But thank you, for wanting to fix the current adoption system. I think it's definitely passed the point of protecting kids to death, at this point.

And I am certainly all for fixing the bureaucratic and expensive nightmare that adoption often is now. I think that making adoption a more user-friendly, welcoming, transparent, and financially feasible process will in turn make it easier for women in crisis pregnancies to choose adoption instead of abortion — when the pregnant woman's circumstances make that a viable choice.

“why I push pro-lifers to invest in companies that research removal of the fetus(to be put into a willing recipient or a test tube whichever works and is acceptable/profitable) instead of making the process illegal which just hides it. “

This, in combination with a step of of Christian groups pushing adoption of would-be aborted babies could possibly eliminate the need. Plus, it would not “FORCE” term-pregnancy as you like to state.

Or both. We can always trust politicians to make it all come out right in the end anyway, can't we?

Many women's health clinics (which provide many other reproductive and gynecological services besides abortion) have shut down because of anti-choice violence or threats of violence. The ones that remain often are subjected to harassment from anti-choice activists who confront women going into the clinic (again, many of whom are not even pregnant and/or are not going into the clinic for an abortion) and call them baby killers and murderers.

You should know by now that I condemn ANY violence and any harrassment toward anyone – for their beliefs – especially when they fall within the law.

I do know that, and I was not suggesting otherwise. I was merely answering your questions, as follows:

“n our present (screwed-up) health care system, where do poor women get abortions now?

Are you telling me that poor women are not getting the abortions they want now?

I thought privately funded places like Planned Parenthood existed for that very reason.

Am I missing something?”

I am not surprised that you object to the use of the term “anti-choice.” I object to the use of the term “pro-life” for reasons that are comparable to yours.

it seems to imply that those who speak out for unborn children are painting women with unwanted pregnancies into a corner, leaving them no options. In fact (except in cases of rape and incest), there are at least three other options: 1) abstinence; 2) conception control, and 3) adoption.

The first two of those options are not choices at all for a woman who is already pregnant. The last option is a possible choice in some instances, but it does not help the woman whose health or life would be endangered by carrying a pregnancy to term — nor, obviously, does it help a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape or incest (and I know you did acknowledge that second point).

Additionally, the first two options are not logical choices, in many situations, even for a woman who is not pregnant but wants to become pregnant. If you want to become pregnant — if you want to have a child — clearly abstinence or “conception control” is not the way to get there.

This is also true of abortion. In the first century, it was a common practice that Roman women would leave their children to die amongst the refuse outside their homes. The Christians within the Roman Empire would pick up these “aborted” babies and care for them as their own. I wish we all continued this selfless act. That way, the liberals could continue their beloved promiscuity without having to result to murder. Everyone is happy.

The one thing we must remember, Leo… is that people have the right to protest the government – not protest private citizens. Sheehan and the others who protest military members is wrong in that respect – as is pro-lifers protesting abortion clinics.

If a woman cannot afford food, housing, or clothing, then she would be on a “medical card” or medicaide for non-abortion health care.. She also has privately funded organizations to have abortions (as was mentioned above) that remain open. To my knowledge, there are still free abortion clinics in every city over 80,000 population nationwide.

This is one place where you and I may agree. As long as abortion is legal, harrassing women who use these legal services should be illegal or at least enforced if it is already illegal. The only legal recourse for those who are upset about abortion is through government petition or general protesting. You should know by now that I condemn ANY violence and any harrassment toward anyone – for their beliefs – especially when they fall within the law.

If unwanted pregnancies are being forced on one sector of the population by another, then the one doing the forcing shall be responsible for the consequence$.

So we resolve the national conundrum with abortion in this way: We have a registry where if you want to vote on the abortion issue one way or another, you have to sign your name on a restricted register only viewed by the IRS and whether or not you are for or against it. If you do this you may vote in a national vote. If you succeed in making a woman's right to choose go away, then you will be taxed for your morality. You will be made to put your money where your mouth is. Your extra tax [not assessed to those who voted for a woman's right to choose] will go to pay for a large fund that takes care of all related expenses for the upbringing, health, education and safety of children's issues until they turn 18. ALL of them since from that point on everyone will claim they had an unwanted pregnancy to get funds to help support their children.

So if you truly believe in compassion for children, prove it. You can't have it both ways. You should be willing to pay, indeed happy, giddy to pay an extra tax to support the raising of youth in our country. You DID remember that youth result from pregnancies right? And that adults result from the youth? And if the youth grow up essentially, fiscally, unwanted, then as an adult they're going to cause trouble? More expenses? Prisons? Any of this ringing a bell?

If the do-gooders want to shove trillions of dollars in unwanted expenses down the throats of the taxpayers, then we at least should have a vote on the matter.

If religion is to be taken serious by anyone then the principles have to be pretty firm and not subject to polling data.

Exactly, and precisely the reason the lion's share of Christian churches still oppose the recognition of gay “marriage.” Long-held convictions (as in two thousand years or more) aren't subject to the latest polling data. But hey, that other debate is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish….

Fifty million Americans don't have access to health insurance. That is the status quo, too. I understand that denying poor women access to health care (by not subsidizing it, which effectively denies access) is the status quo, but expanding that status quo to new legislation the entire purpose of which is to reform health care delivery and provide access to it for Americans who don't have it is not necessarily a logical conclusion. At any rate, it fails to persuade me either as a moral or a practical argument.

Give me a break, Kathy. It's impossible to “know” what will happen in the
future with certainty. But that doesn't stop us from making decisions,
enacting legislation, and Obama signing trillion dollars spending programs
based on what we think is “likely” to be true. Would it help if I put the
words “very, very, very” before the word “likely”? Please give me an
example of any substantive prediction about the future that any liberal has
made to support any public policy that you know with certainty to be true.
Otherwise, let's not further complicate a debate that has already gone on
too long (5 threads and counting) by bringing up such petty objections.

“What's the incentive?”

Even if the coverage is cheap, the insurance company still makes some profit
off of it, otherwise they wouldn't offer it. Therefore, they have an
incentive to try to get people to buy the supplemental coverage, and to make
it as easy as possible to sign up.

“how likely is it that she will be able to afford rider insurance?

I didn't make any judgment on whether a particular poor woman would be able
to afford it, except to say that it would be cheap (in the range of a few
dollars a month would be my estimate). So yes, the poor woman will have to
pay for the abortion herself, either out of her own pocket or through the
(very, very, very likely to be cheap) supplemental insurance which she still
may or may not be able to “afford”. I understand you think that is a
travesty, but it does not address my one and only point, which I will repeat
again: the Stupak amendment does not restrict access to abortion any more
than it is currently restricted. Poor women currently don't have access to
government subsidized abortion, so the amendment maintains the status quo.

I applaud the Catholic Church for running a network of hospitals and promoting universal health care coverage. At the same time, I am appalled that representatives of Catholic bishops successfully lobbied the House of Representatives to take its anti-abortion issue to the ultimate extreme.

…and commented:

Why should a religious group be allowed to lobby for one and not the other? Seems hypocritical.

It doesn't just seem hypocritical, it's incredibly hypocritical. Basically Patrick is saying that religion should be part of our political process as long as its to advocate for a position that he agrees with.

And one more point about that quote…how can one possibly argue that the Church's position (or that of Stupak or the other reps who voted for the amendment) are being extremists when their position is to uphold the Hyde Amendment which has been part of federal law for decades?? And in case anyone didn't notice, Obama has also come out in favor of this kind of language in the bill, to keep the status quo with regard to taxpayer funding for abortion. Are you appalled at his 'extremist' position as well?

Others have already covered some of the other rebuttals- adelinesdad summed up the mistatement of what the bill actually allows or doesn't allow, and a EEllis and others have pointed out that a church takes a moral position based on theology, not a democratic representation of the political viewpoints of its members.

One final point I'll make is that the bishops' statements about closing Catholic hospitals has to do with whether or not conscience waivers remain in place. Since there is a vast network of hospitals funded by the Catholic Church which provide needed health services in many, many communities that are otherwise not served, their voluntary participation in the healthcare system should not be met with a slap in the face by being forced to provide a service that is morally repugnant to the providers who work there. Those who believe that abortion is both morally permissible and necessary are free to provide that service.

Many women's health clinics (which provide many other reproductive and gynecological services besides abortion) have shut down because of anti-choice violence or threats of violence. The ones that remain often are subjected to harassment from anti-choice activists who confront women going into the clinic (again, many of whom are not even pregnant and/or are not going into the clinic for an abortion) and call them baby killers and murderers.

You tell them Kathy, we all know they should be protesting at the personal home of wall street execs and harrassing and confronting those folks, right! Or maybe harrassing the military offices and calling the soldiers names!

That sarcasm being said, I don't condone any threat of violence by left or right, but they have as much right to protest as Cindy Sheehan, or Greenpeace, Code Pink or any leftie group.