Administration: We Can Force You to Cooperate in Killing Your Grandchild

Question: Does the Obama administration claim the right to force Americans to cooperate in killing their own grandchildren? Answer: Yes.

On the face of it, this seems like an outrageous claim. But it is true. The outrage is what the government is demanding Americans do.

The Affordable Care Act -- aka Obamacare -- includes a "requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage." The main part of this "requirement" says: "An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month."

The IRS has explained: "The provision applies to individuals of all ages, including children. The adult or married couple who can claim a child or another individual as a dependent for federal income tax purposes is responsible for making the [penalty] payment if the dependent does not have coverage or an exemption."

The Affordable Care Act says: "A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for ... with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings ... as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration."

These comprehensive guidelines mandate copay free coverage for: "All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says women attain reproductive capacity between ages 12 and 13.

Bottom line: Parents must buy health insurance for their dependent children that, without copay, covers all FDA-approved "contraceptive methods" for all women who can conceive a child.

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit issued its opinion in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, it said: "Four of the twenty [FDA-]approved methods -- two types of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the emergency contraceptives commonly known as Plan B and Ella -- can function by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg."

The court said in a footnote: "Both the government and the medical amici supporting the government concede that at least some of the contraceptive methods to which the plaintiffs object have the potential to prevent uterine implantation."

When the Obama administration petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the Hobby Lobby case, it said in its petition: "An IUD is a device inserted into the uterus by a physician that ... 'may prevent the egg from attaching (implanting) in the womb (uterus).'"

"Plan B, an emergency contraceptive," the administration told the court, "is a pill that ... may also work ... by preventing attachment (implantation) to the womb (uterus).'"

"Ella, another emergency contraceptive," the administration told the court, "'may also work by changing the lining of the womb (uterus) that may prevent attachment (implantation).'"

The federal government's National Library of Medicine -- a part of the National Institutes of Health -- maintains a Web page entitled, "Fetal Health and Development." It links to a publication of The American Academy of Family Physicians, which is entitled, "Your Baby's Development: The First Trimester."

The first question on this fact sheet: "When does pregnancy begin?" The answer: "Pregnancy begins when a sperm fertilizes a woman's egg."

The second question: "What happens after the sperm fertilizes the egg?" The answer: "After conception, your baby begins a period of dramatic change known as the embryonic stage."

In 2012, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued an opinion advocating IUD or hormonal implants for teenage girls.

"In 21 states, all teenagers can get contraceptives without parental permission, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks laws affecting women's health," said an Associated Press report on the ACOG opinion.

"The IUD and implant cost hundreds of dollars," said the report. "The new health reform law requires health insurance plans to cover birth control without copayments."

And it requires moms and dads to buy insurance for their own teenage children that will pay to kill a fertilized egg -- or, as The American Academy of Family Physicians calls it, a baby.

For Pete’s sake, will you step back for a minute and look at your behavior? You aren’t acting very Christian. Furthermore, if you are truly pro-life—which I am beginning to doubt is your primary concern—you *must* be cognitive of the fact that the laws and attitudes towards abortion will never change based on someone’s religious opinion on what is a human *being*. You also won’t make much headway by calling people names and engaging in generally harassive behavior.

A major problem with using religious/philosophical criteria for trying to define a question best left to science is that there is no consistency in religious or philosophical views. Why should *your* opinion of the definition of a soul take precedence over the opinion of someone of a different religious faith? Assuming (which I don’t) that it is perfectly reasonable and valid to disregard actual observable and measurable physical characteristics, then why should *your* opinion of when a soul appears take precedence over the opinion of someone who believes that a soul does not appear until “quickening”, until the draw of the first breath, or until some other completely arbitrary point?

The beauty of science is that it is based on objective observation and is NOT subject to individual opinion. As I have already explained multiple times, the neural tube starts to fold during the 3rd week post-conception. Between weeks 3 and 5, the cells within that fold differentiate to form the brain and spinal cord. Since cells exhibit the behavior of their tissue-type as soon as they differentiate, it is reasonable to assume that these brain cells function as brain cells, communicating with each other and with the rest of the organism. We know, through a large body of research, that consciousness/the sense of self/personhood are manifested through brain activity, and that none of those exist in the absence of brain activity (hence, why thousands of people a day are declared dead on the basis of complete loss of brain function). We also know that of all the cell types that form the body, only the nervous system cells are permanent. Every other cell type dies and is replaced by newly differentiated cells originating from the body’s reservoirs of undifferentiated cells maintained for that purpose, on a regular basis. The durability of the nervous system tissues further supports the idea that a human life should be given legal protection once those tissues start to form, about 3 weeks after conception. While there is no reason to think that the level of awareness of a brain containing a handful of cells is anywhere close to that of a fetus of, e.g., 8 or 9 weeks, the consciousness continually grows in complexity and so there is no point at which one can say it is morally acceptable to snuff it out once it can be reasonably assumed to exist according to scientific objective criteria. Long story short, there is simply no basis for condemning the use of contraceptives, and your abusive behavior cannot change that fact.

I’ve already said this (and you did not even try to address it), but here it is again. Philosophically, there are many problems with the belief that conception—causes a soul to exist?—pulls a soul out of the ether? First, most fertilized ova don’t grow, don’t implant, or cease growing soon after implantation; only about 10 to 15% of them have the potential to form a fetus. Second, twins or even triplets can grow from a single fertilized ovum. Third, sometimes two zygotes fuse and go on to become one fetus with two genomes. Fourth, it is theoretically possible (and soon will be practicably possible) to induce embryogenesis from differentiated cells derived from a post-birth human. These facts all cause considerable difficulties for the “one conception one soul” paradigm. By that paradigm, you could ethically justify killing the “extras” for spare parts because they have no souls. Scientifically, there is no question about the personhood in any of these cases—one functional brain equals one person, regardless of the path embryogenesis took.

BTW, nice straw man you threw in about the utilitarian stuff.

"You aren’t acting very Christian." Coming from an exposed liar like you, it is to LOL. You haven't a clue regarding The Grace Of God in Christ, as evidenced by your continuing denial of the life of embryonic aged human beings as just 'undifferentiated cells' and 'unable to have consciousness' ... consciousness as defined by the dead souls like you who want to utilize the body parts of these embryonic aged humans. But the zeitspittle for dead soul leftists like you seems to be your little accusation not acting Christian if we do not tolerate your lies and satanic agenda.

As you have seen, I am one Christian who will not tolerate your lies and deceptions, so accuse all you want, liar. And there are lots of Christians just like me at FR who have not commented on your lies and deceptions because little old me has exposed you sufficiently.

The beauty of science is that it is based on objective observation and is NOT subject to individual opinion.
__________________________________________

and yet without knowing any modern science King David gave us his “individual opinion 3,000 years ago when he said “when I was knitted together in secret in my mother’s womb.. Psalm 139:15

IOW before his mother ever knew she was pregnant, before she realized she had “missed” a period, God knew David was a baby with a beating heart and was formed into a living human..regardless of the stage..

human from the moment of conception, living from the moment the sperm penetrated the egg..a living creation of God..

But well that would have to be just David’s vivid imagination ...what would an uneducated shepherd boy know..

Now if David had been “using religious/philosophical criteria for trying to define a question best left to science” as you claim..

how on Earth did he guess what science would have to wait 3,000 years to tell us ???

and he did it without a microscope ...

BTW this was one of my arguments back in the 70s with you anti-lifers ...

I was an active pro-lifer before being pro-life was cool..

David knew that the baby was a baby...

and mentioned that fact in Psalms etc..

its well documented that modern science was not needed to know the baby was a living sole from conception..

take Elizabeth and Mary...Luke 1:26-44

Elizabeth was 6 months pregnant with her son, John ..

Mary just newly pregnant with her son, Jesus..she had “hurried” to see Elizabeth right after the angel told her she would be pregnant and that Elizabeth was pregnant..

it was the same day or the next day or the same week...Jesus was still a secret..Mary hadn’t “missed” a period as yet...

Both John and Jesus already had spirits and a way of communication in the Spirit..

John heard the voice of Mary speaking to Elizabeth and he leaped for joy..and Elizabeth was filled with Holy Spirit

In the Spirit Elizabeth knew why the unborn-as-yet John leaped..

She said it was because Mary was pregnant with Jesus her Lord...

Oh dear..unborn babies have spirits just like born humans..

bang goes that unBiblical theory of pagan Mormons and others that human babies do not get a spirit until birth so go ahead and abort them..

anyhoo...

just what was that all about ???

Im sure you will apprise igit us with some so called scientific goody to refute the superstitions of the uneducated Elizabeth and Mary...

after all they lived 2,000 years ago...

2 millennium before your scientists..

I do not mock Christians or Christian belief, and avoid bringing religion into scientific discussions.

You know, it is really very difficult to separate the one from the other. Something is either true... or it isn't. True science and true religion don't differ in truth. A very compelling can be made they merge in a Biblical world-view.

But I fear you are missing the big point. Whether you believe an embryo is a child at the earliest stage is not what is at stake here. Many people do and many people don't.

What is at stake here is the First Amendment right of religious freedom and individual freedom of conscience. It is the religious beliefs, freedoms, and sensibilities of myriads of Americans holding a "traditional" view which are being tramped upon by a Godless and powerful, grasping government which has no "compelling" reason to do so and yet which is claiming absolute supremacy in all three of these areas!

That is tyranny of the worst sort.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.