moreluck
golden ticket member
Monday, February 13, 2012 @ 10:06 pm | [h=2]Dem Rep. Jan Schakowsky: No Americans Actually Follow Their Christian Faith…[/h]
A question arises from the recent controversy between President Obama and the Catholic Church that aches for an answer: If Catholic institutions have a right to abstain from paying for what morally offends them, why don’t the rest of us?
| Thursday, February 16, 2012 @ 7:13 pm |
Planned Parenthood: 51% of Its Clinics Income Comes From Abortions, 46% From Government Funding…
Until someone proves otherwise, yes.And you actually trust the info put out by a web site named "Wezzel Zippers"?
The more I think about it, the more I am sure the Obama administration is going to win this. If health insurance is part of a compensation package, the employer's dictates end once the employee receives them. Can the church dictate that money paid to it's workers not be spent on pornography because the church finds it contrary to it's teachings? Can the church dictate that a vacation taken by it's employees not include gambling and "houses of ill repute" while in Nevada? Can a retiree from the church be prohibitted from moving to Amsterdam to take advantage of it's ultra-liberal drug laws? It is clear that the answer to each should clearly be "no" and thus it is clear that health insurance as part of a compensation package is not subject to the moral objections of the employer no matter how strongly believed, felt, or expressed.So if health insurance is part of compensation and the church can say "we will make it impossible for you to use it for contraception," can they also mandate that none of the compensation they pay out is used for the purchase of pornography?
Weekly Standard is the source.............but it's probably a total fabrication....go check it out, Shirley!
| Wednesday, February 22, 2012 @ 1:08 pm |
Study: 99% Of Abortion Clinics Perform Ultrasounds Prior To Performing An Abortion…
There is also a big difference between a doctor requiring an ultrasound for the benefit of the medical team performing the procedure to ensure that there are no complications, and bunch of male politicians ordering women to undergo an ultrasound as part of an attempt to shame and intimidate them out of doing something that the male politicians don't approve of.The vast majority of these ultrasounds are done on the abdomen and do not require penetration of the vagina. It is these ultrasounds that are the heart of the debate.
ABSTRACT
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not
have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing
that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the
same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that
both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3)
adoption is not always in the best interest of actual
people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth
abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all
the cases where abortion is, including cases where the
newborn is not disabled.
There is also a big difference between a doctor requiring an ultrasound for the benefit of the medical team performing the procedure to ensure that there are no complications, and bunch of male politicians ordering women to undergo an ultrasound as part of an attempt to shame and intimidate them out of doing something that the male politicians don't approve of.