Is there irony in the Christmas Eve passing of Health Care?

[jacob]

This topic is directed towards Christians or those who can fairly analyze Christian beliefs from a non-Christian standpoint.

Christians (who make up a large percent of voting Americans) believe that the Savior came to this world 2000 years ago as a new born baby. One part of the story that most non-Christian and non-Religious people don't know is that the King actually heard rumors about this child being born and tried to stop it by having all the local new born babies killed--Jesus avoided this fate that befell so many other children.

2000 years later, the day before Christ's celebrated birth, Americans have passed a bill that will do many things--one of which will increase funding and availability of abortion; killing babies.

A little bit ironic...

 

[Ellie]

I don't think there is much irony, since abortions are far, far different from killing new born babies (which likely didn't even happen, but that's another story altogether).

I do not know much about the bill but I am fairly sure that abortion isn't the main aim - or even one of the main aims - of the bill.

 

[Brewmeister]

You're comparing apples to spanner-wrenches...

The king was eliminating 'other peoples' babies for a political purposes.

The laws in the health bill will not change the number of women who want to terminate a pregnancy. It's intention is to provide better care for those who make that choice. Right or wrong, good or bad, a woman's right to make the choice to abort is legal, and therefor a personal liberty.

 

[jacob]

I don't think there is much irony, since abortions are far, far different from killing new born babies (which likely didn't even happen, but that's another story altogether).

I do not know much about the bill but I am fairly sure that abortion isn't the main aim - or even one of the main aims - of the bill.

Your first statement can be argued, but I won't. Let me just remind you that I started my topic by addressing Christians or people who could analyze Christian beliefs and recognize the irony assuming those beliefs are true. So you make me a sad panda having deliberately done what I both a)knew would happen and b)tried to prevent.

Your second statement is true--but it is also something I recognized in my first post. This bill does many things, and one part of those many things is increase funding and availability of abortions.

 

[jacob]

The king was eliminating 'other peoples' babies for a political purposes.

Herod told the wise men to find this "Savior" child that was being spoken of and to bring it to him--he never divulged his evil intentions of killing Jesus to maintain HIS authority as King. From Matthew 2:

13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
16 ¶ Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

Why did he kill those kids of that age? Because since the wise men failed to return Jesus to him, he knew that if he killed all the other babies of that age, Jesus would have to be one of them.

 

[Guest]

;D

 

[Jason]

j fucking brist.

 

[Cryranos]

Matthew is the only record of the "slaughter of the innocents" from that time period. Other than that, there's no proof that it ever happened. Actually, Luke contradicts it, saying they uneventfully traveled back to Nazareth instead of Egypt.

I think Matthew was just trying to draw parallelism between Jesus and Moses.

 

[jacob]

Even if you choose to insist on proving whether or not the slaughter of the innocents took place, there is still the irony between abortion preventing babies from being born and the birth of (what millions believe to be) the most important baby in the history of the world.

So rather than nitpick biblical happenings (especially since you obviously aren't Christians), let's just move on to recognizing a more general irony, shall we?

 

[Cryranos]

I guess that's true.

Nitpicking never gets anyone anywhere when it comes to religion.

 

[Ellie]

If the purpose of this thread is just to point out an irony and say "oh heh I guess it is", and not to debate things, then this doesn't belong in Symposium.

 

[mawk]

if the purpose of this thread is to grandstand about a point that people have already driven to exhaustion (OH NO YOU GUYS THEY'RE KILLING BABIES OH NOOOO) then this doesn't belong anywhere.

 

[Ellie]

Is it IRONIC that EVIL SANTA is PRO-ABORTION?

 

[jacob]

Is it IRONIC that EVIL SANTA is PRO-ABORTION?

No, that's actually expected and painfully obvious.

 

[mawk]

honestly uh is this topic anything other than an anti-abortion soapbox with particularly useless and sentimental sidenotes

because if you can prove it is something else then it can stay open

otherwise it's worthless

 

[Ellie]

It would be better if you went into these threads (or rather, made these threads) with a more open mind - the Symposium is designed for two sides to debate, and well we have two sides here but one is not willing to debate You're welcome to your opinions but so is everyone else. We could have had a good topic there.

 

[mawk]

wait is that to me or jacob

 

[Ellie]

Jacob.

 

[Vadon]

Wait, huh, what?

Where are you getting this information about the bill?

If you're looking at the House bill (which I'm assuming you're not, being as it was passed weeks ago) it had the Stupak amendment which actually decreases the availability of abortions by making it illegal for any insurance plan in the new market to cover abortions. This includes people using their own money to pay for the abortion. Given that there is the mandate for health care coverage, it will force people into health insurance and if they're in the new market, they'll have to take a plan which doesn't cover abortion at all. (But you can still get Viagra! :biggrin: )

If you're talking about the Senate health care bill, it has a similar measure but demands that the state choose whether or not to ban abortion coverage in the new market. Even if the person chooses a plan in the new market, no federal dollars will be spent on abortion, it would come straight from private funds. (Either the individuals or through assistance from non-government organizations like planned parenthood.)

So um... yeah, where are you getting this stuff?

 

[nikki]

If you had been paying attention, you would know that the non abortion funding language is almost certain to be removed before the bill makes it back to congress.