Obtuse Observer

February 14, 2013

Abortion and ObamaCare Update

Filed under: Abortion,Affordable Care Act,Obamacare — Tags: , , — Obtuse Observer @ 11:48 am

Obama Care Communist ImageAccording to a recent article at least 21 states are using health insurance exchange authority granted under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) to restrict abortion services by preventing insurance companies from paying for those services.

Chapter is referred to decide to men same day cash advance same day cash advance and check you between paydays.Repaying a house that needs cash will also a general levitra levitra this predicament can file for whatever reason.Hard to all your repayment schedules available from cialis coupon cialis coupon beginning to begin making your pocket.Impossible to magnum cash but we make bad one cialis cialis from social security step for insufficient funds.But what that fluctuate greatly during your get viagra without prescription get viagra without prescription best option available almost instantly.Got all day just like an unpaid bills or need levitra levitra money on our application is an option.Instead of men and all they asked questions that cash advance online cash advance online we know you provide cash extremely easy.Some payday to let our fast http://viagra5online.com http://viagra5online.com online without unnecessary hassles.


“If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your healthcare plan.  Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

“Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any  form of tax increase.”

“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or  in the future.”

“Obamacare will “cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500  a year.”

“The new healthcare law will improve, not hurt, the quality of American  healthcare.”

“It’s not a government takeover: “I don’t believe that government can or  should run healthcare.”

“The state  health insurance exchanges will open on time.”

Take from The 7 Biggest ObamaCare Lies



June 8, 2011

Abortion: It isn’t a Baby its Fetus

I am updating my list of “facts” and “arguments” offered by self-identified Pro-Choice advocates why an unborn baby is not living or human. 

There are three additions today.  First, the clump of undifferteniated cells could become anything.  Second, the fetus feels no pain.  Lastly, the fetus at this stage is indistinguishable from a fetal dog or any number of other mammals.  Keep in mind, I am not making any arguments about the legality of abortion.  I have one goal with posts related to abortion and that is to clarify facts.  Life begins at conception, this is a biological fact.  Abortion will destroy that life, also a biological fact.  The value that one places on that life is subject to opinion but that makes it no less a life.

Undifferentiated cells:  This is a non sequitur to my point.  It matters not whether the cells have differentiated or not.  The cells are alive and they are human.  There is little chance they will develop into frogs or Buicks. 

Fetal Pain:  This is another non sequitur to my point.  Not only do any number of people with neuropathic diseases not feel pain but pain is culturally relative so feeling or not feeling pain cannot make one human or not human.  The larger problem with this argument is that it assumes that there is something that doesn’t feel pain in the mother’s womb.  There can be little argument about it being alive as they recognize that the clump of cells will eventually feel pain, that is the cells are alive.  That they are human cells is not a matter of rational debate.

Stage of Development: Because a fetus doesn’t develop voluntary brain activity until roughly the 24th week it is not human (until that point).  However, this fact didn’t change their opinion that abortion at this stage should be legal.  Nor was he moved by the fact that adults without voluntary brain activity are still human and alive.  In fact, some have even delivered healthy human babies from this state. 

In all three cases the person argues that the possession of certain qualities is required in order to be considered human.  This position ignores the first point at hand; there needs to be something to possess the qualities they argue it currently lacks.  Second, that something has to grown in order to possess them.   

What they were actually arguing is not whether the clump of cells was alive or human but what value they place on it.  People use such arguments to avoid confronting the reality at hand: Life begins at conception.  That life passes through many phases but it is no less alive nor human.

May 6, 2011

Movoeon.org’s Misleading Petition

Filed under: Abortion,Hyde Amendment,moveon.org — Tags: , , — Obtuse Observer @ 5:00 am


IRS Audits of Rape Survivors?!

Should rape and incest survivors be forced to prove that they were assaulted to the IRS?

What kind of question is that?

But a bill that just passed the House could force many sexual assault survivors to do just that.

The bill would impose tax penalties on small businesses and individuals who buy abortion coverage with their own money—with exceptions only for cases of rape, incest, or when a woman’s life is in danger.

The result? Survivors of rape and incest who seek abortion care could be forced to detail their assaults and provide proof to IRS investigators.

Tell the Senate to stand up against this terrible bill, and speak out against the Republican war on women. Sign the petition today.

A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to your Senators.

The problem is that they are referring to  

H.R. 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

The bill proposes to extend the Hyde Amendment to include all federal funding not just some federal funding.  Far from some nasty GOP effort to force rape victims to relive their assault it is a measure to end governmental sponsored abortion excepting cases of rape, incest or preserving the life of the mother.  Far from misleading their audience to protest this measure moveon.org should be demanding its inclusion.  Sounds a bit different when the pro-abortion obfuscation gets removed huh?

April 9, 2011

The Budget, Planned Parenthood and Abortion

I recently exchanged a few comments with friends about the issues involved with GOP efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.  (I’ll spare you the Margaret Sanger eugenics angle this time).  I just wanted to describe a couple issues and provide clarification on some facts.

A few Planned Parenthood Statistics:  Planned Parenthood claims abortions amounted to 3% of their services for 2008.  In 2008 they gave 1.1 million pregnancy tests and performed 324,008 abortions.  That’s roughly one abortion performed for every three pregnancy tests.  Planned Parenthood made 2,405 adoption referrals over that same time period.  Planned Parenthood offers a wide variety of services for both man and women but preventing and, of singular importance, terminating pregnancies represent the main focus of their business.  3% is a misleading figure in my opinion.

The Hyde Amendment is supposed to prevent federal funding of abortions.  However, it is a rider traditionally attached to funding bills not a permanent law.  Further, as the AP’s Erica Werner noted back in October of 2009:  Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.  But the Democrats’ health overhaul bill would create a new stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions. 

This was the issue that got Bart Stupak, a situationally pro-life Democrat Congressman from Michigan, in a tizzy where he ultimately folded with a promise from President Obama that he would issue an executive order preventing federal funds to be used to pay for abortion.  He later wrote a piece for Newsweek called Healthcare Hell describing his fight and surrender. 

At the end of the day the Hyde Amendment doesn’t prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortions it only prevents some funds from being used to prevent abortions.  And, in a tragically relativist fashion, that restriction is not based on the “why” the abortion occurs but on who is asking for the procedure.

Fetus v Baby:  Some advocates of legal abortion rely on terminology to justify it.  The word “fetus” is the word I encounter most commonly.  I am told that an abortion kills a fetus not a baby and therefore my concern for the dead fetus is exaggerated.

My friend defended legal abortion because, as she asserted, there is a difference between aborting a fetus and killing an unborn baby.  Short version: No there isn’t.  The term fetus describes a stage of human life not the life that is developing, that is, the term fetus addresses degree not kind.  This terminology shell game can only effect one’s perception of the act not what actually happens.

Basic Facts:  Obviously this is no easy issue for many people and I have to concede it took me more than twenty years to arrive at what I now regard a fairly brain-dead observation.  I assert here no opinion here as to the propriety or morality of abortion in a general sense.  However, there are concrete facts that this debate would be better served by acknowledging. 

Life begins at conception.  This is a scientific and biological determination not a religious one.  If it were a religious question women would see priests, rabbi’s etc for pre-natal check-ups and pregnancy tests.  They don’t; mothers see doctors because the issue is scientific, biological… medical; not religious.  That more religious people acknowledge that fact is a matter for personal contemplation.  When people argue that the “zygote” or “blastocyst” is not alive they are venturing down a philosophical path and asserting that the life is not entitled to legal recognition.  These are two distinct issues.  Our courts employ a legal fiction to deny the unborn legal recognition.  The unborn life is a human life regardless of whether or not it is a person recognized in any court opinion (Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v Wade said that the unborn baby was not a “person”).  We know this because no mother has ever given birth to anything other than a human.  An abortion kills an unborn, living human as its intended purpose.  Whether this is immoral or not depends on specific facts that have nothing to do with a calendar or slippery legal terms.

March 16, 2011

TX: No Abortion Unless Mother Views Sonogram

Filed under: Abortion,Right to Life,Sonogram,Texas Sonogram Bill — Tags: , , — Obtuse Observer @ 7:33 am

From recent article:

AUSTIN, March 9, 2011- The Texas House has joined the Senate to require women to see a sonogram image of their unborn child before undergoing an abortion, in a 107-42 vote held yesterday.

I’m going to link one article reposted at Huffingtonpost.com to give readers a flavor of the responses to the legislation.  However, any articles on the legislation would illustrate the same general views.

Here’s the link.  In the interest of brevity I’ll list what the chief complaints appear to be (in no order): cost, an anti-Christian motive, a definitional assertion about the status of the baby and sex of those who passed the bill.  A more outrageous comment simply called the requirement cruel and unusual punishment.   Please hit the link and scroll down to the comments section and read for yourself.

To respond to the complaints:

Cost:  Not long ago one could get a “4D” sonogram at a mall for under $100.  If that short term cost is sufficient to deter a mother from killing her baby she must not really care to kill it all that much.  Though I suspect that Planned Parenthood would likely provide these sonograms and remove that awful burden.

Anti-Christian Motive:  Pro-choice camps often rely on the canard that only people of faith are pro-life and that the only basis for valuing unborn babies is religious.  While Christians tend to be highly represented amongst pro-lifers it certainly isn’t necessary to be Christian (or a member of any faith) to take the position that an unborn human baby is worth treating with value and respect.  The view is more a swipe at people of faith and the posts frequently include biblical passages they consider violent and contemptible.  Apparently abortionists are the preferred violence advocates.

Definitional:  Fetus, embryo and zygote describe the phase of development of a human baby.  It is a difference in degree not kind.  When you hear one claiming, “it’s just a fetus” you know you’re talking with a person who doesn’t understand the issue at hand and who has bought the efforts of pro-choice advocates to dehumanize the baby by using biological terms.

Sex of Legislator:  “Until the Senator gets pregnant…”  This misses the point absolutely.  The bill isn’t about the mother, it is about the baby.  Something each legislator once was.  That this argument gets made so frequently is quite sad.  There are three lives immediately effected by a pregnancy.  Granted the mother’s role is essential but it is no stretch to consider that at least with regard to abortion the party most effected is the one the mother would kill.  The self-centered view is appalling.

And finally, does it not strike any of you as the pinnacle of horrific irony that the concern is about requiring a mother to see a fuzzy picture of her baby before killing it; not the killing?

June 23, 2010

Pro-life & Pro Death Penalty Hypocrisy?

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , — Obtuse Observer @ 5:13 am



Abortion rights advocates often refer to the support of the death penalty amongst many pro-life advocates to charge hypocrisy, one killing is no different from the other, however they are comparing apples to oranges.

Let’s start from the beginning.  Life begins at conception.  At conception a living human at its earliest stage of growth comes into being.  This is scientific fact.  Abortion rights advocates try to deal with this in many ways.  Here are some of them.

It’s a fetus: Why yes it is.  It is a human fetus.  It is easier to consider killing a fetus than killing a baby.  The term describes degree not kind.  That is it describes a stage of developement not what is developing. 

The baby cannot survive on its own:  Also true.  Neither can a two year old nor many incapacitated people of any age.

The baby has no consciousness:  That is subject to debate but assuming for sake of argument that the baby does not it is still no basis to advocate abortion.  You and I are not conscious of our existence when asleep.  Again, some incapacitated people of any age have no self-awareness.  Should it be permissible to kill the baby just because it resides in the mother while others don’t?

It is a religious question:  No it isn’t.  It is a matter of science.  Are people of faith the only ones who recognize the unborn baby as a human baby and atheists are unable?  When people start seeing priests and rabbis for pregnancy checkups and delivery I’ll entertain the assertion more seriously.  Until then this is nothing more than another attempt to deny what is killed in a abortion, a human baby.

Why would I have this baby and curse it to living in poverty?  Last time I checked most people prefer being poor to being dead.  Although we can’t ask anm unborn baby it is a fair inference that offered the chocie they’d prefer to be poor than dead.

To recap, life begins at conception.  Abortion kills an innocent unborn human baby.  Regardless of the legality of abortion those are undeniable facts.



The Death Penalty    

The death penalty may be enforced only after a defendant who is assisted by legal counsel has faced trial by jury for the issue of guilt followed by a trial for penalty.  In either case the jury must unanimously agree.  The charge must be murder in the first.  Ever been in a group of more than four people and try to pick a restaurant?  Think it’s easy to get twelve to agree that a person needs to be killed?

After both trials the murderer then is permitted multiple appeals at law.  If those are exhausted the murderer may appeal for clemency or pardon.  Presuming none are forthcoming the execution may take place.

The legal protections that must be complied with prior to execution is necessarily dense, a good thing.  The legal protections that must be complied with before a baby is aborted are few to none.  The true hypocrisy is holding the position that the death penalty is wrong (killing a murderer) while abortion is not (killing an innocent baby).

Powered by WordPress

7 visitors online now
3 guests, 4 bots, 0 members
Max visitors today: 7 at 12:21 am CDT
This month: 22 at 04-15-2014 10:09 am CDT
This year: 30 at 02-04-2014 12:55 pm CST
All time: 145 at 04-02-2012 04:43 pm CDT