Daily Archives: March 22, 2010

I don’t know what to think

I really don’t know what to think about what happened last night.

I can’t get upset, because I feel like we need time to tell.

Anytime Planned Parenthood claims victory, we know it’s a bad thing. But I’ve seen too much evidence that pro-lifers confuse issues to take the anger of the pro-life movement as a sign this is a loss for the unborn.

It so easily switches from “this is a victory for abortion” to “this is a loss of our freedoms,” and “our freedoms” in context meaning the “freedom to be greedy.”

I am not crazy about this health care bill at all. I am not crazy that the pro-life movement and the bishops have focused on abortion only, when they should have talked about contraception, conscience rights, euthanasia.

I hate that Sarah Palin is ridiculed for the “death panels” comment, but the Democrats themselves said they want abortion to reduce costs.

Obama is a cypher. I’m never 100% certain whether he’s more centrist than we give him credit for, or he’s the most effective liar Satan has ever produced. It’s been clear in this debate that there are differences between Obama and Pelosi on what this bill should do. Obama has always insisted “abortion isn’t paid for,” while Pelosi has always insisted abortion should be paid for.

Techniaclly, an executive order can’t override congressional law, and all it takes is another executive order for Obama to rescind it, if he wants. So the executive order is in itself a loss because it’s another victory for presidential tyranny.

I’ve been “defriended” on Facebook by one major figure in the pro-life movement, not for my pro-life views but for challenging Republican worship of money as unChristian. This person posted a quote from Proverbs about borrowing being a state of slavery, and applied it to health care, and I said, “That’s also why capitalism is evil,” and she defriended me.

Is the pro-life movement about advancing capitalism or helping the unborn?

Because for people for whom abortion is supposedly the #1 issue, the war and “economic freedom” sure seem to take precedence.

There should have been a way to make real bipartisan compromise on this issue.

There should have been a way to regulate the insurance and health care industries, end pre-existing condition restrictions, and, yes, require people who can afford it to buy health insurance, without too much federal funding, and without conscience rights.

As for abortion, if your insurance pays for birth control pills, you’re paying for abortions, and most major insurance companies pay for abortions as it is. And this does not create federal funding of abortions. The government has been paying for abortions on military bases since Clinton signed that executive order in 1993–an executive order George W. Bush conveniently did not reverse. Medicaid pays for abortions in many states, including South Carolina.

Unless pro-lifers are going to fight legalized contraception, we’re hypocrites, and we’re fightnig a losing battle.

For once, I find myself agreeing with a post at Vox Nova–the Republicans were their own worst enemies, as usual, on this issue. They could have offered an alternative plan. They could have agreed to support the bill if there were clear limits in regard to abortion, contraceptoin, euthanasia/”end of life care” and permitting conscience rights for medical professionals. They could have agreed to support a bill that was largely regulatory and didn’t involve a “public option” or too much taxpayer funding.

But they didn’t. They opted to let the Democrats win the whole thing rather than reach a compromise that would have saved the unborn, showing that Republicans are themselves more concerned about what’s in their pockets than they are about saving babies’ lives.

And if anyone can show me one passage in the Bible (other than the “Parable of the Talents”) that favors investing at interest, I’d be glad to see it.

What do atheists, child molestors, abortion supporters and wall street investors have in common?

If they don’t repent, they’re all going to end up in the same place.

And that’s true on either end of Pascal’s Wager.

After all, if the atheists are right, the final destiny of all these people is to be food for bugs, so why does anything in this life matter? Why do they pretend that it matters? Why do atheists conveniently claim moral indignance over one select matter while proclaiming freedom of lifestyle choice in regard to others?