Obama To Push For Abortion Funding

The amendment, authored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., went beyond preventing the proposed government-run plan from covering abortion to restrict federal subsidies from going toward private plans that offer abortion coverage. White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod states that Obama will work to strip the amendment from the health care bill because the amendment changes the ‘status quo’ and Obama can’t abide by that.

Wait! Didn’t Obama promise change when he took over? But now he wants to keep the status quo the same? What about hope and change for the unborn Mr. Obama? What about hope for the pre-born victims of the slaughter that they have no voice in stopping? Where’s the hope and change NObama?

This is nothing new. Obama is the most liberal senator and now president in the history of our Republic. Why should we expect him to stand up for the unborn? He, and his party, have made it perfectly clear that they only care about representing those that will vote for them and pay taxes. Since the unborn don’t pay taxes, can’t vote and won’t sing Obama’s praises like propagandized victims of brainwashing, they have no worth to the valueless liberals in the Democrat party.

I salute Bart Stupak for standing up for the unborn by trying to get this amendment into the bill. But with his own party against him, there is little chance that it will be implemented and most odds are towards if any bill gets passed, it’ll include federal funding for abortion. This is the key sticking point with many blue-dogs that have conservatives backing them in their districts. If there is abortion funding in the bill, it could doom it. But idiots Pelosi, ReDe and Obama don’t care. They want their radical leftist health care bill regardless of whether the American people want it or not.

America needs to stand up and say, federal funding for abortion is WRONG!!! Even if you are pro-choice you should be fundamentally opposed to making someone else pay for abortions. This is about abortion whether Obama wants to admit to it. People should not be forced to pay for someone else’s abortion. It is violating our moral and religious rights to not fund someone else’s murder. Dems and libs better pick up on that or there will be a BIG year for Republicans next year.

25 Responses to Obama To Push For Abortion Funding

  1. Zero says:

    For every story of someone who regrets an abortion I can find a story of someone who either does not, or views it as a positive life changing event. Would you like to address my arguments?

    • Would you like to address mine? All you drone about is the ‘rights’ of the mother and how parasitic the fetus is. I cannot argue with the cold hearted approach that the fetus is worth nothing and can be destroyed at any point. When one does not value life, there is no arguing with someone that far gone.

  2. Zero says:


    That is where I got my numbers from. It’s actually a site AGAINST abortion. The entire site is an anti-abortion site. So you do not trust the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform which is trying to outlaw abortion? That’s amusing. If you have no faith in people who agree with you, who do you have faith in?

    • Your first link, linked to some page from The Guttmacher Institute which is PRO-abortion. You did not link to the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. And to your point about religious people having abortions… not all people who identify themselves as Christian actually listen to what the Bible teaches, including the sanctity of life. Catholics tend to be more pro-choice despite the church’s official standing, Protestants include a few denominations that are okay with abortion. Protestant churches; however, overwhelmingly oppose abortion. However, the people identifying themselves as Christians need to pray and ask for forgiveness of their grave sins. I don’t condemn the people who have abortions, either Christians or not, however that does not negate the fact that abortion is a wicked evil that is slaughtering untold millions around the world every day.

  3. Zero says:

    MANY people oppose paying for welfare, should we stop that to? MANY people oppose paying for war. MANY people oppose a lot of things that are allowed. Doesn’t mean we automatically stop them.

    Aside from State controlled insurance, there is no insurance company that “opposes” abortion and will not pay for them. Insurance companies don’t care about ‘morals’ they care about profits. In the ideas presented here, there is no difference between war and abortion or anything else that is legal but has opposition. They are all something that is completely legal, but has opposition of people who don’t want to pay for it. But we do anyways because we are a single nation.

    You say that “we or our insurance” should pay for it. “Once you are paid, that money is no longer property of the payer but rather the ‘payee’. Therefore soldiers receiving pay from tax dollars is not the issue, if tax dollars go from me through the government to the insurance company to pay for abortions, it is wrong. If they are paid tax money, and then they choose to use their pay for abortions, [it is still their money]” quoted from an earlier comment you posted. So I put this to you: The government subsidizes someone so they can buy medical insurance. They have paid money to the person so that they can use it to buy insurance. They buy medical insurance that offers coverage for abortions. Now, how is that different than what you said? It is their money. The same thing for insurance companies that get a government subsidy. They are paid money by the government to continue providing health insurance and allowing people to have insurance at lower rates (hopefully). The money is now the property of the insurance company. So since it is THEIR money, they should be able to offer abortions with it. It is no longer public money.

    See, where is the line drawn on once the money is paid out, is it still public money?

    It is ridiculous for you to quote “thou shalt not kill” because war and religion have killed far more people over the course of history than abortions.

    Also, effectively banning abortion for millions of people violates our constitutional right to ‘liberty’. We have the liberty to choose. We have the liberty to have any legal procedure. It’s one of the freedoms of the US. Taking it away therefore infringes upon that liberty.

    And as far as God allowing man to make mistakes, my entire point was if you believe that God controls history, then wouldn’t it be likely that if the next Einstein were to be born, he’s ensure he was born to someone who wouldn’t be in the position to need an abortion? Therefore ensuring that this super duper important person makes it into the world? I doubt he’d allow the mistakes of a few people to spoil ‘the grand plan for the world’.

    • You are not getting my point. Abortion is the deliberate taking of one’s life through another’s decision. Welfare is not. None of the things listed by you are deliberate taking of someone’s life through the decision of one, payed for by many.

      Government paying someone for their services ie: soldiers, is different than government specifically giving someone a subsidiary for insurance. The government is not paying specifically for the soldier’s health insurance, but for their serviced overall. Therefore the money, once it becomes property of the soldier, is no longer government money. Therefore also, it is the soldier’s right to determine what to do with said money.

      Abortion has killed 50,000,000 children since it’s murderous inception. Wars have killed full grown men. See the difference. In war, most of the casualties are those that signed up to defend their country from attack, or for offensive purposes. In war, the casualties knew perfectly well that they were going into harm’s way and that it was possible for them to not come home alive. In abortion, we are killing off the next generation without giving them any chance at living a full-filling life.

      What about the rights of the child? Where do they come in play. The parent has the liberty to not get pregnant. The parent has the liberty to use protective measures to ensure that a baby won’t come out of their selfishness.

      I believe that God knows every baby that will be killed through the horrors of abortion. I also believe that he protects those that will live to ensure that His plan will be carried out. However, I thought that atheists and non-religious peoples would at least consider those points. However, I guess that in their mind abortion is a right that trumps all others. Including the rights of the baby.

      • Zero says:

        Our discussion isn’t going anywhere, let look at it from another point of view.

        The fetus is only a potential human being. They are not a physiologically separate entity. As such, they have no rights. Once a fetus is born, the baby is no longer physiologically dependant on the mother. It is a separate entity, the actualization of the fetus and as such a human being.

        A good analogy is an acorn. An acorn is a potential oak tree. It is not an oak tree in and of itself, it just represents the potential to become an oak tree. A young oak tree is the actualization of the acorn’s potential. You wouldn’t call an acorn an oak tree, as such a fetus is not a human being. Both are living. They are both alive.

        A fetus is a parasite, living within a host, the mother. There is no right to live inside someone without their permission. The definition of a right includes the fact that a right must not infringe upon the rights of others. However, the “right to life” for a fetus is actually a “right to remain inside the mother’s womb” which as such infringes on the woman’s right to the control of her own body. As such the “right to life” of the fetus, cannot be a “right” at all as per the definition. No one has the right to live inside someone else without their permission.

        Since I know you’ll ask, the difference between the fetus and the born baby is the physiological independence. Yes, the baby is socially dependent on the mother, but it is a separate physical being. As such, since it is physiologically separate from the mother, it is a separate entity which has rights. Notice, the right for a baby to live does not infringe upon anyone else’s rights, whereas a fetus infringes on the right of a woman to control her body.

        A woman owns her body, she controls what can be in it and what can’t. A woman does not own her children she is their guardian, an individual who makes decisions for the child until they are developed enough to make these decisions on their own, in the child’s best interest.

        Abortion does not infringe upon anyone’s rights, effectively banning abortion due to the removal of coverage infringes upon the rights of the millions of women who would no longer be able to get an abortion.

      • You are wrong once again. If the fetus is neither viable nor physiologically independent of the mother until it is born, does that mean that you support late term and partial birth abortion?

        Your acorn analogy is also flawed. An acorn is still part tree. The fetus is human, it is not an adult. The acorn is still a part of a tree. The acorn does not have limbs, branches, roots etc. The fetus has limbs, a heart, a brain, every part that an adult human has. It simply has not developed completely. Comparing a fetus to an acorn is absurd, let alone insulting.

        A fetus is not a parasite. A parasite never leaves the host lest it die. A fetus, when grown to a certain point, exits the mother, is born and is fully human upon the moment of birth. A parasite lives off of the host to the host’s disadvantage. There are very few instances where the mother is affected detrimentally by the baby. (Not counting morning sickness.) Being pregnant kills far fewer women than you would have people believe.

        You say that the fetus is still part of the mother? So every move that the fetus makes is controlled by the mother correct? Unless you are comparing the fetus to say the heart which beats automatically, or the lungs which contract automatically. No? Well surely your heart hiccups and can laugh? The fetus is undeniably an individual person. Doctors recognize that in that they treat the mother and the fetus as separate patients. Also, you are wrong in that you say that the baby’s right to live does not infringe upon someone’s rights. The baby requires constant care, the people caring for the baby could be out partying you know. Explain the difference.

        Banning abortions does not infringe upon any woman’s rights. The woman has every control of every step of the process up till conception. She has the right to not do the act which leads to conception. She has the right to use protection. She has the right to use emergency contraception that keeps the egg from being fertilized. The baby should not be punished for the actions of the parents.

      • Zero says:

        I apologize for the many separate small posts. It only now refreshed and showed me this longer post in response to mine.

        I have nothing against late term and partial birth abortions with the exception of the fact that they are definitely more dangerous to the mother and therefore should be avoided if possible.

        It is not absurd to compare a fetus to an acorn. The acorn is an oak tree. It has all the DNA of an oak tree. It just simply has not “completely developed” into an oak tree. Since you don’t like the acorn analogy how about a chicken egg. You wouldn’t call an egg a chicken, you call it an egg. It doesn’t matter what level of development it reaches, you don’t call it a chicken until it hatches, just as a fetus is not a human being until it is born.

        Your definition of parasite is incorrect. A parasite is anything that lives in or on a host, it receives nourishment from the host but does not benefit nor kill the host. It is not a requirement that a parasite be detrimental to the host, only that it provides no benefit. Also, parasites can leave their host when the enter other stages of their life, as does a fetus when it is born. You even state that a fetus “is born and is fully human upon the moment of birth.” so you agree that the fetus is not fully human until it is born.

        “Also, you are wrong in that you say that the baby’s right to live does not infringe upon someone’s rights. The baby requires constant care, the people caring for the baby could be out partying you know. Explain the difference.”

        The difference is very simple. People don’t have a right to go out and party. Also, the people who are caring for the baby in the hospital have the job to take care of them. What right is the baby infringing if taking care of the baby is their job? As for the mother, what right is the baby infringing on by being cared for? If the mother did not want to care for the baby she can sign off guardianship by putting it up for adoption. Otherwise they have voluntarily taken upon themselves the job of caring for the baby. What right is violated by the baby’s existence? However the fetus does not have the right to continue to live inside of the mother without her permission. To force the mother to carry the baby is to infringe on her own right to control what happens to her body. See, very simple difference.

        You do know that the emergency contraception you quote does not prevent fertilization, it instead prevents implantation in the uterine wall, or just destroys the zygote. Right? A woman always has the right to decide what should happen to her own body.

      • Well it seems that we once again meet a brick wall in trying to convince the other of our opinions. Knowing that you support late term and partial birth abortions convinces me that you indeed do not care for the rights of the child at all. In partial birth abortion, the baby is already half-way born before it is murdered. Only a few more seconds separate it from being born and being protected. I cannot believe anyone could support such an inhumane practice.

        On your point of me saying ‘a fetus is fully human upon birth.’ You are taking my sentence out of context. By this I mean that the baby is already human by the time it is born, not that it magically becomes human when it exits the mother, as you claim.

        Also, you say the mother could sign away guardianship of the child if she doesn’t want to care for the baby. I think I see your point that since the mother can’t transfer the fetus to another, she has the right to destroy it? I totally disagree, as you knew I would. (Also, when you say ‘as for the mother, what right is the baby infringing on by being cared for?’ that means that the mother basically consented to caring for the baby when she got pregnant.)

        A woman should always have the right to control her own body, except when she voluntarily gets pregnant and then tries to kill the result of her actions.

      • Zero says:

        But what if she doesn’t voluntarily get pregnant? Contraception of any kind is not 100% foolproof. So if she didn’t intend to get pregnant she is still forced to be burdened with something in her body she does not want, because something didn’t work perfectly? That’s ridiculous. A woman always has the right to control her own body, no matter what.

        At least in our society, when a mother gives birth she automatically gains guardianship of the child unless she decides otherwise. I have no issue with this.

        Again, I agree the baby is human. It is not a human being. Just as an acorn has the same DNA as an Oak tree, but is not a tree yet. The fetus is just a parasite until it can survive outside the womb.

        I do not care for the non-existent rights of the fetus, correct. The fetus is a part of the mother until it is born. You can’t claim that the fetus has a ‘right’ to live inside the mother without contradicting the right of the mother to control her body. Therefore since you cannot give the fetus that right without infringing someone else’s rights, it cannot be a right. Rights by definition do not infringe upon the rights of others.

      • The Guttmacher Institute that your claims come from is a spin-off of Planned Parenthood. The Institute therefore has an organizational bias toward proving abortions are not out of the norm even for religious people. Their website proudly trumpets the worth of abortion, including bashing the outlawing of partial birth abortion. I have NO faith in what they say, report or claim.

      • Zero says:

        You also did not address the link I placed in the post. Showing a very large number of highly anti-abortion activists who put aside their morals when dealing with themselves and their own children.

      • Those people lose all credibility with me. If they say they are against something but turn around and do it, they have very little character. However, if they had an abortion and then saw how evil it was, I give them credit for opening their eyes and changing their ways.

      • Zero says:

        There are also those who are anti-choice, find themselves in a situation where they make one of the hardest decisions of their life and have an abortion. The experience then helps them to realize something about themselves. I will quote two such stories here:

        A Louisiana patient who was anti-choice before her abortion, wrote a warm and grateful thank-you letter to the clinic, admitting that she had been a hypocrite:

        “I never dreamed, in my wildest nightmares, that there would ever be a situation where I personally would choose such an act. Of course, we would each like to think that our reasons for a termination are the exception to the rule. But the bottom line is that you people spend your lives, reputations, careers and energy fighting for, maintaining, and providing an option that I needed, while I spent my energy lambasting you. Yet you still allowed me to make use of your services even though I had been one of your enemies. You treated us as kindly and warmly as you did all of your patients and never once pointed an ‘I told you so’ finger in our direction. I got the impression that you cared equally about each woman in the facility and what each woman was going through, regardless of her reasons for choosing the procedure. I have never met a group of purely non-judgmental people like yourselves.”

        A doctor from a north-western state shared the following personal story:

        “I was born into a very Catholic family, and was politically pro-life during college. After dating my first real boyfriend for three years, we broke up, and the day my boyfriend moved out, I discovered I was pregnant. It was an agonizing decision, and something I never thought I would do, but I decided an abortion was the only realistic option. Thanks to Planned Parenthood counseling, I worked through some very tough conflicts within myself. I had to learn that my decision was a loving one. That ‘my god’ was actually a loving and supportive god. And that men don’t have to make this decision, only women do. That it is a very personal, individual decision. I had to own it. I became much more compassionate towards myself and others as a result of my experience. Two years later I began medical school. When it came time to choose a practice, an abortion clinic opportunity came up. In working there, I began to feel that this was my calling. Having been in my patients’ shoes, and coming from an unforgiving background, I could honestly say to patients, ‘I know how you feel.’ Deciding to have an abortion was THE hardest decision I’ve ever made in my life. Yet it has brought me the greatest transformation, fulfillment, and now joy. I am a more loving person because of it, and a better doctor for having experienced it. I love the work that I do, and the opportunity to support women seeking to end an unwanted pregnancy. My patients and my work are life’s gifts to me, and I think my compassion and support are my gifts in return.”

      • http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2397712/posts

        There (^) is a story about a former Planned Parenthood Director who became pro-life after witnessing an abortion. There are others just like them. Below are some links to sites with pictures of the remains of the grisly operations. (Viewer discretion is advised. Photos are unaltered, completely authentic and entirely horrific!)


        Also, if you want testimonials of women who regret having abortions:


  4. Zero says:

    Hey look, I’m back again!

    “Even if you are pro-choice you should be fundamentally opposed to making someone else pay for abortions. This is about abortion whether Obama wants to admit to it. People should not be forced to pay for someone else’s abortion. It is violating our moral and religious rights to not fund someone else’s murder.”

    The problem is the American people do not get to decide on a case by case basis where our tax money goes. If you can say “I’m morally opposed to abortion so I don’t want my tax dollars funding abortion.” then how is that different from me saying “I’m morally opposed to war, so I don’t want my tax dollars funding war.”

    If every group got to say “we’re against such and such, so we can’t let tax money fund it.” Then nothing would ever get done. Nothing would ever get any tax dollars because there will be at least some group of people who are “morally opposed” to it and therefore be against funding it.

    The Stupak amendment was said to have the desire to keep the ‘status quo’, and everyone in congress has agreed that the current state of the Hyde amendment was a compromise that was acceptable. However, the Stupak amendment goes FAR beyond this. You even admit it. The Stupak amendment will effectively end any coverage for abortions. Since it is a non-cosmetic, legally allowed medical procedure, it is wrong to prevent coverage for it.

    • Glad to hear from you again, healthy debate informs the mind.

      You are dead wrong on this one. I agree that we do not get to decide where our money goes. However, when over half of Americans think that abortion should not be covered by taxpayer funded insurance, that should say something. To your point about contrasting war and abortion. With opposition to war, you are opposing a general conflict that affects a vast majority of the populace. Abortion on the other hand is making religious people pay for the choices of an individual. Whereas war is voted upon and debated in Congress and serious consideration is given to it before anything is committed to, abortion is one woman acting of her own accord to terminate the life of another. It seems to me disingenuous to say that 2 minutes can be the difference between being able to legally murder another and being charged with murder. Is the baby still part of the mother 2 minutes before birth?

      Saying that anyone can say ‘I don’t want my tax dollars going to such and such a cause’ is also disingenuous. There is nowhere near the opposition to any other issue as abortion. Abortion is such a large and heated issue that tax dollars do not pay for it. Other causes can be debated and no doubt some of them should not receive taxpayer assistance, however, I am not opposed to other things nearly as much as abortion.

      Yes I will admit it. I want abortion ended. Flat out. And I won’t back down from that comment. In my mind, there is no reason for any abortion ever. In the cases of incest or rape I can understand the mother’s anguish and wanting to get rid of the result of the horrible crime. However, ending another life is not the answer to someone ruining your own. The baby should be given up for adoption if the mother does not want to keep the baby and raise it. But the preciousness of life shows that the innocent child had no control over how he/she was conceived. The baby should not be punished for the sins of the father.

      Besides, the Stupak amendment does not end coverage for abortions. It states that taxpayer funding would not pay for them. If a woman wanted to have an abortion she could pay for it with her own insurance. I don’t like it, but abortion would not be outlawed or any other such thing. What is wrong is the notion that abortion is comparable to a necessary medical surgery such as heart bypass or kidney transplant.

      • Zero says:

        “However, when over half of Americans think that abortion should not be covered by taxpayer funded insurance, that should say something.”

        While every poll I’ve ever seen or read shows otherwise, I can respect your wish that this would be so. Those against abortion and funding it are a very vocal minority.

        “It seems to me disingenuous to say that 2 minutes can be the difference between being able to legally murder another and being charged with murder. Is the baby still part of the mother 2 minutes before birth?”

        Most states have laws specifying at what point in the pregnancy an abortion is no longer allowed. In general this is based on brain and neural activity of the fetus. If the fetus has no neural or brain activity at all and could not viably survive outside of the mother, then you can say they are still a ‘part of the mother’ and therefore the mother should be allowed an abortion. No offense but I refuse to call a bundle of cells a human being.

        “‘I don’t want my tax dollars going to such and such a cause’ is also disingenuous. There is nowhere near the opposition to any other issue as abortion.”

        You miss the point of my argument. If people are allowed to state their tax dollars shouldn’t go to abortion, then what is to stop any other vocal minority to get some support and therefore do the same thing with another issue? Anyone would be able to point back and say “we did it with abortion coverage.” It becomes a VERY bad precedent.

        “The baby should be given up for adoption if the mother does not want to keep the baby and raise it.”

        Yes, let us add to the plethora of children who need to be adopted. Let’s add more burden’s for the government to pay for the care of. Why don’t people go and adopt instead of having their own children? Give me a break.

        “What is wrong is the notion that abortion is comparable to a necessary medical surgery such as heart bypass or kidney transplant.”

        In some cases it is. Sometimes it could be life-threatening to the mother to actually deliver the baby, are they allowed to get an abortion to save their life?

        “Besides, the Stupak amendment does not end coverage for abortions. It states that taxpayer funding would not pay for them.”

        Let’s analyze a bit. The amendment says that any plan that receives federal subsidies would not be allowed to cover abortion. Now, the people who are most likely to need abortions are the lower class, the ones who have trouble affording them, the ones who are most in need of the federal subsidies. So right there, it ends abortion coverage for a large portion of people. Let’s move on.

        The wording of the bill allows for insurance exchanges and federal subsidies to be used for a very large number of situations. Also, companies will offer the lower plans that will have federal subsidies. Therefore the way the bill is worded, if a company accepts ANY federal subsidies at all, they cannot offer abortion coverage. But if all the companies have plans to allow for federal subsidies…..I think you see the problem.

        The end result is that soon enough (not immediately) insurance coverage would not be allowed for abortions due to this amendment. It is the largest attack on women’s civil rights in a very long time.

        Another thing to think about….soldiers are paid from tax-payer money. Does that mean they can never get coverage for an abortion? The money they pay their premium with is tax-dollars, so why not? How about government workers? Politicians? With the loose wording in the amendment, it can be used to say that anyone who is paid using tax-dollars cannot use their own money to purchase a plan that covers abortion.

        There are many medical procedures covered by insurance that are not “comparable to a necessary medical surgery such as heart bypass or kidney transplant.” How about epidural injections? Pectus Escavatum (not that you’d recognize that one. most don’t)? Tonsilectomy? These are all elective procedures that are covered by insurance. An abortion is a legal medical elective procedure, there is no reason for insurance not to cover it, whether it is tax dollars or not.

        You agree that we do not get to decide where our tax dollars go, why should a vocal minority get to decide?

      • FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll 11/17-18/09: Should abortion procedures be covered by private insurance plans? Yes: 37% No: 51% Unsure: 12%
        FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll 11/17-18/09: If an individual receives financial assistance from the federal government to purchase private health insurance, do you think they should or should not be able to buy an insurance plan that covers abortion procedures? Should: 39% Should Not: 52% Unsure 9%
        CBS News Poll Nov. 13-16, 2009: If the federal government provides subsidies or credits to help people buy health insurance, do you think those insurance plans should or should not cover abortion procedures?
        Should: 34% Should Not: 56% Doesn’t Matter: 2% Unsure: 8%
        CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, November 13-15, 09: Generally speaking, are you in favor of using public funds for abortions when the woman cannot afford it, or are you opposed to that?
        Favor: 37% Oppose: 61% Indifferent: 2% Unsure: 1%
        ABC News/Washington Post Poll November 12-15, 09: Say someone buys private health insurance using government assistance to help pay for it. Do you think insurance sold that way should or should not be allowed to include coverage for abortions?
        Should: 35% Should Not: 61% Unsure: 4%

        It seems you are looking at the wrong polling.

        You mention the laws specifying when a fetus becomes viable if it were outside the mother’s body and it is allowed to be murdered, oops, I mean ABORTED. Answer me this: what baby can survive outside the mother without the mother? If the baby cannot survive outside the mother, is it then alright to murder it once it leaves the womb? If a fetus cannot survive outside the mother it is alright to murder it inside the mother, so can a baby that can’t survive without the mother be killed outside the womb without it being murder? I thank God that your mother decided that she would call a ‘bundle of cells’ a human being.

        It becomes a bad precedent to oppose funding abortion? You are missing MY point. Defunding environmental efforts is not the same as defunding the slaughter of the uborn inside the mother’s womb. A tree is not a fetus. But I forgot, evidently a tree is more important to you than the unborn because people of your ilk will defend the trees yet you condone and promote the willful murder of those inside the unwilling mother. I fail to see how you can tie Americans concerned about not funding abortions with their tax dollars to someone who doesn’t want to pay for a war.

        There are millions of Americans who either cannot have their own children and others who simply choose to open their hearts to other less fortunate children and teens that have never had their own family. The burden of paying for adoption services I would much more gladly pay for than the money it would cost to murder those babies before they are born. Also, it is a far more industrious endeavor to pay for children to find a home than to spend trillions and trillions on government bailouts, buyouts and ‘stimulus’ that does nothing but dig holes and fill them in.

        In the cases of life or death for the mother, that should come down to the decision of the mother. However, that is when the child is born, when normal abortions are performed, the child never threatens the life of the woman. In fact it is estimated by Richard Cohen in a 1995 op-ed that ‘less than four hundredths of one percent of abortions are performed after 24 weeks…” and that “most, if not all, are performed because the fetus is found to be severely damanged or because the life of the mother is clearly in danger…” Therefore, less than .05% of abortions are performed due to danger to the mother. Abortion in such circumstances are up to the mother. However, basing support for abortion due to ‘the life of the mother’ is insane. With so few abortions actually due to the life of the mother, every other abortion should be made illegal.

        If abortion coverage ends for the poor etc. GOOD! That gives more chance for the baby to live and if necessary be adopted and live a healthy life. Even if the baby grows up in a miserable life, he/she would still experience the warmth of the sun, the ocean, the mountains, most likely true love etc. The common saying can be arranged to say: It is better to have lived and lost, than to never have lived at all.

        On to the idea of funding soldiers through tax dollars. I don’t want anyone having an abortion ever. However, what I oppose most is using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. Once you are paid, that money is no longer property of the payer but rather the ‘payee’. Therefore soldiers receiving pay from tax dollars is not the issue, if tax dollars go from me through the government to the insurance company to pay for abortions, it is wrong. If they are paid tax money, and then they choose to use their pay for abortions, I am still mad about the loss of life, however it is technically their money.

        I already debunked the whole ‘vocal minority’ thing. I think that when 60% of the people, in some polls, speak our elected officials should listen.

      • By the way, Pectus Excavatum is usually considered cosmetic, however it can lead to cardiac and respiratory problems if left untreated in some. Therefore calling it entirely elective is also disingenuous. Tonsilectomies are the removal of tonsils, usually elective but also can be necessitated by repeated occurrence of acute tonsillitis or adenoiditis, obstructive sleep apnea, nasal airway obstruction, snoring, or peritonsillar abscess. All these conditions are medically harmful to the sufferer. Therefore removing the tonsils are advantageous in keeping these symptoms from re-occurring. So calling those two medical procedures elective is half-true, half-untrue.

      • Zero says:

        You misinterpret the point of the laws specifying that the viability of the fetus outside the womb is a determining factor on abortion. The point is that if the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, then it is not a wholly separate entity from the mother. The argument “what if your mother had aborted you” is disingenuous itself, my mother made a choice to keep her baby. I’m not arguing that all babies should be aborted, that no one should be able to keep their baby. If she had decided to abort, sure I wouldn’t be here to argue the point, but I can assure you that it doesn’t change my mind about abortions. It really has no bearing on the discussion because that was her choice and all I say is women should be allowed to have this choice.

        Well the only equivalent to abortion I can think of for trees would be to dig up a tree that you have planted and throw it out. However, if there is a reason where this is necessary, I wouldn’t oppose this. You planted the tree, you should be able to decide to unplant it. To try to equate a fetus and a tree really doesn’t work since there really isn’t any equivocation that can happen. I can tie the issue of not paying to abortion to not paying for war simply because both are issues of “I don’t want my tax dollars to go to this because I am morally opposed to it.” The only reasoning anyone has against abortion is that they believe it is murder, that they are morally opposed to it. Therefore the same argument can be used against war, why not? There’s enough people who want the war in Iran to end, yet tax dollars continue to pay for it. It’s a simple analogy.

        The problem is not enough people are adopting. Shelters, orphanages, and the like are overcrowded, overworked and underpaid. There are millions of children in the US who need to be adopted, yet I watch as people around me insist they would never adopt simply because they believe it is someone else’s problem and they want to have their own kid. Personally it’s much more expensive to care for kids put up for adoption than for the mother to have an abortion.

        “It’s better to have lived and lost than to never have lived at all.” First, the saying is “It’s better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all.” Second, tell that to the children who commit suicide, live miserable lives, go through their entire life unloved and uncared for.

        “In fact it is estimated by Richard Cohen in a 1995 op-ed that ‘less than four hundredths of one percent of abortions are performed after 24 weeks…” and that “most, if not all, are performed because the fetus is found to be severely damanged or because the life of the mother is clearly in danger…” Therefore, less than .05% of abortions are performed due to danger to the mother.”

        I think you need some reading comprehension lessons. The statement you quote only estimates that less than .05% of abortions performed after 24 weeks are performed due to danger to the mother. It says nothing about the statistics of abortions performed earlier than 24 weeks. Sorry.

        “If abortion coverage ends for the poor etc. GOOD!” Yes, because all we need is more children who need to be adopted. More children who have to be cared for by tax dollars. If more people actually adopted, then this wouldn’t be a valid argument, but with millions of children in the system who need homes, it’s ridiculous to say it would be a good thing to add more.

        While anything that comes out of Fox I would take with a grain of salt (especially if you notice their latest screw-ups with polls, when 120% of Americans had an opinion on climate change) after comparing your examples to my own research it seems opinions have changed and I will concede it seems that the majority seems to favor a lack of public funding.

        By the way, you did not need to explain the procedures I mentioned to me as I know exactly what they are. I used them as an example due to the fact that they are usually elective and only under certain circumstances are they necessary. Like abortion. I also note that you did not make any mention of the Epidural Injections that I mentioned, which once again under certain circumstances may be considered necessary but is still an elective procedure most of the time.

      • I know perfectly well what the saying is, however it is true that some children grow up to be unloved and un-cared for. However, I am sure the majority would rather have the chance to grow up and live out their lives than be murdered inside the place where they are supposed to be protected. (Also, I believe there is a war going on in Iraq, NOT Iran.) Your point of there not being enough people adopting does not make it right or necessary for those children to be slaughtered. You seem to have a problem paying for shelters, orphanages and adoption services but not for paying money to pave and repave roads that do not need repaved or to dig holes and then fill them in.

        Prove to me the number, percentage or even the probability of any given abortion BEFORE 24 WEEKS being to save the mother. I am fairly certain that the percentage of abortions done to save the life of the mother is very small.

        I never said that it would be a good thing to add more children to the rolls of adoption services. I said it is better to do that than to deny those same children the right to live out their lives. I would be happier if people decided not to engage in behavior that would present the chance of becoming pregnant. There are various protections against becoming pregnant and those should be utilized if you do not want a baby.

        The difference between an epidural and an abortion is that the epidural does not kill a living human being. That is a notable difference. Why then should an insurance company be obligated to pay for a procedure that they object to on moral grounds? Elective surgery needs to be looked at through the scope of how it affects everyone involved. If only the patient is affected, it is one thing, but when a living human being, regardless of whether the child could survive outside of the mother, is systematically destroyed in the most gruesome of fashions, a company has every right to object to paying for such an ‘operation’ on moral grounds.

        Lastly, if you want to look at abortion out of a purely humanist or atheist viewpoint, what if one of the babies that have been aborted would have grown up and found the cure for cancer, or HIV, or ended world hunger? What if Einstein had never lived? Or Pasteur? Or George Washington? One must take note that when a human being is killed before he/she even exits the womb, numerous possibilities and future altering discoveries can be ended with the life of the child.

      • Zero says:

        I have no problem paying for shelters, orphanages and the like. What I have a problem with is unnecessarily making the problem worse. Paying for a woman’s right to choose is much cheaper than to add to the problem of children in need of adoption.

        The fact that there is the possibility of abortion being required to save the life of the mother should outweigh how often it occurs.

        Here’s the major thing: your opposition to abortion is purely out a of moral standing. Whether or not the fetus would have done this or would have done that is irrelevant. What if they became the next Hitler? What if they turned out to be a sociopathic serial killer? If your religion so chooses you can believe that “God has a plan” and would not allow a person that will “change history” to be aborted by choosing them to be born to someone who believes that abortion is wrong. From a humanist or atheistic viewpoint it becomes irrelevant what the fetus may or may not have done had it been born. This is a philosophical and existential discussion, sure, but not relevant to abortion because if we sat around wondering about all of the future altering possibilities of every thing we did we’d never get anything done. We’d always be frozen wondering “but what if….”. Again, this is not conducive to a discussion about the legality of abortion.

        Your only objection to abortion is the opinion that it is morally wrong. But we have to look at the law here. The law says that abortion is a legal medical procedure. It is currently allowed to be insured by insurance. Millions of women have abortion coverage through their insurance regardless of the opinion of the people who work for that insurance company. The law hasn’t changed, abortion is still a legal medical procedure. So how can you legally justify taking that coverage away and removing the choice from millions of women purely because a group of people morally object to it? If you don’t like abortions, then don’t get one. Advise friends and family not to. But don’t tell someone who once had coverage for it, “sorry, we decided that what you wanted to do was morally wrong and therefore we can’t let you use your insurance that you’re paying for to help pay for your abortion.”

        “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” This doesn’t only apply to speech. This applies to all rights. Currently the law says that women have a right to choose to have an abortion or not. Regardless your opinion on abortion, how do you justify reducing someone else’s right to choose? You want to lobby to outlaw abortion, go lobby it. But as long as abortion is a legally allowed medical procedure, there is no reason to prevent public funding from paying for it.

        Besides, it’s a hell of a lot cheaper to the taxpayers to get an abortion than it is to pay for the care and housing of that same child when the parent goes on welfare for a child they didn’t want, or when the child is given up for adoption.

        Give me an argument not based in faith that this is “morally wrong”.

      • Paying for a woman’s right to choose is not solely a monetary issue. Few people oppose paying for shelters etc. MANY people oppose paying for abortion. That is like forcing someone to pay for someone else’s murder.

        I already have said that if the mother’s life is in danger, then perhaps abortion can be legal. However, in NO OTHER CASE, do I support, condone or give credence to its use.

        Alright, supposing my opposition to abortion is purely moral based, you do not have the right to force me to support your choice. Therefore, whereas I cannot end abortion in general, I can end the idea that I should have to pay for your choice of terminating a child in the womb. Abortion and war are infinitely different as only one person ‘benefits’ from the abortion as opposed to war. Whereas God does control history, he allows sinful man to make choices, including those that He detests such as abortion. I do believe that the poor unborn are immediately entered into heaven, however, I think it is unacceptable for a person to choose whether a baby dies based upon selfish whims.

        Also, you saying that an insurance company can pay for abortions and then take away that ‘right’ is disingenuous. If the company opposed abortion, they would not have covered it in the first place. I don’t want someone else paying for my wart removal or nose job or anything else. I think that if we choose an elective surgery, we or our insurance should pay for it. Why then should I be forced to pay for someone who went out, got pregnant, panicked and decided to have an abortion? It is not fair to the people that have morals that say ‘thou shalt not murder’ to force them to pay for something that completely goes against their principles. Also, abortion at it’s fundamental core, violates one of our constitutional rights which include ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: