semantics has everything to do with the perception of this issue.

Medical procedure…sperm donor…give me a break.

[Foil]

The question isn't when does it become alive, it's when does it become a person.

It then becomes an arbitrary decision, with your parameters being just as valid/invalid as anybody elses...

That's the problem with trying to use "personhood" rather than biological life as the basis. It's far too subjective and removed from any good definition. I can say "at conception", someone else can say "at first brain impulse" or "at first heartbeat", others might say "at birth" (or later, depending on their concept of personhood).

Thus I believe it has to come down to something definitive, rigorous, and scientific. In my opinion, the only point which fits that criteria is conception.

[Tunnelcat]

Women can create life. It's their body and their choice to do so or not. Males should not be allowed to have a word in it IMVHO.

THANK YOU GRENDEL! If males were the ones that got pregnant, had to carry to full term and GIVE BIRTH, abortion would be a sacrament!

No Spidey, women don't create life, we only donate half the genetic material. Also, even the combined genetic material from both parents will not form a human without that magic outer shell of the egg, that comes FROM US ONLY! But WE have to carry a child to term within our bodies and WE usually get stuck with the expense and life altering choice of raising it to adulthood a lot of the time. Don't give me crap about that because men can be fickle and decide they don't want the 'disruption' that a child will put upon their busy little lives and decide to take off. And this 'child' cannot survive outside the womb as a separate living being until almost to the end of the pregnancy's full term. Any earlier and it requires advanced medical intervention to keep alive, not something you'd find in nature. Even after it is born, it will still need a mother to nurse and raise it for a period of time. A child is a LONG TERM commitment, and BOTH parents, if there are 2 loving parents in the picture at all, need to be dedicated to raising that child at all costs. If they don't, the child will suffer or even die as a victim of abandonment or abuse. How is that better or worse than abortion?

[CUDA]

How is that better or worse than abortion?

Your joking right????????????????

[flip]

People that have abortions or support it are the same people that will kill you and eat you when the ★■◆● hits the fan.

[Isaac]

People that have abortions or support it are the same people that will kill you and eat you when the ***** hits the fan.

hmmm.... bacon

[Lothar]

If males were the ones that got pregnant, had to carry to full term and GIVE BIRTH, abortion would be a sacrament!

"Giving birth isn't that hard. Women are just whiners."

- stated by my wife, not that long after giving birth.

[Tunnelcat]

How is that better or worse than abortion?

Your joking right????????????????

It's a valid question. Think of an unwanted child that gets raised in a dysfunctional family and gets mentally or physically abused for YEARS and THEN dies because of it? That happens more than people like to think. Isn't that far worse than not existing in the first place? Most women who get an abortion do so because they don't think that they would be able to provide a good life for it or can't afford it, or worse, because of rape. If they can't afford it, should society be paying to raise that child by other means? I know a lot of you don't like welfare, but that's what you'd be getting. Mother's KNOW if they're capable of providing for the well being of a child and personally, I think a child should be WANTED, anything else may end up a wasted, miserable life.

And, damn it, if religions don't want abortions to occur, SUPPORT BIRTH CONTROL MEASURES for all, not just abstinence either. Sperm by itself does not make a human and this religious revulsion to wasting it during birth control is ridiculous!

flip, I dare you to carry a baby full term and then give birth, if that were at all possible!

Lothar, your wife had it easy, lucky for her. That's NOT always the case. It's so dangerous sometimes that women used to DIE during childbirth because of complications or a turned baby. Uterine contractions during labor are THE MOST PAINFUL THING a woman can ever experience. I may not have ever given birth personally, but I do have an inkling from experiencing something similar during perimenopause (no, I will not go into detail).

[flip]

Tunnelcat, my wife had 4 and seemed to fair pretty well through all of them, on the other hand, I dare you to work in sub 20 temps all day with the wind kicking up about 30 miles an hour for days at a time. Do all this with a severely entrapped sciatic nerve for days at a time, then maybe you'll have a concept of what real pain over a long period of time is. I agree with lothars wife, sounds like whining to me to.

If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant there are a multitude of ways to prevent it. Who cares what the \"religious\" want? Proving they obviously didn't when they unwillingly got pregnant in the first place. That's a moot point and a rant. Useless.

Taking all that into account, I stand my my statement. If it's so easy to just snuff out an unwanted life, that comes directly from your own DNA and blood, I'd hate to see what happens when they don't eat for a week. I'll concede the rape because it was not a voluntary act, so the woman need not suffer her whole life at the hand of another. All other cases are just weak-minded people looking for an easy way out with no constitution AT ALL.

[Tunnelcat]

flip, don't get me wrong. I personally wouldn't have a abortion unless the circumstances were really heinous, rape or incest only, because the child would be born of my genes and I would have an attachment to it. But I personally believe that since a woman has the responsibility of carrying the baby, it's HER body and HER decision, and no one outside of the conceiving pair should have ANY say in what that woman does with her body, and the fetus IS still part of and dependent on her body until birth.

Yes, I have worked in sub 20's temps with very cold metal parts and machinery dealing with Raynaud's Syndrome myself. I used to tramp around in the wilderness as a geologist, sometimes too hot, sometimes too cold. It still doesn't compare to labor pains, NOT EVEN CLOSE. The ONLY thing worse would be getting burned.

[Foil]

How is that better or worse than abortion?
...
It's a valid question. Think of an unwanted child that gets raised in a dysfunctional family and gets mentally or physically abused for YEARS and THEN dies because of it? That happens more than people like to think. Isn't that far worse than not existing in the first place?

Sure, suffering is worse than not existing.

If it was a choice between potential suffering and non-existence, sure. Easy choice, no real moral issue. That's called reproduction control, and I fully support it.

But, TC, abortions don't prevent existence. Abortions take lives that ALREADY EXIST.

So your question becomes, "Isn't suffering far worse than having your life taken?"

The answer to that question should never be decided by either parent. [Edit: Unless it puts another life in danger, of course.]

[Edited for clarity.]

[Foil]

...it's HER body...

This still makes no sense. It's not the mother's body, it's the CHILD'S body being destroyed (separate DNA, separate nervous/blood/musculoskeletal systems).

[snoopy]

That would derail the thread, if you wish to open up another one comparing death row to abortions I will participate.

This thread is about being forced to fund things that you morally oppose:

Like it or not, abortion is a legal medical practice.
Like it or not, we execute people.
Like it or not, we invade sovereign nations.

I do not get an out. Show me where you stand for consistancy.

I think there are two issues at stake.

1. What should be and what shouldn't be the government's job. Why does government exist? Your basic civic class will say "to protect people's rights from other people who would try to take them away." Past that, people's opinions diverge, but I hope we can at least agree on that.

So, if I look at the three issues through that lens:
Wars are, in name, to protect the citizens from outside forces that would take away their rights.
Law enforcement, in name, is to protect the citizens from individuals within that would take away their rights.
Abortions.... I don't see how I can tie them back into the goal of protecting them from others who would take away their rights.

Thus, I categorically support government funding of the first two, even when I might disagree with the means by which it's accomplished.

Now, at some level the government is out there to provide social justice... abortions can fit into that category, but at the same time the level of government's involvement in social justice (I think I'm using the term correctly) is the fundamental difference between all the different government types out there.

2. Means by which the government accomplishes it's purpose for existence.

Here's where you've got lots of room to complain, and you deserve an equal chance to complain. I think a person's reasons for disagreeing with the government's means can be quite varied, and really shouldn't matter. If you don't like the way that the current people are doing things, vote for people that will do it your way, and they will still do some things in ways that you don't like.

Summary: I oppose federal funding of abortions from two different angles.

1. I think it's an over-stepping of the federal government's reason for existence. I see things through through a libertarian lens, so I don't like it because I don't like national-level government involvement in health care in general.

2. I oppose it because I have a moral problem with it. I'll give it to the national government that they should provide social programs, but I don't think that paying for abortions is one of the ways that they should do it.