Well said. I have thought the same thing - are women just receptacles for babies? Then even the female babies just grow up to be receptacles for more babies and therefore only male babies grow up to be persons. I find all this hard to reconcile with the New Testament of helping the poor and the helpless. This exclusive concentration on sex and denying women agency over their bodies and lives seems to me to reveal more about the patriarchal and sex obsessed people who seem to reside in the more conservative (weird?) churches and political parties than it does any message of Christianity.

Half of all pregnancies in the USA are unplanned. Half those unplanned pregnancies are terminated by medical abortion.

The notion of personhood for a foetus, before it able to be 'sentient', is a false notion.

I disagree, the State should never be able to force religious people to participate in terminating human life, which is what the HHS ruling would do, as understood by Catholics.

Since when has it been an acceptable view that tax payers must fund a woman's sexual habits. What does society get out of a given female sleeping with men of poor quality?

and of course the right for the child not to be slaughtered comes last. Just use pseudo science to hide the obvious fact that this is a human being we are talking about. Naming it a foetus does not change the plain truth. And the secularist claim rationality. How deceitful. If you agree with a women's right to kill her child call it that. Blathering on about the very small percentage of abortions due to rape really is the deceitful diguise the feminist of the 60's and 70's used to obscure the fact that they want the right to have sex with whomever and take no responsiblity. Moral relativism is one of secularisms dogmas. Just rename things and give it a 'scientific ' justification.

progressive?pat,
All they are doing is using govt funding to encourage all organisations (who receive govt funding) to provide services for the people who are entitled to those services and who want them (religious people, often).

Speaking of men of "poor quality", it is a well known fact that catholic priests and even bishops have impregnated naive susceptible women, and even arranged for abortions too.

Then of course there is the case of the hundreds of "high quality" catholic priests who were involved in various forms of sexual child abuse, including of course rape. To say nothing of the systematic INSTITUTIONALIZED brutality towards countless thousands of children all over the world.

Plus we all know how the "high quality" members of the catholic hierarchy, including the power-brokers in Rome, covered all of this up

A good essay. Alternet features several essays on this topic.

Progressive Pat <"I disagree, the State should never be able to force religious people to participate in terminating human life, which is what the HHS ruling would do, as understood by Catholics."

I hated having to hold down Jewish babies (and any other baby) while they had their foreskins cut off without the use of anaesthetic ... all in the name of religion.
I had to hold my tongue when delivering babies of women who had had their genitals mutilated according to their religious/paternalistic customs.

I also didn't like being in theatre when terminations were attended, even though I was not religious.
Nobody likes to do this.

However, I knew what was expected of me when I became a nurse, as we had to agree to attend to the needs of ALL people, regardless of race, colour, gender, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity.

If you are unable to agree to attend to ALL the legal healthcare needs of ALL patients, then you should not choose a medical profession as a career, or you should choose to work at a religious hospital that does not carry out abortions.

Jocelynne, you say, “Thus at every stage of her reproductive cycle the woman’s right to personhood is, it seems, to be subjugated to ‘rights’ of reproductive material which is part of her own body”.

Clearly you disagree with this, so that means you must hold that the full-term child, moments before birth is just “reproductive material” and that if the mother should choose to end the child’s life at that point that should be permissible and unproblematic.

Incredible.

Thankfully, the Republican Party in the USA is playing the lowest denominator card in its pre-selection games. When a contender is finally picked it will then move away from the hard-line abortion stance and attempt to attract the more moderate voter.

This is and has been their modus operandi for a while. The people running the Rep Party know that beating (attempting to) Barrack Obama will not happen with the antiquated views being expressed presently. The Rep Party may be laced with lashings of stupidity but not that much.

Abortion is seen by the ‘pro-life’ camp as a moral bad. They would force this position onto all women.

Abortion is seen by the pro-choice camp as morally neutral. They are allowing women to make the choice.

As there are two distinct ways of viewing abortion, claiming moral authority on one way by force is arrogance leading to the distortion of democracy.

‘Pro-lifers are actually calling everyone who does not agree with their views, without justification, stupid.

If ‘pro-lifers’ cannot prove the existence of this particular god and they cannot, they have no right to impose their present-day arbitrary interpretation of what they think it wants and allow the effects of this delusion to impact negatively on others.

It really is simple. If you don’t want to have an abortion, then don’t.

David

@ David, I think arguing for the protection of the most innocent is an example of the best in us and is a winning stance in the general election. The tide has turned, conservatives have started investigating organisations like Planned Parenthood and revealing to the public the disregard they have for the unborn, turning off many independents.

Also, gay marriage has been rejected 31 out of 31 times it has been put to a vote in US states - including liberal bastions California and Maine. Supporting traditional marriage is a winner for republicans.

Republicans lose votes when they talk about cutting medicare and other handout programs, even if it is necessary to prevent Greek-style riots from occurring in a few years. The GOP don't lose on social issues as their values are intrinsically beneficial to society.

For example, the liberal republican Goldwater gets annihilated by Johnson winning 6 of the 50 states, and the social conservative Reagan wins 49 of the 50 States.

@progressive pat,

You are missing the point. It doesn’t matter the split in those for or against abortion, what does matter is the forcing of one view onto others.

If one concedes that abortion should be illegal, then, they are forcing women to seek illegal means because history is very clear that abortion will still happen. This is not a justification, it is a real consequence.

If one is going to force women to not have an abortion the grounds have to be empirically justified. They are not. Emotional grounds, because abortion has no precedent in human behaviour is not good enough reason. It is saying, ‘I know better than you’, when that only pertains to you.

Would you vote for abortion to be illegal?

And if the answer is yes, could you answer the questions I posed for runner here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13262#229234

David

>"liberal republican Goldwater"

I think that would be an idiosyncratic view of Goldwater's politics, to say the least...

*The GOP don't lose on social issues as their values are intrinsically beneficial to society.*

Oh yeah, Hallelujah lol. Deny kids proper sex education, just
make them sign a pledge. Next, if they make a mistake, which
is common amongst teenagers, they land up pregnant, no education,
no job, pretty well destitute, trying to raise the kid without
money to do so. Yet another statistic in the slums.

How this is "intrinsically beneficial" to society, you will
have to explain.

Let's face it. Santorum, Romney and Gingrich a like the three stooges. God help us(oops!)if one of them gets in as president. That will encourage all the cookoo's here to get on the bandwagon. Rev Nile will rejoice, halaleulah! If it wasnt so serious, it would be hilarious.

Once again, Jocelynne shows an ideologue’s incapacity to understand a different point of view.

IF a foetus is a person, it has all the rights and is entitled to all the protections of a person. It is no more tenable to kill a foetus than a child. The child’s rights are not contingent, so even a child who is a product of rape has a right to live. And if the welfare of a mother is threatened by her pregnancy, the interests of both must be taken into account when medical procedures are considered. The child’s personhood does not bring women’s personhood into question, but it does raise questions about the extent to which the mother’s personhood should be prioritised over the child’s.

Jocelynne’s main arguments against the personhood of the foetus are arguments from consequences, and logically unsound. The personhood of the child threatens the autonomy of the mother; medical treatment to protect the child could harm the mother; certain contraceptive techniques could be rendered illegal or at least considered immoral if they destroy a foetus. These may all be true, and all be undesirable, but if a foetus really is fully a person then they are inescapable moral quandaries.

In fact, I do not agree that a foetus is a “person”. Personhood is bound up in self-awareness, the capacity to survive independently, the ability to think and feel and love and know one has a future and a past. It has no clear beginning, and that inevitably makes arguments about abortion complex and imprecise. In my view, this is reflected in our reluctance to endorse late-term abortions except when medically necessary, and almost universal rejection of utilitarian ethicist Peter Singer’s contention that it can be morally acceptable to kill an infant if it is in the interests of the parents.

So while I am pro-choice, I also respect and try to understand the strong moral sense that leads others to take a different view.

I agree Rhian.
I am not sure if I could ever have an abortion myself, but I would not presume to make a decision about abortion for someone else.

Aside from the argument about whether a foetus is a 'person' or not, just how would anti-abortion advocates suggest we should 'enforce' an illegal abortion law?

Would we tie the pregnant woman to a bed until she delivers her baby, so she can't 'escape' and secure an illegal abortion?
I have no doubt that some very religious men would be comfortable with this...

Would we force a mentally or physically ill woman to go to term if it threatened her life, or would that just happen with 'well' women?
So, forcing a woman who is well able to think for herself to do something she is passionately against is ok then?

Do we really want to go back to the 'good-ol-Godfearing-days' when women accepted any pregnancy as 'given to them as a gift from God', no matter how many she already has, or whether she can feed them all or not?
Because if we allow the mainly male parliament to take away a woman's right to choose abortion or not, you can be sure contraception will be next...

No matter which way the religious try to distort the language,
a zygote is not a person. A person has a human brain, a zygote/fetus
does not. No functioning human brain = no person, deal with it.

Whether the right-to-lifers are GOP presidential candidates, Fred Nile, or picketers harassing women outside clinics, I have come to the conclusion that concern for the fetus is not actually their real concern at all. After all, why are they getting so worked up over a non-sentient being when what is actually at stake is the well-being and freedom of the woman who has experienced an unplanned pregnancy?

What I have come to witness for myself is that they are driven by a deep seated disdain for women. They perceive that these women are breaking free of the constraints imposed by the male controlled, conservative, religious society of the not too distant past. Allowing a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, or to allow her to use contraception is just one step closer to their loss of control over the lives of women. Even women who identify as right-to-lifers are themselves, ignorant of the personal situations that confront patients seeking an abortion. Countless stories exist of female right-to-lifers presenting to a termination clinic and declaring that their situation is different to those other women in the waiting room. (Abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest and me)

Unfortunately, while modern society has made some progress in affording women equal opportunity, social conservatives are fighting back in the US by doing all in their power to deny women access to safe abortion and now contraception is on the agenda. If they succeed in their quest, equal opportunity for women will be greatly diminished.

Confiscate all church property without compensation. Put on trial church leadership and others for their crimes against humanity and crimes against the individual. Turn over church property to public use. Use confiscated church money to compensate those abused by clergy as well as educating those that have been held in ignorance by religions. When I say churches I also include temples, mosques meeting house or any other property where superstition and mumbo-jumbo is being tough.

@ Paul1405, Stalin.....is that you.....Joey....

If we scientifically measure when life begins, it will show that life begins at conception. Any other determination is faith based.

progressive pat

you write

'If we scientifically measure when life begins, it will show that life begins at conception. Any other determination is faith based.'

Actually also dogma based. How dare we expect humans to behave with any morality. Don't forget pseudo science is always used to justify their godless and totally unrational positions.

"If we scientifically measure when life begins"

Well if you want to bring science into it Pat, first define "life".

Killing is killing. All cells are "alive". Society has agreed that some groups of cells are more valuable than others. Losing a child is worse than losing a leg. So there are characteristics that these groups of cells possess that determine their value. What are these? Lets debate the science, but leave out the moral/religious BS.

My understanding about current objections to 'Obamacare' and the instances cited in the linked NYT article are really not about contraception or abortion. These matters are not (currently) up for grabs.
They are about who pays for/facilitates them. Employers will (again, as I understand it) be compelled by federal law to provide health insurance coverage that MUST include contraceptives.
This means that the Catholic Church - for example - will need to pay for its workers at its schools/hospitals/aged centres/social work to get the pill and other reproductive health materials.
So it is clear - it compels them to pay for services they consider a moral wrong.
Is it a clear attack on religious liberty? You bet.
Even if you accept that contraception is an individual's choice (as I do), surely you can accept the problems with forcing someone to pay for someone else's sexual health choices?

"So it is clear - it compels them to pay for services they consider a moral wrong."

I think it's worth noting that the tax system already does this for a lot of people.

Those opposed to war are required to fund war, those opposed to abortion pay taxes which help fund abortions. A large number of people find themselves paying taxes some of which goes to funding things that they may be strongly opposed to (or consider abhorrent).

R0bert

To define the provision of human contraception and abortion services as health care, is plainly disingenuous. Yet defining them as health care is the devious rationale used for getting governments to fund those services. As a taxpayer I find it galling that I have to indirectly subsidise the behaviour of those who seek those services, services that involve the killing of innocent babies.

In this age where people just think of their selfish selves, it is fitting that those people take full responsibility for their actions and pay for provision of those services.

I agree with your point R0bert - but the tax system is considerably less direct than health insurance.
Everyone pays taxes, they go into a common pool (Consolidated Revenue) and are then apportioned out to various programs where the taxes are spent. There is a real disconnect between the tax you pay and what it eventually gets spent on.
As I understand it here the employer pays an insurance company which must provide certain health services - including the repugnant ones. Presumably as the employer you know precisely what you are paying for - much more direct.

*To define the provision of human contraception and abortion services as health care, is plainly disingenuous*

Not really, Raycom, because it is all part of healthcare. When a
woman wants advice about various contraception and how it fits in
with her lifestyle and health, she goes to see her doctor. The
doctor generally knows her health background, other drugs she might
be taking, etc. The doctor might suggest a tubal litigation. The
doctor might issue a script for the pill. The doctor might suggest
a long term injection. All these are matters of health and to deny
that is plainly disingenuous.

There is another difference between paying taxes (to fund war etc against our will) and providing health insurance.

"Employers will (again, as I understand it) be compelled by federal law to provide health insurance coverage that MUST include contraceptives."

The key word here is "employers". If the Church chooses to be an employer, then they must follow the law. It has every right to say, 'these laws contradict my beliefs' but this means that either they must change their beliefs, or not be an employer. It does not mean we much change the law.

Think of it this way. If an islamic hospital were to open, would we be inclined to change our laws to allow them to perform procedures inline with their beliefs? I think not. So why would we change the law to pander to another religious minority?

I'm sorry, but I still don't see a problem with all US employers providing the same healthcare insurance to their employees as any other employer.

If a radical Christian (or any other contraception or abortion objector) is an employee who is offered the same healthcare insurance as anyone else, it doesn't make it mandatory for them to USE contraceptives or have an abortion does it?

At the end of the day, all health insurance payers pay indirectly for health conditions that we don't have, or that we are unlikely to have.

For example, young people pay insurance premiums that help support the hip replacements in the elderly,
while the elderly pay health insurance that helps pay for younger women accessing pregnancy and labour services.

There is no difference really.

progressive pat, I am not Stalin. Are you God?
Forget all that! I've had a spiritual transformation. Just the other day, there I was watching Romper Room with Miss Patsy when there was a knock on the door. There stood 2 Jehovah Witnesses they said to me "Jesus is coming." With that I rushed out into the street, could not see anyone except Fred Wilson at number 17 screaming "Jesus bloody Christ." over his old lawnmower which would not start I said "Fred have you seen Jesus?" Fred said "No, if he was here I'd get him to start this old mower, it would be a bloody miracle." With that Fred gave one mighty tug on the rope and the mower burst into life. The 2 Joh-hoes proclaimed "A miracle, the Lord hath spoken." They fell down at the feet of Fred. Now we all pray at the Temple of the Holy Mower, formally the Wilson's house. God now speaks to us through Bishop Fred and Sister Beryl (Freds Misses). I'm working extra overtime at the Stink Works as God has spoken to us through Bishop Fred, saying the Church needed a new car, Bishop Fred's 89 Ford Cortina has to go, God suggested an Aston Martin and a Ferruie Sports for Sister Beryl. God has also told Bishop Fred he must make a pilgrimage to The Palace of Ceasar in Las Vegas and make monetary offering at the Alter of Cards there, Bishop Fred said it should take about a month and a 100 grand should cover it, any donations are welcome. continued.

I know a few of you will be sceptical about all this, I was to until Bishop Fred worked a second mirical. Sid from number 10 came out with his TV, he said "Holy One, my TV is possessed by demons." Bishop Fred asked "What is the problem my son?". Sid " The telly is stuck on the ABC, must be possessed by demons." With that Bishop Fred took the remote control into the Temple and a short time later came out holding 2 small tubes with the word 'Eveready' on them Bishop Fred proclaimed he has cast out the evil spirits contains in these tubes and replaced them with tubes of angles. Now Sid can watch quality TV like "The Fattest Blimp' and 'Who's Mums a Prostitute' without having to watch any ABC rubbish. If anyone wants to donate please make cheques payable to The Church of the Holy Mower Incorporated or donations can be paid directly into Bishop Fred's personal Swiss bank account. As God said in Cyril chapter 19 verse 7 "Notes not coins."

Whether under the health care umbrella or not, it is disingenuous to treat sexual intercourse and pregnancy as diseases.

*it is disingenuous to treat sexual intercourse and pregnancy as diseases*

Sorry Raycom, but they both involve peoples health, so are part of
health care, no matter which way that the religious try to twist
things.

at the end of the day the left will push strongly to promote anything that sexualises children, creates an environment where immorality is the norm or anything that helps them feel comfortable in their own immorality. That is why they put on such self righteousness when it comes to the environment. Usually it is just a mask. Next it will be condoms in schools and now they want porn education for kids (just to make sure any that have not been introduced will be). Bit by bit they want State sanctioned moral relativism with anyone standing against it being the bad guy.

When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, was that covered by 'Medicare'?
My advice to woman when subjected to sexual intercourse is straight from Queen Victoria "Lay there and think of Mother England." She had about 10 kids must have thought of "Mother England" many times. If sex is a disease is it bulk billed by Medicare, and where do I make a claim?

Stezza (and others) I understand your point that employers should not be granted special exemptions based on their religion - but you must appreciate the choice this places Churches in.
They are compelled then by law to either:
1. Pay for services they doctrinally cannot accept - either in the participation or facilitation, or
2. Withdraw from health, education, aged care, social welfare and other spheres altogether, where they cannot staff these endeavours purely on a volunteer/non-employee basis.
These appear to me to be the only moral choices available to them (short, perhaps, of doctrinal change).
The outcome could be the sale/close of all Catholic schools, hospitals etc. While some might think this a good thing you must accept it would be a massive upheaval and one which would have major repercussions.

JS Mill
how is this different from everyday Catholics whose taxes and medicare levies support abortion and birth control; quakers whose taxes pay for the armed services; vegetarians whose taxes support AQIS inspections of live animal exports; philistines whose taxes support the arts and culture ...

Rhian,

It's not different at all in principle. The things you mentioned are just further removed in the conscious chain of compulsion.

J S Mill, you are correct.

Option 2 should be chosen and any charity work provided should be on a volunteer basis. Like all change it needs to be a slow and gradual process. I believe the church should not be involved in health or education for the exact reasons we are debating this.

J S Mill you say "(Religions) Withdraw from health, education, aged care, social welfare and other spheres.....sale/close of all Catholic (and others) schools, hospitals etc." Stupid irresponsible governments of all persuasions have allowed these parasitic churches to infiltrate various stratum of society, setting up their own institutions with the purpose of peddling their particular social values and at the same time enhancing the churches power and control over society, eg just take a look at America where the 'bible bashers' control all levels of government, with their continual references to god, such tripe as "god is on our side" to justify criminal action (Afghanistan Iraq the list goes on). We in Australia claim to be a secular society, so lets be one, we should not be held to ransom by the religious, kick the parasites out, take over the institutions they control for the good of society. As for compensation, they can pray for it.

Paul - 'take over the institutions'... by the rest of your post I assume you mean it is the government that should take over the schools/hospitals/op shops/aged care/homeless shelters etc.
And I infer from your post you believe that this is something they should have done long ago.
I suppose that means that you believe there is no place for religious altruism, only humanist?
I guess that also means that you believe government would operate these services as well as - or perhaps better than - the religious?
If so, why haven't they? Because it has been saving them millions for years now - the cost of completely disbanding social services provided by the churches would certainly run into the millions - how do you think 'the government' will pay for that Paul?
Lastly, unfortunately for you 'the government' is bound by law. If the Feds want to take over these institutions they will have to do it in accordance with s 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution.

http://www.ccfmtn.org/leave-legacy.htm

Sheesh, I love that Catholic line:

"Convert earthly treasures to heavenly ones"

I guess they are now convincing them that they can take it with them!

Legacies would be a huge income spinner for the church. So they
have plenty of capital to build hospitals etc. Perhaps if we taxed
church income, we could use the money to build more none religious
institutions for everyone.

J S Mill, "I (you0 suppose that means that you (me) believe there is no place for religious altruism, only humanist?" To put it bluntly yes kick the parasites out. If that means there is only room for humanist so be it.
"that you (I) believe government would operate these services as well as - or perhaps better than - the religious? Since the religious only operate these services to peddle their own brand of 'mumbo-jumbo'. Anyone including government operating the same services minus the religious 'mumbo-jumbo' would naturally be operating the services better, stands to reason.
"the cost of completely disbanding social services provided by the churches would certainly run into the millions - how do you think 'the government' will pay for that Paul?" The social services previously provided by the churches would continue to operate, minus the churches. No church, therefore no one to compensate, compensation problem solved. There maybe some small cost in re-education and or replacement of some staff as to the new methods of operation. Some may not be willing or able to comply with the new system of operation, unfortunately for them they will have to be 'let go'. Others once relising the consequences of being 'let go' will quickly comply. On the practical side there would be some small costs in renaming etc, eg 'Saint Piddling's' will be renamed 'The New School of Enlightenment' Possibly some minor dislocation costs as objections are dealt with.
"Lastly, unfortunately for you 'the government' is bound by law. If the Feds want to take over these institutions they will have to do it in accordance with s 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution." New law all fixed. All objections and problems can be dealt with in the proper manor.

“For Santorum, Gingrich and their cohort…” – author.

Well, I suppose it’s hard not to let emotions run over an issue like this.

Another pro-abortion article based on the right of an ideologue to let the tail wag the dog. The unborn are not part of the human race because on the very slight occasion (she doesn’t even state an example) the baby may pose medical risk to the mother; the unborn are not part of the human race because on the very slight occasion a girl/women is impregnated during rape.

[As an aside – incest victims may often want to cling to their pregnancy as it confirms the abuse to which they have been subjected, leading to an escape from their situation, not to mention and object to which they can release true affection.]

Another pro-abortion article that attempts to cloud the issue in religion. Religion does not need to be invoked to see that a kid in the womb is real and human. Anyone can see that on an ultrasound. That’s science, not religion.

This article drones on and on near the start about ‘equality’. Yet it’s has come to light in various places including Britain that women are choosing abortions for cultural reasons based on the sex of the child. Usually it’s because the sex is female. In such cases, the inequality and injustice is clearly seen – by women and men – and suddenly the foetus becomes part of the human family again.