Mr. President....the future of American babies is in your hands!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by righteousdude2, Dec 7, 2009.

  1. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,460
    Likes Received:
    136
    Obama can show me, and the world, that he is not a "baby-killer" by vetoing any health care bill with government paid abortion as part of the health care benefit package. To not veto government paid abortion is paramount, and amounts to "mass murder!"

    For Obama to not veto this benefit would make him the first POTUS to allocate our tax dollars to "kill babies!"

    I submit that Obama, the Dem's, and the Repub's make a moral stand in the name of saving the life of every living fetus to be born in America. To vote for a health care bill that allows for paid abortions indicts every elected politician as a baby-killer. And, because the "buck stop here {with the POTUS}", Obama will make history as the first POTUS to sign an order to "kill millions of babies" before they get a chance to enter this world.:tear:

    Mr. President....the future of millions of American babies is in your hands! Do the right thing!

    Shalom,

    Pastor Paul :type:
    Remove the Haze Ministries
     
  2. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Obama agrees with you that this health bill should not be about funding abortion.

    It sounds like he will do whatever he can to remove language in the health bill that has been amended to the original that tries to turn the bill into a debate about abortion funding or restriction of abortion. The original bill was trying to keep abortion completely out of the bill but pro-life democrat Bart Stupak added an amendment that I think essentially hijacks the bill to make it about abortion.

    I agree with his principle of wanting to restricting abortions. I disagree with his method of trying to turn a health care bill into a debate about abortion.
     
  3. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem with your analysis is that the original bill included funds for abortion.

    That is why Stupak offered the amendment.

    So he could get pro-life Democrats to sign on.

    Without the Stupak amendment the bill would stalled where it was.
     
  4. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Would you care to show me where in the original bill? I would be willing to admit I am wrong if you show me instead of of just telling me.

    Here is the website. Link
     
    #4 Gold Dragon, Dec 7, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 7, 2009
  5. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the final bill allows for federal funding of abortion, the bill should be opposed. Even with as much good as health care reform will do, it is far outweighed by the unmitigated evil of elective abortion. This is something that I am not willing to compromise on.
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    I do not know that it specifically included funding for abortion. I believe Stupak was trying to close any loophole doors so it could not later be interpreted to be used for abortion. And if the demcoms are crying about it then you can know that was their intent.
     

Share This Page

Loading...