A Few Clouds ~
High: 75°F ~ Low: 51°F
Saturday, Oct. 25, 2014
Government Funded Abortions--Will You Allow Your Tax Dollars to Be Used to "Terminate Life"?Posted Thursday, September 3, 2009, at 1:22 AM
Congressman Chris Smith, a senior member of the House of Representatives and long-time opponent of abortion announced during a July press conference "Despite the fact that large majorities of Americans don't want to fund abortion, the Obama-Kennedy-Dingle bill will nevertheless force every taxpayer and every premium payer in the United States to pay for and facilitate every abortion in the country."
Smith bodly added, "Despite President Obama's statement to the pope just last week that he wants to reduce abortion, the ugly truth is that the so-called health care reform bill, if enacted and if not amended, will lead to millions of additional dead children and wounded mothers."
These are strong words spoken with the intent to rally Americans against supporting a bill, which if left unamended and in its current state, will clearly fund mass-abortions.
Regardless of where one stands on abortion [pro-choice vs. pro-life], the greater whole must agree that financial responsibility for legalized abortions should remain with the "aborter(s)." We cannot justly demand that citizens who are morally and ethically opposed to abortion be forced to fund its act.
My own views/beliefs are "pro-life," although I would term myself to be both pro-life and pro-choice*, as I will attempt to illustrate. I am of the opinion that abortion may be justified in cases threatening the life of the pregnant woman, and for medical reasons with defective embryos. Yet, even the last case can be justified only when one is absolutely sure of the defect, and not only because the embryo/fetus has a defective gene. This is where the issue gets "murky."
I also have mixed emotions in cases of rape and/or incest. While I understand the arguments given by "pro-lifers" that the child should be carried to term and then placed for adoption after birth if the mother is emotionally not capable of caring for the child, rather than terminate the pregnancy and end the child's existence. I personally believe that some exception should be made in extreme cases of psychosis where the trauma of carrying the rapist's child to term will "clearly" be damaging to the woman's emotional well-being (such as a fear of the embryo/fetus, or the belief that the fetus is "evil" and was implanted by the rapist to harm her). Again, it gets "murky."
I DO NOT support late-term abortions unless it is medically deemed a matter of "life or death" for the mother and she will not survive otherwise, or in cases where the infant will suffer a fate worse than death by being born (ie., excrutiating pain & suffering with no chance of survival). And again, I make exception only in "extreme" circumstance as outlined above. Thus, I deem myself to be "pro-life" *with exception.
As for cases of social hardship, I do not agree with aborting simply to eliminate a perceived future debt. Society should develop alternative mechanisms for taking care of new born children--there are numerous men/women/couples who are childless and unable to conceive.
Lastly, I am steadfastly OPPOSED to abortion as a means of birth control. A woman's choice becomes a living organism's death sentence. The embryonic heart starts beating 22 days after conception, or about five weeks after the last menstrual period. By the time most women learn they are pregnant, their "child" already has a beating heart. No matter how you spin it, abortion is the termination of life...I refuse to allow my tax dollars to be used to end a life.
I believe rather than focus so much attention and resources on aborting an unwanted pregnancy, we should spend that same time and money on preventing the unwanted pregnancy in the first place...then abortion becomes a mute point.
If nothing else, I believe society should organize a "contraception awareness & pregnancy prevention" course--much like attending driver's school after receiving a traffic violation--that women would be required to attend after having had at least one abortion. I'm sure this idea will offend and/or upset many of you reading this blog, but you should be aware that 47% of women having an abortion have had at least one previous abortion already...47%. Obiously, they are not "getting it."
Studies further indicated that of the women having abortions, 46% did not use contraception during the month they became pregnant and 8% NEVER used a method of birth control. Clearly, inffective contraceptive methods is a problem.
Here are a few more facts about abortion:
The overall abortion rate [in the U.S. alone] is 21 aborted babies for every 1,000 U.S. women.
Most people have the misconception that abortion rates are higher among unwed teenage females, but statistics indicate that more than half of U.S. women having abortions are in their 20s. Six in ten U.S. women having abortions are already mothers, and more than half intend to have [more] children in the future.
Abortion as a means of birth control is costly, dangerous, and extinguishes the life of a developing human. Something MUST change.
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]
In the Now
- Blog RSS feed
- Comments RSS feed
- Send email to Shawna Jones
A once self-proclaimed entrepreneur with a strong background in photography, computer assembly, and digital arts/graphic design, Shawna is a dual-major graduate who was forced to leave a middle-management position after a serious accident and illness left her unable to work. As a mother of six and former teacher, she is now homeschooling her two youngest children and volunteers her time as an educator for the Bedford County Enrichment Homeschool Program.
Hot topicsShelbyville Artist Melissa Fults honored as Featured Artist of the month
(3 ~ 4:41 PM, Feb 17)
August Recipe Swap: Now You Can Have Krispy Kremes at Home...ANYTIME!
Is Paula Deen just too Mean?
June's Summer Recipe Delight
Have You Felt the EVO-OVE Experience???