"Progressives hate the idea of a private abortion fund."

It's not about cost or practical considerations, it's about ideology. The pro-abortion fanatics want their fanaticism legitimized by supportive legislation.

It's not about cost or practical considerations, it's about ideology. The pro-abortion fanatics want their fanaticism legitimized by supportive legislation.

Exactly. If abortion ISN'T covered but everything else is, the question becomes why? The answer is because a lot of people find abortion to be abhorent. They don't like the idea that anyone would every object to the morality of abortion, because they're terrified that pro-lifers are right. Consequently they do everything they can to silence the opposition.

OK both of your points are just silly.

"The pro-abortion fanatics want their fanaticism legitimized by supportive legislation."

Abortion is "legal". The anti-abortion crowd is the one trying to legislate something, namely the outlawing of abortion. If you have to kill health care reform in order to shout your objection to abortion, well damn the consequences!

"If abortion ISN'T covered but everything else is, the question becomes why?"

The reason would be because of people like you, who refuse to do something sensical because you are trying to push religion into politics. If you don't realize we have serious problems with our health care system, I'm not going to change your mind. But if the choice came down to health care reform without abortion being covered, or the status quo, I'd take the former no qualms at all. I think it would be a disservice to young women, but they aren't getting any help now and at least a lot of other people would be better off.

The reason would be because of people like you, who refuse to do something sensical because you are trying to push religion into politics. If you don't realize we have serious problems with our health care system, I'm not going to change your mind. But if the choice came down to health care reform without abortion being covered, or the status quo, I'd take the former no qualms at all. I think it would be a disservice to young women, but they aren't getting any help now and at least a lot of other people would be better off.

I am not trying to push religion into politics. My opposition to abortion is based purely on solid medical/biological science. All of the scientific evidence I have ever seen tells me that a fetus IS a human being.

I don't dispute that we have some serious problems with healthcare and that some significant changes are necessary.

However, that doesn't mean that we need to subsidize abortion with our tax dollars.

TravisTeee:

The reason would be because of people like you, who refuse to do something sensical because you are trying to push religion into politics.

1- sensical?!

2- I'm a pro-life athiest.

TravisTeee:

if the choice came down to health care reform without abortion being covered, or the status quo, I'd take the former no qualms at all.

3- You've got a deal.