Anti-life crowd outraged that the unborn are cared for.

[Xeones]

why didnt they just fix the health care laws in re: to pregnant women? the fact they they went and turned around the laws re: rights of embroys doesnt seem a very straightforward answer to the original problem. round your *ss to get to your elbow... for the benefit of some other factor.

all sounds especially Political to me. as if the plight of welfare mothers is secondary to the abortion rights issue. but "save the welfare mothers!" makes better press for the pres.

[Lemmy]

I don't call myself pro-life really but that is the label that has been put on me because I support giving a voice to the unborn instead of killing "it" before it can make a choice.

So you support suicide then? If a 10 year old kid says he wants to die, and tries to kill himself you would let him do that?
It is his choice after all.

[CyberGnu]

Winston and Lincoln, the use of a technically correct but irrelevant term is called 'spurious'.

GePap is absolutely correct. Sure, the pro-choice people are for the taking of a life. But since it isn't a human life, labeling pro-choice 'anti-life' is specious, as it doesn't convey any kind of information. By your definition, even Vegans are 'anti-life'.

[loinburger]

That label would apply to pretty much anybody but the most hard-core Jainist.

If you want to beg the question through use of questionable definitions, then use "pro-murder." It cuts to the chase.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Lemmy

I don't call myself pro-life really but that is the label that has been put on me because I support giving a voice to the unborn instead of killing "it" before it can make a choice.

So you support suicide then? If a 10 year old kid says he wants to die, and tries to kill himself you would let him do that?
It is his choice after all.

You get the prize for the most twisted argument of the day. No, I am not from the "pro-choice" side. You will have to eat your own argument. I never asserted that anyone has the right to let a child kill himself. If the pro-choice crowd was really for choice then you would let those who you kill grow up so that they could make a choice as well. What you are for is a choice for yourselves at the expence of those you silence.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Anti-life crowd outraged that the unborn are cared for.

Originally posted by Lincoln
September 27, 2002 at 8:25:05 PDT

Unborn Children to Get Health Care
By LAURA MECKLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Funny, the State of California already has public prenatal care health coverage.

Before my daugher was born 15 years ago (she was born in the US), there was no need to play semantic games as to whether she was an embryo, a fetus, an unborn child, or ET in order for prenatal care coverage to apply in my (work based) private health insurance.

The labeling game is a totally separate and unrelated issue.

[Drake Tungsten]

Thanks, couldn't remember what album tha was on.

Glad to be of service.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Would you also object if someone like Schindler in ww2 used deceptive means to save a Jew or another condemned person? If pro-life people really are sincere (and most I know are) then it would seem that the end justifies the means in this case.

Are you equating saving Jews with prenatal care? Or is it with undermining abortion rulings by the Supreme Court? In either case, your analogy is quite flawed. It's the ethical and moral nature of our party system that I'm opposed to. To make your analogy fit, I would be opposed to the Nazi regime as it wasn't ethical or moral IMO.

Each and every issue I try to judge on the same grounds, I don't pick sides and assume the other is wrong. In this issue I see one good thing, prenatal care, and another dishonest attempt to circumvent our constitutional process. As far as this legislation impacts the rights of a fetus, that isn't within the jurisdiction of Congress. That is up to the Supreme Court.

This legislation could have easily passed with Republican support if it just dealt with offering prenatal care to immigrant mothers who can't afford it on their own. I doubt anyone would have objected, Democrats have been asking for this sort of thing for a while now.

Instead, they took this popular issue, and linked it to another issue that wasn't so popular. They get certain things passed which otherwise would never pass, by sneaking it into more popular legislation. Then if someone opposes the legislation, they just cry out "What? You don't think (insert popular issue here) is important?" even though it's the unecessary baggage issues that are being opposed.

In short, prenatal care != fetus rights. It's just dishonest to try and implicate that it is.

[Lincoln]

You completely missed the point. The point is, the use of unconventional means to accomplish a good deed. Yes this was a side door effort to change the language to be beneficial to the pro-life people but the result is good for the unborn

[Aeson]

It's not unconventional first of all. Almost all legislation passes with the barnacle issues that politicians slip in to appease special interest groups.

You say that giving a fetus rights is a good deed. Other people would disagree with you (when it interferes with the mother's rights, and before the fetus is viable). This issue should be resolved through the proper channels, which in this case is through the SC. Regardless of the 'right' or 'wrong' of the issue.

What you seem to be saying is that you support Congress in trying to undermine a SC ruling in a manner which isn't constitutional.

[Lincoln]

My point was that if someone sincerely believes that they are saving an innocent life then the means are justified just as they would be if they ran a red light on the way to the hospital to save a life.

[Aeson]

Or if a person bombs an abortion clinic?

[Lincoln]

How did you get to bombing abortion clinics? We are talking about using pollitical means to save the unborn not killing someone.

[Lincoln]

Or are you talking about destoying the building only?

[Aeson]

Sorry, but your Nazi analogy deserved to be reciprocated.

I do know what you are saying Lincoln, but circumventing due process, to force a special interest platform onto other people is just not right. You think that a fetus deserves rights, and you have the right to that opinion, but it's the SC which has the right to determine when one right infringes on another. I personally think abortion is a disgusting practice, even if it's deemed necessary or legal. I also find this sort of political behavior disgusting.