Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

I Knew This was Coming

I havent seen much of this yet in the MSM but alas, there it is...

"The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to table -- and thereby kill -- an amendment that would have barred federal funds in health-care reform from paying for abortions.The 54-45 vote to table the amendment turned back an effort by Sens. Ben Nelson, D.-Neb., and Orrin Hatch, R.-Utah, to revise the Senate health-care bill to prohibit federal funding for abortions in a government-managed program and federal subsidies for private insurance plans that cover abortions.With the tabling of the Nelson-Hatch Amendment, the bill sponsored by Majority Leader Harry Reid -- the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act -- moves forward without the restrictions on federal funding of abortion that were placed in the measure by the House of Representatives. The pro-life restrictions in the House bill were promoted by Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.).Two Republicans -- Susan Collins and Olympic Snowe, each of Maine -- joined 52 Democrats in supporting the table resolution. Opposing the table resolution were 38 Republicans and seven Democrats: Evan Bayh (Ind.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Ted Kaufman (Del.), Nelson and Mark Pryor (Ark.)."

Link to the cited article. I never thought I would see it in my lifetime but yes folks, we here in the US are on the very cusp of having federally funded, abortion on demand. Any thoughts on the subject? Personally, I don't want the government paying for such procedures. I only wonder if this latest installment on the road towrd global governance comes as a suprise to those who supported and voted for Obama because after all, he was "for hope and change and stuff".

22 comments:

GCT said...

Good, although I find your characterization of it to be misleading. It is part of health care and should be treated as such. If you don't want to get an abortion, don't. But, don't try to enforce your religious beliefs on others.

JD Curtis said...

Why should I pay for the murder of the unborn? Why? Would you equate the 'procedure' to the removal of say, a benign tumor?

Ginx said...

I hope your tax dollars abort the second coming.

JD Curtis said...

Ginx, the 2nd Coming will be from the clouds, not a manger.

GCT said...

Why do you call it murder? Do you similarly call it murder when we kill other lifeforms?

And, you should pay for it because it's part of the collective health care of the nation. Having autonomy over our own bodies is also a right. What right do you have to force women to be baby incubators? What right do you have to enforce your religious beliefs on others?

Tracy said...

GCT-Earlier you said that you did not think that development in the womb mattered - but that's the whole issue. Look into what a baby is like at 23 weeks old - this is a human being. Regardless of any one's religion; to me it's a thought process that human life is a value and we can't just choose to end it. Because this is such an intense issue for so many, we should at least not be forced to pay for someone else's decision to murder the baby inside her. In that other discussion you also mentioned what penalty did I think should be meted out to women who have abortions; I'm not really interested in penalizing the women.

The entire situation is so absurd in my mind - we put people in prison for making dogs fight (which I agree is vile) but are trying to make tax payers pay to murder unborn children.

Tracy said...

Ginx-I'm confused what the "second coming" has to do with this discussion. The only conclusion at which I could arrive is that, because JD is a Christian and opposed to abortion, you choose to make an odd comment related to his religion.

I can not believe that only Christians are opposed to abortion. Christianity is not the only group that regards the value of human life highly.

GCT said...

Tracy,
"GCT-Earlier you said that you did not think that development in the womb mattered - but that's the whole issue."

Sorry. What I said was sloppy. Of course development matters. What I didn't see is how it matters for your argument. You seem to be saying that a human person begins at conception, correct? So, I don't see how development would matter to you.

"Look into what a baby is like at 23 weeks old - this is a human being."

It resembles a human being to some extent. At that point it has or at least almost has a cerebral cortex and the ability to feel pain, and I would say that abortions done at this time are thorny issues. Less than 1.5% of all abortions take place this late in the game, however, and the vast majority of those are done for health reasons.

"Regardless of any one's religion; to me it's a thought process that human life is a value and we can't just choose to end it."

I agree that we shouldn't be ending the lives of human persons, but you need to be careful of your definitions. A clump of cells that contain human DNA and the requisite number of chromosomes doesn't cut it, unless you want to tell me that you're ashamed of the genocide you carry out every time you scratch an itch.

"Because this is such an intense issue for so many, we should at least not be forced to pay for someone else's decision to murder the baby inside her."

What you are really saying is that you should not have to pay for something that you personally disagree with. Well, using that logic, why should I have to pay taxes to fund religious wars started by Bush and co.? We do it because it's part of our society to sometimes fund those things we don't agree with, so long as they don't violate our rights or our laws. (I have a better case of showing the wars we are currently in violate laws and rights than abortion does.)

"In that other discussion you also mentioned what penalty did I think should be meted out to women who have abortions; I'm not really interested in penalizing the women."

And, why not? If it is murder, then the woman who gets an abortion is a murderer, is she not? Yet, you're willing to let her off the hook? I would contend that you are not being consistent here. You can't claim that this is murder and that it's such an intense issue and all that and then turn around and claim that it's not a big enough deal to merit any sort of legal action for those who would break the law.

"The entire situation is so absurd in my mind - we put people in prison for making dogs fight (which I agree is vile) but are trying to make tax payers pay to murder unborn children."

No, we are asking tax payers to pay for the health care of women, which includes their ability to have autonomy over their own bodies. I know you have kids, and I'm assuming that you chose to do so, but imagine what it would be like if you were forced to have them. How do your sensibilities deal with that? When women are raped and become pregnant, should they have to carry to term? Isn't that murder if they abort? What about birth control, which sometimes acts by not allowing the fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall? Isn't that murder in your eyes? Are you against birth control pills? Are you against IVF, where multiple eggs are fertilized in order to try and get one to implant? Isn't that murder?

Do you believe the soul enters the cell at conception? What happens when that clump of cells splits into twins? Does another soul appear to fill one of the clumps or does the existing soul split in two?

To finish up here, it's all about personhood and when this developing lifeform that has human characteristics becomes worthy of rights and the ability to over-ride the rights of the woman who is forced to carry it around. I'm still not hearing an argument that would compell me to think that it happens at conception or at any discrete time.

Tracy said...

First off I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe as I do but my own beliefs are steadfast.

Rape is terrible and I'm in no way saying that it is not. Studies conducted by Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute indicate that two consenting and fertile adults have only a 3% chance of pregnancy from an act of intercourse. They also indicate that there are factors involved in a rape that further reduce the chance that rape victims will become pregnant. The Guttmacher Institute says that fourteen thousand abortions per year are due to rape or incest, which amounts to just over 1 percent of all abortions. Other studies show that pregnancies due to rape are much rarer than is generally thought, perhaps as few as one in a thousand cases. So I'm not sure that is the strongest argument to be pro abortion being considered part of a female healthcare package.

As far as at what stage women are having abortions, I found this in Wikipedia:
In 2003, from data collected in those areas of the United States that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 88.2% of abortions were conducted at or prior to 12 weeks, 10.4% from 13 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. You can check out this site to see what babies are like at 13 weeks: http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-13-weeks - sure looks like a person to me.

I have a real problem with this attitude of a woman being forced to carry around a child - it breaks my heart what a truly selfish society we've become. To be totally candid here, one of my children was not only unplanned but I was not married when I became pregnant and the father was a good guy in some ways, but not a healthy person as far as he and I were concerned. When I first found out that I was pregnant, for like half a second I considered abortion, but I KNEW that no matter what I could never do that. Even if I had to deal with the all the issues surrounding this person's birth - I just couldn't kill him. All of my children are a joy to me and I have become a better human being for being the mother of each of them.

I can see why you think I'm morally inconsistent in my attitude toward women who have abortions, but I think you're making it way too black-white. Our culture teaches that abortion is not wrong, so why would I think a women who has been brain washed her entire life is a murderer for agreeing with American society? I see her most frequently as a victim. I only know 7 women who have told me about their abortion experiences; of the 7, 4 are Christians. Of the 7 all wish they did not have an abortion. All have had to deal with deep depression and regret regarding their decision - who would benefit from these women being formally punished?

Because I do see the fetus as a human being, my desire is simply that these people be protected.

JD Curtis said...

Thank you for your commentary Tracy. My thought are as follows.

Insofar as rape-pregnancy occuring, I believe that some statistics also include statutory rape, that is it was "rape" but of a different kind. The girl might have been "willing" (albeit too young to give any type of informed consent) thus there was a greater possibility of conception occuring if the girl was of physical development where she could concieve.

One study I am familiar with states......

" In a survey of 192 women who became pregnant through rape or incest, nearly 80 percent said that they regretted their abortions, while none of the women who carried to term said that they wished they had not done so or that they had chosen abortion instead.

"Many of the women in the survey also reported that they felt pressured by family members or health care workers to undergo abortions, and that they did not freely choose abortion for themselves," Reardon explained. "This was especially the case for those who became pregnant through incest; in almost every case, the abortion was chosen by the girl's parents or tragically, by the perpetrator himself. In some cases the abortion was used to cover up the incest and the girl was returned to the same abusive situation to be victimized again." Link

JD Curtis said...

I'll just throw this out there. My (PCA) pastor once brought this up in a discussion with atheists/agnostics/Christians that we host at the church I attend and he stated the following. To paraphrase...

If he could have his druthers, there would be no abortion procedures. However, if he were in a position to truly affect the legal status of abortion procedures, say, like an elected State Rep, and he knew that the very best he could do with the number of votes he could muster would be to outlaw abortion procedures after the first trimester, then he would have to do the pragmatic thing and know that was the best he could do under those circumstances.

GCT said...

Tracy,
"First off I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe as I do but my own beliefs are steadfast."

I understand that. What I'm saying is that if you are pushing for abortion to be illegal, then you are trying to force others to live according to your beliefs.

"So I'm not sure [rape] is the strongest argument to be pro abortion being considered part of a female healthcare package."

I didn't bring it up to talk about it being part of women's health care. I brought it up to ask what you think of it. If you truly believe that abortion is murder of a human person, then abortions conducted on rape victims are murders as well. Do you support such abortions? You don't sound as if you think it's a big deal.

"...1.4% at or after 21 weeks."

Then, we are in agreement about the frequency.

"...sure looks like a person to me."

Looks can be deceiving and personal bias probably has something to do with it. At 13 weeks, the fetus does not have cerebral activity or the ability to feel pain.

"I have a real problem with this attitude of a woman being forced to carry around a child - it breaks my heart what a truly selfish society we've become."

But, if we legislate control over the bodies of women, then that's exactly what we are doing. You had the choice of getting an abortion, and that's all that's being asked for. You can choose to get one or not.

"I can see why you think I'm morally inconsistent in my attitude toward women who have abortions, but I think you're making it way too black-white."

Because it is inconsistent. If culture saturation (which I'm not buying at all) is the reason not to punish a woman for getting an abortion, then it's similarly a reason not to punish doctors. Are you really advocating making it illegal but attaching no punishment? What a toothless law that wouldn't do a single thing to stop abortions.

"Because I do see the fetus as a human being, my desire is simply that these people be protected."

Well, I don't, and I don't see any reason why I should. There's no convincing argument that I've heard yet to consider that fetus as a human being with the mandate that allows us to violate the rights of beings that we know are persons, i.e. the women. Lost in all this is that we have a woman who is being told that she can't be in control of her body, that she must be a vessel for another, whether she wants it or not. That she's a murderer if she doesn't consent to some other being physically living off of her sustenance and using her body. I desire for the women to be protected to be autonomous and in control of their own bodies.

JD Curtis said...

I'm sort of suprised (but not really) that you did not comment on my last entry G. It was sort of an attempt to try and find middle ground.

GCT said...

I didn't think it was necessary.

There are, of course, problems with outlawing abortion after the first trimester. Many states (due to religious right pressure) have made it difficult for women to obtain abortions. A woman may find out she is pregnant and then go through the crap simply to find out that she's been delayed too long and now she must carry.

Another problem is that the end of the first trimester is just as arbitrary as any other point.

Finally, I find it weird that one would seek compromise at all if your stance is really that abortion = murder and your religious beliefs are sufficient to trump everyone else's. According to your beliefs, abortion should be outlawed for everything except maybe the health of the mother (it could be argued that that constituted self-defense, although I doubt you would make that argument), as well as outlawing all birth control pills, etc. It would also outlaw fertility clinics that artificially inseminate, and all stem cell research. I don't know why we'd have to stop there though. Miscarriage would be unintentional murder, so to stop that from happening perhaps we should ensure that no one has sex unless they have petitioned the government to denote their desire to have a child. Of course, you're for smaller government right...except when you want to intrude on the lives of others in ways that are in accordance with your personal religious beliefs.

JD Curtis said...

I find it weird that one would seek compromise at all if your stance is really that abortion = murder and your religious beliefs are sufficient to trump everyone else's.

I don't like abortion at all. I would like to see it banned. I'm also a pragmatist (who generally likes Peirce) and if they could only be banned after the first trimester, that's something I would have to accept.

Set that aside for a moment. Third trimester, could you agree that it is wrong to kill a viable infant that is in the womb? Could we at least agree on a 3rd trimester ban?

GCT said...

"I don't like abortion at all. I would like to see it banned. I'm also a pragmatist (who generally likes Peirce) and if they could only be banned after the first trimester, that's something I would have to accept."

Be honest, you think we should ban birth control pills too. You think abortion should be banned in all cases. Etc. C'mon, out with it. Let's see how draconian you really are, and how much you want the government to control our lives, Mr. so-called small government conservative.

"Set that aside for a moment. Third trimester, could you agree that it is wrong to kill a viable infant that is in the womb? Could we at least agree on a 3rd trimester ban?"

No, I don't necessarily agree with that. There are many factors to consider and I'm not going to make a blanket statement that it is wrong. I will say that it's a trickier question morally due to the viability of the fetus and its ability to feel pain, but there's still the rights of the woman to consider.

JD Curtis said...

There you have it. We will just have to agree that we are miles apart on this issue because when the child is viable, it becomes infanticide (IMHO)

GCT said...

Considering that infanticide is for children who are already born...

Anyway, we are miles apart because you base your decisions on your religious beliefs and are not open to anything else.

JD Curtis said...

We all carry a bit of baggage GCT. At least I'm open to admitting mine.

GCT said...

Yes, we all carry baggage. The difference is that you wish to push your baggage on others, while I don't.

JD Curtis said...

Like federally-funded abortion on demand?

GCT said...

If you don't want to get an abortion, don't. No one is forcing you to do so. You would force women, however, to have children.