There is one point where the judgment on life beginning is not arbitrary, and that is conception, when a third set of DNA comes into existence. It is basic embryology. So what the abortion debate really has to be about is the value of personhood. To be pro-choice you have to be willing to say that a lump of mung becomes a person at some made up and magical point, and from that magical point on is worthy of protections under the law.
Legality of something is not a valid justification for the use of federal funds. Why should the government not pay for lap dances? Lap dances are legal.
So why unfund PP? What do you have against contraception? Could it be because the Pope is against it? Why should I care about your religious hangups?
Again you bring up religion. Why? Do you want it to be about religion? Can you not accept the fact that people like myself feel that the government has no place is supporting and organization who holds views that some consider morally wrong? This is not about religion. It is about the fact that a large number of people feel it is the killing of the innocent.
It is about religion to most of you, whether you admit it or not. Supa admits it, at least. He's Catholic. To religious people, life is sacred whether it is a person or a single cell in a woman's body. I just don't agree with Supa who thinks that the instant a cell is fertilyzed, then that cell deserves more rights than the mother who is a living, breathing human being who pays taxes and is protected by the law from having the government tell her what to do with her own body.
That's fine, but on an issue such as this it's a matter of the government funding ideals when it has no place or right too.
