Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/9/2004 4:52:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 4:53:44 AM EST by FLAL1A]
Somebody help me noodle this out. The question was what guarantee he could offer that tax money wouldn't be used for abortions. His answer was that while he as a Catholic opposes abortion, he can't impose his beliefs on others, and basically that he supports government-funded abortion.

Well, first off, what besides a "belief" that it's wrong allows us to prohibit robbery or arson? Second, if he can't inflict his beliefs on others by declining to pay for abortions with tax money, why is able to impose his beliefs on others by compelling everybody - including Catholic priests - to chip in for a procedure many find abhorrent?

Anybody? Bueller? Anybody?
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 4:54:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 4:54:58 AM EST by sgtar15]
I just threw my shoe at the TV at that point.

I will say this one time:

KErry is no fucking Catholic nor a Christian!


SGtar15
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:05:38 AM EST
Some womenz need government funded sterilization right?
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:09:38 AM EST
I'm guessing it's OK for Catholics and Chirstians to say the "f" word since you claim to be a Catholic and routinely use the word.

Matt 12:33-37
33 "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
NIV
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:10:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Somebody help me noodle this out. The question was what guarantee he could offer that tax money wouldn't be used for abortions. His answer was that while he as a Catholic opposes abortion, he can't impose his beliefs on others, and basically that he supports government-funded abortion.

Well, first off, what besides a "belief" that it's wrong allows us to prohibit robbery or arson? Second, if he can't inflict his beliefs on others by declining to pay for abortions with tax money, why is able to impose his beliefs on others by compelling everybody - including Catholic priests - to chip in for a procedure many find abhorrent?

Anybody? Bueller? Anybody?



I think what he was getting at is that abortion, according to his religious beliefs is wrong, but there are many many americans who do not share his religious beliefs, and therfore do not share his opinion on the subject, you have to consider them too. I didn't mind his answer to this. I mean in a way, he's right. His religious beliefs shouldn't be forced upon millions of people who don't share those religious beliefs regardless of what they are about.

Though at the same time I liked the Presidents responce as well, a stright forward responce with little to no dancing. Sure sKerry danced around it. But than again abortion should not be a political topic. I'm not one to talk about the abortion debate all that often because I think it tends to be more of a religious/moral/ethics issue that each person needs to wrestle with and that our government doesn't need to be involved in. But thats just me.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:12:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:

36 But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
NIV




I wasn't careless. the word "FUCK" was the smallest possible word which explained my feeling on the situation.

Would you like to put your stone down now?

SGtar15
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:24:09 AM EST
No stone in my hand sarge, just pointing out the obvious.

Christ Himself or the Holy Spirit is where the conviction you're feeling came from.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:26:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 5:27:46 AM EST by stator]
Stating the obvious for those that have read this and though otherwise.... Spending my tax dollars on abortion is forcing other's beliefs on me, period. The only way to not force anyone's belief is to keep taxpayer dollars out. This is what I stand for regarding the abortion issue and vote on.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:32:03 AM EST
FLAL1A,

to answer your question.....

Kerry is for Government funded abortions if I understood all the political drivel he whined on and on about in response to the young lady's question. It seems impossible for him or any polititian for that matter to just give a simple yes or a no in response to a question.

Did you see the look on the young lady's face who asked the question as he answered the question? She looked more and more sad and confused the more he droned on and on trying desperately to justify his position that our government should pay for the murdering of babies.

Catholic.........pffht, I my 40 years on this planet I've never met a single Cathilic who would publicly admit that any form of baby killing is moral, let alone that it should be legal, and God forbid that Government money should pay for it.

Christians in this country are not voting with their morals and have not for many years now.

IF we truly are a Christian nation like the polls show, there is but a snowballs chance in hell Kerry would even be Senator let alone POTUS.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:42:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
Did you see the look on the young lady's face who asked the question as he answered the question? She looked more and more sad and confused the more he droned on and on trying desperately to justify his position that our government should pay for the murdering of babies..



I agree...the woman looked terribly distressed as she did listening to Bush.

With GWB she had the look of she wanted to vote for GWB but that the abortion issue was just to big of a deal for her.


SGtar15
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:45:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Somebody help me noodle this out. The question was what guarantee he could offer that tax money wouldn't be used for abortions. His answer was that while he as a Catholic opposes abortion, he can't impose his beliefs on others, and basically that he supports government-funded abortion.

Well, first off, what besides a "belief" that it's wrong allows us to prohibit robbery or arson? Second, if he can't inflict his beliefs on others by declining to pay for abortions with tax money, why is able to impose his beliefs on others by compelling everybody - including Catholic priests - to chip in for a procedure many find abhorrent?

Anybody? Bueller? Anybody?



I think what he was getting at is that abortion, according to his religious beliefs is wrong, but there are many many americans who do not share his religious beliefs, and therfore do not share his opinion on the subject, you have to consider them too. I didn't mind his answer to this. I mean in a way, he's right. His religious beliefs shouldn't be forced upon millions of people who don't share those religious beliefs regardless of what they are about.

Though at the same time I liked the Presidents responce as well, a stright forward responce with little to no dancing. Sure sKerry danced around it. But than again abortion should not be a political topic. I'm not one to talk about the abortion debate all that often because I think it tends to be more of a religious/moral/ethics issue that each person needs to wrestle with and that our government doesn't need to be involved in. But thats just me.





Sorry, photoman. You're off-base on Kerry's response. What Kerry was getting at was that the Government should use money that it has wrested from taxpayers to fund abortions for poor people so that they won't have their rights violated.


DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.

But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.




I find it hard to believe that Senator Kerry misspoke his position on the issue, as I've been hearing non-stop for the past few weeks about how the Senator is so much more intellectual, well-spoken, and nuanced than our current President. Therefore I find it necessary to believe that Senator Kerry wants the Government to pay for abortions for the poor, so that the poor can have whatever the Constitution affords them.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:46:03 AM EST
abortion is murder, i will not condone the use of my tax money to fund it, anyone who supports, offers or pays for abortion has blood on their hands, and will answer to God for what they have done
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:59:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By avengeusa:
abortion is murder, i will not condone the use of my tax money to fund it, anyone who supports, offers or pays for abortion has blood on their hands, and will answer to God for what they have done




thats their choice

if they dont believe in G-d then they have nothing to worry about.


im still not sure if id rather the Govt fund abortion for the poor or have 10 million crack babies running around.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 6:08:52 AM EST
Why should people who think abortion is murder have their tax dollars paying for abortions?

CRC
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 6:16:42 AM EST
I am an apostate Roman Catholic. I don't consider myself to be in communion with the Church because I have chosen to move away from the Church. Though I will always have very strong Catholic beliefs, I cannot in good faith call myself Roman Catholic.

John Kerry is not Roman Catholic. While the Church recognizes that we all fall short, Roman Catholicism is not a cafeteria plan. This is never more true than on the issue of abortion.

John Kerry is probably the sorriest human being to have ever been nominated by a major party for the offices of the POTUS. If he is elected, we will be on the fast track to the end of the republic.

I've said it before and I'll continue to say it.

If you could combine the unbridled crookedness of LBJ, the immeasurable ineptitude of Jimmy Carter, and the unrestrained immorality of Bill Clinton, you would still end up with a better man than John Kerry has ever been or can ever hope to be.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 6:29:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:
Why should people who think abortion is murder have their tax dollars paying for abortions?

CRC



they shouldnt, but playing devils advocate, the money will prolly go to the welfare system instead
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 7:01:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By napalm:

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Somebody help me noodle this out. The question was what guarantee he could offer that tax money wouldn't be used for abortions. His answer was that while he as a Catholic opposes abortion, he can't impose his beliefs on others, and basically that he supports government-funded abortion.

Well, first off, what besides a "belief" that it's wrong allows us to prohibit robbery or arson? Second, if he can't inflict his beliefs on others by declining to pay for abortions with tax money, why is able to impose his beliefs on others by compelling everybody - including Catholic priests - to chip in for a procedure many find abhorrent?

Anybody? Bueller? Anybody?



I think what he was getting at is that abortion, according to his religious beliefs is wrong, but there are many many americans who do not share his religious beliefs, and therfore do not share his opinion on the subject, you have to consider them too. I didn't mind his answer to this. I mean in a way, he's right. His religious beliefs shouldn't be forced upon millions of people who don't share those religious beliefs regardless of what they are about.

Though at the same time I liked the Presidents responce as well, a stright forward responce with little to no dancing. Sure sKerry danced around it. But than again abortion should not be a political topic. I'm not one to talk about the abortion debate all that often because I think it tends to be more of a religious/moral/ethics issue that each person needs to wrestle with and that our government doesn't need to be involved in. But thats just me.





Sorry, photoman. You're off-base on Kerry's response. What Kerry was getting at was that the Government should use money that it has wrested from taxpayers to fund abortions for poor people so that they won't have their rights violated.



I know what he said, I listened to him say it. But he was saying that he would use taxpayer money to federaly fund "some" abortions because he didn't want to impose his religious beliefs on Americans who didn't share those religious beliefs that said aborton was wrong. Thats all I was getting at. Like I said I try to stay out of the abortion debates because my thoughts on it are not in line with either side of the debate really, I learned that one the (notso) fun way.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 7:23:34 AM EST
That really is the difference. The socialists want to force you to pay for THEIR agenda of dismantling America's institutions.
You should pay for them to murder their children.
You should pay for their attempts to indoctrinate your own children.
You should subsidize their efforts to destroy religion and remove God from our lives.
You should pay for them to sit on their ass if they so desire.
You have already paid for them to destroy the family. And you are still paying.

Conservatives just want to be left alone to pursue life, liberty and happiness. I see no desire to force our agenda on anyone, much less force someone else to pay for it. We just want to be left alone to our own self-reliance and to be productive, responsible members of society. We want to be free men, not lackeys of a socialist nanny state.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 7:41:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 7:41:37 AM EST by BenDover]
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 8:02:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:

36 But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
NIV




I wasn't careless. the word "FUCK" was the smallest possible word which explained my feeling on the situation.

Would you like to put your stone down now?

SGtar15



Kerry had the f word all over his web page until someone found out about it and told the press.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 8:31:43 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 8:35:34 AM EST by Dino]

Originally Posted By CRC:
Why should people who think abortion is murder have their tax dollars paying for abortions?

CRC



Why should someone with no children pay for some kids prenatal care, birth, medical care, and education?

Why should someone with no religion have to put up with religious organizations getting tax exempt status?

I don't like what the government does with a lot of my money or the tax breaks they give to certain organizations/businesses/individuals. That doesn't mean I don't see the justification for those programs.

If we can pay for a poor person to squeeze out another child they can't afford, I don't see a problem with paying for them to get rid of it.



Link Posted: 10/9/2004 8:34:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By BenDover:
www.eatonlink.com/gwwelfare.jpg



racist much?

Link Posted: 10/9/2004 8:59:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 9:00:32 AM EST by drjarhead]

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Why should people who think abortion is murder have their tax dollars paying for abortions?

CRC



Why should someone with no children pay for some kids prenatal care, birth, medical care, and education?



I agree. Whay should they?
At least education I can understand as everyone benefits. If you ever need any services it is useful to have people who are qualified.


Why should someone with no religion have to put up with religious organizations getting tax exempt status?


I agree. All not for profit status corporations should be abolished, including religious and charitable organizations. Nothing but a farce anyway.


I don't like what the government does with a lot of my money or the tax breaks they give to certain organizations/businesses/individuals. That doesn't mean I don't see the justification for those programs.


Flat tax across the board. Solves that problem.
Nor should the gov't be involved in supporting private businesses or organizations. It is not their role. May even be unconstitutional.


If we can pay for a poor person to squeeze out another child they can't afford, I don't see a problem with paying for them to get rid of it.



You may not. And given the current political climate and just how fucked up society is becoming you have the right to support that. You are also able to give money to people who want to murder their children. Perhaps you see some kind of benefit in that, although it is difficult to imagine how, but why do you think that I should be forced to subsidize something that I find so morally and ethically wrong? We are not talking about national defense, roads, police and fire here. This isn't something that tax dollars should be used for.


As I said, this is the difference. You think we should be forced to pay to support your agenda. Conservatives do not buy into that. Maybe we should. Perhaps we should exert our political power in shoving our beliefs down your throat whether you like it or not.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 9:11:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 9:13:38 AM EST by Dino]

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Why should people who think abortion is murder have their tax dollars paying for abortions?

CRC



Why should someone with no children pay for some kids prenatal care, birth, medical care, and education?



I agree. Whay should they?
At least education I can understand as everyone benefits. If you ever need any services it is useful to have people who are qualified.


Why should someone with no religion have to put up with religious organizations getting tax exempt status?


I agree. All not for profit status corporations should be abolished, including religious and charitable organizations. Nothing but a farce anyway.


I don't like what the government does with a lot of my money or the tax breaks they give to certain organizations/businesses/individuals. That doesn't mean I don't see the justification for those programs.


Flat tax across the board. Solves that problem.
Nor should the gov't be involved in supporting private businesses or organizations. It is not their role. May even be unconstitutional.


If we can pay for a poor person to squeeze out another child they can't afford, I don't see a problem with paying for them to get rid of it.



You may not. And given the current political climate and just how fucked up society is becoming you have the right to support that. You are also able to give money to people who want to murder their children. Perhaps you see some kind of benefit in that, although it is difficult to imagine how, but why do you think that I should be forced to subsidize something that I find so morally and ethically wrong? We are not talking about national defense, roads, police and fire here. This isn't something that tax dollars should be used for.


As I said, this is the difference. You think we should be forced to pay to support your agenda. Conservatives do not buy into that. Maybe we should. Perhaps we should exert our political power in shoving our beliefs down your throat whether you like it or not.



my agenda?!!?? LOL

I'm against the government paying for any of the above. Sounds like we may be on the same side on this one hoss.

The truth is paying for abortions right now is perfectly in line with government policy. That was what my last sentence was about.

p.s. totally agree with all of your solutions

Link Posted: 10/9/2004 9:19:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Why should people who think abortion is murder have their tax dollars paying for abortions?

CRC



Why should someone with no children pay for some kids prenatal care, birth, medical care, and education?



I agree. Whay should they?
At least education I can understand as everyone benefits. If you ever need any services it is useful to have people who are qualified.


Why should someone with no religion have to put up with religious organizations getting tax exempt status?


I agree. All not for profit status corporations should be abolished, including religious and charitable organizations. Nothing but a farce anyway.


I don't like what the government does with a lot of my money or the tax breaks they give to certain organizations/businesses/individuals. That doesn't mean I don't see the justification for those programs.


Flat tax across the board. Solves that problem.
Nor should the gov't be involved in supporting private businesses or organizations. It is not their role. May even be unconstitutional.


If we can pay for a poor person to squeeze out another child they can't afford, I don't see a problem with paying for them to get rid of it.



You may not. And given the current political climate and just how fucked up society is becoming you have the right to support that. You are also able to give money to people who want to murder their children. Perhaps you see some kind of benefit in that, although it is difficult to imagine how, but why do you think that I should be forced to subsidize something that I find so morally and ethically wrong? We are not talking about national defense, roads, police and fire here. This isn't something that tax dollars should be used for.


As I said, this is the difference. You think we should be forced to pay to support your agenda. Conservatives do not buy into that. Maybe we should. Perhaps we should exert our political power in shoving our beliefs down your throat whether you like it or not.



my agenda?!!?? LOL

I'm against the government paying for any of the above. Sounds like we may be on the same side on this one hoss.

The truth is paying for abortions right now is perfectly in line with government policy. That was what my last sentence was about.

p.s. totally agree with all of your solutions




I assumed as much.
You put your questions and comments in a rhetorical fashion. So did I.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 9:24:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
I just threw my shoe at the TV at that point.

I will say this one time:

KErry is no fucking Catholic nor a Christian!

SGtar15



+666
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 9:46:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Why should people who think abortion is murder have their tax dollars paying for abortions?

CRC



Why should someone with no children pay for some kids prenatal care, birth, medical care, and education?



I agree. Whay should they?
At least education I can understand as everyone benefits. If you ever need any services it is useful to have people who are qualified.


Why should someone with no religion have to put up with religious organizations getting tax exempt status?


I agree. All not for profit status corporations should be abolished, including religious and charitable organizations. Nothing but a farce anyway.


I don't like what the government does with a lot of my money or the tax breaks they give to certain organizations/businesses/individuals. That doesn't mean I don't see the justification for those programs.


Flat tax across the board. Solves that problem.
Nor should the gov't be involved in supporting private businesses or organizations. It is not their role. May even be unconstitutional.


If we can pay for a poor person to squeeze out another child they can't afford, I don't see a problem with paying for them to get rid of it.



You may not. And given the current political climate and just how fucked up society is becoming you have the right to support that. You are also able to give money to people who want to murder their children. Perhaps you see some kind of benefit in that, although it is difficult to imagine how, but why do you think that I should be forced to subsidize something that I find so morally and ethically wrong? We are not talking about national defense, roads, police and fire here. This isn't something that tax dollars should be used for.


As I said, this is the difference. You think we should be forced to pay to support your agenda. Conservatives do not buy into that. Maybe we should. Perhaps we should exert our political power in shoving our beliefs down your throat whether you like it or not.



my agenda?!!?? LOL

I'm against the government paying for any of the above. Sounds like we may be on the same side on this one hoss.

The truth is paying for abortions right now is perfectly in line with government policy. That was what my last sentence was about.

p.s. totally agree with all of your solutions




I assumed as much.
You put your questions and comments in a rhetorical fashion. So did I.



DOH!!!!

*feels stupid*

:P

Link Posted: 10/9/2004 7:55:18 PM EST
i'm not sure which is more offensive, my tax money paying for abortion or my leaders dictating policy based upon their personal religion beliefs.

government should not be in the business of legislating morality. for any of you who think abortion is murder, fine, let it be on the soul of the one having the abortion. you should not be forcing your beliefs on others through government.

funding abortions is no different than faith based initiatives giving my tax money to religions i do not agree with/am not a member of.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 5:38:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By poink:
i'm not sure which is more offensive, my tax money paying for abortion or my leaders dictating policy based upon their personal religion beliefs.

government should not be in the business of legislating morality. for any of you who think abortion is murder, fine, let it be on the soul of the one having the abortion. you should not be forcing your beliefs on others through government.

funding abortions is no different than faith based initiatives giving my tax money to religions i do not agree with/am not a member of.



I am against both also but classifying infanticide with faith based initiatives is ludicrous on the face of it. Further, you would classify Abortion restrictions as forcing my beliefs on others? What do you think holds a society together? It is a common language and set of values, resulting in rules which we all agree to live by. If you truly believe what you are saying here than I would say that you have no code of honor.
In the long run, perhaps I should take the pragmatic approach and be content that the socialist baby murders, perverts and traitors to my nation are ripping their offspring limb from limb, by the millions, for the sake of convenience. In the end it should mean that conservatives will win. Of course they counter this by vulgar attempts to brainwash our children and destroy the family unit. Power to the State--provided the State does their dirty work. I think you all are going to be in for a rude awakening one of these days.

No honor.
As for me, I remain ever vigilant.
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 12:43:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By poink:
government should not be in the business of legislating morality.



This is the oddest recurrent political statement of which I'm aware. What exactly is it supposed to mean?

Is murder (unjustified taking of human life) immoral? If so, how can it be illegal, if government should not be in the business of legislating morality? How about theft? Rape? Is government limited to legislating against conduct which has no moral implications? There are hardly any criminal prohibitions, other than a small category of regulatory offenses, which are not subject to justification on moral grounds. There's no moral requirement to drive only when in possession of a valid driver's license, but tampering with emissions equipment pollutes the environment, and the Earth is (according to Christians and Jews, at least) God's creation, of which we are stewards, and the spoliation of which is sinful. So I guess we can lock people up for DL offenses, but not for removing a catalytic converter. Maybe drug laws are ok under the "morality exclusion?" No, many believe that the body is the temple of the Lord and is therefore the subject of an obligation to the Almighty. So, no drug laws.

On moral grounds, people who are engaged in the commission of forcible felonies in Florida cannot be victims of murder by those they attack; people who are engaged in other conduct can be victims of murder. The USSCt decreed that fetuses in the womb cannot be victims of murder if destroyed at the behest of their mothers. That is a moral judgment. Is that moral law-making OK under the "government should not be in the business of legislating morality" rule, or is it to be cast aside, too? In favor of what? If moral action is outside the scope of governmental regulation, is each of us to be his own judge, deciding who may be killed and what may taken?

It seems to me that when people say "government should not be in the business of legislating morality," they mean "government should not enact morality-based legislation with which I disagree."

Link Posted: 10/10/2004 1:03:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By poink:
i'm not sure which is more offensive, my tax money paying for abortion or my leaders dictating policy based upon their personal religion beliefs.

government should not be in the business of legislating morality. for any of you who think abortion is murder, fine, let it be on the soul of the one having the abortion. you should not be forcing your beliefs on others through government.

funding abortions is no different than faith based initiatives giving my tax money to religions i do not agree with/am not a member of.



While I agree with an extremely limited field of influence for government I must point out that ALL law reflects some moral principle. I agree with most things being outside the realm of government involvement. Abortion however, involves the murder of an unborn US citizen and therefore DOES fall under the sphere of government influence. Having sex does not. THAT is the line. For the government to fund the murder of the very people it is charged with giving life, liberty and the opportunity for pursuit of happiness is foolish. Planerench out.
Top Top