Another Bad Analogy from the Pro-Choice Crowd

Michael, I hate to say it, but you are missing the mark again. Abortion is a legal medical procedure that saves women's lives every year, every day. And while, yes, we should be doing all that we can do to reduce the need for abortion; at the end of the day, it is a legal medical procedure that needs to be covered by insurance. If it isn't, then we will just be furthering the divide between the haves and the have-nots in this country. And judging from your other blog posts on here, you are a man that wants to stand up for economic justice.

There shouldn't be abortion. Period.

Just for future reference, you need to write in a way that actually explains better what you are talking about. I've read this twice, and no longer am interested.

Absolutely!

Good point. Insurance coverage is not the same as pre-payment, but is about managing risk. Your burglary analogy blows Rep. DeGette's assertion out of the water.

The Hyde amendment is not a problem. Stupak and Company plan is.

When our society truly suppports families and children, then, perhaps, the restrictions on abortion funding will not be quite as offensive. As it is, the anti-choice people are much more interested and supportive of the rights of the unborn than they are of living children and women.
The Catholic Church should not be imnposing its morality on the public. Restricting funding for abortions makes safe abortions available only to the wealthy. The poor will be victims of back alley butchers. We will be returning to the "glorious" 50s.

Since the natural course of events leads to a need for maternity care, that is what health care should provide. Abortion, on the other hand, is a procedure that intrudes upon the natural course of events. Therefore, abortion is an elective procedure, not health care. Since it is an elective procedure, it should not be part of a system that provides health care, just as face lifts and tummy tucks should not be part of that system.

It seems to me that there is simply too much attention being given to this one procedure (abortion). In fact, so much attention is being given that it seems possible that one day someone will argue that his or her face lift is something for which my tax dollars should pay since there is precedent for excluding other elective procedures and that one has not been specified.

I agree, no federal funding for abortions with two exceptions.
First in the event of rapes, abortion should be covered 100%(not only the abortion, but the tests, lost time from work and the psychiatrist for dealing with the abortion and the rape). Also the government should strengthen the penalties for rape and assure the public, when they do get out, the offender will be on a very short leash. ( look at the Sowell case in Cleve. for example)
Second, in the event that it would cause the death of the mother.

In closing, I know laws cant cover every case. But they do give us guidence,like the Bible, as to how to overcome and move on. If the Senate passes the new insurance/medical program, would they have the power to segregate health care?

all the talk/writing about abortion/pro-choice/right-to-life appears to leave
out two key factors: personal responsibility and "where have all our men gone?" Do not men play a "key role"(no pun-intended here!)? I hear little or
nothing about men's role and responsibility in this whole sex issue. It is
always the woman's body that's torn...her flesh and blood...with abortions.
Now, if rape and incest are involved, then that is a MEDICAL issue, not a
moral one. If I have diabetes do I have to buy insurance if I freely
choose to eat sugar,etc...? Does not the Pro-Choice Crowd...( i accept pro-
choice if it is balanced with the dialogue of choice and personal resposibility),...several years ago a young woman came to me, she wanted to
know about her choice for abortion or not...we discussed at length her values,
her relaionship with God, the bottom line of personal responsibility for all
her behavior, etc. she wanted me to tell her which she should do. NO,I told
her, that is a decision you will have to spend the rest of your life dealing
with....you can not ask me to tell you which to do then blame me for the
rest of your life.) We seem to love the culture of victim-hood! She choose Life and has an wonderful son. Does not the Pro-Choice Crowd "key-in"
personal responsibility for ones sex behavior? Then one must take personal responsibility and not have others pay for their poor chices. That goes for
all issues where we blame everyone else, we love the culture of victim-hood.
Over the years I have never heard a sermon on the Right-to-Life Sunday,..a
sermon directed to the men, fathers,uncles, grandfathers, sons about their
role in this 'sexual culture'( and give the sermon in front of the women and
girls in the pews),only once did I hear such, and it was because I 'gently'
told the priest to do talk only to the men! He gave a wonderful talk that
Sunday and thanked me. His sermon to the men was on THEIR responsibilities
in the "sex-game-of-abortion". And see who always gets the kick in the 'gut'
from the 'game.' Not the men. Ummmmm, maybe the sermon should be given by
a married man, a doctor, etc. and not the priest.
So, all you men even the priests..step up and start the dialogue about the
role of men's responsibility in the wholo discussion. Who really pays when
you play in the sexual arena with no talk about your role, your behavior,
and all the pervention 'items' available, encluding 'personal responsibility'.
I hide not behind anonymous, or funny name,...give your real name in the
replies and comments....thank you....dolores crowley

The analogy may not work -- partisan analogies on both sides seem "not to work" for the other side -- but the Hyde Amendment is not an adequate response. There is an underlying problem with means. A better expression of "the bottom line" is that our love for those yet in the womb should support all reasonable means -- but not unexamined means -- toward fruition of this potential new life.

The Church has supported a number of measures restricting access to abortion, including legal and financial prohibitions. The Hyde Amendment is one of these. The Stupak Amendment is another. These financial restrictions simply provide an impediment to access to abortion. More broadly, the Church supports making abortion illegal. Overturning Roe v. Wade would be a step in this direction. Further, the Church opposes any measure requiring health care workers or medical facilities to take any action that would facilitate abortion.

But none of these political measures provide loving care to the unborn and those who carry them. It is simply assumed, as a statistical matter, that restrictions on access to abortion will reduce the incidence of abortion. These restrictions -- means to an end -- are not examined beyond their contribution toward the end of fewer abortions.

Love would examine the propriety of means. Half the Catholic population does not support overturning Roe v. Wade. Love would not assume that this half of the Catholic population is in favor of abortion. Nor would love fail to inquire more deeply into the views of those on the other side of what appears to be an abortion divide. It defies common sense -- especially when there are so many on the other side -- to express the views of the other side in terms that are worthy of being dismissed.

I would not presume that President Obama (or, indeed, any Catholic legislator who supports Roe v. Wade) has failed to inquire more deeply into their own views regarding abortion. It requires no more than common sense to suppose that the contrary views of the other side are no less consistent with the love of new life.

We do the comity among our fellow citizens unncessary harm to suppose, as the bishops apparently did, that the Hyde Amendment approach is a necessary prerequisite for showing love to an expectant mother and her unborn child.