Do women have a human right to taxpayer paid abortions? I don't think so!

reply to post by galatea


I am not telling them what to do .I am telling them to pay for it with their own money. That is the whole point of this thread.

Its real simple, state whether you are pro-abortion or not and your insurance premium and taxes will just be more, and then remember that when you go to get one!
Better yet have lottery's on tv, a panel of say 5 women wanting an abortion answer questions like on a game show while watching ultrasound images and videos of sperm and egg joining to form the zygote and then rapid cell division, and who ever answers the questions correctly wins the abortion and an extreme vaginal makeover, move that bus move that bus!!!

oh and yes.. most of my replies don't have much to do with the OP.. but pretty much none of the other posts do either.

Abortion should be legal.... should it be free? No. ..unless for the other reasons those have stated.

Originally posted by wdkirk
reply to post by HotSauce

 

You are trolling. This entire thread you created was to speak out against abortion. It had little to do with funding under Universal Health Care.

Well mind reader, even if this thread were about the merits of abortion it would still be a policital issue, and therefore not trolling.

This is a good argument. The right to choose is one of the fundamental arguments in the abortion debate, the right to decide on what you do with your body, and ultimately the right to privacy. The original Roe V. Wade, was a court case on the grounds of a persons right to privacy in a medical office, the patient/doctor relationship. On the other side of the argument, the prolife argument, is that the unborn fetus is a person and has the right to live and be born.
The ultimate question that really has never been answered to satisfy a court of law, is when does life begin, when does a fetus stop being mindless and develop a awareness.
One could argue, that if the health care bill denies federal funding for abortions, then it can lead for arguments that federal funds should not be used for the child birth, or any other medical proceedure. With a public health care you can not just pick and choose, as it will not hold weight if this bill gets passed and goes to the supreme court. Because, then the argument that health records, and the patient/doctor confidence will not be honored and in jeapordy.
Myself I am prochoice, because I can not say what is good for anyone elses medical care and body, nor can they say they know what is good for me, that is between the my doctor and myself.

Abortion topics are like beating a dead horse.

reply to post by galatea


I find these threads most amusing. Here you have people who are against control of any kind yet come out in force and say "But with this the government should be in complete control. No abortions at all". What they are really saying is all women are merely incubators. They should have no rights whatsoever when it comes tp pregnancy. Kinda makes you feel like a second class citizen, doesn't it. At least thats how my wife feels. That's why we got out.

reply to post by HotSauce

so, why can't the moms pay for that doctor that looks at their kid and tells her they have a cold????
why am I paying for that one...now?????

heck, even when I was in a bed with a splint on my leg thinking everyone was just gonna let me live the rest of my life as a cripple, I was paying for snotty nosed kids to see the doctor!

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
This is a good argument. The right to choose is one of the fundamental arguments in the abortion debate, the right to decide on what you do with your body, and ultimately the right to privacy. The original Roe V. Wade, was a court case on the grounds of a persons right to privacy in a medical office, the patient/doctor relationship. On the other side of the argument, the prolife argument, is that the unborn fetus is a person and has the right to live and be born.
The ultimate question that really has never been answered to satisfy a court of law, is when does life begin, when does a fetus stop being mindless and develop a awareness.
One could argue, that if the health care bill denies federal funding for abortions, then it can lead for arguments that federal funds should not be used for the child birth, or any other medical proceedure. With a public health care you can not just pick and choose, as it will not hold weight if this bill gets passed and goes to the supreme court. Because, then the argument that health records, and the patient/doctor confidence will not be honored and in jeapordy.
Myself I am prochoice, because I can not say what is good for anyone elses medical care and body, nor can they say they know what is good for me, that is between the my doctor and myself.

clap clap!

If the baby can't survive out of the mother's body, then to me it's not "alive" for lack of a better term. JMO. fwiw.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
reply to post by galatea

 

I find these threads most amusing. Here you have people who are against control of any kind yet come out in force and say "But with this the government should be in complete control. No abortions at all". What they are really saying is all women are merely incubators. They should have no rights whatsoever when it comes tp pregnancy. Kinda makes you feel like a second class citizen, doesn't it. At least thats how my wife feels. That's why we got out.

yeah.. and majority of "pro llfers" in this thread are men and it really irks me.

sorry men, but unless you are carrying the baby in your body.. you don't get a choice.

reply to post by dawnstar


Good question. I don't agree with taking one persons money to pay for someone elses care either.. So I don't know why they are making you pay for somebody elses kids cold. Maybe you should ask your congress people why they have been screwing us all for the last 40 or 50 years.

Originally posted by galatea

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
reply to post by galatea

 

I find these threads most amusing. Here you have people who are against control of any kind yet come out in force and say "But with this the government should be in complete control. No abortions at all". What they are really saying is all women are merely incubators. They should have no rights whatsoever when it comes tp pregnancy. Kinda makes you feel like a second class citizen, doesn't it. At least thats how my wife feels. That's why we got out.

yeah.. and majority of "pro llfers" in this thread are men and it really irks me.

sorry men, but unless you are carrying the baby in your body.. you don't get a choice.

Thats the reason that I am personally pro-choice. I dont like abortion. But I dont have a horse in that race. Therefore, I dont get a vote.

reply to post by galatea

If the baby can't survive out of the mother's body, then to me it's not "alive" for lack of a better term. JMO. fwiw.

So under this definition shouldn't we let everyone die who needs any sort of assistance to keep them alive? Sorry uncle bob, you aren'treally alive as long as you need a ventilation machine while you recover from your illness.

reply to post by HotSauce

so....you have a little bit of a problem when it comes to moms wasting taxpayer money running kids to the doctor needlessly, but you have a major problem with taxpayer money going to end a pregnancy, even when the mother's life is in danger.....

and you want me to believe that there isn't some kind of gender bias going on here?

When it comes to abortions at the end of the day its the womans decision. However imo theres two types of abortion one i strongly disagree with the other i tend to agree with.
The type of abortion i disagree with the most is what is called cosmectic abortion where it is terminated on the grounds of career vanity etc...

The other type i agree with is where the baby is someway going to be abnormal and will put undue stress on the woman in future. Or the baby has some sort of incurable disease. Or even mentally or physically handicapped. If she feels that she is unable to cope with the rigors of looking after such babies.

and in answer to the tax payer question..u would refuse a woman state money to have an abortion but would then allow the government to spend millions on specalist eqiupment needed to look after these types of babies.

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by galatea

 

If the baby can't survive out of the mother's body, then to me it's not "alive" for lack of a better term. JMO. fwiw.

So under this definition shouldn't we let everyone die who needs any sort of assistance to keep them alive? Sorry uncle bob, you aren'treally alive as long as you need a ventilation machine while you recover from your illness.

If a mother has a baby when she's 10 weeks pregnant.. the baby would DIE because it can't sustain life outside of the mother... Therefore if a mother has an abortion at 10 weeks, IMO, she isn't "murdering" anybody.

Secondly, I do not like the idea of a person being on a ventalation machind for too long.. i.e. Terry Shivo and my Mother.... you are just prolonging the inevitable.

reply to post by dawnstar


Did I say the mother shouldn't be saved if her life is threatened by the pregnancy? I did not, because then you are choosing who isgoing to live and who is going to die. There is nothing wrong with saving the mothers life by an means possible.

That is very rare though. Most abortions are due to the fact that having a child would be inconvieient to the mothers future life.

Originally posted by loner007
When it comes to abortions at the end of the day its the womans decision. However imo theres two types of abortion one i strongly disagree with the other i tend to agree with.
The type of abortion i disagree with the most is what is called cosmectic abortion where it is terminated on the grounds of career vanity etc...

The other type i agree with is where the baby is someway going to be abnormal and will put undue stress on the woman in future. Or the baby has some sort of incurable disease. Or even mentally or physically handicapped. If she feels that she is unable to cope with the rigors of looking after such babies.

and in answer to the tax payer question..u would refuse a woman state money to have an abortion but would then allow the government to spend millions on specalist eqiupment needed to look after these types of babies.

Exactly... your last sentence... what I was saying.. I would rather pay for abortions with my tax money than zillions on welfare.

Originally posted by galatea


Abortion topics are like beating a dead horse.

Was the horse aborted? or lived a full life and died of natural causes?

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by dawnstar

 

Did I say the mother shouldn't be saved if her life is threatened by the pregnancy? I did not, because then you are choosing who isgoing to live and who is going to die. There is nothing wrong with saving the mothers life by an means possible.

That is very rare though. Most abortions are due to the fact that having a child would be inconvieient to the mothers future life.

Yes, because you've been around every woman that has ever received an abortion and asked her why she was getting it.