Democrat Rep: ending taxpayer abortion funding an imposition of ‘religious beliefs’

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1holycatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1holycatholic

Guest
Democrat Rep: ending taxpayer abortion funding an imposition of ‘religious beliefs’http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/news/Jackie_Speier2-240x168.jpg
Rep. Jackie Speier

According to Rep. Jackie Speier of California, ending taxpayer funding for abortion would amount to an imposition of “religious belief.”

Speier made the remarks during procedural debate on H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which is expected to receive a final vote Wednesday.

Speier criticized Republicans for advocating small government fiscally but “big government when it comes to regulating your bedroom.”
 
Democrat Rep: ending taxpayer abortion funding an imposition of ‘religious beliefs’
http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/news/Jackie_Speier2-240x168.jpg
Rep. Jackie Speier

According to Rep. Jackie Speier of California, ending taxpayer funding for abortion would amount to an imposition of “religious belief.”

Speier made the remarks during procedural debate on H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which is expected to receive a final vote Wednesday.

Speier criticized Republicans for advocating small government fiscally but “big government when it comes to regulating your bedroom.”
Forcing the tax burden to fund abortion on us is imposing HER pseudo-religious beliefs on the rest of us. The sword cuts both ways.
 
Forcing the tax burden to fund abortion on us is imposing HER pseudo-religious beliefs on the rest of us. The sword cuts both ways.
Exactly. It amazes me that this argument is ever used. As if no one but “religious” people impose their beliefs onto legislation. These people seem to conveniently forget (or ignore) the fact that EVERYONE imposes some sort of belief into a debate. Whether they want to call it “religious” or not, it’s an imposition of a belief they possess. That’s the nature of humanity and politics. They further show their ignorance when they claim it violates separation of church and state.

With this mentality, I wonder why politicians like Speier don’t fight to reverse laws prohibiting murder. I wonder if they know that it exists because of a huge “imposition” of religious belief. Better yet, Speier and the rest should accept the fact that abortion IS murder.

Makes you wonder…
 
I wasnt aware abortions were performed in our bedrooms?
If we make abortions illegal, then we are going to here the drivel about bedroom abortions with cans of Lysol and coat hangers nonsense.
 
Exactly. It amazes me that this argument is ever used. As if no one but “religious” people impose their beliefs onto legislation. These people seem to conveniently forget (or ignore) the fact that EVERYONE imposes some sort of belief into a debate. Whether they want to call it “religious” or not, it’s an imposition of a belief they possess. That’s the nature of humanity and politics. They further show their ignorance when they claim it violates separation of church and state.

With this mentality, I wonder why politicians like Speier don’t fight to reverse laws prohibiting murder. I wonder if they know that it exists because of a huge “imposition” of religious belief. Better yet, Speier and the rest should accept the fact that abortion IS murder.

Makes you wonder…
I don’t wonder. They are secular Statists. Individual belief and accomplishment mean nothing and are considered counter-productive to the collective and the State. Just shut up and comply with your master. 🤷
 
Democrat Rep: ending taxpayer abortion funding an imposition of ‘religious beliefs’http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/news/Jackie_Speier2-240x168.jpg
Rep. Jackie Speier

According to Rep. Jackie Speier of California, ending taxpayer funding for abortion would amount to an imposition of “religious belief.”

Speier made the remarks during procedural debate on H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which is expected to receive a final vote Wednesday.

Speier criticized Republicans for advocating small government fiscally but “big government when it comes to regulating your bedroom.”
That’s true to a certain extent.But aren’t American’s allowed to have any religious view?Is America suppose to be a country which is agnostic or atheistic?Is it that America isn’t keeping up with modern times and we are to be socialistic?I think her statement said a lot on how she and many Democratic legislatures feel about religion?It should play any role in the America of today.
 
If we make abortions illegal, then we are going to here the drivel about bedroom abortions with cans of Lysol and coat hangers nonsense.
Actually i beleive she is equating abortion with sex. Where we see abortion as the taking of human life the left sees abortion as cleaning up the unitended consequences of sex. The child is like a used condom that must be disoposed of.
 
That’s true to a certain extent.But aren’t American’s allowed to have any religious view?Is America suppose to be a country which is agnostic or atheistic?Is it that America isn’t keeping up with modern times and we are to be socialistic?I think her statement said a lot on how she and many Democratic legislatures feel about religion?It should play any role in the America of today.
Actually, even If I were Atheist - I would still have a moral base / fiber.
 
Actually i beleive she is equating abortion with sex. Where we see abortion as the taking of human life the left sees abortion as cleaning up the unitended consequences of sex. The child is like a used condom that must be disoposed of.
True enough. Another gem of the feminist movement.
 
Actually i beleive she is equating abortion with sex. Where we see abortion as the taking of human life the left sees abortion as cleaning up the unitended consequences of sex. The child is like a used condom that must be disoposed of.
If someone’s fetish were killing their partner after intercourse (one might call it a ‘black widow’ fetish?) I wonder if some sex-positivists would defend the legality of such an act, just because it involves sex. In this world, someone actually might.

I’ve also pondered a little “modest proposal” of arguing that it should be legal for gang members to kill each other in abandoned warehouses, since fewer people would get hit in the crossfire that way. I’d like to see what the ACLU would think of either of these proposals.
 
If someone’s fetish were killing their partner after intercourse (one might call it a ‘black widow’ fetish?) I wonder if some sex-positivists would defend the legality of such an act, just because it involves sex. In this world, someone actually might.

I’ve also pondered a little “modest proposal” of arguing that it should be legal for gang members to kill each other in abandoned warehouses, since fewer people would get hit in the crossfire that way. I’d like to see what the ACLU would think of either of these proposals.
I wondered if we decriminalized drugs, how many gangbangers there would be that would be willing to stand around in warehouses killing each other?
 
Democrat Rep: ending taxpayer abortion funding an imposition of ‘religious beliefs’http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/news/Jackie_Speier2-240x168.jpg
Rep. Jackie Speier

According to Rep. Jackie Speier of California, ending taxpayer funding for abortion would amount to an imposition of “religious belief.”

Speier made the remarks during procedural debate on H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which is expected to receive a final vote Wednesday.

Speier criticized Republicans for advocating small government fiscally but “big government when it comes to regulating your bedroom.”
weird, so murder being wrong is now a matter of religious belief…
 
There are plenty of non-religious people who are against abortion for the simple fact that abortion takes innocent lives.

The argument does not need to be from faith or religion–use medical science and the ever increasing technology used to show images of what new human life is within the womb–use non-religious secular arguments to win the debate. They worship science–so give them the science.
 
There are plenty of non-religious people who are against abortion for the simple fact that abortion takes innocent lives.

The argument does not need to be from faith or religion–use medical science and the ever increasing technology used to show images of what new human life is within the womb–use non-religious secular arguments to win the debate. They worship science–so give them the science.
Sure thing, coming right up:

From: The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18: “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

From: Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo…”

From: Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17. “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”

From: Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43. “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

From: Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2. (updated, still the same) “Human begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
 
Sure thing, coming right up:

From: The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18: “[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

From: Human Embryology & Teratology, Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo…”

From: Essentials of Human Embryology, William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17. “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”

From: Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43. “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

From: Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2. (updated, still the same) “Human begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
Excellent and precisely to my point. This issue no needs to be argued from religion or faith, there is ample science. I have no doubt that had today’s medical science existed in 1973, abortion would never have been made legal–it would have been shockingly easy to prove when human life begins.

Frankly, it seems to me that people who still try to argue about when life begins are being intellectually dishonest. They would be better served to say that the new human life does not hold any value, because that is what they really believe in most cases.
 
I wondered if we decriminalized drugs, how many gangbangers there would be that would be willing to stand around in warehouses killing each other?
By that logic, organized crime should have ceased to exist in 1933. But this discussion is for another topic. Odd, here you are defending a liberal position and I a conservative one. A nice change of pace.
 
By that logic, organized crime should have ceased to exist in 1933. But this discussion is for another topic. Odd, here you are defending a liberal position and I a conservative one. A nice change of pace.
Crime always escalates in direct proportion to the level of force used to eradicate it. 100 years ago, you could walk into the local druggist and by a bottle of laudinum (an interesting mixture of opium and whiskey) without a presecription and with no moral judgements by anyone. Now, you can’t by a box of pseudofed without showing ID and signing a federal tracking form.

I am not arguing the 'liberal" perspective. I am arguing the “anti-statist” perspective. 😃

The War on Drugs has created huge expensive federal bureaucracies, new breeds of criminals, a huge, expensive prison system, and an undeclared war with hundreds of thousands of goons in South America, which we apparently are providing with weapons so we can fight them on fair terms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top