catholic church affects our government

At least we know the Catholics aren't in cahoots with the RNC...

The Republican National Committee?s health insurance plan covers elective abortion ? a procedure the party?s own platform calls ?a fundamental assault on innocent human life.?

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC?s policy covers elective abortion.

Somebody has some 'splainin' to do...

So the Dems are getting rid of abortions and the Repubs are including them? WTF?

The lack of reading comprehension on the part of many is amazing. Now everyone knows why trial lawyers make so much money. Everyone seems to have their own interpretation of what the English language actually says when in written form.

I posted the following on another thread about taxpayer funded abortion but never received any response. I'll try it again here-
*********************************************************

I want to back up for a sec.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure.

So I don't really understand why a bill exists in the first place that explicitly prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion irrespective of what prolifers believe in their hearts.



For lack of a better example right now-

I am morally opposed to shooting Bambi. I believe it is cruel and unnecessary. I believe it is wrong. But I recognize that there are just as many folks in this country who view hunting as sport (and ironically- conservation) and the fact of the matter is- hunting is legal. So despite what my personal morals and values are, because it is legal I would be opposed to a bill that prohibits federal funds from being used for land acquistion that would be used by hunters to kill animals for sport.

I posted the following on another thread about taxpayer funded abortion but never received any response. I'll try it again here-
*********************************************************

I want to back up for a sec.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure.

So I don't really understand why a bill exists in the first place that explicitly prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion irrespective of what prolifers believe in their hearts.



For lack of a better example right now-

I am morally opposed to shooting Bambi. I believe it is cruel and unnecessary. I believe it is wrong. But I recognize that there are just as many folks in this country who view hunting as sport (and ironically- conservation) and the fact of the matter is- hunting is legal. So despite what my personal morals and values are, because it is legal I would be opposed to a bill that prohibits federal funds from being used for land acquistion that would be used by hunters to kill animals for sport.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment"]Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


If you take a step back, you'll realize the Hyde amendment is actually doing exactly what it was intended to do - push the responsibility down to the state level. Which is where the abortion issue should have been decided all along.

Edit - I'd also add, abortion is not "across the board" legal. States are free to pass their own legislation restricting or freeing the use of the procedure. Federal law applies narrowly.

Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you take a step back, you'll realize the Hyde amendment is actually doing exactly what it was intended to do - push the responsibility down to the state level. Which is where the abortion issue should have been decided all along.

Edit - I'd also add, abortion is not "across the board" legal. States are free to pass their own legislation restricting or freeing the use of the procedure. Federal law applies narrowly.

Fair point, at least under the old system. But let me restate my point under the new system. If we end up having a federal health care system, why do we need to have legal medical procedures unfunded based on moral objections of some citizens. I could understand illegal medical procedures not being funded. But the current law is such that abortion is legal (like it or not)...

For the record- I am not proabortion...

Pls let's discuss without emotion...

I posted the following on another thread about taxpayer funded abortion but never received any response. I'll try it again here-
*********************************************************

I want to back up for a sec.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure.

So I don't really understand why a bill exists in the first place that explicitly prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion irrespective of what prolifers believe in their hearts.



For lack of a better example right now-

I am morally opposed to shooting Bambi. I believe it is cruel and unnecessary. I believe it is wrong. But I recognize that there are just as many folks in this country who view hunting as sport (and ironically- conservation) and the fact of the matter is- hunting is legal. So despite what my personal morals and values are, because it is legal I would be opposed to a bill that prohibits federal funds from being used for land acquistion that would be used by hunters to kill animals for sport.

The taxpayer doesn't purchase my supercombo hunting/fishing license for me. If I choose to hunt I must purchase the license that authorizes my right to do so. I don't expect those who are morally against hunting, or anyone for that matter, to purchase my license. Since hunting is legal, why then should I be required to purchase this license? Per this administration, it seems like tax dollars from those making over a certain dollar amount per year should pay for my hunting license.

The taxpayer doesn't purchase my supercombo hunting/fishing license for me. If I choose to hunt I must purchase the license that authorizes my right to do so. I don't expect those who are morally against hunting, or anyone for that matter, to purchase my license. Since hunting is legal, why then should I be required to purchase this license? Per this administration, it seems like tax dollars from those making over a certain dollar amount per year should pay for my hunting license.

I think you missed an important part of my analogy. I said-

So despite what my personal morals and values are, because it is legal I would be opposed to a bill that prohibits federal funds from being used for land acquistion that would be used for hunting...

I'm not implying that you don't pay for your own hunting permits...

Fair point, at least under the old system. But let me restate my point under the new system. If we end up having a federal health care system, why do we need to have legal medical procedures unfunded based on moral objections of some citizens. I could understand illegal medical procedures not being funded. But the current law is such that abortion is legal (like it or not)...

For the record- I am not proabortion...

Pls let's discuss without emotion...

We already have federal health insurance systems - medicaid, medicare, and government employee coverage. Federal funding in these systems is restricted under Hyde. States are free to pass their own laws.

I guess you are asking why do we have this law in place - I guess the answer is because a whole lotta people in this country don't support the idea of abortion on demand as a form of birth control. Something like 75% of the country feel abortion use should be restricted, and a majority feel that federal taxpayer funds should not be used to fund the procedure, likely as a form of restriction, or via moral disagreement. I guess the simple answer to your question is - the majority sets the rules, and the rules they set restrict federal funding.

I think you missed an important part of my analogy. I said-

So despite what my personal morals and values are, because it is legal I would be opposed to a bill that prohibits federal funds from being used for land acquistion that would be used for hunting...

I'm not implying that you don't pay for your own hunting permits...

I didn't miss anything, I just felt there was more to add to your analogy. While hunting is legal, I have to pay for a license to be able to participate. There would be an enormous uproar if everyone in America was required to fund my killing of animals. I understand what you are saying about the land acquisition, but I could draw a comparison to the land being similar to federal funds going towards the development of a hospital. Both in and of itself are are fairly noncontroversial, but the killing that takes place in both arenas is. I do understand though where you are coming from in your analogy.

I didn't miss anything, I just felt there was more to add to your analogy. While hunting is legal, I have to pay for a license to be able to participate. There would be an enormous uproar if everyone in America was required to fund my killing of animals. I understand what you are saying about the land acquisition, but I could draw a comparison to the land being similar to federal funds going towards the development of a hospital. Both in and of itself are are fairly noncontroversial, but the killing that takes place in both arenas is. I do understand though where you are coming from in your analogy.

That was a really good analogy.

I think there's also an important distiction between killing deer and terminating a pregnancy. The original comparison is a little flawed, IMHO.

I think it's a great analogy - people have differing views on the topic, ranging from "okay with it" to "committing illegal acts to prevent it from happening".

And at the end of the day it should come down to a regulated personal choice - if you don't approve of hunting/eating meat, you don't have to, and if you don't approve of abortion, you don't have to get one.

But if I want to have venison for dinner, and my obtaining it complies with all laws and regulations, you should have no right to keep me from doing so.

I think it's a great analogy - people have differing views on the topic, ranging from "okay with it" to "committing illegal acts to prevent it from happening".

And at the end of the day it should come down to a regulated personal choice - if you don't approve of hunting/eating meat, you don't have to, and if you don't approve of abortion, you don't have to get one.

But if I want to have venison for dinner, and my obtaining it complies with all laws and regulations, you should have no right to keep me from doing so.

Ahh, but here is the rub. Men by default can be excluded from the decision making process as to whether or not their mate can legally abort their product of conception, 50% of which is 'dad's' genetic ooze.

I don't like the hunting analogy because human evolution has progressed favorably concurrent with taking game. Evolution also naturally unfolds favorably toward the fittest in a species surviving, and abortion is certainly unnatural selection (with the exception of the termination of the genetically flawed).

Kind of creepy stuff.

You want control over your genetic material, there are many inexpensive and readily available ways to keep it under your sole control w/o turning women into incubators! ;-)

Spousal approval is not required for a hunting license either.

And I would posit that many abortions happen because of failure of contraceptive methods or concerns about the potential quality of life for that child, so I don't think it's a backwards step for evolution.

Ahh, but here is the rub. Men by default can be excluded from the decision making process as to whether or not their mate can legally abort their product of conception, 50% of which is 'dad's' genetic ooze.
I don't like the hunting analogy because human evolution has progressed favorably concurrent with taking game. Evolution also naturally unfolds favorably toward the fittest in a species surviving, and abortion is certainly unnatural selection (with the exception of the termination of the genetically flawed).

Kind of creepy stuff.

Actually at that point, the father has no way of proving that it's his child, so I believe morally, legally, and ethically it should be solely the woman's decision. Also, termination of genetically flawed is no more natural selection than abortion (IMO). Natural selection just means the species is subject to nature's fitness tests.

You want control over your genetic material, there are many inexpensive and readily available ways to keep it under your sole control w/o turning women into incubators! ;-)

Spousal approval is not required for a hunting license either.

And I would posit that many abortions happen because of failure of contraceptive methods or concerns about the potential quality of life for that child, so I don't think it's a backwards step for evolution.

I agree. and not only that, IMHO a lot of people who are ill-equipped to have children are ill-equipped period. Abortion prevents propagation of their genetic material.

Actually at that point, the father has no way of proving that it's his child, so I believe morally, legally, and ethically it should be solely the woman's decision. Also, termination of genetically flawed is no more natural selection than abortion (IMO). Natural selection just means the species is subject to nature's fitness tests.

Chorionic villous sampling or amniocentesis could prove paternity. Of course no woman would be obligated to undergo the procedure, so I guess you are correct. Abortion is not natural selection as you point out, my point was that some offspring that would not be viable outside the womb more than a few hours have no long term survival impact by being terminated before birth. The same can't be said of a viable fetus. Nature intends for the hardiest of the species to survive and reproduce;terminating viable offspring goes against this principle.

Chorionic villous sampling or amniocentesis could prove paternity. Of course no woman would be obligated to undergo the procedure, so I guess you are correct. Abortion is not natural selection as you point out, my point was that some offspring that would not be viable outside the womb more than a few hours have no long term survival impact by being terminated before birth. The same can't be said of a viable fetus. Nature intends for the hardiest of the species to survive and reproduce;terminating viable offspring goes against this principle.

Give it a decade or so, genetic engineering will soon put mother nature out of business. Evolution? We don't need no stinkin' evolution! "I'll take an egg for a girl, six foot one, blue eyes, light brown hair, i.q. of 170, moral stature, and she should lean republican." "That'll be a hundred dollars please." ching! "Please read the instructions carefully. Next please."

Chorionic villous sampling or amniocentesis could prove paternity. Of course no woman would be obligated to undergo the procedure, so I guess you are correct. Abortion is not natural selection as you point out, my point was that some offspring that would not be viable outside the womb more than a few hours have no long term survival impact by being terminated before birth. The same can't be said of a viable fetus. Nature intends for the hardiest of the species to survive and reproduce;terminating viable offspring goes against this principle.

I wouldn't say nature has any intention at all. Nature doesn't know or care what happens IMO, unless you're talking about the nature of human consciousness. It just so happens that the fittest, by whatever measure of fitness is used, tend to do better in the natural world. This is not always the case, as natural selection has bouts of negative and neutral effects as well.

Do we really have some sort of obligation to follow along the path that we think nature would have taken? I think our increased life expectancy is due to the fact that we've managed to fight nature tooth and nail. There are plenty of arguments against abortion, I just don't think the laws of nature and natural selection are one of them. You certainly could use the "do no harm" argument, but I feel that's a rule for which nature has a high failure rate, and feels no guilt, shame or remorse in the aftermath.

I think the Pope and Cardinal should read this thread.

I wouldn't say nature has any intention at all. Nature doesn't know or care what happens IMO, unless you're talking about the nature of human consciousness. It just so happens that the fittest, by whatever measure of fitness is used, tend to do better in the natural world. This is not always the case, as natural selection has bouts of negative and neutral effects as well.

Do we really have some sort of obligation to follow along the path that we think nature would have taken? I think our increased life expectancy is due to the fact that we've managed to fight nature tooth and nail. There are plenty of arguments against abortion, I just don't think the laws of nature and natural selection are one of them. You certainly could use the "do no harm" argument, but I feel that's a rule for which nature has a high failure rate, and feels no guilt, shame or remorse in the aftermath.

Sam, I don't pretend to support or lament abortion legality or ethics based on nature...somehow or the other I was trying to make a point about Geo's analogy between hunting deer and abortion. I guess I failed.

Anyway, I am thankful that for whatever reason humans have been granted the ability to fight nature tooth and nail. We live in unprecedentedly good times thanks to science. As someone who has watched small babies succumb to infectious diseases, complications of prematurity and birth defects, I realize full well that 'nature' doesn't give a damn about humanity!

Give it a decade or so, genetic engineering will soon put mother nature out of business. Evolution? We don't need no stinkin' evolution! "I'll take an egg for a girl, six foot one, blue eyes, light brown hair, i.q. of 170, moral stature, and she should lean republican." "That'll be a hundred dollars please." ching! "Please read the instructions carefully. Next please."

That is complete fiction.

Sam, I don't pretend to support or lament abortion legality or ethics based on nature...somehow or the other I was trying to make a point about Geo's analogy between hunting deer and abortion. I guess I failed.

Anyway, I am thankful that for whatever reason humans have been granted the ability to fight nature tooth and nail. We live in unprecedentedly good times thanks to science. As someone who has watched small babies succumb to infectious diseases, complications of prematurity and birth defects, I realize full well that 'nature' doesn't give a damn about humanity!

It's possible I missed something in your message. I think you were saying that the net effect of hunting has been positive for humans, so if we're going to intervene, let's do things that emulate the positive side of natural selection.