Despite being catholic - I still have NO right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

[TheBigotBasher]

Abortion to me is an issue for women. It should not be an issue for someone like Stupak to use as a threat to kill health care reform.

Why is the life of a cancer stricken mother who has reached some arbitrary maximum life time insurance cap less important than that of a fetus?

[Captain Hilts]

1. Most Catholics agree with you. nt

[sohndrsmith]

8. Except those legislators who think their religious imperative should be made into law.

Based on the tenets of their specific beliefs, of course, but with the demand and expectation that all individuals of any/all/no religious belief be forced to abide by their moral dictates if they manage to weave it into secular law.

I respect anyone who follows the tenets of his or her belief/religion, and I equally respect those who choose other modes of spiritual connection, or choose none at all.

Being true to a way of life and living one feels is moral and virtuous is hard to see as anything but good, but goodness and virtue are hardly predicated on any standard set of spiritual rules.

Goodness, in my view, is a choice - or series of choices that can be guided or simplified by religion or created within one's own ethical compass. The beauty of conscience is it's infinite freedom of choice.

[Captain Hilts]

14. And those on the Supreme Court. nt

[gateley]

2. The very first time I voted, abortion was on the ballot in Washington State. At that

time I was opposed to it (even thought birth control was kind of messing with the natural way of things :eyes:) -- but I voted to support it for the very reason you state. It was not up to me to tell another person what she could or could not do with her life. I figured plenty of women got abortions anyway, illegally, and why not offer them protection and safety?

[ChicagoSuz219]

3. I can't understand why the same people who are always ranting...

...& raving about the government being all up in their business think they have a right to legislate about other people's uteruses. I mean, really, WTF??

[Zoeisright]

6. Exactly. Repukes want to control every part of your private life.

While letting corporations kill you with pollution and dangerous food and products.

They also won't acknowledge the fact that making abortion illegal doesn't reduce the number of abortions. It's so private it cannot be regulated. All making it illegal does is increase the deaths of women and girls.

Which is just fine with that fucking hypocritical 'pro life' crowd.

[ChicagoSuz219]

7. They are pro-life...

...for the unborn and the brain-dead.

Everyone in-between is pretty much on their own... :-(

[customerserviceguy]

4. If a developing country

were finally getting to the point where they realized that some in that nation ate well, and some were starving, and decided to emulate prosperous nations and came up with a plan to provide something like food stamps...

Wouldn't you expect some controversy and opposition to providing hamburger under the program if about 40% of the population was vegan?

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Only if that 40% were going to be forced to eat what they do not

want. Otherwise, what business is it if of theirs? None at all.

[customerserviceguy]

11. In my scenario

they might well object to their government paying for the hamburger that someone else is eating.

If there were a society with 40% Quakers, you might not have a standing army, either.

[sohndrsmith]

5. As a spiritual person, unaffiliated with any organized religion, I completely agree with

you.

Just before I saw your post, I was thinking about the very same thing. I don't believe some institution or body, or a religion has the right to dictate (restrict or deny) the health and health decisions of an individual.

Religion seems to presume control and decision over women's bodies and pregnancy because of the rules/tenets of a particular faith.

What I find astonishing (as you point out) is that Insurance companies have entitled themselves with a similar, but far more expansive authority: They are choosing who lives and who dies based on how it affects their profits.

Unlike the faith-based anti-abortion stance, these insurers function with zero basis of a moral, ethical imperative, or sense of right and wrong - only greed.

Thanks for making the analogy and making an opening for further discussion. : )

[DailyGrind51]

9. I feel exactly the same way!

[asdjrocky]

12. Being a man I really have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies.

[AngryAmish]

13. THat is very brave to say around here

Put on your asbestos undies.

[harun]

15. Not federally funding abortions has nothing to do with telling women what to do.

Nice try at appealing to everyone's emotional response to the issue though, instead of the logical reasoning.

Stupak wants to keep that out of the HCR equation and I support him doing this.

[TheBigotBasher]

16. Stupak wants to go further than simpy exclusion of abortions from subsidy.

Under his proposals no insurer would be able to offer a fully comprehensive system, ie including abortions, under the exchange. Even if that person had no insurance subsidy at all. Nelson would allow insurace companies to cover abortions, but that excess fee must be picked up separately in full with no subsidy.

Is the difference in language really worth denying people coverage?

[Wardoc]

17. Would ovarian cancer not be any of your interest or concern too? I think there are people issues...

...not gender or racial or whathaveyou issues. The merits of a subject should not exclude, because we don't live a vacuum and what affects one of us affects us all.

Note: This is just to do with a macro philosophy and nothing specifically about Stupak, etc.

[TheBigotBasher]

18. Is prostrate cancer a female concern?

Cancer as a whole is a concern for humans but treatment is a decision only for the patient and doctor.

[Wardoc]

19. Actually, I'd say yes. These divisions that say "that is your fight" do not help us as a whole...

...I am of thet view that everyone SHOULD have an opinion on everything. Honest, open discussion is healthy. I want women vested in men's interests, I want whites vested in black interests, I think people should be there stating their views and helping each other. Obviously that doesn't mean everyone can get their way, but I think good arguments make for good policy regardless of who makes them.