But What If You Don’t Celebrate Christmas?
Dec 19th, 2009 | 11 responses
You just cannot make this stuff up:
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) is still refusing to support Senate health care reform legislation, with his main objection being that the bill doesn’t restrict women’s rights enough by severely limiting access to abortions. Today on Fox News, host Steve Doocy and analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. lauded Nelson for his “moral” stance. But they then went even further, arguing that Nelson is obstructing progress because he “understands the true meaning of Christmas” — unlike all the immoral people who want to make sure that Americans have access to quality, affordable health care as soon as possible[.]
Johnson explains where he’s coming from (emphasis in original):
… On one hand, we have this political or secular rush for the Democratic Party: “We must get this done by Christmas,” and if you don’t it done, you’re going to be there on Christmas Eve, you’re going to be there on the day after Christmas, and you’re going to get this done.But on the other hand, I was thinking, perhaps there is a greater moral or ethical imperative from Sen. Ben Nelson, conservative Democrat from Nebraska, who has a lot of experience in the insurance industry and was a very successful governor in that state. He’s saying, implicitly, the true meaning of Christmas is that you don’t destroy babies. You don’t destroy children. And that the federal government should not be part and parcel of that in terms of funding it.
Destroying the babies’ mothers is okay, though.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
11 Responses to “But What If You Don’t Celebrate Christmas?”
My understanding is that Nelson does not want to “severely limit access to abortions” but rather make sure that Govt money doesn't pay for those abortions since so many taxpayers see abortions as murder and do not want to be complicit in said murder. While I am pro choice to the point that I think making abortions illegal is a horrible idea, there is more than enough BS on both sides without adding more. Nelson wants any new legislation to be inline with current Govt guidelines about public money going to fund abortions. The problem is that some people are using this chance to move the bar about those guidelines. They are at least as guilty if not more so for any delay or problem their advocacy causes to a delay in the so called health care reform.
You've created a false dichotomy. It's not a choice between destroying the child and destroying the mother. If the mother's life is in danger, then everyone (as far as I know) says abortion is acceptable. “Forcing” women to not kill their children is not the same thing as forcing the children to die. The latter are actually destroyed, the former are not.
It's not a choice between destroying the child and destroying the mother. If the mother's life is in danger, then everyone (as far as I know) says abortion is acceptable.
I guess you missed the discussion on this subject that took place on TMV recently on another thread. Although it's technically true, in theory and on paper, that “everyone” says abortion is acceptable if the mother's life is in danger, the devil is in the definition. Dianne Feinstein spoke eloquently on the Senate floor about a week ago about several specific instances of women she knew who worked for the federal government and were refused insurance coverage for abortions they needed to save their lives. These particular women did have the abortions, but they were left with thousands of dollars in debt.
The medical fact is that pregnancy can pose a serious threat to a woman's health for a zillion different reasons; however, more often than not it's not possible to give a 100 percent guarantee that a woman will actually die w/o an abortion. And “in danger of dying” or “could die” or “could have serious consequences up to and including death” are just not good enough for our government's Office of Personnel Management.
So, in actual practical fact, when Sen. Ben Nelson and other anti-abortion senators try to write anti-abortion language into the health care reform bill, they are making a choice between the fetus and the mother. They are, in effect, privileging the “right” of the fetus to be born above the right of the woman in whose body the fetus resides to continue living.
That's pretty convoluted logic from Doocy and Johnson. When I read the transcript I thought maybe they were just fooling around but on the clip they appear to be serious. Pretty blatant moralizing even for Fox.
Bravo, EEllis. Well said.
.
After reading the Title of this post, I had to include this:
*****************************************************************************************
To My Liberal Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
To My Conservative Friends:
Have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Kathy….
calling it a “fetus” doesn't make it less of a human being. And once again, the “zillion” reasons you refer to are STILL the exception to the rule. The overwhelming majority of abortions are “on demand” abortions that have nothing to do with medical need. I realize that you support such abortions. These remain legal in America. But the Hyde Amendment has kept it unfunded by tax dollars since 1975. It is ILLEGAL to fund abortions with tax dollars.
As I've said many times in the past…. If you want private health insurance to cover abortions, why don't you and your liberal friends get together and start your own insurance company, or at least get George Soros to help you out? As I've said on other posts…. Medical need is not your goal when it comes to abortions. If the life of the mother, child, or rape/incest were excluded and paid for with tax dollars, that would not be enough for the liberal ilk. You all want abortion on demand. That puts you in the minority.
Kathy, nothing you wrote contradicts my claim: you have created a false dichotomy by suggesting we have to choose between killing children and killing women. Even if the devil's in the details regarding when a woman's health comes into play, no one thinks that the death of the mother is an acceptable solution. Moreover, it doesn't alter the fact that ALL abortions kill the child, while very few abortions are necessary to save the life of the mother.
There is no, and never has been, a “right” [sic] to a federally provided and paid-for abortion. Never.
Get real and grow up, someday, some of you.
“The problem is that some people are using this chance to move the bar about those guidelines.”
I noted aloud, long ago, that abortion would emerge, i.e., it would be raised, as a political issue sometime during the health care entitlement crusade, and yep, far lefties showed their characteristic, if not native, lack of discipline not to refrain from pushing it. Now they are upset that the mainstream pushes back. “Surprise” [sic]!
“You just cannot make this stuff up:”
“Destroying the babies’ mothers [sic] is okay, though [sic].”
Assuming you didn't make this up, you're right, Kathy. Wow.