Health Care Bill

-
The moral implications of the new health care bill are staggering. The prospect of using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is repugnant. Even more so are the reasons being given to fund abortion.

I thought you might like to read this article titled “This is Life We’re Talking About” — Abortion and the Health Care Bill" from AlbertMohler.com.

I agree with Dr. Mohler, and I hope you will to. I oppose taxpayer funding of abortions, either directly or indirectly. As an adoptive parent, this issue is of paramount importance to me.

Comments

Steve Martin said…
And...it's 'un-American' to boot.

The totalitarian instincts of the left cannot be restrained.

They just know better.

Ask them. They'll tell you as much. That's why they want to pass this immoral and unconstitutional takeover of almost 1/6th of the economy...WITHOUT EVEN VOTING ON IT!!!

Anybody who votes for the Democrats is getting what they deserve.

God help us.
March 16, 2010
J. K. Jones said…
I just wish the political posturing would end.

Everybody wants to provide health care to all. The question is how do we provide it.

No one wants socialism. The question is how do we define socialism.

The abortion issue is a moral issue. It goes beyond wheter abortion is right or wrong. It goes into wheter it is fair for someone to have to pay taxes toward something they have moral objections to.
March 16, 2010
Steve Martin said…
Political posturing will never end.

And leftists (that is what the Democratic Party leadership has become) will never cease their 'do-gooding', at the expense of everyone's freedom.

Everyone has health care in this country right now. Everyone.

The question is insurance and who should pay for it.

The great (not perfect) system will be gutted for a over bloated Fed. mess, ripe with waste and fraud.

The only part of healthcare that the Fed. now runs is Medicare...and it is going broke.

You are right, no American citizen should ever be forced to support abortion with thei tax dollars.

Thanks to Obama, every American already is when Obama reinstated what George Bush put a stop to many years ago (U.S. tax dollars to fund abortions abroad).

"Change". We'll we got it...and we're going to get a whole lot more.

God help us.
March 16, 2010
FatSam said…
I know exactly what you mean! I don't like my tax money going to the socialization of roads, clean water, agriculture, fire departments, the military and the Food and Drug Administration.

I'm also morally opposed to all of those things.
March 16, 2010
J. K. Jones said…
FatSam,

How can you be morally opposed to those things?

JK
March 17, 2010
Anonymous said…
I'm morally opposed to health insurance profiteers deciding who lives and who dies among their clients.
March 19, 2010
Steve Martin said…
And you want an inefficient, wasteful, fraught with fraud government to have that power???
March 19, 2010
Fat Sam said…
"Morally opposed" It's called sarcasm. Anyone who throws around words like socialism needs to have their face rubbed in the everyday things that they benefit from and take for granted. Things for which you will always find someone objecting. I care not one whit about the things someone is morally opposed.

Bodies will be piling up in the streets just like they do in Canada, Brittan, Hawaii, and Massachusetts.

If you fear the the inefficient, wasteful, fraught with fraud government provided health care too scary you are always free to keep your private health insurance.

Since private health insurance will always be of better quality and service and would never deny any coverage, it will be far superior to the wasteful, fraudulent, inefficient health coverage from the government.
March 25, 2010
J. K. Jones said…
Fat Sam,

You don't read my comments very carefully. I don't think all forms of health care reform are socialistic. I am the one calling for an end to the political retoric.

The abortion issue is the one that has me hung up.
March 25, 2010
FatSam said…
Yes I read your comment carefully. You don't think the taxes you pay should go to fund a medical operation because you find that procedure repugnant.

Tough. You shouldn't be able to enforce your religious beliefs upon everyone else by proxy.

If your reasons for opposing abortion are non-religious lay them out.
April 07, 2010
J. K. Jones said…
FatSam,

Why do my reasons have to be non-religious to be valid?

JK
April 08, 2010
J. K. Jones said…
FatSam,

Since you never responded to my question, I wanted to provide a longer response.

All moral objections are essentially religious. What is the non-religious foundation for ethics? I am not asking here for whether a non-religious person can be ethical, I am asking for the rational basis for ethics.

There is not one. As soon as you move inot ethics, you move inot religion.

JK
February 24, 2011
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Face of Terror

-
Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in. First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head. Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists . To tell a story I have told here before : Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder on...
Read more

The Canons of Dort

-
I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than ...
Read more

Intelligent Design

-
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement makes much of the argument from irreducible complexity. Dr. Michael Behe has become famous for a simple example, the mousetrap. He points out that the mousetrap will not perform its function without all of its parts. The wooden base, the metal hammer, a spring, a catch and a metal bar to hold back the hammer are all necessary parts. One component by itself will not catch a mouse. Mainstream evolutionary science has a counter-argument. To paraphrase Dr. Kenneth Miller, if you disassemble the mousetrap, each component can serve as something useful on its own. If we take away the catch and metal bar, we have something left that can serve as a paper clip. The spring could make a simple two-section key chain. The wooden base makes a paperweight. Evolutionary processes like random mutation and natural selection can combine and retain the useful parts as the complicated evolves to perform the complex function. The useful parts are combined into the mousetr...
Read more