Barak Obama and John Edwards have recently announced that their universal health plans would include coverage for elective abortions. So, if these guys have their way, the US gov’t will be using our tax dollars to fund the irresponsible behavior of scores of women and the subsequent termination of their pregnancies. So much for the notion of safe, legal and rare.
I’ve left no doubt what I think about Edwards. He is not to be trusted and I think he would absolutely wreck the Presidency. But, I’ve actually held a fair amount of respect for Barak Obama. I’ve said before that I think he is a good and honest man, although I agree with very few of his political views. This recent news tarnishes that image.
Regardless of religious or political views, it’s hard for anyone to argue that abortion is a good thing. It’s hard for us to make the statement that more abortions are what this country needs. Some want it outlawed completely, some want it legal but restricted, some want safe, legal and rare. But will any of this happen if abortion is suddenly free of charge? Of course not. For many women, the limiting factor in their decision to abort a baby is cost. Take away that factor and, naturally, it will result in more abortions, which no one can argue will be a good thing.
On a personal note, I don’t think it’s my responsibility as a taxpayer to fund the irresponsible sexual behavior of women. If someone does not want to be pregnant there are many other options, the most effective of which would be not to have sex with someone you wouldn’t want fathering your child. Pregnancy is not something you catch like malaria. There is some effort required. If you want to make bad choices in life, then fine, just don’t ask nor expect me to fund them.
12 comments:
John,
Loop Garoo is still on the offensive; he warned me that I was
on "thin Ice" on July 30 Comment,
Then he sent a reference (eMail to me) from the New York Times, favorable To Gen. Petraeus, and troop morale! A complex guy, have a look.
Perhaps he does have an ability to
look at both sides of an issue, if
incontravertible facts are there. I still have an open mind on him, even though he does come on strong at times. reb
Optimism/Skepticism is a trait. reb
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
reb,
I do believe that you are treading on very thin intellectual ice if you advocate a position that brooks no opposition to the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Although he has not committed any offenses for which he might be impeached, in th eopinion of some of us, his leadership leaves a lot to be desired.
Someday I may understand why you admire the guy.
Mr. Washburn,
You opine: "On a personal note, I don't think it's my responsibility as a taxpayer to fund the irresponsibile sexual behavior of women. If someone does not want to be pregnant there are many other options, the most effective of which would be not to have sex with someone you wouldn't want fathering your child..."
It's hard to disagree w/ that sentiment, but let's change the facts: A married woman who wants to become pregant does so, and then learns that carrying the fetus to term will reesult in the death of the fetus and complications to her own health which may prove fatal.
This particular family falls well below the poverty line or lives in circumstances that otherwise wentitles them to Medicaid (stae) or Medicare (federal) benefits.
The woman did not know and had no reason to know---such as family hx---that she and the fetus would be afflicted w/ this condition.
Ans so long as we are discussing cost; the cost of the abortion is significant less than carrying the fetus who will die to term not to mention the prospective significan costs of the mother's care.
Do we have an exception here.
I agree as you state that getting pregant is not something you catch like malaria. Not only is some effort required, but usually that effort includes a male who could and should practice safe sex, at least under the circumstances you suggest.
Statistics are not on your side. The vast majority of abortions are done for convenience. This has become nothing more than another form of birth control. Painting the bleeding-heart hypothetical doesn't change that. The American people have no business being FORCED to pay for it.
Amen John. We pay taxes that go to things we don't even support. Including abortion. What's the point of that?!
Thin ice? Not sure what that means, Reb, but don't let it scare you off.
I did not suggest that statistics were on my side.
If you ban abortions or state or federal funds to pay for abortions, how do you deal w/ the hypothetical woman?
It's not my job, nor my responsibility to "deal" with her. She will have my sympathy, my prayers, and my best wishes. But her problems are not enough to justify the government paying for objectionable medical procedures.
Thanks for clarifying your position for me.
You are not responsible whatever Dr. Donne may think.
Just remember that neither your sympathy, your prayers, nor your best wishes will save her life. And if the needless sacrifice of a life is evil, why then, all that is necessary for the triumph of eviil is that good men do nothing.
Intellectual Thin Ice?
Oh, I thought you meant Legal Ice!
I've never made the mistake of thinking myself an 'Intelliectual'.
If you were my close neighbor, you would quickly realize that I am as
common as garden dirt. In fact, I'm
not sure if I've known too many of those rare birds; What do they look like? reb
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
P.S. As long as George W. Bush is
our President, surrounds himself with bold men that understand the
need to Agressively Confront Jihad,
I'll support him against the nitwits that viciously attack him, and everyone close to him, for partisan political purposes.
>>
When he refuses to support his Border Guards in Federal Prison, I'm with Lou Dobbs, Duncan Hunter
Dana Rohrabacher! Bush is playing politics on that issue; Those guys
deserve a Presidental Pardon, a Congressional Pardon, whatever it takes! Diana Feinstein (a Democrat)
agrees! Step up to the plate, George! reb
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
Shall we start not forcing people to pay taxes on programs to which they're morally opposed?
I am morally opposed to the warring we do and the size of our military industrial complex - it is against my religion to support it. I am also opposed to all the money we spend supporting motorists and oil/auto companies.
Can I have a pass on these?
I may sound like I am joking but I think it's a legitimate point to consider - do we really want to force folk to pay for that which is morally repugnant to them and against their value system? But if allow people to start opting out, that would surely lead to a good bit of anarchy.
How do we find balance this issue?
Dan,
Not a problem. If you wish to live in a nation without High taxes and
the 'militaryindustrialcomplex' to protect your family from the Grand Ayatollah's World Domination plans, check a few small countries on the East Coast of South America.
Perhaps you will actually find your Shangrila. No heavy taxes, no need for Defense. There are other places on this planet that Allah's Puppets Ignore, at least for now.
May the "Goddess Of Probable Odds" Smile Upon You And Yours, that you may live out your life in relative comfort, and ..."Peace". reb
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
Post a Comment