Nuns at Monastery of the Angels in Hollywood pray. (LA Times)
The health care issue has now pitted Catholic bishops against nuns.
The leaders of religious orders representing 60,000 Roman Catholic nuns have sent members of Congress a letter urging them to pass the Senate health care bill. Those who speak for the country's 600 Catholic hospitals have also come out in favor of reform.
Both opinions, however, differ from the U-S conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Right to Life Committee. Those groups have denounced the bill as a back door way to fund abortion.
Of all the arguments put forward against the health care reform bill, the fear that it expands abortion is "illogical," according to T-R Reid of the Washington Post.
Those who really want to reduce the number of abortions should be advocating for more coverage, not less, says Reid, as data from other industrialized nations that have lower rates of abortion than the United States show.
With more access, it's not only easier to get access to birth control, but once a woman is pregnant she is less likely to want to have an abortion if she knows that her child will have access to good medical care.
"To oppose expanded coverage in the name of restricting abortion gets things exactly backward," writes Reid. "It's like saying you won't fix the broken furnace in a schoolhouse because you're against pneumonia."
Comments
And when have you ever listened to any Christians much less a nun?
Talk about "parroting" a line! And one you would never agree with on any other matter.
Your a political prostitute Bruce. Who ever gives you more ideologically.
Bruce: Two points -- First, No one really cares what Catholic nuns have to say about the health care coup any more than they care to hear from you. Its unconstitutional, immoral, illogical, economically unsustainable and oh yeah, really stupid.
Second -- and this one is really from Bruce's bizarro land collection. State run health care will REDUCE abortions because...wait, take a really big hit of nitros oxide first, then read it: "...once a woman is pregnant she is less likely to want to have an abortion if she knows that her child will have access to good medical care."
OK exhale. Now, as your senses return, imagine that out of an average of 3700 infant homicides per year, the women killing their own children are doing so JUST BECASUE THEY ARE AFRAID THE CHILD WILL NOT HAVE ADEQUATE HEALTHCARE!!!???!!!
WOW. You have really outdone yourself with this piece of s--t! Women kill their children OUT OF COMPASSION! Is there any lie too vile to advance your doctrine of death?
Stan and Larry - These are two news items, neither necessarily my opinion. You guys would make a good lynch mob.
I already have the rope.
By the way Bruce; when you are quoting a source you are supposed "to use quotation marks." That way we know its not just you spewing your own personal misnomers of misanthropy.
The comment to which I refered and which you refused to address in your comments (more cherry picking) was not in quotes or attributed in writing to another death merchant. So either it was yours or you were plagerizing. So the question now is: Are you a thief, a liar or an accessory to 3700 infanticides per year?
Stan Transue says: "Are you a thief, a liar or an accessory to 3700 infanticides per year?"
My comments always follow AFTER a story. You've read enough these pieces here to notice, I'm sure. I didn't make any comments after these two stories, did I? If you need your hand held that much, let me know.
As to the "infantacides," they're not your business, so please don't talk to me about your cherished "liberty" and hated "government intrusion" when you insist on telling others to live YOUR way. You don't REALLY care about these abortions. If you did, you'd be advocating adoption of all the children that women are choosing not to have. THAT'S the best way to save those lives. Why aren't you advocating that instead of advocating the murder of people you don't like by suggesting you'll be happy to supply the rope? Are you advocating homicide? That's the problem with blowhard pro-lifers: They only care for nine months. Then they're AWOL because THEY don't want the baby, either.
Your poor planning does not constitute an obligation on my part. Neither does it releive you of your moral duty. This whole "if you hate abortion you should adopt unwanted children" argument is total bulls--t and you know it.
First, you decide its OK to make a defenseless human pay the ultimate price for the mother's irresponsibility. Then when people rightly object to the wanton slaughter of innocents, your solution is to have THEM pay the price of parenting the unwanted children of irresponsible people. Where the f--k is the mothers' and fathers' responsibility in this stupid scam?
Based on your rationale, we should off grandma and gramps after they become too troublesome as well--oh yeah that's right, your "end of life counselors" will take care of that. Soon all we will have are young and middle-aged tax-drones. This is starting to look like "Logan's Run." When do we get the cool white unitards?
As for the "rope comment," that was a joke and you know it.
Stan Transue says: Your poor planning does not constitute an obligation on my part. Neither does it releive you of your moral duty.
That's pretty funny considering how hard the moral majority resists the idea of teaching children about birth control, and even opposes the morning after pill because they think it causes an abortion. It's not a defenseless human, either. Until about 22 weeks, it's a fetus, unviable and cannot live outside the mother's womb. That's clinical fact, both medically and scientifically. But again, if you care that much, campaign for you and your fellow religionists to adopt or mind your own business.
Stan Transue says: Based on your rationale, we should off grandma and gramps after they become too troublesome as well--oh yeah that's right, your "end of life counselors" will take care of that.
You're smarter than Sarah Palin, so don't use a talking point she idiotically made famous.
As for end of life matters, if an individual chooses euthanasia rather than live an additional few months at both great pain and financial cost, that's their business, not mine. That would be called individual liberty. Are you always prattling on about that, or do you mean freedom according to the "Book of Stan"?
Oh wait, was that Bruce who wants government to do everything who just said that?
Still waiting for you to respond to my comment made on 03/16/2010 @ 12:33 AM here:
www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2010m3d14-Texas-school-board-revising-curriculum-creating-controversy
Bruce says: "Until about 22 weeks, it's a fetus, unviable and cannot live outside the mother's womb. That's clinical fact, both medically and scientifically."
So if "viability" without extra support is the standard for human, then anyone reliant on anyone or anything else for survival is not human and therefore can be legally killed on a whim.
This standards certainly expands the range of possible guilt-free murder. YOUR standard: human = self-sustaining life.
Subhuman: everyone not earning through the indiependent creation of value acquired in free trade, the entire cost of their livelihood; everyone currently on any kind of medical life support, or dependent upon drugs or medical treatments to live.
You have just established the standard by which about 40% of Americans can be snuffed legally because they are not "viable." This standard will also allow for the "Health care savings" Obama has been promising.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!