Health Care Bill Promoting Abortion Will Get House Vote Next Week Despite Senate
snip
[/FONT]
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5275.html
snip
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5275.html
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
House Healthcare Bill Promoting Abortion
- Thread starter LadyEagle
- Start date
Unfortunately abortion is legal. You can have it both ways. You can't demand the government not ration health care or be between you and your doctor then say you don't want it to cover abortions. In order to stop it from covering abortions we need only make abortions illegal.
We gave the Republican's 6 years to do this and they let us down so it's not just Obama who failed in this area.
We gave the Republican's 6 years to do this and they let us down so it's not just Obama who failed in this area.
Teeth whitening is legal as well, but should the government fund it? Just because something is legal doesn't mean the government should fund it.
Of course, since you are just looking for any reason to promote abortion that you can, rational thought isn't going to work with you.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I repeat: How can one who professes to be a follower of Jesus Christ be so wrong on so many moral issues so often?
LB
The Republicans had a difficult time ending Partial Birth Slaughter of the almost born. You are not so stupid to believe they could have done more in the face of a democrat filibuster.
It will be interesting it hear your response when doctors, nurses, and other health care providers resign their professions rather than be required to partake in the slaughter of the unborn at the governments insistence.
Even if an exception is made for individuals to opt out on moral grounds - many hospitals will simply close their doors rather than become part of the Obama national abortion mill.
But no doubt you will conjure up some line of reasoning to blame the Republicans when all that comes to pass too.
Be careful about making assumptions.
You know what they say about making assumptions.
In the 20+ years I've been in the workforce, I've had some half-dozen different private healthcare plans. All of them covered elective abortion. I'm not in favor of nationalized healthcare. However, if the government wishes to extend healthcare coverage on a par with private healthcare insurance, then the covering of elective abortions should be expected, despite our objections to the legality of abortion.
If you truly objected to abortion then you would not concede the point and "expect" it to be covered.
If you hold youself to that same standard, if you truly objected to abortion, you would cancel your medical insurance if they cover termination of pregnancies.
There's a difference between it being covered on my existing plan (which I'm not even sure if it is) and expecting it to be covered on a government funded health care plan. Since you can't see the difference, I'll explain it to you. The difference is that the government funded health care plan is not yet in place and we can voice our strong objections to it and try to change things. We shouldn't just roll over and expect it to be covered.
I will however check and see if my private insurance covers murdering children and if it does I'll issue my strong objections to the company. I might even buy some of their stock so I can send in a formal complaint to the stock holders meeting.
Robert Snow
New Member
Don't you know JohnV that you have to be against abortion just like Ole Wade, or it doesn't count.
My taxes didn't pay for the premiums for those private plans.
My taxes will be paying for the "public option" - unofficially refered to as "death with dignity" for the infirmed, aged and unborn.
That's a good point. Some will argue that, if there is to be a public healthcare insurance system, then it should provide coverage similar to private healthcare insurance. Some will counter-argue that the very nature of it being public vs private changes the playing field as far as coverage so one shouldn't expect the same level of coverage.
One question that comes to mind: If the argument is "my taxes are paying for it", then should we also insist that healcare coverage for local, state, and federal employees also disallow elective abortion coverage? After all our taxes are paying for some or all of the premiums.
I would say that arguement has merit.
Don't you know JohnV that you have to be against abortion just like Ole Wade, or it doesn't count.
No...you shouldn't be against abortion because I am. You should be against abortion because God is. I wouldn't expect you to understand that however.
Hey...glad to have you on board now! Yes, abortion is muder and we should try and stop it anywhere we can.
Robert Snow
New Member
You misunderstand what I meant to say, although in reading my comment I understand why; I didn't word my statement very well.
What I was trying to say is that you seem to be discounting Johnv being against abortion because he doesn't do the same things in response to abortion that you do. I never doubted that you or Johnv are both against abortion. I don't like abortion either.
Nice!:thumbs:
That's a reasonable statement, of course. But there's a difference between us trying to stop it anywhere we can, and me trying to stop it anywhere you can. Even tough we might both be opposed to the same thing, it would be self-righteous of me to expect you to react with the same action I would, possibly even ending up in me falsely judging your Christian walk.
You don't want government rationing health care or to come between you and your doctor but you want it to legislate against abortion.
You don't want an activist judge but you want one pro-life so they can overturn roe v wade.
Anyone besides me see a pattern of hypocrisy here? Sounds like the government can ration and a judge can be activist as long as it's for your cause.
You don't want an activist judge but you want one pro-life so they can overturn roe v wade.
Anyone besides me see a pattern of hypocrisy here? Sounds like the government can ration and a judge can be activist as long as it's for your cause.