catholic church affects our government

[30ashopper]

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.

 

[Geo]

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...

 

[surf fishin]

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.

 

[Geo]

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...

 

[30ashopper]

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.

 

[surf fishin]

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.

 

[30ashopper]

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.

 

[scooterbug44]

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.

 

[30A Skunkape]

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.

 

[scooterbug44]

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.