Interesting question about abortions . We have been told that they are rights for any women who wants them ,that the government has no business denying the right. While health care is also presumably a right ;but a right that can be rationed.

Time Magazine asks if abortions will be covered under the national insurance plan .
Health-Care Reform: A Fight over Abortion Coverage? - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1909178,00.html)

But a provision covering abortions could split the Democrat coalition .
Pro-Life Democrats Tell Nancy Pelosi: No Health Care Reform With Abortion (http://www.lifenews.com/nat5172.html)

Even more important ; will the politburo make a case by case determination about the worthiness of the patients claim to the procedure ? Will there be rationing of life ending procedures as there most surely will be for life saving ones ?

Oh, wow, talk about opening up a can of worms.

I know, not constructive in any sense of the word, but I had to say it. This is almost as bad as a religious discussion (or healthcare issues).

Tick

Just can't help myself.

I don't get that rationing this health care right either but excon explained it to me yesterday and I'm sure he'll do so again. The answer to your last question though is no, there won't be any rationing of life ending procedures if they can help it... for the unborn or anyone else. It's a perfect way to thin out those unwanted populations Justice Ginsburg referred to the other day.

The "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" politboro membership will be determined by the President and Kathleen Sebelius. We know where they come down on the issues ;especially about the availability of late term abortions.

just can't help myself.

Lol, tomder, you posts and topics are well planned out and initiated, I can't help it if I don't agree with some of them. :D

Tick

Thank you
;)

Ohhhhh tom, you are the devils advocate!

Before I share my own opinion I think he should need to share his. Bring it on devil man!

OK here's the can of worms

What do I think ? I think this bill represents the largest expansion in abortion availabilty since Roe v Wade. However ,not having language specifing that tax payers will not be forced to fund abortions could be the sand in the gears that brings this legislation to a grinding halt .The majority of Americans don't approve of killing unborn children. Americans largely oppose paying for abortions through their taxes .

Do I think elective abortion is a right ? No ,but I don't think health care is a right either ;or certainly not one that is constitutionally guaranteed. I can claim a right to health care ;but it is up to me to insure that I can get it.

Regarding 'rationing ' it is only consistent that the government would favor life ending procedures over life saving because it would help with the costs that will ballon under guaranteed care.

Besides there are some in the administration that are almost cult-like in their culture of death advocacy.
Consider the words of " Czar of Science " John P. Holdren :
There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated...It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

And given more time I could pull up similar comment by officials like Evita Clintoon and Kathleen Sebelius who as Kansas Governor blocked attempts to restrict late term abortions.

Population control rather than "women's reproductive rights" has always been the real stated and unstated rationale behind abortions. Don't think so ? Just study the total work and words of Margaret Sanger ,founder of Planned Parenthood.

I have to ask though, what about women that are raped? What about women who find out their babies have a lethal condition? I think in these cases it should be an option.

I find it very intersting that some people are going to use an artificial, government-created "right" that has never existed until the government decided to interfere (health insurance) to either promote or deny another artificial, government-created right that never existed before the government decided to interfere (abortion).

The irony is delicious, no matter how it plays out.

Elliot

I hate debating with a person who is just plain more well rounded than I am. Meaning smarter AND more well read. I do have opinions though so I am going to try. :rolleyes:

Social politics. Boo. I don't think that it is the responsibility of our government, who represent the people, to pay for abortion. Neither do I agree that the government should be allowed to limit privatized health care in regard to abortion. That's just as easy as saying have my cake and eat it too.

While the article you posted states that nearly 90% of private health care insurers cover abortion, I find it neglectful to leave out the 10% of health insurers that our country can use if they don't agree with abortion. I happen to be one of those people who don't believe in abortion, I do believe in a woman's right to choose though.

If our government is so concerned with making sure that we have health care, then it is also their responsibility to make sure that they advocate the desires of the people who elect them into office in the first place.

As for population control... How much do you know about sterilization and the history of its practices in the U.S? It was far too controversial a subject and abortion became a more easily debatable solution. Women's rights became the subject that those who felt population control necessary could piggyback on. I find it easy to agree with you that advocating abortion becomes an issue of population control. What do you think an unwanted baby is? I may have just humanized that a bit too much, but you can understand my point.

A lot of people have strong moral and political views when it comes to abortion, in this case, while I can understand the need for those who feel strongly about it to rally to the cause. I think it's more harping on a side issue, than focusing on the health care issue in general.

I realize this is worded poorly, but hopefully you can kind of see my point? Did I even make a point? I talk too much.

I have to ask though, what about women that are raped? What about women who find out their babies have a lethal condition? I think in these cases it should be an option.

There are three cases that I believe abortion should be permitted.

1) Rape
2) Incest - especially FORCED incest
3) The mother's life is in jeopardy (as in an ectopic pregnancy)

The fact that the baby might have a congenital condition is NOT, in my opinion, enough of a reason to permit an abortion. If that same baby were already born and THEN diagnosed with a congenital condition, would we allow the mother to kill the baby? Certainly not. In my opinion, the same should apply BEFORE the baby is born.

In cases of rape and forced incest (which is just another form of rape), the mental/emotional health of the mother is in jeopardy. Forcing her to keep the product of a rape to term would be forcing her to relive the rape for 9 months. That is hazardous to the mother's mental wellbeing. So abortion should be an option in that case.

In the case of the mother's life being in jeopardy, we're talking about the self-defense of the mother, just as surely as if she were being threatened with a gun. Her life is paramount, and saving her life becomes the paramount concern.

Elliot

I have to ask though, what about women that are raped? What about women who find out their babies have a lethal condition? I think in these cases it should be an option.

What about things like partial birth abortion too though Zoe, you have to consider one if you consider all. It's going to seriously effect the private sector. I am all for rocking the boat there. Or anywhere.

I have to ask though, what about women that are raped? What about women who find out their babies have a lethal condition? I think in these cases it should be an option.

I stated that I thought "elective" abortion was not a right. What constitutes non-elective exceptions was answered nicely by Elliot .

I stated that I thought "elective" abortion was not a right. What constitutes non-elective exceptions was answered nicely by Elliot .

I have a feeling you two are the guys to teach me how to debate with my guys friends... Now, explain how the fall of Rome has impacted the way that people view government today. Aaannnnnd go- ( No, seriously, they debate these kinds of things. It's interesting to listen to.)

As for population control... How much do you know about sterilization and the history of its practices in the U.S? It was far too controversial a subject and abortion became a more easily debatable solution.

Exactly . The American eugenics movement paralleled it's German counterpart for much of the early 20th century. Some of our own shameful past included the black robed oligarchs at SCOTUS upholding a Virginia law that compelled forced sterilization of mental patients. At it's peak 31 states had similar laws.
Nazi Nuremberg Laws were modeled in part on American anti-miscegenation laws.

Margaret Sanger ,an avowed racist wanted abortions and sterilizations to control the black population. Today she gets eulogized by the likes of Evita Clinton.

I have a feeling you two are the guys to teach me how to debate with my guys friends... Now, explain how the fall of Rome has impacted the way that people view government today. Aaannnnnd go- ( No, seriously, they debate these kinds of things. It's interesting to listen to.)

Open it up as another thread.

Open it up as another thread.

Yes, that is the proper way to go about it, but troll alert likely.

yes, that is the proper way to go about it, but troll alert likely.

I don't think these count as questions that effect it, I opened a new thread, I'm sure a mod will tell me if it's uncool. It is a good discussion question though.

The math has been done (and the deception revealed) on abortions and the Obama "health care" plan.


In the late afternoon of July 1o, President Obama met privately with Pope Benedict XVI for just over 30 minutes. According to official Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi, S.J. "The president explicitly expressed his commitment to reducing the numbers of abortions and to listen to the church's concern on moral issues."

On July 13 in a Senate committee hearing, Sen. Barbara Mikulski was forced to admit under persistent questioning by Sen. Orrin Hatch that the new health-care bill includes abortion coverage. Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute estimates government funding of abortion increases abortion by 20 to 35 percent (http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6473&Itemid=48).

There were 1,206,200 abortions in 2006, according to National Right Life (the last annual results available). The math is easy: If the heath-care package currently being pushed by Obama is passed, the result will be 240,000 to 420,000 more abortions in the first year alone.

Did President Obama know these abortion provisions were in the Senate health-care bill when he met with the Holy Father? There is no reason to think he didn't. He certainly knew he had gone on the record supporting federal funding for abortion in the District of Columbia.

If President Obama is honest with himself, he must admit to misleading Benedict at their meeting.

Obama apologists will immediately defend the president by arguing that his plan is about reducing the need for abortion. Melody Barnes, director of the Domestic Policy Council, revealed this as the Obama administration's real aim last May under questioning from Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

It's a weak defense. Those 240,000 to 420,000 additional abortions are a near certainty. Meanwhile, the number of abortions eliminated by direct assistance to poor mothers, sex education, increased contraception, and adoption programs are unknown, and projections are highly speculative.

In fact, the new health-care bill's impact on the unborn will be so great that some are calling it the "silent FOCA." Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Rep. Chris Smith said, "Obamacare is the greatest threat ever to the lives and wellness of unborn children and their mothers since Roe v. Wade was rendered in 1973."

Some Catholic supporters of Obama are urging Senate Democrats to take the abortion provisions out of the health-care package. On America magazine's group blog, Michael Sean Winters wrote, "We should, however, be letting our congressional representatives and senators know that providing federal funds for abortion is a deal-breaker."

Even more surprising is a snippet that Jill Stanek posted from Hardball. Chris Matthews, a Catholic Obama enthusiast, insisted that including abortion services in the health bill is "the last thing Obama needs. The issue's complicated and divisive and controversial enough without bringing abortion into it."

But then Matthews adds the kicker:

He goes over to see the pope and says they're going to reduce the number of abortions, and then that same week he pushes to subsidize abortion? You can't do that!

"You can't do that!" will be exactly the reaction of most of America's Catholics when they realize their president looked Benedict in the eye and said he was committed to reducing abortion, knowing all the while just what was in his health-care bill.

This is not just about the abortion issue anymore. It's about basic respect and honesty.

Honesty, from the most ethical, transparent administration ever? Not going to happen... and the lives of many more innocent unborn will be wasted on OUR dollar.

I'm not a right to lifer, but even I find it outrageous that in some states abortions are paid for yet cancer and diabetes medications are not. People should not have to lose their life savings if they get a sickness or have an accident.