Republicans thank the Christian voters
 

How long did it take Republicans to write their thank-you note to the Christian right? About five minutes. On November 21, Congress passed a $388 billion spending bill that permits any health provider -- not just doctors and nurses, who can already opt out in forty-five states, but health insurers, HMOs, public or private hospitals, clinics, *******ists -- to refuse to be involved in abortion, up to and including informing a woman where to get one. Your employer can now deny you abortion coverage! Coming up soon: the Child Custody Protection Act, which would make it illegal for anyone but a parent or guardian to take an underage girl across state lines for an abortion, thus making parental notification and consent laws impossible to get around; the grotesque Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, which would require doctors to offer women aborting after twenty weeks pain medication for their fetuses; the Post-Abortion Depression Research and Care Act; and lots more. Measures like these make abortion harder to get: Arrangements take longer, travel becomes more burdensome, the clinic date gets pushed later and the cost goes up -- from around $350 for a first-trimester procedure to $1,000 or more after twelve weeks.

The rest of this rather odd article here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in659363.shtml

Hmmm... there goes women's rights. I forsee a lot of instances where "back-alley" abortions will happen.

next thing women won't be able to vote! OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!

:mad:

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

i'm against abortions so i see this as a victory for the anti-abortionists. i'm not "anti-abortion" just because i'm a christian. i was anti-abortion since i was made aware of what an abortion was and what it did.

I think it's good that insurance companies can refuse to be involved in abortions, the way insurance works, everyone pays in and then money is given out to those who need it. so technically some of the money I pay in could potentially be going to fund abortions. I don't want my money to fund abortions, so that is a good thing.

What's so bad about giving companies the option to fund or not fund a highly contraversial medical procedure? they can still fund it if they want to. Why should companies fund abortions anyway, technically they should be considered a cosmetic operation, when was the last time your health insurance covered a nose job? many of them don't even cover vision, something that is truly necessary for lots of people.

Matress, you've just described my view on how the Gov't relates to abortion.

The state doesn't have the right to force a corperate entity to be involved in abortion, just as much as it doesn't have the right to tell a woman she can't kill her baby.

I think it should be the right of the individual, however, I don't personally think abortion is ever nessicery, proper, or moral.

i feel a debate coming on.

I think it should be illegal, the government has a right to tell me I can't kill you. :p

Yeah um...
I can't seem to find murder here anywhere...

And yet there are laws against murder. I said government, not congress.

whatever happened to these ideals? nobody gives a shit about life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness any more. especially life.

pursuit of happiness, my friend, babys ruin happiness, what with their pooping and crying and whatnot.

if the pregnancy is aborted, that child IS ROBBED of life, liberty and the pursuit of happines.

babies don't ruin happiness. negative people ruin the happiness.

Guess people can go back to the old style abortions:

http://www.smm.org/sln/tf/s/shoebox/hanger.gif

^ that's what worries me. Folks, you can outlaw abortions, but, you won't stop it. I'd rather see it supported for safety of women's health.

It's not that insurance companies don't have to pay for the abortions anymore, hell, some companies don't even offer contraceptive provisions. It's conservatives steadying march towards overturning Roe vs. Wade that has me very worried.

so the worry that people will attempt unsafe coat hanger abortions that could result in the injury of the aborter is justification for legal "safe" abortions?

So the worry that people will attempt unsafe shotgun murders that could result in the injury of the murderer is justification for legal "safe" murders? Wouldn't want the murderer to accidentally shoot themselves now would we?

My last post on this topic (mainly because opinions will never change):

One thing I ask of those of you guys that are pro-lifers, make sure that the women you have a relationship with or will have, know where you stand on this subject. It may save you from a nasty surprise later.

The difference being that when one does not equate abortion with murder - as most who actually elect to get one do not - that whole analogy falls apart.

Surely ShyShy and zootm's arguments are much more important than whether it's right or wrong according to the Christian faith. I think it's really really wrong for religion to take step infront of things that will only cause more damage. One of the things that annoys me a great deal is that the Vatican will still not say that condoms are OK. If they did, so many people in subsaharan Africa would start using them and stop the spreading of Aids.

It's also such a simple solution for paedophilia to stop to allow priests to marry. It doesn't mean they're going to be devoted to God less. It'll most likely mean that they'll be more balanced in the head and will be able to relate better to the people they're sermoning.

No, but since it's not going to stop it's better to have it done in as humane way as possible than what used to happen before it was made legal (the coathanger method and many other really sick ways).

No we have the electric chair for that - which just happens to be legal.

Not to mention the fact that christian morality is causing a great number of abortions by keeping people from using contraceptives.

who said anything about the christians? this is not about the christians. for me an abortion IS MURDER. murder and abortion are no different from each other. and IT'S NOT BECAUSE I'M A CHRISTIAN. it's not christian morality that causes anything because if the pregnant person was really a christian, they wouldn't be pregnant. few people on these forums know what it is to be a christian. so they can't be talking crap all the time.

abortion - robs a person of life
murder - robs a person of life

Oh yes it is because you're a christian. Otherwise you might be able to differenciate between a person and an embryo, but since you're blinded by your faith you can't.

you don't know what it is to be a christian. you don't know what a christian is. and you are anti-christian.

And do you know what it's like to think for yourself?

so you think that christians don't think for themselves? you are wrong. i think for myself. it's like i said. you do not know what it is to be a christian because you are not a christian.

See, what you're doing there is equating a phoetus with a person. That's an opinion for a start, not a fact. It doesn't matter whether you're a Christian or not - until you stop representing your opinions as facts you will never be able to understand the opposition's argument. If you can't understand the opposition's argument, you can't argue against it, can you?

I don't equate phoetuses with people. Sorry, but I just don't buy into that particular philosophy of things. Incidentally, however, I know of Christians who agree with me on this issue - to believe that an abortion is a murder is derived from the belief that a phoetus is a person, which is not a Christian belief (obviously the converse isn't either, though).

To get back to the actual debate, however, the fact is that the more difficult you make it to get abortions, the more illegal, dangerous abortions will be carried out. You can't stop that. Legislating something away because you don't like it doesn't make people believe what you believe - it makes people who don't believe what you believe into potential criminals. When these people are in a desperate situation already, that's not something that's going to concern them.

I see this as a failure in the anti-abortion cause. Why? Because it's making abortion into a taboo subject. What the anti-abortionists need to do is to educate people (neutrally, with facts), equipping them to make their own decisions, rather than making them for them. If the anti-abortion case is so strong, people will stop of their own accords.

Ever notice that many of most vocal supporters of banning abortion are the same ones who advocate lie-filled "abstinence-only" sex education plans that are proven to lead to unwanted pregnancies? Is there a fundamental problem with the truth here?

I couldn't have said it any better. :up:

Oh, and incidentally, the main problem with the option for insurance companies being able to opt-out of abortion payments is that companies think with their wallets - as such, it's a highly attractive option for insurance companies, regardless of morality. Indeed, I'd be surprised if any company continues to fund abortions for any reason other than morals.

Who says a baby is a person?


...you could probably argue a COW is a person, therefore illegal to kill them.

Just because they're of the human species doesnt make them special.

The main point is that it isn't a baby yet.

It's an embryo that certainly has less feelings than a cow.

I never thought I'd get so irritated by the sheer ignorance displayed on these forums by some people that I'd actually have to sign up so I could post a reply.

First off, I'm not a Christian, and certainly not a fundamentalist. Beliefs in a holy lord or not, opinions like mine still count; something at least one of you anti-abortionists has failed to take into account.

Catholics and fundamentalists just can't seem to grasp the concept that if it's heart ain't beating, then it ain't living. That's called science - something such people seem to pick and choose to suit their arguement, unable to understand how damn contradictary they are being from one arguement to the next.

I could go into depth, but I think my words would be wasted on most of you anti-abortionists, and anyone I could convince now will likely be convinced in later life when they actually look around and think about the world around them.

To sum up though, a fetus could well become a human if not aborted (still deaths are still possible), the odds would be in it's favour, though if you want it aborted it's likely it isn't going to live long - most people have valid reasons for aborting.

However, I see no reason for a baby to be born into a world if it doesn't have to be; if it would just be a life of pain and anguish. The brain isn't functioning until WELL into the pregnancy, so to end it's life before this time is causing it no pain. Certainly, you could well be saving it from horrors no child should be subjected to.


In my opinion, if you wish pain and anguish on a child, which some of you clearly do, I fail to see how a god could ever accept you.

How pitiful of a statement.

I'd like to see any pro-choicer have a conversation with a former saline baby, and see if they still hold the same opinion.

I remember in middle school, these guys took a camera and started interviewing all these female teachers. They asked "Do you wish that Women's Sufferage would end?" And the teachers replied with enthusiasm about how it is wrong for women to suffer, etc. :D

The Catholic Church also says you should be monogamous, and you shouldn't have sex until you get married. not many in Africa adhere to that rule though, hence the severe aids problems in africa.

Blaming the church for the problem because of their stance on condoms is dumb, why would they listen to the church about condoms when they don't listen to them about abstinence?

I agree with you on the letting priests marry though.


Here's two facts: A fetus is a living organism. A fetus has the same DNA as a human who has been born.

Draw your own conclusions.

Now there's a more intelligent comment! There is still a subtext that you find your belief "obvious", though - spermatozoa fulfil both of those requirements, and yet you don't seem to care about the fact that so many of them die... I guess that your argument is to do with unnecessary, or unnatural death - the mode of death, rather than the actual subject - but still, it's not at all an obvious conclusion to make. Does one define one as a person from birth? From when one can feel pain? From the moment of being able to move muscles? From the moment of conception? From first conscious thought? When do cells or a phoetus become a person? If a phoetus is not a person, is destroying it any worse than wearing a condom during sex? Is it any worse than shooting an animal for no reason other than sport? Are neither of these analogies relevant? If not, why not?

Too many treat the abortion debate as if the evidence for one side is self-evident. That simply is not so. Such narrow-minded thinking has reduced the argument to childish mud-slinging... Since both sides know they're right, what point is there in listening to the other side?

This debate brings out the worst in people. It shows people as the ignorant, self-important idiots we all like to pretend that we're not.

Here's an interesting site about the subject Claims to only state the facts:

All true. All things I knew before. What conclusions do you draw from it, though?

Ok, so abortion and murder are the same thing, right?

But, it's ok to invade a country killing thousands more or less because we don't like what they are doing and want their rulers gone. We did it in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sorry, but according to you MURDER IS MURDER. Where the hell is the christian attitude there?

Also since you're a Bush supporter (as you said you voted for him) and Bush supports the DEATH PENALTY which is the MURDER OF A HUMAN and BUSH was responsible for making sure many people on death row were MURDERED before he left Texas the very president you voted for IS A MURDER IN THE UNITED STATES, AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ and has killed men, women and children.

So which side is it - either murder is wrong and the President you voted for COMMITTED MURDER MULTIPLE TIMES therefore is wrong - or it's not.