I just watched part of a town hall meeting in which Arlen Specter spoke in favor of the proposed health care bill. His words, at the time, focused on abortion. He was telling the uproarious crowd that the plan includes options that do not cover abortions - so you don't have to have abortion coverage in your own plan.

This is not an effective argument. Those who oppose abortion, on grounds that it is murder, will not be happy that their tax dollars will pay for it. It won't matter if it's for the neighbor's pregnancy rather than their own - they don't want to pay for something they consider to be wrong.
Arguments like this baffle me because no one who opposed abortion could possibly be satisfied with them. I would prefer a politician who admits that we disagree on this issue and that one side is going to have to be disappointed. Obviously, I want my side to win, but there is no middle ground on the issue of abortion and its insulting to insist that there is.
16 comments:
It's true. By that reasoning, there's no need for restrictions on SUVs because the Prius exists.
Good point!
It's no different than those of us who oppose our tax dollars going to fund the murder known as the death penalty.
Justin, it is the same argument. That is why I would never try to please an opponent of the death penalty by setting up situations where tax dollars pay for death penalties only in certain states - those opponents would still feel that their tax dollars were funding murder. I would not make such an argument.
Arlen Specter is not the most brilliant man in the world.
Maybe there should be an option for people to select whether or not their tax dollars can be used for abortions? Kind of similar to the checkbox for submitting money to the political party of your choice. You would essentially be setting up two pools. it wouldn't be the most economically sound approach, but It would be interesting then to see if there was enough money for the plan to cover them at all. Lol. I think it would be tight.
Kelly, that is a pretty good idea.
Haha. In many ways that's a really horrible idea. Just the kind politicians love. I could totally see it happening.
It's better than pretending to find middle ground. If no one gives to the hypothetical abortion fund Washington may get rid of it - realizing that it's not popular.
I would be willing to fill out up to an additional three front-and-back leafs on my IRS forms each year if they were made up of checkboxes by which I allotted my taxes to specific government funds. Not that a) I believe the politicians would remain honest to the distributions or b) would not still try to slip things like abortion under sterile and necessary-sounding programs like "Inner-City Population Relief"
I agree with Kelly that it's really a horrible idea, but I think I'd support it just for the hilarity.
your tax dollars went to fund an unjust and ill thought-out war, killing hundreds of innocent people caught in the crossfire.
why do you think that the children killed in that war do not deserve the attention that you pour into fighting for the rights of the unborn? Stated as bluntly as possible you do not seem to have a problem with your government using your tax dollars to murder in the name of 'democracy'. I am not for abortion. I am against hypocrisy.
I don't think anyone here is unconcerned about ANY innocent lives that should have been spared.
oh I do not think that anyone is unconcerned. It is just that the anti-abortion propaganda gets a loudspeaker and a preferential platform in most conservative christian environments and the shedding of innocent blood of others does tend to go unaccounted for.
Why do you think that the millions of children killed by abortion at home do not deserve as much if not more attention than the hundreds of innocents (:source needed:) killed by our troops overseas? Stated as bluntly as possible you do not seem to have a problem with your government using your tax dollars to murder in the name of "quality of life." I am not for wars to get oil. I am against hypocrisy.
I think that the concern over the deaths of children should be equal. The tens of thousands of people killed in the latest war deserve as much justice as others. To be blind and silent about one while shouting about the other is the hypocrisy.
Hey, Kristen, for the record: I voted for Obama even though I knew he is pro choice because I believed it would bring a swifter end to this horrible war in Iraq that is costing an estimated hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. I'm a Christian, and I believed that there was/is a greater chance of ending that by electing Obama than bringing about an end to abortion by electing McCain. If I could have chosen between them, I would have sided with the millions of innocent babies, but neither should be ignored. It pains me to see some of my Christian brethren not fighting to end the wars as much as they fight to end abortion. I guess it's easier to agree to fight against the murder of innocent babies than it is to fight against the murder of innocent civilians. Discussions and arguments immediately erupt about the legitimacy of calling these civilians innocent, and it's really horrible. (I have yelled very loudly about this many times)
Don't let the Republican/conservative/Christian/confusing and poorly named Right convince you that these speak for the whole of Christianity either. Most serious theologians I have read or known are pacifists. That is because we rest in the knowledge that vengeance and justice is The Lord's alone, who is coming back with a sword and will dish out that justice righteously and correctly, knowing in fullness every fact about every individual's transgressions.
Truth be told, it is hypocritical to support killing babies but not the war just as it is hypocritical to support an unjust war which kills innocent civilians but not to support the choice to allow killing unborn babies.
The best solution is to avoid being hypocritical here and be against BOTH.
I will always caution Christians about believing that other Christians must agree on politics. It's OK to be a Christian and be conservative or liberal. It is for us to say that a person's views on political decisions are unchristian - I don't like the divisions this can cause. I don't mind a person announcing their beliefs but I never insist that all believers must agree with me even though I think my convictions line up with scripture.
Post a Comment