Yahoo, famous for their trivial, trying to start controversy, and mostly irrelevant articles posted this one yesterday: Actress got abortion.
This article causes a little confusion to a conservative. How is this about health care? Was she sick? No. Was the baby going to kill her? No. Was she raped? No. Or was it just going to put a damper on her economic situation? Yes. So, why should taxpayers pay for this through the ACA? Her story is upsetting but for all the wrong reasons. Her situation was tough. Her decision could not have been an easy one when she got pregnant. Her emotional state may have been compromised. But this is not about "reproductive rights". Her story should not be used as a flagship for law. This is not PSA. She was not a hero. But that didn't stop Planned Parenthood.
"Insurance plans should cover abortion like other medical procedures, government programs should help low-income women who cannot afford abortion, and nonprofit groups that raise money to help women pay for abortion services should be fully funded,”--- Eric Ferrero, VP of communications for Planned Parenthood.
If she had her own insurance plan and she paid for it herself like any other "procedure" then maybe there wouldn't be such an issue but that is not what this was all about. Ferrero's words aren't that bad from a legal standpoint. Insurance plans should cover it if they want to, private insurance companies with their own policies that is. Non-profit groups that are privately funded is okay as well. However, other parts of people's insurance don't pay for even more expensive things like water damage to a basement which is not paid for by anyone but the policy holder due to it being an "act of God". All of sudden there is a God under the law.
But, there is another issue, a bigger picture, if you will. What they fail to discuss are the other issues. What the fail to mention is the ethical and morality of the story. Why was her pregnancy a shameful event? Why couldn't she tell her mom? Which part was she ashamed of? Was it her pregnancy alone or the fact that she had sex outside of marriage? The story is not consistent, nor ethical unless you base it on stupidity and liberalism.
She was an adult in college. She was perfectly healthy when she and her boyfriend chose to have sex. She used abortion to hide her actions. She used this as a form of birth control because she knew her actions now had consequences. But, it was too late; her baby was already a life form.
The link that is shared by the article is from National Women's Law Center, State bans on abortion And it claims that state bans on insurance coverage of abortion endanger women’s health and take health benefits away from women. Since when does banning abortion endanger a woman's health? The human race has been living for 6000 years and still thriving. Health benefits? Since when does banning abortions stop you from working out or taking vitamins? What health benefits are they referring to? Both of course have extreme cases that could be argued but only in rare cases and then exceptions may be applied as conservatives usually say.
Yes, her economic situation is not what she wanted. But all of our actions have rewards and/or consequences. If we all had abortions based on guilt or especially economics then the human race was doomed before it got started. This is why the Affordable Care Act is wrong, it forces other people to pay for things that simply are not about medical issues but ethical issues. And ethical issues also go on to hamper freedom of religion.
Point of this article was to push a liberal idea that abortion is okay. In reality it is not. Yes, abortion is legal. Nothing right now can change it and maybe we shouldn't because that means more people will have unsafe back-alley abortions. Nothing will change until we change the culture. And that is what the real topic is about. This young lady from this TV show was in an uncommitted relationship. Yes, they may even have loved each other but love is more than sex. They were adults. They knew how babies get here. They took the chance. Even the girl knew something was wrong or otherwise she would never have been embarrassed, as an adult. She tried to hide her actions and a life form paid for it. The young woman should not be ostracized for her actions nor should any woman who has gone through similar situations. But she should also not be used as model for getting laws passed or for younger woman to look up to.
Children used to be assets, now they are liabilities. And we know what we want to do with liabilities...
Note: the comments from AuntieChrist and the replies from me are taken from the comment section from Yahoo.
Note: the comments from AuntieChrist and the replies from me are taken from the comment section from Yahoo.
17 comments:
She has the right to do with her body whatever she pleases... I thought you christians were supposed to not judge and be compassionate. Your stupid bible is the one that preaches all sins are equal so what she did is no worse than you cursing or going 1 mph over the speed limit when you drive. There is nothing wrong with abortion, as a matter of fact, all the natural miscarriages there are make god himself the biggest abortionist of all time. So get off your high horse and do that love thing that your bible preaches and not the judge thing which your bible condemns. Hypocrite.
AuntieChrist, her body is her own. No other person has the right to violate it. But the body within her is not just an organ. It is totally different.
I am not judging her, I was judging the response of her being a hero for the wrong causes. A hero would be one that would have sacrificed her own economic situation and raised the life she inadvertently chose to have by taking the risk of having sex. I never said she was worse than anyone else. My mistakes are bigger than hers but I don't want anyone praising me for it or turning it into a political statement.
I understand your feeling about God allowing miscarriages. I don't understand it either. One day maybe I will.
I do "love her". That is why I believe no one should treat her differently. Please do not take my words and try to spin them. Please look at all my words in the big picture and not out of context. I showed as much compassion as I could with a Yahoo article. I said I feel sorry for her. I said I wish her the best in the future.
Yes. We are all imperfect people. We all need some kind of forgiveness, either from someone else, God, or ourselves. I am publicly stating that I am not holding anything against her. I am against the response by Yahoo, and our culture.
The mass of cells growing inside her does not have self awareness or consciousness. I love how people love the fetus but not the adult human being. It's priceless.
Auntie,
A baby in the ninth month of pregnancy has already discovered her own fingers. They are self aware. By your process of thinking then technically a newborn is still a fetus and thereby still susceptible to being "aborted". A baby can be born prematurely. It is technically younger than a full length pregnancy baby. Does that mean we can still abort it?
When does life begin? Your argument says that a baby in the birth canal on its way out is still a fetus, can still be aborted. But what if during the same scenario and procedure the doctor sneezes and does not abort the fetus in time and the baby's head comes out, should she still "abort" the baby? This is why life begins at conception. At that point in time something "new" is evolving. You call them cells. Then at what point do cells become life?
No one here said they hate the adult. The adult goes on with life. The baby is what we are concerned with because it has no voice. Liberals always talk about speaking up for those who are discriminated against and have no voice in the masses (and I believe in that) but this voice, the smallest and quietest of them all you are willing to shut up and silence forever. Talk about not having love.
All this spinning, no wonder people can't think straight.
Tim - grasping at straws makes neither one of your correct. I am a 31 year old married female with one child. My husband and I don't want any more kids (not just because we can't afford it, but because we have dreams and plans for the future). We take all the proper precautions to not get pregnant, but contraceptives are not 100% reliable. If my contraceptive failed, I have every right to have an abortion. I am certainly not going to stop enjoying sex with my husband at 31 years old. But I do NOT want any more babies. There is nothing wrong with abortion and any other circumstances are none of your business. 'Nor does the number of abortions effect you and your life in any way.
I bet her mother knows now! Very sad though that "bad timing" is a reason to end the most vulnerable of lives. The lives that need the most protection. It may not be able to be seen or heard at it's earliest, but that doesn't take away the fact that no matter how small, it's still a human. Inconvenient or not.
LOL poor happy Brainwashed catholic mom. So sad never learning the things of science and believing in fairy tales your whole life. I have the right to correct the problem if my birth control fails. I don't want any more children,and I have the right to make that decision for my life. Let me guess - if I were raped in an ally and became pregnant I should not abort either? Ridiculous - and sad.
Auntie,
No straws there. Mine were real life situations. Just simple thoughts and questions, and answers by the way.
You have every legal right to get an abortion. No one said you weren't. And yes, contraceptive fail. And by no means are we saying stop having sex with your husband. Sex is for married couples. I know that sounds prudish of me but that is the way is should be. Two unmarried people have not made the commitment to each other and thereby are not accountable if something happens. A baby is a reward but our culture treats it like it can be a curse. This story was about how she had sex without a major commitment, became embarrassed and tried to hide it by aborting. Why the shame if Yahoo says she is a hero for this cause?
You may not want another child but some people may want that child and cannot have one on their own. Please do not answer this but what would you do if happened to want one in the future but then can't?
I hope you get all of your dreams but that does sound like an economic situation.
Do you happen to have any answers to the questions I posed in my last post? You don't have to answer but I would be curious.
There is no law, except in the unauthenticated and unture bible. that says sex should be between married people. Babies are not rewards nor are they miracles, they are the result of sex.
Human embryos are examples of human life. Therefore, by absolute religious lights, abortion is simply wrong: full fledged murder. I am not sure what to make of my admittedly anecdotal observation that many of those who most ardently oppose the taking of embryonic life also seem to be more than usually enthusiastic about taking adult life. The born-again George W. Bush is typical of today's religious ascendancy. He, and they, are stalwart defenders of human life as long as it is embryonic life - even to the point of preventing medical research that would certainly save many lives. But Bush presided over more executions in Texas than any other governor in the states history.
This abortion culture we've created is why we find babies in trash cans. If life is inconvenient, it's disposable. If I can't afford an abortion, I'll just throw my baby away when it pops out. No difference really. It's murder either way.
The evolutionary point is very simple (this is not for you catholic mom, because this requires someone educated to understand):
The HUMANNESS of an embryo's cell cannot confer upon it any absolutely discontinuous moral status. It cannot, because of our evolutionary continuity with chimpanzees and, more distantly, with every species on the planet. To see this, imagine that an intermediate species, say Australopithecus afarensis,had chanced to survive and was discovered in a remote part of Africa. Would these creatures count as human or not? To a consequentialist like me, the question doesn't deserve an answer, for nothing turns it on. It is enough that we would be fascinated and honored to meet a new "Lucy." The absolutist, on the other hand, must answer the question,in order to apply the moral principal of granting humans unique and special status because they are human. If it came to the crunch, they would presumable need to set up courts, like those of the apartheid south Africa, to decide whether a particular indivudual should pass for human.
Auntie said: "There is no law, except in the unauthenticated and unture bible. that says sex should be between married people. Babies are not rewards nor are they miracles, they are the result of sex."
Yes and no. There have been any laws in many cultures that state the relation between marriage and sex. Many cultures have their laws justified by their religious beliefs so I understand your thought process. Yet, the most natural, unanimal-like behavior between two humans is being committed to one another, and even some animals do that. Babies are natures way of keeping a species alive, so it is a reward. Not as in a reward for good behavior but for life in general. Babies should be a result of love as well. But our culture does not see it that way. They mistake lust for love. They see a moment in time as more important that a life long relationship.
Auntie said: "Human embryos are examples of human life. Therefore, by absolute religious lights, abortion is simply wrong: full fledged murder. I am not sure what to make of my admittedly anecdotal observation that many of those who most ardently oppose the taking of embryonic life also seem to be more than usually enthusiastic about taking adult life. The born-again George W. Bush is typical of today's religious ascendancy. He, and they, are stalwart defenders of human life as long as it is embryonic life - even to the point of preventing medical research that would certainly save many lives. But Bush presided over more executions in Texas than any other governor in the states history."
Please say we're not blaming Bush for this too. But he also does not speak for the rest of us. He is his own individual, not a group. But you are comparing oranges and lemons. Notice i did not say apples and oranges. Are there similarities in the situation? Yes, they both involve life and the taking thereof. But, one is completely innocent and the other has had some non-innocent times. He did not commit the crimes. He did not create the law. He did not convict the criminal. He was only following the laws of Texas. So why bring him in this???
Stem cell research I am for as long as the cells do not take life. This is very close to what the #$%$ did. They took lives for "research". We found answers but was it ethically correct...I would say no.
Auntie said: The evolutionary point is very simple (this is not for you catholic mom, because this requires someone educated to understand):
The HUMANNESS of an embryo's cell cannot confer upon it any absolutely discontinuous moral status. It cannot, because of our evolutionary continuity with chimpanzees and, more distantly, with every species on the planet. To see this, imagine that an intermediate species, say Australopithecus afarensis,had chanced to survive and was discovered in a remote part of Africa. Would these creatures count as human or not? To a consequentialist like me, the question doesn't deserve an answer, for nothing turns it on. It is enough that we would be fascinated and honored to meet a new "Lucy." The absolutist, on the other hand, must answer the question,in order to apply the moral principal of granting humans unique and special status because they are human. If it came to the crunch, they would presumable need to set up courts, like those of the apartheid south Africa, to decide whether a particular indivudual should pass for human."
Nice quotes from Richard Dawkins by the way. You claim Christians are brainwashed yet this is the answer to Catholic mom? But it doesn't answer anything. Do you have an answer for my questions yet?
I guess we lost Auntie. She is too busy bashing Christians on another article staying where there are a bunch of "yes men" who keep agreeing with her. Click on her icon and you can see what I mean. So, if she comes back then welcome.
But to all who are now reading this. Christians are idiots. Yes, they are. Yes, We are. We are imperfect human beings with so many issues. Why? Because we are human. We aren't superior. But we know someone who is and that is what makes us different, not better. We apparently aren't allowed having opinions though or we become bigots, judgmental, racists, misogynists, uneducated brainwashed robots, who follow a fairy tale. And then they say we're intolerant. We struggle in this world too. We get angry. We get lost. We say things we regret but the world will always hold us up to a higher accountability, when we should all be held to the same height. We're not allowed to judge but I guess the world can. Yes, our scripture says not to do that but out of context makes us not even allowed to correct someone, discipline our children, or even warn people about how things in life can hurt us.
The world gets more crazy and a-moral every day. Now it's "whatever is convenient" and not about responsibility for your actions. Abortion is not the only option for an unwanted child. But, of course, everybody would know you were pregnant if you carry the baby to term. Never mind that there are thousands of families who want a child. Much easier to just toss it in the garbage and pretend it never happened. Insurance companies will face pressure to cover abortions, and will probably cave in to it. God forgive us!
It's the society we are in.
Sad!
Revelation as you know talks all about the coming times.
Crazy stuff!
Hope all is well with you!
Long time no see!:)
Tim I couldn't agree with you more the worst part of article was calling abortion "reproductive care"
Post a Comment