The Immorality of Taxpayer Funded Abortion, R'N'R 'N' Paulitics...
-
Artist:
-
Album:
-
Track:
Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions. The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding abortions. Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I have introduced the Taxpayer's Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas. The most basic function of government is to protect life.
It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at the time, at the expense of the rights of others. Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues altogether. Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class warfare with wealth redistribution programs.
Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from patients who can't pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes, red tape, wealth redistribution, and force. The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither constitutional, moral, nor in the American people's best interest.
-Ron Paul-
Comments (29)
Er, this post makes me happy to be Canadian :)
That was fast lol! Where does Canada stand on this issue?
Publicly funded health-care for everyone, of course, from our redistributed tax dollars...as far as abortion goes, I believe it is publicly funded but not as accessible as in the US private system...
I just don't see that working with out here. Our gov doesn't seem to have our best intrest in mind. The Roe vs Wade case was a big deciding factor here in America for pushing forward the Pro-Choice movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
What do you think about reports on Canada's Health care like this one.
i thoroughly disagree with ron paul. i disagree at every level - i find his examples to hold untrue and i disagree with his point of view as well.
my question for all the pro-lifers out there: are you FOR capital punishment?
i ask because it runs contrary to this proclamation by ron paul that i read above:
The most basic function of government is to protect life.
That is contrary to all the states that have the death penalty.
is mr paul living in a dream world?
Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from patients who can't pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever could be.
SO not true. in order to qualify for these options, you have to be below the poverty line. for the working poor, and for a huge chunk of the so-called middle class, there is no assistance from any organization, private or government. of the medical practitioners and organizations i know and know of that do "sliding scale fees," their fees for the working poor and many sectors of the "middle class" STILL make health care completely unaffordable.
"my question for all the pro-lifers out there: are you FOR capital punishment?"
This is unessary capital pusnishment on an innocent victim. Those who do receave capital punishment are someone who has been found guilty of a crime that results in this consequence.
"SO not true. in order to qualify for these options, you have to be below the poverty line."
Well for one paying money is a type of barter. Money reprents your blood sweat & tears. Plus I know, & heard of some doctors hands have been tied by the gov when they do try to offer free medical help. I saw that happen when medicare part D was passed. Health needs to be more affordable for the middle class, & everyone. I agree though things need to be changed, but federal gov health care is not the answer. I think it should be at a state & local level the way it was intended. Each state, & local gov knows what fits it's need's better than the federal gov.
barter is characterized as a cash-free transaction. like i paint your house for the medical services you have rendered. barter is NOT the act of paying money for services.
its not BARTER when you are paying money for services.
as for the imprisoned who are sentenced to the death penalty - if they are imprisoned, THAT is the punishment. you can't have it both ways - that abortion is characterized as murder, and a criminal sentenced to die is not "murder."
if one considers abortion the taking of a life - then so is the death penalty.
the imprisonment is the punishment. if we cannot sanction abortion, than neither can we sanction the death penalty.
ANARCHY
ANARCHY
ANARCHY
now
VIVE L'ANARCHIE
can you dig it
I guess what I'm saying is money is based off the barter system, but you are trading what the what the money represents for goods & service's. It's a type of barter system IMO. Your still tading something for something.
"if one considers abortion the taking of a life - then so is the death penalty."
Well yes it killing either way, but you have to ask what are the reason behind it. I'm also for retribution like I think it's Japan that has it. They do have a diffrent type of thinking than we do here in America though. They value honor more than here.
As far as abortion, I just don't see it as a justification for birth control. I can see for medical reasons like if the mother &/or childs life's are threaten. Abortion is euthanasia.
This moral relativism, The equating the death penalty with abortion, is the most bogus arrow in the liberal quiver. It stands up to no kind of logic. Its a straw man set up to distract.
\m/
deadman...: I here ya Jeff!
People who are against abortion, shoud be for FREE birth control.
Unfortunately, that generally isn't the case.
Also, I think no male really has the right to dictate to women what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies. Period.
It's so much more complex of an issue that it's made out to be.
Sure have free birth control, like the pill, or condems, to prevent pregnancy, at a state, or local level.
"Also, I think no male really has the right to dictate to women what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies. Period."
So what about the rights of the unborn child? Once you have the egg fertilized than you have life. I can't understand how someone could be for Federal Government health care to help the poor, but be pro-abortion at the same time. I can't wrap my mind around it.
Now I can see why they didn't want us to use this subject in speech class lol!
;)
Hi Ray, not a bad video on Canadian health care. The system certainly has room for improvement. I think there is a lot "between the lines," however. First, the implication is that the American system is better because you have instant access to all services. Having lived in the US for 8 years, my experience is that US citizens have quick access to health care only if they can afford it. I have seen poor people turned away from emergency rooms because, by law, their only responsibility is to "stabilize" the patient and prevent immediate death, rather than treat them. Second, if 1 million Canadians have no personal physician, that means 29 out of 30 Canadians do. All in all, there is a different mindset in Canada - if asked, "Do you support your tax dollars paying for healthcare for the poor?" just about all working people will say yes. Even if put into provocative language, such as "Do you support your tax dollars paying for healthcare for people who are too lazy to work?" etc., most Canadians will speak up and say, "Well, not everyone can work - the unemployment rate is high, people have disabilities, etc." So I would say it's a cultural difference.
Well no sytem is perfect, patients do get turned away here, because there is not enough money. A lot of private physicians got into it to help people,& many, not all, are willing to help. Like I been saying things like this should be handled by State &/or local level. It's not the federal governments job to handle it. We are not suppose to have centerlized gov. That's why the founder's of this country split from the crown. Putting it loosey lol!
;)
Powers of Congress
The Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. These include the powers to levy and collect taxes, provide for common defense and promote the pursuit of liberty; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, promote progress of science, create courts inferior to the Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm, and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia, and make laws necessary and proper to execute the powers of Congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States
Abortion vs Execution. Hmmm. Abortion is supposedly intelligent minds determining to take the life of another human who has NO SAY in the matter.
Execution is supposedly intelligent minds determining to take the life of another human who had every opportunity to not take the action that led to the consequence.
Society today seems bent on hurtling itself into a world that has as little consequence as possible for our actions. Let's all do what we want and to hell with the impact. Men and women choose to have sex even when they know the potential consequence. Birth control is one option and abstinence is another. But then, the consequence can always be eliminated pretty safely.
As far as man having no right to dictate what a woman does with her body, I agree heartily. But that doesn't mean that the consequence of a bad decision or one made in passion should be murdered.
And now, of course, we'll get into sex, anytime and any place, as a right. A want, certainly. A need, perhaps. A right? Don't think so.
capndad: That was a little long, wordy, a little hard to follow, but I think this layman agree's with your statemant in the end lol! Well put!
Uh, thanks...I think:-)
It's all about decisions, and consequences.
That's why I believe that every effort should be made to make sure abortion is rarely ever considered.
Easy access to birth control, far better education regarding reproduction, and for crying out loud get religion OUT of it.
(there, I'm sure that will stir people up)
Or, I should say - keep religion to yourself in these matters. By all means, use religion for your own personal decisions (whoever "you" may be), but don't force it on other people that may have different beliefs.
"Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical"
That could easily be changed to "Forcing pro-peace taxpayers to subsidize war is tyrannical"
It's an ugly fact that some of our tax money goes to support things we don't support. Such is the way of this great nation that we live in.
People always use the argument about the rights of the unborn. I know it's not a popular idea in some circles, but I think the rights of the already living come first. And if the already living chooses to have an abortion, so be it. It's none of yours, or my business.
Cheers!
Thanks for all your feedback, it's always appreciated. I'm always left with food for thought from all ya' peep's!
Peace & Cheers!
;)
"keep religion to yourself in these matters. By all means, use religion for your own personal decisions (whoever "you" may be), but don't force it on other people that may have different beliefs"
BTW Ann, & I say this respectfully to you & all. I myself welcome religious, & non-religious viewpoints on my post.
Peace!
:)
I think it's fine for people to air their religious viewpoints here or anywhere. But when it comes down to how I live my life, I don't want any religion dictating policy or laws that affect my day to day life.
Unfortunately, the current overriding mindset in America is that Christianity is the one "true" way to think - thus there is a big push to force it into every aspect of American life without regard for any other way of thinking or being.
It's really no different than the radical Muslims. So - who is right? The Baptists? The born-agains? The Catholics? The Muslims? It's ridiculous to think that there is only one right answer. Therefore, religious matters should be kept private, not public.
Just my 2-cents worth...
"I think it's fine for people to air their religious viewpoints here or anywhere. But when it comes down to how I live my life, I don't want any religion dictating policy or laws that affect my day to day life"
They weren't all Christian's,or religious, but they did have a humanitarian viewpoint. I always say, take God/Christ out of Christianity, & your left with a type of a humanitarian philosophy. Thomas Jeferson took out the miricle's out of the New Teastement, & left in the pure principle's taught by Jesus. It's called the Thomas Jefferson bible. Some of the philosophy of the US is based off of religious philosiphies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
"Unfortunately, the current overriding mindset in America is that Christianity is the one "true" way to think - thus there is a big push to force it into every aspect of American life without regard for any other way of thinking or being."
We are not a Christian nation, we secular. Chritianity does make the claim as the one true religion. that's claim made in the bible. If we were, that would make the US a Theocracy, which is not in the New Testament. It would also go agaisnt freedom of religion, which the bible does claim that it is a free will gift. So to force it on someone would go against the Christian philosophy.
"It's really no different than the radical Muslims. So - who is right? The Baptists? The born-agains? The Catholics? The Muslims? It's ridiculous to think that there is only one right answer. Therefore, religious matters should be kept private, not public."
If you mean philosophically, or just being a belief system than yes I agree with you. You can say the same with atheism, pantheism, ect. We all do have a worldview (philosophy). It stands to reason that if many diffrent religions/belief systems claim to be the one true one, than has to be right. It all come's down to what you base your religion on. In the end it should be left up to the individual to weight out & chose. I'll have to say though that saying thing's like what I believe, or it should or should not be is still preaching your philosophy, & belief. God or no God involved. The statement that religion, belief ect. should just be kept to yourself is a selfrefuting statement. At the sametime if someone doesn't want to be preached to, than that person shouldn't be preached to.