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

[Vadon]

Still doesn't change that this thread has been built on a faulty assumption that the bill that was passed today would increase funding for abortions.

Even then, I imagine there will still be some pretty strong language in the conference report. New stuff can't be added to the bill, but the differences need to be resolved between the two bills. So theoretically the conference committee could see the different language on the abortion amendments and strike both out because they're 'differences.'

The problem with this is that there are enough anti-abortion democrats along with the grand majority of republicans that when this bill would re-enter the house, it would simply be recommitted to conference and they'd have to try again. I imagine, in the end, that the report will at least say no federal funding for abortions (as it was originally drafted before the Stupak drama.)

Once they bill passes one of the houses, the other house has to take it. Then they either have to accept it or not.

I bet it will play out with less restrictive language on abortion (but still no federal funding), the house will pass it first which forces the senate to debate it. Even though this report would be open to filibuster, it would be useless because you can't amend the bill at this point or send it to conference. So it would just be a matter of time until it hits the vote, and there are enough liberal democratic senators (at least 50, when we take out Lieberman, Bayh, Nelson, etc.) that it can pass the conference report by a simple majority.

Either way, my point is that this thread is wrong from the get-go. =P

 

[Glitchfinder]

Is anyone else noticing that fact that the thread author stated this was specifically 2000 years after the birth of Christ? Aside from the fact that the specific date has never been completely settled (B.C. and A.D. were somewhat arbitrary numbers set up a long, long time ago), the fact that it is actually 2009, and not the year 2000 seems to have been completely missed. So, despite the bill (which actually helps prevent abortions) having been passed by the senate on Christmas eve, the fact that it was passed on a completely insignificant year, religiously, statistically, or organizationally kind of nullifies any and all irony that would have been there, based on the author's wording. Now, if he just specified it as being Christmas eve, I would acknowledge the potential irony. But by pulling out the completely invalid anniversary card, he lost any and all respect I may have given him, for a debate or otherwise.

As for the other arguments. Christmas eve also has to be somewhat arbitrary, date-wise. They didn't use the same calendar we do now, and that resulted in many things, like Easter being on a variable day of the year, instead of a specific date.

As for calling abortion "killing babies". That is a topic that is still hotly contested in any and every law and debate related class, club, courtroom, and governing body in the country. If you are going to call it that, pull out some reasons, be they religious, scientific, or of personal convictions. It is not a settled fact. In fact, the only abortions currently legal, in most areas, are early term abortions, or abortions where the mother might die if the baby remains.

This means that, if abortion was completely illegal, that many mothers would die, along with their babies, because they could not get an abortion. (Thus making the legality a null point, because the baby died anyway) It would also mean that we would see many more instances of things like babies being found in dumpsters, which is unarguably baby killing. You would also see a drastic increase in children up for adoption and who are simply "in the system", as well as a great deal more children who go through their lives knowing that their own mother didn't want them, thus ruining their lives and potentially the lives of others. Not only that, but you would see a great increase in the number of deaths from "back-alley" abortion clinics, where the mother goes to the black market to get rid of her unwanted baby. Now, not all of these would be potentially devastating, but there would be a significantly higher number of deaths with abortion illegal, as opposed to simply having restrictions.

Even abortion being "baby killing" is arguable, simply because there is no set date when a baby is truly alive, in the first place. Instead, there are many points during gestation that can be argued as that specific point, either through a scientific or religious perspective.

 

[mawk]

this thread would probably turn out better as a discussion of the bill itself than a series of replies to the OP, since I doubt very much that the OP intended this thread for anything other than sensationalism.

 

[rey meustrus]

The thread does not belong in Symposium. A debate on abortion might qualify, but is too heated imho. The fact is that the bill does not, will not, never did support abortion.

I am saddened and angered that such a positive, politically moderate, long-needed change to health care in America is opposed for such irrelevancies and sensationalism. And if you want to debate the merits of the bill, I would suggest starting a real topic about it.