The health care bill got to 60 votes by bribing… er, um… providing an anti-abortion Senator with needed money for his state. But winning passage of the bill like this obscures the question of whether abortion should be part of government funded health care since the opposition is religious in nature and abortion, like fixing a broken bone, is legal.
What started as Sen. Ben Nelson’s personal stand against covering abortion with taxpayer money translated, somehow, into millions of dollars in federal aid for his home state.
The Nebraska Democrat, following weeks of negotiations with his caucus, finally agreed to back the Senate’s health care reform bill this weekend after Democratic leaders made a series of concessions. Nelson’s support gives Democrats the 60 votes they need to overcome a filibuster, barring any last-minute defections.
But critics by Sunday were heavily questioning Nelson’s motivations, given that the abortion restrictions he sought and won did not satisfy several major anti-abortion lawmakers and groups and that it took a major federal payoff to his state to seal the deal.
Anyone willing to murder their own kids most likely needs their genes removed from the gene pool; That is it will improve the species.
I don’t want to pay for it. I don’t want to be a party to murdering babies.
Use birth control or take a morning after pill.
My exceptions to this is rape or a reasonable expectation that the child will have one or more birth defects.
For elective abortions not for one of the two listed reasons I’d prefer the uterus be removed with the fetus.
36 deowll,
You’re the neo-prototypical Ameurikan…
Outside of your the penis + vagina + sperm deposit = baby theorem, you fail to understand nuance vis-a-vis human reproduction.
Since you’re an obvious mental retard, let’s rephrase the situation: A uterus belongs to a woman. Men put sperm inside with techniques such as guile, lies and deceit, and even terror. Sometimes, they use the “marriage” term. Regardless, a woman doesn’t get pregnant without a sperm donor (read: male). If the male uses false pretenses (read: I love you baby / I’m raping you for the nation of _______) should the woman then bring the pregnancy to term unwarranted because another closet homosexual “Christian” Amurikan thinks “thats the way God loves it”?
Yeah… no.
Deowll, why don’t you have your negro neighbour bang your mom (too late!) until she gets preggers. Then come back and say “OH! I love babies!”
38 pedro,
Well, you’re obviously only a partial abortion. You win some, you lose some.
#35, Animby,
Comparing a pregnancy to a bump on the nose is disingenuous.
If anyone has a medical condition that requires medical assistance then it should be covered. Every State and Province will put some onus on the mother if she does not seek any medical care during pregnancy and there is an issue after wards.
The same as if that bump on your nose is causing any problems or is a growing tumor then yes, it should be cared for. If it is a small, <1cm lipoma then there is no medical reason to treat it.
I have yet to hear any compelling argument that an abortion should not be considered even if it is used as a birth control. All abortions are none of mine or your concern. They solely belong between the patient and her physician.
#33-Chris-I think women should have the right, absolute, to remove a fetus they don’t want.
Then let her pay for it.
He and She have a choice before, during and after, making the consequences theirs.
How is it possibly fair to force people that have no say in the matter and usually ridiculed if they do pay for an abortion?
#27-Obamaforever
This is sad. I am so embarrassed for you.
At least boobo, Mrs Fussion and some of the rest can offer a good insult. Even Dallass gets lucky every now and then… but you.
I just don’t think you’re trying.
I have always wondered how those who condone abortion feel about infanticide. If the child is 6 weeks old, and it is deemed that it will be a ‘burden on society’, should we also then dispose of it? What difference does it make whether we kill the child pre or post birth?
#46 I just feel the need to be clear. I believe that a child is a full human being from the moment they are conceived. I have not, do not, and will never support the decision to take a human life by abortion at any stage. I was simply emphasizing the point that I feel it is morally inconsistent that at one moment a child can be in the womb and have no legal rights, and the next moment can be out of the womb and have full legal protection. That child is no less dependent on the mother shortly after birth than it was before. A human life is precious at every stage, from conception on, regardless of the mother’s circumstances.
#45-Mrs Fussion
Now see Obamaforever, that’s how to deliver a decent insult… there’s definitely room for improvement, but you gotta appreciate the effort.
Oh yeah Fussion, before I forget – Bite me.