- ‹ previous
- 309 of 1535
- next ›
Pro-Lifers Hijack Health Care Reform
One of the most controversial issues related to the health care debate currently raging in Congress is whether the government plan, like most private plans, should cover the cost of abortions. And compromise on the issue may be impossible as Republicans and some moderate Democrats continue their campaign to distract the public by focusing on divisive issues like abortion. Dana Goldstein of the American Prospect writes today about the smear campaign, disseminated by conservative media outlets like Fox News, to portray health care reform as a tacit approval of government subsidized abortion:
Abortion is far cheaper and safer than pregnancy and childbirth and prevents society from shouldering the cost of children parents aren't prepared to care for. President Obama has said his health-reform goals are to offer Americans more health choices, bring down costs, and make our society, as a whole, a healthier one. In that context, abortion coverage is a no-brainer.
…
If every American were going to be covered by government-funded health insurance, we wouldn't be debating this topic. While constantly grandstanding on abortion, our political elites have been surprisingly adept at making sure women with the ability to pay -- in other words, the daughters, sisters, and girlfriends of politicians -- will always have access to abortion. But by maintaining a system full of inequities, in which women with fewer options and resources are more likely to rely on the new public plan, Democratic leaders have allowed abortion opponents, once again, to hijack a policy debate. And that, sadly, is uniquely American.
More than torpedoing compromise, though, pro-lifers from both sides of the aisle are actively trying to get abortion spiked from any bill that moves through Congress. Last month, 19 Democrats wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying that they would not “support any healthcare proposal unless it excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan."
And President Obama is staying out of it. Louisiana Republican John Fleming claimed recently that "by being silent on this issue [Obama is] actually making an affirmative statement in favor of taxpayer abortions." That wouldn't be so bad, but instead it's something much worse. As Ezra Klein points out today, the health care discussion is being run by centrist Democrats and conservative Republicans. So by staying silent on the issue, Obama is not effectively condoning government subsidized abortion; he's letting it die on the table.
I have a dream
a dream in which America agrees on the sanctity of the female body; understanding that a female body is controlled by a sentient mind; and that a female mind should be respected and allowed to make a decision over her body and her life.
It's time the people of America get over abortion and allow women to make their own choice.
And what about the female
And what about the female body growing inside that female body? Is it less sacred? Is the mind that controls that unborn female body less worthy of respect? How can you talk about the sanctity of the female body while at the same time advocating the destruction of that body? Please to preach something you don't really believe in.
Abortion
Socialized medicine might very well be be a good thing, if it is done morally; it certainly should not cover abortions, and should not include euthanasia.
Doctors should try to help people, not kill them, and abortion and euthanasia are not "health care"; they are murder - plain and simple.
We do not help women - poor or rich - by trying to convince them to allow an abortionist to kill their babies. Abortion leaves huge, deep emotional and psychological scars, and has been linked to increased risk of breast cancer.
Since Roe vs Wade, rates of breast cancer have been rising steadily, and as a nation we have suffered much by way of demographics. How many doctors and musicians, artists and mathematicians have we killed via abortion? In short regarding abortion, both the women involved and society at large are that much worse for the wear.
All can agree that we should strive for fewer abortions in our land; not more.
Planned Parenthood's founder Margret Sanger was an old eugenicist and was obviously quite the racist. Simply put, no group has suffered more since Roe vs Wade at the hands of Planned Parenthood than Black people.
Again, socialized medicine is Ok, but abortion and euthanasia are not "health care"; they are murder - plain and simple - and they have no place in any moral, social system of healthcare.
Those are your personal opinions
You may believe that euthanasia and abortion are murder but that doesn't make it so. These are issues for individuals and families to decide. If euthanasia is legal in a state, it should obviously be covered under a health plan. There comes a point when it's time to say "enough!"
When it comes to abortion, this should be covered as well, especially in cases where a birth would put the life of the mother in danger. Allowing a woman to die to save a foetus would be ludicrous.
Abortion & Health
I beg to differ with you Annon; murder is not a matter of opinion.
Certain things are objectively wrong; murder is one of them, and all the medical folks understand that abortion is murder. The vast majority of doctors refuse to have anything to do with abortion. Moreover, we should not squander this opportunity to implment a social, or national health care plan.
As for the important "point" you think you are making about sacrificing a woman to save a baby; it is a red herring. Any doctor can tell you that situation hardly ever arises. In any case, nobody is saying we should let a woman die to save a baby.
Almost all abortions have nothing to do with saving a woman's life; the vast majority simply have to do with a woman unexpectedly finding herself with child, and having been convinced by her boyfriend or husband, famiy or society, to pemit an abortionist to rip her baby out of the womb and toss it in the trash. In fact the woman has been deceived, and she eventually discovers this.
As I said earlier, putting forth abortion as a "solution" implies there is a problem; it further implies the woman is to blame for making a mess that she now needs "to clean up". And then after the abortion, sometimes immediately, sometimes months or even years later, the woman feels remorseful, that something is terribly wrong, and she begins experiencing emotional or even psychological problems; in fact she begins to realize how she was deceived. (http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/)
At that point we (i.e. society) tell her she is just being hysterical ("you silly woman"); that she is worried about nothing and should just pull herself together and get on with things. In fact she is mourning the death of her child and needs to eventually deal with that. Finally, women are now becoming aware that abortion has been linked to the rising rates of breast cancer, but when they mention this, they are loudly shouted down; again for being silly or hysterical.
No - None of this is good.
Women deserve better than abortion.
In any case, we should not increase the many problems associated with abortion by including abortion (or euthanasia - another large topic) in any socialized medical plan.
In fact if we do not exclude these two items, the entire national medical plan will fall apart and we will have to wait many more yeras for another opportunity to implement some form of socialized or national medical care plan.
The problem with your
The problem with your argument is that you keep asserting that abortion is murder. We all agree that cold-blooded murder is wrong. That's not the question; whether or not abortion is murder is the issue at hand, and simply asserting over and over that it's murder doesn't help move the discussion forward.
We kill things all the time. Does your salad have a right to life? Every gargle of mouthwash is a miniature Holocaust - is your dental health so important that the taking of those lives is justified? Should we arrest the makers of Listerine for genocide? Of course not, because single-celled bacteria aren't people. Neither are plants, and neither are blastocysts, and neither are fetuses. Simply being a living organism doesn't guarantee a right to life; if we were to operate on that principle, we'd have to starve ourselves. What makes a person is more than mere life - being a person includes being conscious, having a sense of self, and a perceivable desire to live, at a bare minimum. Neither blastocysts nor fetuses meet those three prerequisites.
Secondly, even were I to grant (which I don't) that abortion has strong negative consequences for the women involved, you'd have to illustrate that not getting an abortion would be an improvement, and in fact it doesn't. While there certainly are some women who suffer from feelings of loss, most are still better off than they would be otherwise - I should particularly point out women who terminate pregnancies that are the result of sexual abuse or rape. Until you have a better option, abortion is still the way to go.
Abortion
Aaron,
I see the point you are trying to make, but left un-molested, neither a plant nor the germs in one's mouth would grow into a human being.
A human fetus will not grow into a frog or a chair. Proividing nobody rips itf rom the mother's womb, the fetus will grow into a child.
As to your point about having to prove that generally it is better to follow natural law than to intervene with chemicals and/or the abortionist's scalpel, other than to say I find it amazing how you would think such an intrusive procedure with such long-lasting effects would be preferable to a more natural approach, I simply have no reply.
Do you honestly think women are so simple that having an abortion does not affect them long-term? I not only find that hard to accept intuitively, but scientific studies and 30+ years of abortions and the experience of mental and emotional health therapists, not to mention the statistical link to incresed breast cancer rates, also point to negative long-term effects.
If the seed has been planted, it will grow into a human
All you who claim to be so religious and proper on the Sabbath and the other brand of Christianity that goes forth on Sunday... I wonder how you are going to respond when you are called upon to explain your sojurn on Earth. Or is all your prattling on about how much you love Jesus Christ, all a sham. Murder is defined as killing something that lives...Murder is murder...whether committed by an individual or state. Human life is precious and if there is a Creator, then killing the most innocent of His Creation is a sin most foul. Humanity has a warped sense of morality to say the least and one day we will pay the price... I believe in the old saying "If you do the crime....then do the time". And for those of you who rail against using the taxpayer's money to feed and clothe all of those innocents...you are just as bad as the ones who committed the murders.
Nope, Still Opinion
You say "and all the medical folks understand that abortion is murder."
No, indeed not. You might be able to get people to agree that murder is an objective wrong (really? what about the plots to murder Hitler? or our recent assassination of a Taliban leader in Pakistan? or any state-sponsored execution in the U.S.?).
But you certainly can't get "all the medical folks" or any other cross-section of U.S. society to agree that abortion is murder. That's your opinion. And that's all it is.
How absurd is your logic on this.
tagged as:- solution
Too bizarre for words. It is for the people to decide in their own personal lives. Not for government. I find it strange my catholic friends don't believe in abortion, but do believe in the 'duty-to-die' aspect of the 'end-of-life' chapter of HR3200.
How contradictory is that?
Government shouldn't be involved in either case. These are personal decisions, not to be decided by a bureaucrat, or funding by unwilling taxpayer dollars.
abortion myths
I am so tired of hearing how abortion leaves these deep traumatic scars on women who have them. Perhaps some women have regrets, certainly those who had illegal back-alley abortions that left them scarred for life probably do. However, there are many of us who felt nothing but relief and were glad to be able to wait until we were truly prepared to bring a child into this world. It's a huge commitment requiring love, patience, stability (not to mention money), and in the case of those of us who are parents of children with disabilities such as autism, a tremendous amount of strength.
I don't think anyone who isn't prepared to manage that should be forced to become a parent. What do you think is going to happen to all those children whose parent's weren't capable of providing and caring for them. Do you think some lovely childless couple is just waiting to take them ALL in? More orphanages? We're doing such a great job caring for our unwanted children right now.
The best plan is free birth control for anyone who wants it (with perhaps some parental controls for those under ~15), morning after pills over-the-counter for those lapses of judgment or timing (I bet the main customers are periomenopausal women!) and legal safe abortions as a last resort (with some reasonable limits regarding first trimester vs later weeks). Because, believe it or not, women don't want abortions nor do they lightly choose them. I sometimes wonder if all the angst over this issue is because of fears that some woman will abort the second-coming of Jesus.
Euthanasia is not part of
Euthanasia is not part of the health bill in the slightest, though it has been a large part of health insurance policies who deny or revoke the care of the sick so they can give themselves that money in the form of bonuses. Allowing people to die or become financially destitute after promising to help when needed is completely immoral and should not have any place in society. Obama's health plan is trying to stop these con artists from keeping people sick, or denying them care for their own profit. Recently a woman named Barbara Wagner was refused cancer treatment yet her insurance company told her that they would pay for suicide drugs. Many health insurance companies wont pay for pregnancies citing it as a preexisting condition, yet 86% of private insurers provide coverage for abortions. This has been happening for decades under the existing coverage. Obama's plan seeks to eliminate or curtail these outrageous policies that already exist. Euthanasia and abortions are part of the existing system so to say that Obama's plan is going to cause these things to happen now or more often, is ridiculous and dishonest.
Abortion and Healthcare
Women in the situation of an un-expected pregnancy need understanding, love, and material help. We do them no favor by offering to rip their child out of their womb. Women deserve better than that.
In fact by offering abortion as a "final solution" for the woman, we are implying that she is at fault, that she has done something she needs "to clean up". Women deserve better than that.
We should be saying to her things like "you are valuable, your child is a treasure, and we care dearly about you" and "we are here to help you". We Americans claim to value women.
In fact, women deserve our love, our help and our respect; they do not deserve some trashy immorality that simply makes their lives worse and demeans them as persons, that cheapens life the way abortion does.
We should be encoraging life and dignity, love and respect and joy, not death and shame, endless guilt and sadness.
Rather than just trying to pull the other person down (morally, emotionally, and psychologically) we should try to help each other and build each other up.
If you want to criminalize abortion...or pretend
tagged as:- solution
If you want to criminalize abortion...or pretend it's not as much a part of health care as pre-natal services are...
How about a program where men who feel as you do could get on a list to pay child support for these women?
Not like sponsoring a zoo animal, but a permanent lifetime commitment to a particular child, enforceable by law — just as you feel that pregnant women should be forced to undertake. Because you say so.
You'll say it, but will you pay it?
Ken said: "Almost all
Ken said:
"Almost all abortions have nothing to do with saving a woman's life; the vast majority simply have to do with a woman unexpectedly finding herself with child, and having been convinced by her boyfriend or husband, famiy or society, to pemit an abortionist to rip her baby out of the womb and toss it in the trash. In fact the woman has been deceived, and she eventually discovers this."
B.S. Go to www.imnotsorry.net, and you'll see literally hundreds of testimonies of women who wanted an abortion themselves (they were NOT talked into it) and who to this day have NO regrets at all.
Not all women want to be pregnant or be mommies. Jebus does not always create a special miracle and make a woman magically fall in love with her offspring and glad to ruin her whole life.
It isn't just "inconvenience" to be trapped in your own body for nine months and be hijacked like that. Locking your keys in your car is an "inconvenience". Forgetting to pick up something at the store is an "inconvenience." Pregnancy and kids can be a total disaster.
If you are against abortion, then let's try this: let's implant an unwanted fetus into YOUR body, and YOU go through the pregnancy, and YOU go through the trauma of getting it out somehow, and YOU put up with the resulting kid for the next 18 to 25 years.
When anti-choicers are willing to do this, then I will talk to them. Not before.
Covered Abortions?
tagged as:- solution
Well then folks, you better drop your own insurance policy right now, today! They ALL cover abortions and you pay for it regardless if you like it or not. By the way, prior to the abortion rights of woman, wasn't the backalley method so much better? I know it was for many woman because some of them are dead. Get a clue, medical abortions are the only safest method regardless of your reglious views.
Hijacking Healthcare
I am a firm believer in a woman's right to choose however when I first heard that there was going to be funding for woman's clinics in the health bill I knew it was dead. This is just stupid to try and force this through. We have 14,000 people losing healthcare every day and to try to put this on top of a social issue that we won't win is ridiculous. I can't believe the dems would have tried this. They would have been much better off getting healthcare reform through and then tackling the other issues. I'm just so sick of all this and so angry at the dems for screwing this up I can hardly stand it.
We all know how much
We all know how much pro-lifers love welfare parents too. And why are the religious zealots even involved in this discussion? After all, their churches are exempt from paying taxes, therefore their religion does not belong in the public healthcare debate - they can stick to private healthcare. Yes, women deserve better than abortion: not being impregnated in the first place by rape/incest/abuse. Women deserve better than a pregnancy gone wrong at the last minute, where the mother faces giving birth to a terribly disabled child who will suffer the rest of their life (and cost the healthcare system even more and bankrupt the parents). Women deserve better than risking severe health complications or even death by carrying out the pregnancy to full term. Women deserve choice. If you don't like abortions - don't get one.
abortion vs civilian casualties
While I can understand how a Christian can be opposed to abortion it mystifies my the same said christian say nothing about civilian casualties in war. Abort a baby and your a murder, drop a 500 lbs bomb on a wedding party and kill not only the unborn child but the mother, the father, grandparents and neighbours too yet your considered a hero.
go figure.
my view on abortion, it should decided by the people and not the courts, In secular Europe Abortion is banned in Ireland but allowed in the UK.
civilian casualties of war
Rob - You are not correct; Christians - Catholics in particular - have always railed against civilian casualties, and against unjust war in general.
Both pope John Paul II and more recently, pope Benedict spoke very clearly and frankly to call president Bush to accopuint on how unjust and terrible is the current war.
gov-funded abortion
If people object to government-funded abortion because they don't want their tax dollars paying for abortion, maybe we should ALL have a choice in how our money is spent. I don't care for war, so I don't want my dollars spent for that. And there are some countries to whom we give foreign that I don't want my tax dollars supporting.
This could give rise to a whole new kind of democracy. And a whole new bureaucracy devoted to pinpointing where each taxpayer's money is going. I suspect local schools will do well while the military may take it in the shorts.
"All can agree that we
"All can agree that we should strive for fewer abortions in our land; not more."
Hey, Ken, speak for yourself. I certainly don't agree with that statement and neither do many I know, so "all" is deifnitely inaccurate.
Perhaps it would have been better for the woman to have not gotten pregnant in the first place, but if she becomes pregnant, abortion is still preferable to bringing unwanted children into the world - I don't believe that benefits anyone - child, mother, or society as a whole. And considering our rapidly growing population in both this country and the world, more people should not be what we are striving for. Perhaps there are better ways to limit population growth, but I support any of them as long as it was the woman who chose what she would do with her body and not you or any other man.
All can Agree -
ERo614 - I truly do not understand.
I try to respect other people's ideas and opinions, and simply thought that regardless of one's opinion on whether or not abortion should be legalized at the federal level (obviously you agree with keeping abortion legal; just as obviously, I do not), certainly we can agree that having an abortion should not be anyone's goal, should not be a routine part of anyone's plan; that fewer abortions are better than more?
Please explain further.
Ken, if you don't want to
Ken, if you don't want to have an abortion, no one can make you. In the USA it is illegal to force invasive surgical procedures on people without their consent.
It is a myth that all women want babies and that women who have abortions were either brainwashed or coerced. Women themselves know what's best for for them as individuals.
Besides, once a child is born and in need of food, medical care, clothes, a crib, etc, the 'pro-lifers' are frequently nowhere in sight. For all they care, kids with birth certificates can go rot.
Ken if you don't want
Mrs G. says: "Besides, once a child is born and in need of food, medical care, clothes, a crib, etc, the 'pro-lifers' are frequently nowhere in sight. For all they care, kids with birth certificates can go rot."
I take issue with your statement; it seems heartless, unbelievably thoughtless, and highly offensive. Moreover the callousness you display is breathtaking.
The largest group of pro-lifers is the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church is also, the single largest charitable organization in the world - you can go look that up to verify it. Otherwise, plenty of Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and secular groups fund various charities that help women in just the sort of situation you describe. These groups help women during their pregnancy and they help them after the child is born as well.
We advocate doing things naturally, in line with natural law. It is you that prefers permitting the intrusion of the most cruel artificial means, all the way to and including killing the baby via abortionist's chemicals or knife (scalpel).
My main point in all this should be clear enough. I agree we probably need some sort of national medical care plan; Canada has socialized medicine and for most Canadians, it works well enough. I am somewhat familiar with Chile's social medical system and again, while of course it is not the pefect, end-all be-all health insurance system, most Chileans feel it is adequate and that it does not break the bank.
I hope the pro-abortionists and heirs to the ignorance of Margaret Sanger do not de-rail this effort by insisting on asking the tax payers to foot the bill for this sort of slaughter. At least 30% of the hospitals in this country are religious-based hospitals, and 90% of these religious-based hospitals are Catholic hospitals. Does anyone think that Catholic or other religious hospitals will go along with abortion and / or euthanasia? Catholic hospitals will shut their doors before performing abortions.
And we have not yet even begun to discuss how proponents of euthanasia might yet de-rail this bill.
Because of the past tactics of the so-called pro-choice groups, pro-lifers will not be satisfied with anything less than a sort of Hyde-amendment to the health care bill i.e., language that specifically prohibits the government from paying for abortions or for any of the various forms of euthanasia.
The upshot is that we in the USA will not have any form of socialized medical plan unless abortion and euthanasia are specifically excluded.
It would truly be sad if we missed this opportunity.
Ken, You are seriously enlightenment challenged!
Ken,
Listening to your comments I am very uncomfortable with your saying your desire to control women's decisions is all out of caring and love for them - even respect! Your comments are exactly the same as the fundamentalist Muslims on why they keep women shrouded from head to foot and imprisoned in their tiny homes unless a male member (even a little boy) will escort them outside the house. They all say the same as you - it is because we respect women and want to protect them - as if women have no say in the matter. Both of your patronizing attitudes are repellent.
I truly believe that if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. Try to put yourself in a woman's place, especially one who has a partner who has run off and left her pregnant, jobless, skilless, young and without help. What kind of life would that child have? Would she have?
And your incredible naivete that the Catholic church does/will take care of all these struggling women and their unwanted children is almost too silly to even acknowledge. I lived in Catholic Mexico where nearly 200 people starve to death every day, where millions can't afford the cheap national health care subscription, where women are pushed to keeping popping out babies when their health is at risk and they can't feed, educated or get medical help for the ones they already have - AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF YOUR GREAT BENEVOLENT CATHOLIC CHURCH!!! Quite the contrary the church is there to browbeat them and make them feel guilty and to fear for the fires of a non-existent hell if they don't obey but there is no Catholic soup kitchen in every town and village, no Catholic free health clinic in every town and village, in fact, where we lived it was the mostly non-Catholic foreigners who volunteered and donated so the poor could have medical care for their children (hare-lips and its complications being a serious problem), basic food, clothing, maybe a toy at Christmas and an orange, and maybe even a used mattress for the first time in their lives. But the Catholic church was NOWHERE TO BE SEEN.
Fortunately, more and more Mexicans are wising up and paying less heed to what the ornery old men in skirts and pointy hats tell them to do. (Your Archbishop of Guadalajara even issued a statement condemning the Mexican human rights office while we were there for their work in defending human and civil rights). I remember one middle aged woman with numerous children who was supporting her daughter in her desire to not have children and to not get married even until she had finished her education - she said "if the church and priests want us to keep having children, who is going to feed them". The church had never given her anything through her life of poverty and stuggle.
You live in a dream world. And your BS about Christians being so against killing and war, just look around you. The US, which always makes a big deal (especially your conservative friends) about being a Christian nation but has been at war somewhere, and almost always on trumped up reasons, around the world promoting Capitalism (a philosophy opposite of what Jesus taught) and the Military-Industrial- Complex businesses, and is one of the most macho kick-ass societies in the world - certainly in the developed world, not to mention the average "Christian" USAmerican's love of revenge (called for or not) and the death penalty. The US is closer to Muslim countries when it comes to "Values". GW Bush made a big deal about being a Christian (though, as usual, nobody pointed out that there was no evidence of this) and lied to start a war with a country that was no danger to the US (but had plenty of oil and an opportunity for Haliburton, Carlyle Group et al to rake in billions of taxpayer money), caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and "allied" troops, created more "terrorists" than would ever have happened otherwise as well as a new "Islamic Republic", supported, along with the other conservatives, the redistribution of wealth upward to the richest 1% from the poor and middle class and on and on...
It is here in Post-Christian Europe, that my partner and I have fled for a saner way of life, that the hope for the world lies and, strangely enough, EU values are much closer in this Post-Christian era to true Christian values than they ever were when the church held people by the throats. We live in "Catholic Spain" and most people are religious but they don't pay much attention to the clergy or what the "church" has to say, since it was the church that supported all the brutality of the Fascist dictatorship of Franco against the people. Hundreds of years of oppression, persecution and repression by the "church" has left all but a very small minority of people in most EU countries very cynical about the "church", and rightly so.
And your comments about those so-called Holy Fathers JP II and the current ex-Hitler Youth Pope, if they are so peace loving why did JP II say when asked about his and his church's stance on the persecution of gay people that "homosexuals are intrinsically evil" (what a judgment!) and when asked specifically to comment about violence against gay and lesbian people he said "what do they expect" - a real Christian there. You just have to read his history to know how he turned his back on Jewish friends when the Nazis were coming for them. He never did anything, even when he was in a position of power in the Polish church, to help save those being killed and imprisoned by the Nazis. He was just another charlatan in a long line of charlatans. And this current conehead doesn't even deserve the time or space, him and his little red velvet cape with ermine lining and his sweet little silk slippers - so like the humble Jesus of Nazareth, huh?
Until you can get pregnant and live by your sickly rules, you have no right to butt in with what someone else must live through and what decisions she must make. Your self-righteous arrogance is sickening. No wonder people are leaving the Catholic church in droves in Latin America, and most of the others deserve to collapse too, and soon will, I hope, if there is a god.
Free Thinker
Well Free Thinker, you are anything but that - whew!
You have been misled on many counts and seem angry and frustrated. I guess considering what you think to be true, your anger and frustration is understandable.
First; nobody is talking about wrapping women in burkas. You live in Spain, but here in the US, abortion has been a controversial issue for at least three decades. This is one of the national issues with which we are dealing as part of our trying to implement some form of national, social medical plan. Your ranting on about Nazis and Spanish Fascists adds nothing to this effort. Facists by the way, in how they tried to manage their economies, usually employed a large dose of socialism, but all that is not part of this discussion.
Secondly; pope JPII said "homosexuality is intrinsically disordered"; he did not say anyone was "evil". Your staggering ignorance about, and obvious seething dislike of Catholicism (and by extension of course, Catholics) is truly stunning.
We in the US now have an opportunity to correct something in our medical system that we probably should have done back in the 1950's. It was then - just after WW2 - that most of Europe, Canada and parts of Latin America adopted various forms of socilaized medicine. We on the other hand, dallied around and inadvertently allowed a private insurance sector to spring up and grow until now that system is in a serious financial nose-dive.
Regarding your railing against Christians and war, again I would reiterate that both pope John Paul II and pope Benedict never missed an opportunity when speaking with former president Bush, to call him on the Iraq war. The Vatican had insisted it was not a just war for the start. Moreover, the Vatican (both under JPII and now under Benedict) has repeatedly chided the US for being too materialistic and for our tendency to let raw capitalism run wild.
Finally it is a simple fact that the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization on the planet. In addition to the many good works by various Jewish, Protestant, Muslim and secular charitable groups (you cited some of them), the Catholic Church - while certainly not perfect; it is after all, comprised of sinners from top to bottom - historically has contributed much, and continues to contribute much, toward making the world a little more livable for the poorest amoung us. I agree with you that regarding helping our fellow man; we all need to do more. Indeed, none of us lives up to God's will on that score.
All that having been said, in this discussion, we are talking about how we can seize the opportunity to reform our ailing health care system. My point is that - as the many posts on this topic suggest - since abortion is such a contentious issue that moves so many Americans on such a deep level, that until we resolve the matter (we probably need to somehow figure out how to hand it back to the individual states so it can be decided at the legislative level), we should lay the entire issue aside, and not allow it de-rail the national medical plan effort that is currently underway.
Abortion and Health Reform
The only abortion anyone should be concerned with is the abortion of national health reform of any kind by the Pelosicrats , the Republicon artists, and the latter's allies in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
National Health Plan
I agree - If the abortionist lobby and Planned Parenthood do not back down, we will miss the opportunity to institue any sort of national health plan.
Becasue of the tactics of pro-choice groups in the past, pro-lifers will not be satisfied with anything less than a sort of Hye-amendment i.e., language that specifically excludes abortion and euthanasia from any national health care plan.
Unless abortion and euthanasia are specifically excluded, a national health plan will not happen, and that would in fact be a shame.
The irony that I have found
The irony that I have found in this debate is that very often the same people who are against abortion are FOR war and the death penalty.....no problem talking about the sanctity of human life until it is actually here and may need social assistance.
war and death penalty
You may like irony, but that fact of the matter is in this case, you are not correct.
Number-wise, Catholics make up the lion's share of pro-lifers, and the pope has time and again said that while it is a prudential judgement that is to be left to the state, in most cases the death penalty is not necessary or justifiable.
Also, the pope did not miss an opportunity to call president Bush on the carpet about how unjust is the Iraqi war.
Who are you listening too?
Can't help but notice
Just like abortion hijacked health care reform, it hijacked this discussion, too.
Also interesting - no American wants "the government" stepping into their health care and making decisions or interferring with their medical care. Notice, however, how many on this list are willing to do that to each other. How many comments on this list are private citizens deciding what kind of treatment someone else may or may not get?
Let's keep our eye on the ball. We desperately need health care reform and we need it NOW. Keep bickering, and the greedy insurance bastards win, and the American people lose. Those of you who call yourselves "Pro Life," do you care, at all, about the 1800 - 2200 Americans who die every year because they have no health care? Or do you only care about unborn life, and to hell with life after birth?
Good comment, but your figures lack a zero
It is up to 22000 not 2200 people who die from lack of health care in the US each year - and that is probably a very conservative estimate since there are 43million working (yes, working!) people who cannot afford health care. What a disgrace for a country that claims to be the richest in the world and spends trillions enriching the War Profiteers (Haliburton, Carlyle Group, Blackwater, Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, etc.) in destroying and rebuiding the world's poorest countries and stealing their resources - something the US has been doing since it stole the first land from the native peoples.
HEALTH CARE IS DEFENSE. It is defending USAmericans against the "terrorists" attacks of disease and premature disability and death which kills and maims millions every year compared to the few who may be killed or maimed by human "terrorists" upon whom the US spends trillions to fight - and not too successfully either, if you notice. What is the difference? There is none.
Step out into the real world...
EXACTLY...it's amazing that those who want to make it illegal for women to have an abortion are the same ones who vote against the social services for those who need it most: single, uneducated, poor mothers!!! There is a connection to poverty, education, and having children. Having health care is one of the things that is desperately needed for those who cannot afford it. Often times, those who work at minimum-wage jobs (many times single mothers) do not get benefits; no sick days, no paid vacations, and NO health care. This leaves them to wait until they are very sick before going to the emergency room because they cannot afford to go to the doctor. Health care reform is one piece of the puzzle that connects the issues of poverty, education, and other social problems. People need help!!! They don't need some holier-than-though jackass who has no idea what it's like to have to make a decision on whether or not to have to decide to get an abortion shoveling their religious B.S. down their throats. Perhaps those who want to condemn the women who have to make that decision should spend their energy volunteering at an orphanage or a home for single-mothers or living in the projects for some time. Step out of your religious box and into the real world!!! God would want you to.
The real world
Calm down Common Sense; nobody is condeming women for having abortions. Pro-lifers call for laws condeming the abortionist i.e., the "doctor" who performs abortions and profits from them. The woman ia a victim; of society's apathy and of the abortionists' racket
As for helping people, the largest group of pro-lifers is the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church is also, the single largest charitable organization on the planet - if you don't believe me, go look it up for yourself.
Otherwise, plenty of good people in Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and secular groups work in various charities that help women in just the sort of situation you describe. These groups help women both during their pregnancy, and they help them after the child is born as well. It is common for these groups to provide on-going assistance. Have you ever ventured outside the US?
Pro-lifers advocate doing things naturally, in line with natural law. Pro-choice folks on the other hand, prefer permitting the intrusion of the most cruel artificial means, all the way to and including killing the baby via abortionist's chemicals or knife (scalpel).
My main point is clear enough. We need some sort of national medical care plan.
Canada has socialized medicine and for most Canadians, it works well enough. I am somewhat familiar with Chile's social medical system and again, while of course it is not the pefect, end-all be-all health insurance system, most Chileans feel it is adequate and that it does not break the bank.
I hope pro-abortionists and other heirs to the staunch coarseness and ignorance of Margaret Sanger do not de-rail this effort by insisting on asking the tax payers to foot the bill for this sort of slaughter.
At least 30% of the hospitals in this country are church-affiliated, and 90% of these religious-based hospitals are Catholic hospitals. Does anyone think that Catholic or other religious hospitals will go along with abortion and / or euthanasia? Catholic hospitals will shut their doors before performing abortions.
And we have not yet even begun to discuss how proponents of euthanasia might yet de-rail this bill.
Simply put; Pro-lifers will not be satisfied with anything less than a sort of Hyde-amendment to the health care bill i.e., language that specifically prohibits the government from paying for abortions or for any of the various forms of euthanasia.
The upshot is that we in the USA will not have any form of socialized medical plan unless abortion and euthanasia are specifically excluded; indeed, it would be very sad if we missed this opportunity.
The Catholic Church IS NOT THE LARGEST CHARITABLE ORG ON EARTH!
You may have been brainwashed into believing that but there is no proof of that statement. I can't find anything to prove that any more than that the US is the biggest per capita giver in foreign (non-military) aid - another myth.
I live in a Catholic country now and I tell you the church is invisible unless it comes out of its musty closet to oppose gay rights, women's rights, abortion rights, etc. It is the state and private charities here that do the work - the Catholic church is NOWHERE TO BE SEEN. The same as was in poverty-stricken, Catholic Mexico.
It may be ideologically or
It may be ideologically or argumentatively convenient to link the health care reform issue with the abortion issue, for the extremists on both sides of the abortion issue (and perhaps for those against the health care bill currently before Congress), but it's not intellectually honest. Including or excluding abortion as a covered benefit settles no question; it cuts off debate or future action on nothing.
Those in favor of the health care bill probably do not want abortion-rights activists to horn in on their project, to hitch their wagon to the horse of the health care bill. They're probably right; the left does not have so much a surplus of political capital to be cavalier about costs, much as that's their reputation, and they should want to avoid a public perception of having overinterpreted their mandate (though it may already be too late to avoid that).
The health care bill stinks, largely because of its structure, on which the President deferred to Pelosi and the other liberals in Congress. There isn't any natural and obvious relationship between more services and more costs, which means the burden of saying no to a patient who wants something unnecessary will fall to doctors. Since it's not coming out of their pockets (except as taxpayers), and since stories do exist of overtesting discovering something serious, they have no incentive to say no versus immediate, compassionate and liability-based incentive to say yes. The greater the disconnect between service and cost, the greater the moral hazard, as we've discovered with credit cards. The whole bill should be scrapped and we should start over, with Obama presenting an alternative written by experts chosen by him for public intelligence to judge.
Common Sense -
tagged as:- solution
Calm down Common Sense; nobody is condeming women for having abortions. Pro-lifers call for laws condeming the abortionist i.e., the "doctor" who performs abortions and profits from them. Indeed, the woman is a victim; of society's apathy and of the abortionists' (profitable) racket.
As for helping people, the largest group of pro-lifers is the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church is also, the single largest charitable organization on the planet - if you don't believe me, look it up for yourself.
Otherwise, plenty of good people in Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and secular groups work in various charities that help women in just the sort of situation you describe. These groups help women both during their pregnancy, and they help them after the child is born as well. It is common for these groups to provide on-going assistance. Have you ever ventured outside the US?
Pro-lifers advocate trying to do things naturally; in line with natural law. Pro-choice folks on the other hand, prefer permitting (sometimes even advocate for) the cold-hearted intrusion of the most cruel artificial means, up to and including killing the baby via abortionist's chemicals or knife (scalpel).
Now, it is obvious enough that we need some sort of national medical care plan. On that I think most of us agree.
Canada has socialized medicine and for most Canadians, it works well enough. I am somewhat familiar with Chile's social medical system and again, while of course, as with Canadian health care, Chile's is not the pefect, end-all be-all health insurance system, most Chileans feel it is adequate and that it does not break the bank.
I hope pro-abortionists and other heirs to the staunch coarseness and ignorance of Margaret Sanger do not de-rail this effort by insisting on asking the tax payers to foot the bill for this sort of slaughter.
At least 30% of the hospitals in this country are church-affiliated, and 90% of these religious-based hospitals are Catholic hospitals. Does anyone honestly think that Catholic or other religious hospitals will go along with abortion and / or euthanasia? Catholic hospitals will shut their doors before performing abortions.
And we have not yet even begun to discuss how proponents of euthanasia might also de-rail this bill.
Simply put; Pro-lifers will not be satisfied with anything less than a sort of Hyde-amendment to the health care bill i.e., language that specifically prohibits the government from paying for abortions or for any of the various forms of euthanasia.
If folks want abortion (or where it is legal, euthanasia), they should be willing to pay for it themselves.
The upshot is that we in the USA will not have any form of socialized medical plan unless abortion and euthanasia are specifically excluded; indeed, it would be very sad if we missed this opportunity.
Why can't we leave health
Why can't we leave health care decisions between people and their doctors? Why do we have to muck about in these endless debates, and kill any forward progress on reforms we really need.
It's silly to have so many people dying of treatable illnesses just because they can't afford health care. That's the real moral imperative here.
Debates
tagged as:- solution
Erin,
For the most part it seems, we can agree we need healthcare reform. The problem with abortion is how the issue was handled back in the early 70's; essentially the court circumvented the legislative process and the issue was never settled.
Rather than allowing the individual states determine whether or not they wanted to legalize abortion, the Supreme Court basically legislated; legal abortion form the bench, at the federal level.
While we still suffer the consequences of that mistake, we have also learned from it. Witness the state-by-state handling of euthanasia (some states have legalized limited forms of it, others do not permit it at all), and the various laws regarding embryonic stem cell research; some states permit it, others do not.
And so while we have learned about the downside of trying to settle such an profound issue as abortion via judicial activism at the federal level,we have not yet figured out how to un-wind the Supreme Court's action and hand the abortion issue back to the states.
Because healthcare reform should not be postponed, we should probably not wait until the abortion issue is settled nationally in order to move forward on a national medical plan. In consideration of all this, the best option is to simply leave it out of the national insurance altogether, and leave the matter for another day.
Roughly half of the population simply feels strongly that the ends do not justify the means, that abortion is murder, and thus they (i.e., we; I am a pro-lifer) will not allow any national medical plan if it includes abortion.
Interestingly enough, when abortion is transferred back to the states (and only then), it can be incorporated into the national health plan.
For example if in future, the Feds somehow hand the abortion issue back to the States, and if California decides abortion will be legal in California, and if Utah chooses not to allow abortions, then the matter becomes quite simple.
The socialized medical plan would cover abortions in California, and would not pay for them in Utah, and the premiums paid by residents of each state would be adjusted accordingly.
It seems like the neocons
It seems like the neocons that make the most noise about abortion are the ones who would never consider fostering or adopting an unwanted child. They want to cut welfare while bringing millions of unwanted babies into the world so they can sit back and sneer as those poor, hungry, abused babies suffer. I know because I worked in a burn unit and 9 out of 10 kids that came through there were victims of child abuse. Where were all these 'pro-lifers'? Nobody came to rescue these helpless victims (except the nurses). It's all a crock of crap! Neocons are all about enjoying watching other people suffer!
It seems like neo-cons
Whoa - Calm down Annonymous - Not all neo-cons are pro-lifers, and not all pro-lifers are neo-cons, or even conservative for that matter.
As for helping the children and the poor, the largest group of pro-lifers is the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church is also, the single largest charitable organization on the planet - if you don't believe me, look it up for yourself.
Otherwise, plenty of good people in Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and secular groups work in various charities that help women and families in just the sort of situation you describe. These groups help women both during their pregnancy, and they help them after the child is born as well. It is common for these groups to provide on-going assistance. Have you ever ventured outside the US?
Pro-lifers advocate trying to do things naturally; in line with natural law. Pro-choice folks on the other hand, prefer permitting (sometimes even advocate for) the cold-hearted intrusion of the most cruel artificial means, up to and including killing the baby via abortionist's chemicals or knife (scalpel).
Now, it is obvious enough that we need some sort of national medical care plan. On that I think most of us agree.
Canada has socialized medicine and for most Canadians, it works well enough. I am somewhat familiar with Chile's social medical system and again, while of course, as with Canadian health care, Chile's is not the pefect, end-all be-all health insurance system, most Chileans feel it is adequate and that it does not break the bank.
Hopefully pro-abortionists and other heirs to the staunch coarseness and ignorance of Margaret Sanger do not de-rail this effort by insisting on asking the tax payers to foot the bill for the slaughter that is abortion.
At least 30% of the hospitals in this country are church-affiliated, and 90% of these religious-based hospitals are Catholic hospitals. Does anyone honestly think that Catholic or other religious hospitals will go along with abortion and / or euthanasia? Catholic hospitals will shut their doors before performing abortions.
Simply put; Pro-lifers will not be satisfied with anything less than a sort of Hyde-amendment to the health care bill i.e., language that specifically prohibits the government from paying for abortions or for any of the various forms of euthanasia.
Yes abortion is legal; no doubt about that. The question is whether or not it is an electrive procedure. Given that about half the country feels strongly that abortion is murder, if folks want an abortion, they should pay for it themselves.
This reform of our medical system is very important, and upshot is that we in the USA will not have any form of socialized medical plan unless abortion is specifically excluded; indeed, it would be very sad if we missed this opportunity.
ONE MORE TIME -
KEN,
NOW GET THIS STRAIGHT AND GET IT FOR GOOD - THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT THE LARGEST CHARITABLE ORG IN THE WORLD IF IT WERE WHY ARE THE CATHOLIC COUNTRIES OF LATIN AMERICAN SO POOR? You only have to look at Catholic countries to see the poorest in the western world. Some of the Catholic church's Latin American priests tried to help the people and defend them against the rightwing dictatorships and their brutality a few decades ago and to help the poor get help - but "The Church" did not, in fact your beloved John Paul II was the one who ordered them to stop working for the poor! Just give them the rules and push them to have more Catholic babies to starve to death, but good heavens! don't follow the teachings of Jesus. That was just too radical for this conservative Pope who cared more for the rituals than for the people. The Catholic church backed the rightwing, murderous dictatorships in every So. American country, right along with the CIA and their torture masters. So get off your rickety soap box. Your Catholic arrogance is so much the same as the typical USAmerican who says the same thing about the US - the savior of the world - another myth that doesn't stand up to research and scrutiny.
Lies, lies and more lies. Go live in a Catholic country like Mexico and see the Catholic church in action - NOT! I have.
Free Think?
Ok Free Thinker, here we go again.
You have been misled on so many counts and seem angry and frustrated. Indeed, considering what you think to be true, your anger and frustration is understandable.
First; We in the US are discussing how to best reform our health-care system. We now have an opportunity to correct something in our medical system, to do what we probably should have done back in the 1950's.
It was then - just after WW2 - that most of Europe, Canada and parts of Latin America adopted various forms of socilaized medicine. During those days we Americans did not tend this matter and instead, apparently inadvertently, allowed a private insurance sector to spring up and take hold until now, that system is causing our nation all sorts of serious financial problems.
Second; regarding your railing against Christians and war, again I would reiterate that both pope John Paul II and pope Benedict never missed an opportunity when speaking with former president Bush, to call him on the Iraq war. The Vatican had insisted it was not a just war for the start.
Regarding misteks we Americans have made, I accept some of your criticism. It is true that since WW2, the USA has made many mistakes and that on more than a few occasions our government has been amazingly arrogant while being wrong at the same time.
The Vatican has over the years, under several popes, repeatedly chided the US for being too materialistic and too arrogant, and for our tendency to let raw capitalism run wild. On this the Vatican seems completely correct.
Finally, and I do not know how else to put it, but the simple fact is that the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization on earth. This is not to say that other groups do not help the poor; indeed they do great work. In addition to the many good works by various Jewish, Protestant, Muslim and secular charitable groups (you cited some of them), the Catholic Church - while certainly not perfect; it is after all, comprised of sinners from top to bottom - historically has contributed much, and continues to contribute much, toward making the world a little more livable for the poorest amoung us.
I agree with you that regarding helping our fellow man; we all need to do more. Indeed, none of us lives up to God's will on that score.
All that having been said, in this discussion, we are talking about how we can seize the opportunity to reform our ailing health care system.
My point in this discussion is that - as the many posts on this topic suggest - since abortion is such a contentious issue that moves so many Americans on such a deep level, that until we resolve the matter (we probably need to somehow figure out how to hand it back to the individual states so it can be decided at the legislative level), we should lay the entire issue aside, and not allow it de-rail the national medical plan effort that is currently underway.
abortion
Ken- Thats what I need in my life, people like you telling me what is good for me.... Making moral judgements for me ect. If you are not having an abortion then you should have nothing to say, nadda zero. Why do you feel you need to intrude into other peoples lives. Your life must be so fullfilled that you have time to stick your nose into other peoples business. No ken- YOUR GOD WANTS YOU TO MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.................
Quite aside from the
Quite aside from the dialectical question of abortion, there is another interesting prospect attendant on extended healthcare, the increased availability of tranquilisers to those who might not otherwise afford them. These patients are often at the lower end of the income scale and, in the present economic climate, the numbers are likely to grow. The distribution of tranquilisers, fostered by pharmaceutical companies and empowered by extended healthcare enables increasing numbers of the population to be tranquilised with associated savings in policing and social services. In a fairly meaningful sense, this becomes government-sponsored tranquilisation of potentially troublesome groups. It is practiced extensively in the UK and France, and probably in other countries with which I am less familiar. It represents a socio-political aspect of universal healthcare well worth a little thought.
Coverage
Another yet-to-be discussed issue regarding socialized health plan is: Who will actually be covered?
It seems to me that our national medical policy should included some basic coverage for everyone residing in the country, not just citizens.
In other words I think our national plan should include some basic coverage for the (mostly Mexican) indocumentados.
I live in California and we have many undocumented workers. Other states have lots of indocumentados as well.
I understand they are not citizens, but for the most part these are decent folks who work very hard to help put the vegetables and fruit on our tables. It seems that until we resolve their status (this issue involves some 11 million people), since they also pay taxes in one form or another, and in order to keep pressure off the hospital emergency rooms, and because it is our moral duty to do so, we ought to cover them with some sort of basic policy.
Your thoughts?
Can anyone explain to me how
Can anyone explain to me how the child in the womb, will be anything other than a living breathing human being? Some of you talk about the sanctity of the female body, and how important it is that she be given the opportunity to choose what to do with her body. I wholeheartedly agree that women have a right to choose what to do with their bodies. But abortion isn't a choice of what to do with a women's body, its a choice of what to do with someone else's body. What makes murder, murder is that when one commits murder, one is deciding what to do with someone else's body. How can abortion be anything other than murder, since you are choosing to dispose of an innocent child, without regard to how that child might feel about the matter. Women, if you believe in choice, the choices you have are to engage in sexual behaviours responsibly, or don't engage in them at all. Men, the same choice applies to you, we don't have to live our lives like animals engaging in sex like a bunch of rutting mules. Men, use condoms, teach your sons that sex isn't a rite of passage into manhood and that women are worthy of respect. But once you make the choice to engage in the sexual behaviour, you've exercised the extent of the choice you have, what follows are the consequences of your responsible, or irresponsible choice. Don't destroy the life that follows because you choose poorly.
Designers of fashionable
Designers of fashionable things make fashion costly and everyone can not afford it. But now they don't have to worry because replicas of designers' products are available in the market. These replicas are not that must costly. Handbag is one of the accessories which designers love to design. These designers handbags are with higher cost and common woman can not afford it. It is nice option for those ladies who can not have enough budgets to buy designers handbags. It is designer replica handbags. Replica handbags are with reasonable price and one can by several replica handbags in the price of one designer handbag.
fake handbags
replica chanel
replica gucci
replica louis vuitton
replica handbags wholesale
replica shoes
Ed Hardy is a famous tattoo
Ed Hardy is a famous tattoo artist and designer that popularized the concept of tattoo as an art. His artistic designs made their way to the fashion and casual clothing industry giving birth to the Ed Hardy line and accessories. The most popular Ed Hardy items are the tattoo art designed Ed Hardy Belts. You can match these casual tattoo belts with your Abercrombie casual wear to emphasize the elegance of your style. So here are some basic tips in choosing the right Ed Hardy belt so you can achieve the perfect casual style.
coach handbags
rolex watches