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

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.

I agree with you on your woman stance. Men should have no say in whether abortion is legal or not. However this is not about it being legal, it's about it being paid for by my tax dollars.

Now if they want to have it paid, then only the women should pay the taxes for it as they are the ones getting abortions. But that's picky and would not work would it?

So the only sound solution is for them to pay for their abortions out of their own pocket and leave my taxpayer money for something that is "contributing" to society.

~Keeper

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter

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?

It was aborted and paid for with your tax dollars.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

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.

I agree with you on your woman stance. Men should have no say in whether abortion is legal or not. However this is not about it being legal, it's about it being paid for by my tax dollars.

Now if they want to have it paid, then only the women should pay the taxes for it as they are the ones getting abortions. But that's picky and would not work would it?

So the only sound solution is for them to pay for their abortions out of their own pocket and leave my taxpayer money for something that is "contributing" to society.

~Keeper

yes I agree... women should pay out of pocket.. unless there is an urgent medical reason. I've already said that though.

Abortion is a moral and/or spiritual decision that is supported and based on ones own belief system.

Whether abortion should be paid for under the national Healthcare Program is not a moral or spiritual decision. It is a finacial decision with moral or spiritual implications.

The argument here is not how abortions gets done. That's why I said you should list all or none of the actual procedures. The procedure or description of how abortion gets done doesn't matter in this argument.

The argument is whether it should be paid for by tax dollars.

The answers people give will be based on their morals and/or religous beliefs and supported by the cost or lack of cost.

My opinion is: "Medical expenses one could incure under the New Healthcare Progam should be covered irregardless of ones idea of whether it is moral or immoral to perform the procedure."

Some people reject all medicine for prayer healing.
www.religioustolerance.org...
media.www.mcgilltribune.com... shtml

These arn't about abortion specifically but I have listed them to show that moral and spiritual issues cross with medicine in some circles. I believe the choice made to NOT cover abortion is being made as a moral and/or spiritual decision hiding behind the cost of lack of cost argument.

This makes it a "catch 22" situation.

reply to post by HotSauce


news.bbc.co.uk...

I suggest that it isn't as rare as it appears to be...since abortion is so readily available. Reduce the availability and we can find out just how rare it is!!

if my tax dollars can go to pay for needless visits to the doctors so anxious new moms can have a little more peace of mind, well, it most certianly can go toward preventing death or disability due to problems involving pregnancy!

reply to post by galatea


LMAO.. not exactly. But there are statistics on the matter. You should try to take sometime to check them out.

Originally posted by galatea

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter

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?

It was aborted and paid for with your tax dollars.

You know you accidenteally made a great point. If my tax dollars were used to abort or kill a horse or any other tameable animal there would be more people fliggping out than there is over ending a babies life.

Originally posted by HotSauce

Originally posted by galatea

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter

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?

It was aborted and paid for with your tax dollars.

You know you accidenteally made a great point. If my tax dollars were used to abort or kill a horse or any other tameable animal there would be more people fliggping out than there is over ending a babies life.

lol... you are probably right. Although.. it would be hard to ask a horse if she wants to keep her baby or not...

Men should have no say?
Seriously?
So women are Amoebas? Theyre asexual beings now that dont require a male to impregnate them?
The answer is NO TO ANY MONEY for ANY Treatment from me.
Your money=your sickness
Your Family money=your sickness
You have none? you die.
This whole debate and issue is bull%$@# anyway, people cant see that its just another infusion of money into an abusive and irresposible system that will be sacked and looted again and again, lets rally for government healthcare rather than effective government.
RETARDS the majority are tv fed retards.

No, men have no say with what a woman does with her body.. sorry.. nope.

It's okay, be mad.

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter

ya know, some doctors are claiming that over 50% of their patients are medicaid/medicare/schips.
hey, I would love to see that safety net fall, I think that eventually, everything would adjust and we'd see a lower cost of living along with higher wages.....more money for all of us...
but, as it adjusted, well, how many doctors and nurses would find themselves out of a job, since their patients would be halved???

Let's reverse gender. Should taxpayer dollars fund vasectemys. Killing sperm is killing babies, isn't it. Right? I guess this should be a new thread, eh.

reply to post by dawnstar


Well what do you expect when 50% of the children in this country are being fed by the taxpayers? It is insane and unsustainable.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
Let's reverse gender. Should taxpayer dollars fund vasectemys. Killing sperm is killing babies, isn't it. Right? I guess this should be a new thread, eh.

rofl.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
Let's reverse gender. Should taxpayer dollars fund vasectemys. Killing sperm is killing babies, isn't it. Right? I guess this should be a new thread, eh.

IMO no. It is elective surgery. A man should have to pay for his own, since it is a sign of health for men to produce sperm. So why are we paying to fix what aint broke.?

Well this is an interesting topic and will be interested to see where it goes.

But, this devil's advocate has to go feed the child that she chose to birth.

xx

Originally posted by galatea
So I take that most of you are against the death penalty.. I mean they are alive.

But they are grown individuals making decisions between right and wrong knowing fully the consequences for their actions. An unborn child did not make the choice to be here so what right does the mother have to make the choice to end it's life before it's even began. A consequence to an action that the unborn did not make?

Here is a story that I have heard about that sums up the abortion debate:
When rape results in pregnancy, or when giving birth might cost the mother's life, few women would fail to consider as an alternative:
Abortion.
But let's say you're a doctor--a physician not morally adverse to terminating a patient's pregnancy--and the circumstances are neither frivolous nor dire.
Let's say that on a given day you are consulted by two young women, both pregnant, both doubtful as to whether they should be.
Now, remember: such a choice is ultimately the mother's, but because you are a physician, and because your judgment is respected, and because your patient is seeking guidance, everything you say, regardless of how clinically objective--yes, even the tone of your voice--may sway her decision.
Yours is a position of enormous responsibility. Like it or not, the very expression on your face could save or extinguish a life.
Your first expectant mother is Caterina. Caterina is unmarried, obviously in her teens, obviously poor. You ask her age, and she tells you, and at once you realize she has overstated her years by one or two or three.
Caterina is in the first trimester of her pregnancy. You ask if she has been pregnant before. Caterina shakes her head. Studying her, you wonder. You inquire of her general health; no problems, she says.
And the health of the father? Caterina shrugs; her eyes fall.
She has lost contact with the father of her unborn child. All she knows is he was twenty-three, a lawyer or a notary or something like that. He lives nearby, she thinks; she is not sure. The affair was over quickly, little more than a one-night stand. No child was expected--nor now is wanted.

What Doctor, is your advice?

Later the same day, you are consulted by a second expectant mother.
Her name is Klara. Klara is twenty-eight, married three years, the wife of a government worker; she has the look of a woman accustomed to anguish. Concerned for the ultimate health of her unborn, Klara explains that for each year of her marriage she has had a child--and each has died; the first within thirty-one months, the second within sixteen months, the third within several days. Disease? You ask. Klara nods. She suspects that any future child would be equally susceptible. For you see, her husband is also her second cousin. Both Catholic, they received papal dispensation to marry--though now Klara questions their wisdom in asking permission.
And there's something else...
One of Klara's sisters is a hunchback; another sister, the mother of a hunchback. Klara is in the first trimester of her fourth pregnancy. The odds are against the health of her child. Time is running out.
And it is only later that you learn--Klara's husband is not, as she has said, her second cousin. He is her uncle.
So what, Doctor, is your advice?

In addition to all immediate considerations--physical, moral, religious--the dilemma of whether to terminate a pregnancy is a philosophical question:
Might this life, if left to live, affect the consciousness or even the destiny of mankind?
Yet if the profundity of this question is diminished by the balance which governs all life, there is evidence in the two true stories you have just heard: the unwed mother with unwanted child; the married mother with the graves of three infants behind her.
For if you, as the hypothetical physician, have opted in both cases for abortion--then you have respectively denied the world the multifaceted genius of Leonardo da Vinci--and spared humanity the terror of Adolf Hitler.
20th-century-archive.tripod.com...

Okay, any women that are on this thread or reading, have any of you heard that a woman that gets an abortion, is 10 times more likely to develop cancer?

I wonder if the abortion clinics ever mention these facts? First, do no harm.

And for the OP, he or she never implied that woman should not be able to get care if indeed health is the issue.

We just do not want to have to pay for what we feel is wrong!

Myself, I could give a rats ass what anyone does with their own body.

Also, our government can stay the frack out of my life in regards to EVERYTHING. But we of course know that THEY, know what is best for me and mine.

This country will not end well. The cliff is only minutes away from the precipice, and we are arguing about a fracking HEALTH CARE BILL that does not mean anything in the big picture.

The US dollar will be gone in no time, and I say good riddance. Because the Phoenix rose from the ashes.

Originally posted by galatea
No, men have no say with what a woman does with her body.. sorry.. nope.

It's okay, be mad.

Okay.
So "men" have no say?
EVERY JUSTICE SITTING THAT DECIDED ROE_WADE was a man.

you meant to correctly say.............what again?

I'll put some coffee on for your pie.

This is unarmed battle, I'm done.