Another PP Funding Ban goes down in Flames

[sangha]

Societies do make mistakes and Hyde made one of them. The original law was the problem as it was actually in violation of the Constitution and thus illegal. The new law was a precedent for allowing laws to stand even when they are in violation of restrictions put on Congress by the Constitution. That was the original sin.

There is no "original law" that allowed abortion. Abortion has *ALWAYS* been legal in America

If God really existed, He wouldn't allow ignorance such as yours to exist.

 

[joG]

I disagree.
I agree with the following article that the Hyde amendment violates the U.S. Constitution standards and human rights standards that recognize the government have a duty to provide individuals with the means to practice their rights.



Read more:

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...does-the-hyde-amendment-violate-human-rights/

I am not here interested in whether it is or is not a fundamental right nor whether the government should or should not..... We can discuss that at a different point. This is not a question of winning one or losing one. IT is about the stability of societies that want to be run democratically and protect minorities from the shifting and fickle majorities whim.

I was referring to the way a smart citizen would go about achieving the right. Probably the most important caveat for democratic societies it that it not allow government to break or redefine the rights of the people in a way that is prone to slippage. Allowing this is a precedent that over time easily becomes habit as one can see by the developments in the US. So, if the citizenry wants to take the protection from a group that is protected by the Constitution, it should do it the way changing the Constitution is prescribed and alter the Amendment. Introducing an easy path to bow to popular demand it intolerable and puts every citizen in danger. One does not know, what the next majority or government might think it wants. And history is full of groups that acted after your prescription to later find themselves to be unprotected criminals for things they thought were perfectly okay.

 

[joG]

Where in the Constitution does it say this? Please, please don't try and claim First Amendment here.

Say what?

 

[joG]

All individuals have the right to exercise their religious tenets. It's impossible to prevent a person from communicating with their god via prayer any place or time on this planet. Nobody will force persons who practice religions that are opposed to abortion to actually have an abortion. That's called religious "CHOICE"!

How many Catholic women do you suspect have abortions every year? How many women who claim to be conservatives who also outwardly claim to be anti-abortion have abortions annually?

But that is falling for a whole set of false arguments.
First, it makes no difference to the argument that professed Catholics act against the Church doctrine and excommunicate themselves. Using it as substantiation in this case is dishonest.
Second, it is not free exercise of Catholic religion (to stay with the example) to be forced to pay for abortion. To say that it is, is an untruth and ignores the whole logic of the case.

 

[joG]

I would love to see the formula set forth in the Constitution defining the way Congress must appropriate funds.

Congress appropriates money for a seemingly endless number of national interests, ranging from federal courts, policing, imprisonment, and national security to social programs, environmental protection, and education. No federal court has struck down a spending program on the ground that it failed to promote the general welfare. However, federal spending programs have been struck down on other constitutional grounds.

So feel free to research and share with us those spending programs that have been struck down on Constitutional grounds. You might learn something in the research process.

True. Congress might and probably has in the past and present appropriated funds in a way that was not allowed by the Constitution. To use that as an argument to ignore the Constitution in a further case is a good example why such precedent is so harmful to the legitimacy of the state and in the final analysis its well being.

 

[joG]

There is no "original law" that allowed abortion. Abortion has *ALWAYS* been legal in America

If God really existed, He wouldn't allow ignorance such as yours to exist.

You do understand that the legality of abortion has nothing to do with paying for abortion out of tax money?


PS: You might want to check out the history of abortion in the Unted States. Here is a passage from Wikipedia. I know that that is not really enough and I will gladly see counter evidence.

"Abortions became illegal by statute in Britain in 1803, and various anti-abortion statutes began to appear in the United States in the 1820s that codified or expanded common law. In 1821, a Connecticut law targeted apothecaries who sold "poisons" to women for purposes of inducing an abortion, and New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor in 1829. Some argue that the early American abortion laws were motivated not by ethical concerns about abortion but by concern about the procedure's safety. However, some legal theorists point out that this theory is inconsistent with the fact that abortion was punishable regardless of whether any harm befell the pregnant woman and the fact that many of the early laws punished not only the doctor or abortionist, but also the woman who hired them.[8]"

 

[minnie616]

But that is falling for a whole set of false arguments.
First, it makes no difference to the argument that professed Catholics act against the Church doctrine and excommunicate themselves. Using it as substantiation in this case is dishonest.
Second, it is not free exercise of Catholic religion (to stay with the example) to be forced to pay for abortion. To say that it is, is an untruth and ignores the whole logic of the case.

You cannot make the case that Catholics should not pay taxes that are used for abortions ...there are other religious groups whose tenants do not support other medical procedures that are covered by taxes such as...

The Jehovah Witnesses pay taxes that cover blood transfusions even though blood transfusions are against their religion.

Once taxes are paid , it is no longer the tax payers money... It is the governments money.

So Catholics are not paying for abortions even though the government covers them to save the woman's life and in cases of rape and incest.

 

[joG]

You cannot make the case that Catholics should not pay taxes that are used for abortions ...there are other religious groups whose tenants do not support other medical procedures that are covered by taxes such as...

The Jehovah Witnesses pay taxes that cover blood transfusions even though blood transfusions are against their religion.

Once taxes are paid , it is no longer the tax payers money... It is the governments money.

So Catholics are not paying for abortions even though the government covers them to save the woman's life and in cases of rape and incest.

There is a difference between "tenants that do not support" and an explicit ethics that explains that participation excommunicates the individual. It is okay to ask of a person to pay for procedures they themselves would be forbidden and forcing someone to pay for what her religion considers murder. I know you can see the difference, so don't disappoint me.

And yes, Catholics are paying for abortions in every case tax money is involved. And that is the problem. It is not a question of whether or not the procedures are justified. It is that Congress is not allowed to make that decision under the Constitution in its present form.

 

[year2late]

There is a difference between "tenants that do not support" and an explicit ethics that explains that participation excommunicates the individual. It is okay to ask of a person to pay for procedures they themselves would be forbidden and forcing someone to pay for what her religion considers murder. I know you can see the difference, so don't disappoint me.

And yes, Catholics are paying for abortions in every case tax money is involved. And that is the problem. It is not a question of whether or not the procedures are justified. It is that Congress is not allowed to make that decision under the Constitution in its present form.

If you actually believed that your tax money possibly going to fund an abortion would lead to excommunication or endanger your soul, you would already have stopped paying your taxes and accepted the consequences of your actions.

Or perhaps your statement was pure hyperbole.

 

[joG]

If you actually believed that your tax money possibly going to fund an abortion would lead to excommunication or endanger your soul, you would already have stopped paying your taxes and accepted the consequences of your actions.

Or perhaps your statement was pure hyperbole.

I am an agnostic, luckily. But that does non prevent me from seeing the Constitution being undermined in this point. What I find remarkable is that so many are unable to see that problems connected to their ideology nor seemingly appreciate the gravity of even the most straight forward principals of constitutions, rule of law and democratic systems' requirements.
In many cases, taking the easy way out is okayish. Regarding the circumvention of Constitutional protections of citizen rights, however, creating precedent in order to achieve a political goal is foolishness in the citizen and even severely negligent.

 

[year2late]

I am an agnostic, luckily. But that does non prevent me from seeing the Constitution being undermined in this point. What I find remarkable is that so many are unable to see that problems connected to their ideology nor seemingly appreciate the gravity of even the most straight forward principals of constitutions, rule of law and democratic systems' requirements.
In many cases, taking the easy way out is okayish. Regarding the circumvention of Constitutional protections of citizen rights, however, creating precedent in order to achieve a political goal is foolishness in the citizen and even severely negligent.

You have taken an extreme view on religion and you are agnostic?

Seriously?

Many people have serious beliefs about how a country or government is run. You do not get to pick and choose what portion of taxes you are paying.

If a person has such extreme views, they can stop paying taxes and accept the consequences of their actions with a clean conscience.

 

[joG]

You have taken an extreme view on religion and you are agnostic?

Seriously?

Many people have serious beliefs about how a country or government is run. You do not get to pick and choose what portion of taxes you are paying.

If a person has such extreme views, they can stop paying taxes and accept the consequences of their actions with a clean conscience.

That is why the First Amendment is difficult. As there is no way to opt out, Congress is hampered in many activities and government cannot fund everything that representatives might want.

 

[minnie616]

There is a difference between "tenants that do not support" and an explicit ethics that explains that participation excommunicates the individual. It is okay to ask of a person to pay for procedures they themselves would be forbidden and forcing someone to pay for what her religion considers murder. I know you can see the difference, so don't disappoint me.

And yes, Catholics are paying for abortions in every case tax money is involved. And that is the problem. It is not a question of whether or not the procedures are justified. It is that Congress is not allowed to make that decision under the Constitution in its present form.

And as I said once taxes are paid it is no longer " that persons money " ... The money belongs to the government.

 

[joG]

And as I said once taxes are paid it is no longer " that persons money " ... The money belongs to the government.

That is neither correct ethically nor politically. We are the sovereign and it is our money we are giving to have our representatives do our bidding. You cannot abdicate responsibility for the acts of your representatives and what they do with your money. That is an awful attempt at deflecting our responsibility.

 

[JayDubya]

And as I said once taxes are paid it is no longer " that persons money " ... The money belongs to the government.

Disgusting.

 

[Henrin]

And as I said once taxes are paid it is no longer " that persons money " ... The money belongs to the government.

I can't say I'm surprised by you falling back on that argument. If I'm giving someone money so they provide me with services I have a say in what services they provide.

 

[Cardinal]

I can't say I'm surprised by you falling back on that argument. If I'm giving someone money so they provide me with services I have a say in what services they provide.

Unless you live in a state with referendums, the only say you have in the services provided is in your vote for whoever you believe will create the spending policy you prefer.

 

[minnie616]

That is neither correct ethically nor politically. We are the sovereign and it is our money we are giving to have our representatives do our bidding. You cannot abdicate responsibility for the acts of your representatives and what they do with your money. That is an awful attempt at deflecting our responsibility.

I deflect my responsibility for the Iraq war.

Tax money goes for many different government programs and items.

 

[minnie616]

Unless you live in a state with referendums, the only say you have in the services provided is in your vote for whoever you believe will create the spending policy you prefer.

Exactly, we are allowed to vote for our representatives.

 

[Removable Mind]

True. Congress might and probably has in the past and present appropriated funds in a way that was not allowed by the Constitution. To use that as an argument to ignore the Constitution in a further case is a good example why such precedent is so harmful to the legitimacy of the state and in the final analysis its well being.

So no legal sources show what appropriations Congress has made that's been shot down by the Supreme Court. Lip service isn't helping your argument.

 

[Removable Mind]

But that is falling for a whole set of false arguments.
First, it makes no difference to the argument that professed Catholics act against the Church doctrine and excommunicate themselves. Using it as substantiation in this case is dishonest.
Second, it is not free exercise of Catholic religion (to stay with the example) to be forced to pay for abortion. To say that it is, is an untruth and ignores the whole logic of the case.

Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind

All individuals have the right to exercise their religious tenets. It's impossible to prevent a person from communicating with their god via prayer any place or time on this planet. Nobody will force persons who practice religions that are opposed to abortion to actually have an abortion. That's called religious "CHOICE"!

How many Catholic women do you suspect have abortions every year? How many women who claim to be conservatives who also outwardly claim to be anti-abortion have abortions annually?

I haven't made a single point that's false.

Who is being forced to go against their religion and is made to have an abortion?

 

[Scrabaholic]

There is a difference between "tenants that do not support" and an explicit ethics that explains that participation excommunicates the individual. It is okay to ask of a person to pay for procedures they themselves would be forbidden and forcing someone to pay for what her religion considers murder. I know you can see the difference, so don't disappoint me.

Abortion is publicly funded here in Canada and Catholics are not getting ex communicated over it. Paying taxes that go to something does not mean you are participating in that action.

 

[sangha]

You do understand that the legality of abortion has nothing to do with paying for abortion out of tax money?

Wrong again. The fact that it is legal has everything to do with it

PS: You might want to check out the history of abortion in the Unted States. Here is a passage from Wikipedia. I know that that is not really enough and I will gladly see counter evidence.

"Abortions became illegal by statute in Britain in 1803, and various anti-abortion statutes began to appear in the United States in the 1820s that codified or expanded common law. In 1821, a Connecticut law targeted apothecaries who sold "poisons" to women for purposes of inducing an abortion, and New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor in 1829. Some argue that the early American abortion laws were motivated not by ethical concerns about abortion but by concern about the procedure's safety. However, some legal theorists point out that this theory is inconsistent with the fact that abortion was punishable regardless of whether any harm befell the pregnant woman and the fact that many of the early laws punished not only the doctor or abortionist, but also the woman who hired them.[8]"

Your quote proves that abortion has always been legal in America.

 

[sangha]

That is neither correct ethically nor politically. We are the sovereign and it is our money we are giving to have our representatives do our bidding. You cannot abdicate responsibility for the acts of your representatives and what they do with your money. That is an awful attempt at deflecting our responsibility.

Wrong again. The govt is sovereign and it's the govts money once you pay your taxes. Also, the govt doesn't do your bidding; it does what the people have decided it will do.

 

[joG]

I deflect my responsibility for the Iraq war.

Tax money goes for many different government programs and items.

Trying the easy way out.

So what? That does not change a thing.