It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
Abortion is legal, thus why wouldn't the new health care package cover it? Don't like it? Fight to make illegal. Until then, the right thing will continue to be done and women will have the choice.


Right. If we could pick and choose what our tax dollars cover, then we should be able to choose not to pay for... smokers who get cancer, emergency room visits by people who drink and drive, and yeah, I don't want to pay for people who get hurt doing dangerous activities like skiing and skydiving.

Who do you people think you are? You don't get to choose what medical care covers. There is no form you fill out to decide where your tax dollars go. Don't like paying for abortion? Too bad. We ALL pay for things we don't agree with.




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by thoughtplacebo
Would you have a problem with a one time coverage for non-rape situations? Think about it, a young girl makes a mistake and decides she cannot handle having her life completely disrupted by an unplanned pregnancy and all the trouble that will come from that (i.e. DCF, HRS, vaccination decisions, providing healthcare for a child). Now consider this, doesn't it make sense to impose a limit so people can't ritualistically abuse the system by being impregnated repeatedly and aborting them? They ought learn from their mistake, eh? Now here's the kicker, should rape cases be allowed to abort? More specifically, should incest rape cases be allowed to abort? If so, what cap could be set for those who are the victims of rape? If a woman reports being raped and she has had a prior abortion due to personal choice, should she have monetary help withheld? I'm of the opinion rape cases should be covered. Personal choice abortions ought also be covered as everyone makes mistakes, but we ought learn from those mistakes. In this case, the mistake costs a life. It is very sad and heartbreaking and those who think most women who go through the abortions don't suffer as well just don't have a clear picture in their mind. Abortions ought NOT be illegal, because that produces unsafe abortion practices and they ought be insured because raped women ought not have to pay for their abortions. Ultimately, rapists should foot the bill. In cases where there is no rapist, just a bad choice...we're not playing football (no 7 downs), nor baseball (no 3 strikes)...we're talking basketball...you get 1 shot.


You bring up great points (keep your head low as those ideas are going to bring in a h3ll storm from others).


I made mention a few posts back about having a criteria for those wanting to have an abortion. I don't believe we as tax payers should pay for these "mistakes". What ever happened to personal responsibility? Have the baby if it was a mistake and put it up for adoption. There are more then enough people that want to adopt. Again, I am sure the circumstances are tough and I couldn't imagine what that must be like but it doesn't mean her mistake becomes my tab.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roadblockx
This topic could go down as the first topic on ATS to have 100+ replies but not a single flag.
Way to make history!

Let's just say for a second that there was an "ideal" grouping/pairing to raise a child (I'm not saying marriage or union on purpose). What would the criteria be? Married? Income above $40k/$80k? Criminal history or no?


The ideal parent is the natural parent after that is the person with the biggest heart.

But I thought this thread was about state sponsored abortions: which I am vehemently opposed to. I think the more children the better or merrier as is were. To kill your own baby is the most heinous, selfish and repulsive thing a soul can do. I do not want to be any part of it, by my own money paying for it. To bear the child out of unselfish love is the most beautiful thing a person can do...in any case. The greatest thing a person can do is to give up their own plans and dreams for another...the worst crime in the world is to snuff out one life so you can continue your stupid quest for glory, be it education, acceptance, money-etc. It is so simple- don't have sex if you do not want to be a mother. Sex=Motherhood.

Great pain will come to our once great nation if we go down this path, God will judge us as harshly. Woe to the unbelievers who bring this to pass.



[edit on 8/6/2009 by Missing Blue Sky]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bratac

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
Abortion is legal, thus why wouldn't the new health care package cover it? Don't like it? Fight to make illegal. Until then, the right thing will continue to be done and women will have the choice.


Right. If we could pick and choose what our tax dollars cover, then we should be able to choose not to pay for... smokers who get cancer, emergency room visits by people who drink and drive, and yeah, I don't want to pay for people who get hurt doing dangerous activities like skiing and skydiving.

Who do you people think you are? You don't get to choose what medical care covers. There is no form you fill out to decide where your tax dollars go. Don't like paying for abortion? Too bad. We ALL pay for things we don't agree with.


I believe that smokers should have a different set of health care caps. I believe those that drink and drive should be financially liable for all of the damages they cause. But having a private insurance policy would be much more efficient at making it more fair for those that don't smoke, don't drink and drive, aren't over-weight and make careful decisions about having sex. When you are rewarded for good decisions, that is motivation to continue to do good. When the gov says they will bail you out, what motivation do you to be good?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky

Originally posted by Roadblockx
This topic could go down as the first topic on ATS to have 100+ replies but not a single flag.
Way to make history!

Let's just say for a second that there was an "ideal" grouping/pairing to raise a child (I'm not saying marriage or union on purpose). What would the criteria be? Married? Income above $40k/$80k? Criminal history or no?


The ideal parent is the natural parent after that is the person with the biggest heart.

But I thought this thread was about state sponsored abortions: which I am vehemently opposed to. I think the more children the better or merrier as is were. To kill your own baby is the most heinous, selfish and repulsive thing a soul can do. I do not want to be any part of it, by my own money paying for it. To bear the child out of unselfish love is the most beautiful thing a person can do...in any case. The greatest thing a person can do is to give up their own plans and dreams for another...the worst crime in the world is to snuff out one life so you can continue your stupid quest for glory, be it education, acceptance, money-etc. It is so simple- don't have sex if you do not want to be a mother. Sex=Motherhood.

Great pain will come to our once great nation if we go down this path, God will judge us as harshly. Woe to the unbelievers who bring this to pass.





Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Just make sure you realize that you and I and a few others are the target of a HUGE troll and rant campaign going on in here because we feel the same way. No answer will be good enough so try not to fall into their ranting traps.

Again, I couldn't have said it better. If you don't want to be a mom, don't have sex. If you don't want to get burned, don't play with fire. If you get burned, don't expect your neighbor to pay for your medical bills.



[edit on 6-8-2009 by Roadblockx]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roadblockx
When the gov says they will bail you out, what motivation do you to be good?


Let me just turn your question around to you. Are you "good" because the government won't bail you out? Is that your motivation? No. You're "good" for your own reasons.

I'll just say that if the government was going to pay for my hypothetical cancer treatment, that doesn't mean I'm going to take up smoking. See how twisted that logic is???

And my whole point is that it doesn't matter what you want to pay for. That's not how it works.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Bratac]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I wasn't too keen on paying for the Iraq War, but I am anyway.

There are a lot of things my tax dollars pay for that I don't like, this is no different.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Some posters here say it is better to pay for the abortion than the problems that would result from if the child was born. Cheaper to abort the little bastard than to give him food stamps, educate him, inoculate him, give him DCF services, imprison him. Well even a fatherless little bastard can grow up to be a teacher, a wonderful father, a great artist or scientist...or just the nice guy down the street who helps out whenever you need it.

Saying that life is not worth it -is nothing short of EUGENICS. This is the deplorable classification of human lives and deciding who is the most and least worthy of our aid and attention. This is NOT how we have decided to deal with these issues in the USA, ergo no more slavery and child labor. Each human life has intrinsic value. Each human life is a beautiful thing created by God and given the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness by God.

We must never fall down the slippery slope of EUGENICS, because very few of us will come out with dignity or alive even.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Bratac
 


I see what you are saying and I do kind of agree to a point. You and I and the other posters on here aren't the ones that would take advantage of the gov program. We have other forces in our lives that we may or may not use for motivation so obviously we see that abusing the system is wrong. I am referring to the people that abuse welfare and will abuse the government health system. This will mean longer delays for those of us who actually try to do positive, productive work in society.

That's my point. It isn't us that would get abortions done everyday or a couple times a month. It will be those that live off the system, know how to abuse the system and you and I will have to pay for that abuse. Since those that are going to live off the system don't care about working for anything or making themselves better, they don't have any motivation to better themselves.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Interesting analogy.

Great post.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roadblockx
It isn't us that would get abortions done everyday or a couple times a month. It will be those that live off the system, know how to abuse the system and you and I will have to pay for that abuse.


And if we don't pay for their abortion? We pay for the prenatal care for the mother for 9 months, we pay for the birth, hospitalization and any special care that baby needs. We pay for the child's food, school, health care until he's 18 years old. If your concern is paying for other people's care, it would be a lot cheaper to pay for the abortion and hope the mother gets a job. If she's bringing a baby into the world, it's less likely she'll be able to get that job.

I'm not saying the child's not worth it, I'm saying it's her choice and I'd prefer she take less of my money than more.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Since the early seventies and Roe versus Wade as well as the gradual rejection of any moral code connected to Judeo - Christian traditions our culture has increasingly become a culture of death and narcissistic self involvement - so instead of greater freedom we have created greater license -
and following in the wake of greater license the need for greater control - ergo the erosion of privacy and civil liberties....

sanctity of life is integral to freedom - and the preservation of the sanctity of life comes with some behavioral restrictions - choosing behavior that would not put the sanctity of life in peril seems a reasonable place to start and living by that rule would put a great many things from pregnancy to war in a new light - but restriction is the very thing that so many of us find intolerable - and until we are willing to sacrifice some of our personal comfort and license to address this larger and loomng issue of the value of human life, the path we are on will not change no matter how much or often we rail at each other.

That is why the question of abortion [and its co-equal issue -euthanasia] in the healthcare reform bill will not go away...and why some of us are not willing to simply suck it up and pay for it...



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by realshanti
Since the early seventies and Roe versus Wade as well as the gradual rejection of any moral code connected to Judeo - Christian traditions our culture has increasingly become a culture of death and narcissistic self involvement - so instead of greater freedom we have created greater license -
and following in the wake of greater license the need for greater control - ergo the erosion of privacy and civil liberties....

sanctity of life is integral to freedom - and the preservation of the sanctity of life comes with some behavioral restrictions - choosing behavior that would not put the sanctity of life in peril seems a reasonable place to start and living by that rule would put a great many things from pregnancy to war in a new light - but restriction is the very thing that so many of us find intolerable - and until we are willing to sacrifice some of our personal comfort and license to address this larger and loomng issue of the value of human life, the path we are on will not change no matter how much or often we rail at each other.

That is why the question of abortion [and its co-equal issue -euthanasia] in the healthcare reform bill will not go away...and why some of us are not willing to simply suck it up and pay for it...


You do realize that nearly within the same "breath" you spoke of civil liberties and personal freedom and then started off on "behavioral restrictions"? They are opposites of one another. No matter what legislation you pass or what morality you try to teach, people are going to have sex with one another. It is, perhaps, the most basic of human things because it is universal with all species on the planet.

The difference between pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-life assumes that the fetus is equal to the mother and thus she has no choice in the matter of what she does during the pregnancy...she becomes a captive of her pregnancy. Pro-choice believes (also) that human life is sacred, however the mother has ultimate control over her body because it is her body the fetus needs, and the state does not have a say in controlling what she does with her body.

Is abortion right? Not really, it's awful. It's a horrible decision for a woman to make and one with lasting consequences. Should the state subsidize abortion? In some cases, yes, I think it should. In all? I'm not so sure about that. However, if a poor woman wants an abortion and needs the financial assistance, I would rather her receive help from the state and be supervised by medical professionals than go in a back alley and have it performed there. Or, God forbid, perform it herself.

If a woman wants to end the term, she will. Humans have loved, hated, killed, and saved since history began, and that's not going to change. I'd rather they make their decision in an environment that minimizes the damages rather than maximizes them.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Roadblockx
 


There are a lot of things that people don't believe they should be paying for. Where does it end? You have to ask yourself one question.... Do you mind your own business or go through life like Mrs. Kravitz? Do you really want to be a busy body? I'm sure there are a lot of people that can busy body right back at you.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Roadblockx
 


We'll I'm against abortion and against government bureaucracy, so this is a double no for me.

Isn't it a bit contradictory to support abortion by saying you don't want others controlling your uterus, when that's just what government health care would do?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roadblockx


I'm not sure what kind of reaction or posts this thread will yield but I thought it would at least be worth a shot to put this out there.

While I don't agree with the expansion of government/BHO insurance since the gov has never managed anything that has been profitable or on budget, I really don't agree that I should be paying for abortions. This isn't about the RIGHT to have one, I am strictly keeping this issue to the American public having to PAY for them.

Thoughts?

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


I don't always agree with the antibiotics and antidepressants being prescribed to adults and children. I don't always agree that a C-section is arbitrary. I don't always agree with lots of things out Medical Society does... but I want the right to say YES or NO for myself, and let other people make that same decision.

An abortion is just a PROCEDURE; a D & C. Having a baby is a CHOICE. And, last I heard, women should have as much right to birth control as men do to Viagra. But we don't, in most states. And that's just WRONG. Most insurance policies will NOT cover birth control for pre-menapausal women, but a man can ALWAYS get Viagra and other similar drugs, and it's covered.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


If you were referring to me when you wrote that comment, you're mistaken. I do not in any way shape or form agree with eugenics.

More than anything, this revolves around a woman's choice not to undergo the duress of childbirth from a-z. All of it. Have you ever watched a woman give birth? Let me fill you in on the instance that I had the dubious fortune to view.

My ex was in the operating room preparing to deliver after a long and painful pregnancy. The doctor administered the drug Stadol. Ever heard of it? It has the nasty side effect of causing feelings of dystopia, in other words complete and utter fear the end is near you're dying you're miserable etc...The worst part of it all, it's a painkiller which dopes the woman up so badly that she is nearly unconscious when it is working. So, between contractions she was virtually in a different world only to be returned to this world in blistering agony due to the dystopia side effects. She did not know what was going on and her only connection to this world was supreme unhappiness and stress. Now, to make matters worse, the child was large; 10lbs 15oz. The doctor forced her to attempt a vaginal birth, but the baby became stuck in the birth canal. The doctor gave her an epesiotome and still the baby could not make it out past the top of the head. So what happened? He yanked on it with forceps. Still no luck, so what happened? He shoved the baby back inside of her and took her to the OR and performed a ceserian. So, she has both vaginal birth and ceserian all in the same day. That's a LOT to ask of anyone and if you have a cock in your pants you ought to just STFU about a woman's prerogative to abort. I've had a catheter before and as much as that crap hurt, if I could have aborted the catheter I would have.

The topic is not your Christian views of abortion that someone else told you that you have. The topic is about whether or not taxpayers should foot the bill under the new healthcare plan.

Think about it, you're 13 years old, your dad just impregnated you and you have heard horror stories like the one I just told you about which is 100% true, saw it with my own two f-ing eyes...You think some sky daddy (Lord and LORD I love you, but I have to say it)...you think some sky daddy's opinion of abortion is important? How about the pregnant girl's right not to have her body mangled for life? How about the girl's right to choose who her mate will be? How about the girl's right to not be forced to have a child with genetic deformities due to being an incest baby? That sound like eugenics to you? Well, maybe you and I have a different idea of eugenics. I think of eugenics as the state enforcing what human being ought not be allowed to live. You seem to define eugenics as a mystical sky daddy that a troubled teenage girl most likely cannot relate to and may have never even heard of AND even if she did hear of Him might not even care because the sky daddy is NOT THERE WHILE THE BABY GROWING IN HER BELLY MOST DEFINITELY IS.

And it's not about DCF providing services. It's about DCF kidnapping children for money and performing sick sex acts with them. Observe:

www.foxnews.com...



Now, how do you like them apples?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtplacebo
 




What does make me curious is why you focus on the one or two out of 10 or 15 cases to use as your example of why abortion is a great idea. My wife was in labor 26 hours and once induced, our baby was breached so they did a C section. Using your logic, we should have aborted the baby right there. Perhaps whack the head right off? Or pull the baby's arms and legs off so it can slowly die? You know, because my wife was in pain and wanted to stop so naturally the best idea is to KILL whatever is causing that pain.
Again, you really have it all figured out. That would be much easier on her and according to various others, it would be much easier for everyone else in society.

So that everyone knows what happens with an abortion
- Suction-aspiration:

In this method, the abortionist must first paralyze the cervical muscle ring (womb opening) and then stretch it open. This is difficult because it is hard or "green" and not ready to open. He then inserts a hollow plastic tube, which has a knife-like edge on the tip, into the uterus. The suction tears the baby’s body into pieces. He then cuts the deeply rooted placenta from the inner wall of the uterus. The scraps are sucked out into a bottle (see color photo in back of book). The suction is 29 times more powerful than a home vacuum cleaner.

- Dilatation & Curettage (D&C):

This is similar to the suction procedure except that the abortionist inserts a curette, a loop-shaped steel knife, up into the uterus. With this, he cuts the placenta and baby into pieces and scrapes them out into a basin. Bleeding is usually profuse.

What are second trimester ones?

In the 1970s and ’80s the most common type was saline amniocentesis, or salt poisoning abortions.

These are not used much anymore because of danger to the mother. These are done after the 16th week. A large needle is inserted through the abdominal wall of the mother and into the baby’s amniotic sac. A concentrated salt solution is injected into the amniotic fluid. The baby breathes and swallows it, is poisoned, struggles, and sometimes convulses. It takes over an hour to kill the baby. When successful, the mother goes into labor about one day later and delivers a dead baby.

Is it actually poisoning?

Yes. The mechanism of death is acute hypernatremia or acute salt poisoning, with development of wide-spread vasodilatation, edema, congestion, hemorrhage, shock, and death. Galen et al., "Fetal Pathology and Mechanism of Death in Saline Abortion, Amer. Jour. of OB&GYN,1974, vol. 120, pp. 347-355

And other methods?

In the ’70s and ’80s, prostaglandin drugs were used to induce violent premature labor and delivery. When used alone, there was: "...a large complication rate (42.6%) is associated with its use. Few risks in obstetrics are more certain than that which occurs to a pregnant woman undergoing abortion after the 14th week of pregnancy." Duenhoelter & Grant, "Complications Following Prostaglandin F-2 Alpha Induced Mid-trimester Abortion." Jour. of OB & GYN, Sept. 1975

Because of these problems, the D&E or Dilatation & Evacuation method was developed and largely replaced the above. It involves the live dismemberment of the baby and piecemeal removal from below.

A pliers-like instrument is used because the baby’s bones are calcified, as is the skull. There is no anesthetic for the baby. The abortionist inserts the instrument up into the uterus, seizes a leg or other part of the body, and, with a twisting motion, tears it from the baby’s body. This is repeated again and again. The spine must be snapped, and the skull crushed to remove them. The nurse’s job is to reassemble the body parts to be sure that all are removed.

That is from this website. I would like a #1 please. Yes and super size my abortion please.

In case you didn't read all of it because of how gruesome it is, here is a great line to remember as you continue to discuss how great it is for the mother. Remember, they call her a "mother" because she is calling life.

This is repeated again and again. The spine must be snapped, and the skull crushed to remove them. The nurse’s job is to reassemble the body parts to be sure that all are removed.



Continue to justify the snapping of a spine, the injection of posion, the killing of something living. I'm sure it sounds better when you are in your support groups. Oh yeah, how about them apples?

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Roadblockx]

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Roadblockx]

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Roadblockx]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtplacebo
 


STFU if you have a penis.... Really?
Great reasoning.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynCritter

Originally posted by Roadblockx


I'm not sure what kind of reaction or posts this thread will yield but I thought it would at least be worth a shot to put this out there.

While I don't agree with the expansion of government/BHO insurance since the gov has never managed anything that has been profitable or on budget, I really don't agree that I should be paying for abortions. This isn't about the RIGHT to have one, I am strictly keeping this issue to the American public having to PAY for them.

Thoughts?

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


I don't always agree with the antibiotics and antidepressants being prescribed to adults and children. I don't always agree that a C-section is arbitrary. I don't always agree with lots of things out Medical Society does... but I want the right to say YES or NO for myself, and let other people make that same decision.

An abortion is just a PROCEDURE; a D & C. Having a baby is a CHOICE. And, last I heard, women should have as much right to birth control as men do to Viagra. But we don't, in most states. And that's just WRONG. Most insurance policies will NOT cover birth control for pre-menapausal women, but a man can ALWAYS get Viagra and other similar drugs, and it's covered.


I am all about the coverage of bc for men and women. Completely. If you read all of the posts, you would have seen I have been saying that from the start. Couple that with education for parents and children regarding std's and sex and I think you have a much better idea then snapping the spines of babies, crushing skulls, using a vaccuum or injecting posion. What do you call that again, oh yeah, "procedures".

One correction. Having SEX was a choice (in most cases). Everything after that is the consequences of having sex. Skirt the responsibility and pass it along to someone else to pay for.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Roadblockx]




top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join