Paying for Abortions “Moral” Thing to Do?
Is it moral to make pro-life taxpayers pay for abortions?
According to Senator Dianne Feinstein, it is. Recently, she told CNSNews.com that she believes taxpayer funding for abortions is the “morally correct” thing to do.
… CNSNews.com asked Feinstein: “Is it morally right to use tax dollars from pro-life Americans to cover insurance plans that cover abortion?”
Feinstein said: “Is it morally correct? Yes, I believe it is. Abortion is legal, and there (are) certain very tragic circumstances that a woman finds herself in. Married, with an unborn baby that’s unable to survive outside of the womb, her doctor tells her it’s a threat to her health. I think she ought to have a policy available to her.
CNSNews.com asked: “So it’s morally right for pro-life taxpayers to have to help pay for plans that cover abortion?”
Feinstein responded: “Please. We pay for a lot of things that we may or may not agree with, and taxpayers pay for it, for those things, as well.”
Notice the ploy – classic among Leftists – to skirt directly answering a question by attempting to discredit the question itself: “Please…” – as if saying, “C’mon, get serious.”
(How ironic, too, that Feinstein points to a married mother with an unborn baby predicted to be “unable to survive outside the womb” and then suggests the mother cope with this difficult time by ensuring the baby won’t survive inside the womb.)
Meanwhile, while Feinstein compares abortions to the vague “lot of things that we may or may not agree with” that taxpayers pay for, Senator Daniel Akaka, Democrat from Hawaii, was a bit more specific (while arguing for generality), comparing paying for abortions to paying for diabetes treatment:
CNSNews.com: Do you think it is morally right to use taxpayer money of pro-life Americans to help pay for insurance plans that cover abortion? What is your opinion on that: Do you think it is morally right?
Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii): Well, that remains to be decided by an—we need to discuss all of these. I think that this is something that we have to consider and as we look at abortion, what about diabetes, what about—you know, there are others, and we need to be a little more general than be specific.
CNSNews.com: OK, so is abortion on the same level as diabetes, would you say?
Sen. Akaka: Well, it’s one of the issues. It’s one of the issues.
Sheesh, with such eloquence and logic, it’s no wonder Democrats have the party mascot they do.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
That’s what God has to say to Feinstein about that.
December 10th, 2009 at 8:35 amShe uses the example of a baby that would not survive. Well, I have a cousin whose first baby, a girl, didn’t live for long.
December 10th, 2009 at 8:38 amHowever, they considered themselves blessed to see and hold their baby, even for just a little while.
As long as abortion is legal our taxes may be used to fund them if the government gets in the insurance business. Is it moral? People have been questioning the morality of government authority for time innumerable. In fact Jesus himself was approached with this very quandary wherein he famously replied:
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
Is it morally right for pacifist tax payers to help fund public defense?
Is it morally right for childless taxpayers to help fund public schools?
Is it morally right for pedestrian tax payers to help pay for public roads?
Is it morally right for healthy tax payers to pay for public health?
I don’t pretend to have the answers; morality is subjective. These senators’ moralities were encroached to stir up controversy. Please…, how many of us would actually pose a moral issue to a politician?
December 10th, 2009 at 1:51 pmMellish, your contention that just because something is legal government can fund it is a false one. Where in the Constitution does government have a right to fund abortion? The government is only supposed to raise revenue in order to carry out its enumerated powers. If our elected officials actually followed our guiding document gov’t there would be no thought whatsoever to funding abortion and, thus, no controversy.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:37 pmI actually agree with most of what Mellish says, other than that morality is subjective.
He is right that pacifist tax dollars should not fund public defense.
He is right that childless taxpayers should not fund public schools.
He is right that pedestrians should not fund public roads.
He is right that healthy taxpayers should not fund public health.
He is wrong though, that morality is subjective. Morality is objective – the problem is that most moralities in human history have objectively retarded man’s ability to live his life, and therefore have been bad.
Morality is a code of values for assisting a person in living his life. Whether that code advances your life or not is measurable. Whether you live or die is objective, and whether a moral code advances your life or retards your life is objective as well.
Because man survives by rational thought, and because initiating force against him negates his thought, any social system based on initiating force against peaceful people is immoral. Such a system necessarily leads to the death of individuals and the destruction of societies.
An objectively good morality is one that recognizes each and every person may take all actions necessary to sustain his own life, so long as he does not initiate force against other people.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:46 pmI simply raised the four questions; I did not offer my position. But for the record I am at polar opposites with everything Ed Mazlish has said. Subjectivity is the stuff of the mind; objectivity is the stuff of rocks and stones.
December 10th, 2009 at 3:39 pmMr. Mellish:
If you believe that subjectivity is the stuff of the mind, then you ought to excuse yourself from any further intellectual or policy discussions. After all, your view would be no more (nor less) valid than anyone else’s – so you might as well not waste anyone’s time.
By opening your mouth and arguing policy positions, you refute your own position.
I stand by what I wrote above about morality being objective. Whether you live or die is objective – therefore whether something advances life or death can be objectively categorized for moral purposes. At least, so long as morality is defined as a code of values for how to live your life.
Of course, of morality is defined as whatever a group of people say, or what God tells you to do – than of course it is not objective. Commandments can be good for your life or they can be bad for your life – though substituting other some other consciousness’ evaluation of the facts of reality for your own is never an objectively good way to advance your life, even when the commandments themselves correctly identify the facts of reality.
December 10th, 2009 at 3:57 pmOf course it is immoral to force anybody to pay for abortion. If a person can live for only a hundred days is it lawful to reduce that period to zero? Comparing abortion to road building or even war is absurd. War is horrible but it is based on the right of self defence. It is utterly foolish because it never accomplishes its stated war-aim, and so never delivers any good result. But no reason can be brought forward fot abortion.
December 10th, 2009 at 6:13 pmhi my name is ytivia taylor im 20yrs. old im a formal colledge student and im 23 weeks and i need help paying for an abortion i have a 2 yrs. old daughter and i just cant afford another child right now and you can contact me at 404-753-5057 thank you have a nice day
December 19th, 2009 at 8:45 pm