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

What is up with all these people on the left throwing a fit because the House health care "reform" bill doesn't cover abortions?

When did women have a right to not only vacuum cleaner out their babies, but send the bill to the taxpayer? What the hell is up with that?

Look an abortion is only a few hundred dollars. I think they should be forced to take some responsibility when they got pregnant and now want to end the poor kids life. Is it asking too much to expect them or the father to pay to terminate the kid?

Even if you are pro-choice, do you really want your hard earned tax dollars going to subsidize someones poor choices? Doesn't that make us all guilty by making us part of ending the poor unlucky kids chance at life?

[edit on 10-11-2009 by HotSauce]

As an ex american citizen and taxpayer I am probably responsible for more deaths then I care to imagine. In my adopted country of The Netherlands we have gov. subsidized abortions up to the 24th week. I would rather pay for that then for imperial wars of conquest. And now I am off to the coffee bars.

reply to post by concernedcitizan


Wow so you would rather pay for an unfortunate childs life to end more than you would be for paying to defend your country? To each his own I guess, but I must say I don't undertand or agree with your logic.

Originally posted by HotSaucedo you really want your hard earned tax dollars going to subsidize someones poor choices? Doesn't that make us all guilty by making us part of ending the poor unlucky kids chance at life?

I dont want my property taken by anyone for any reason. Too many people love it when the gov takes there money. The practive of federal extortion at gun point isnt going anywhere anytime soon.

So, if I have to choose between my stolen property being used to fund 18 years of welfare scams then another 30-life supporting the hood rat in prison or a few bucks to vacu-suck the trash out before it becomes the money pit it is destined to be I choose the latter.

Put an end to welfare queens and their mini-armies of 12 legitimate thugs fathered by means of 12 drug-induced blackout laden nights of ghetto-fabulous lovin'.

Supporters of this should be touting it as fiscal responsibility.

reply to post by HotSauce


feminist: I HAVE A RIGHT TO AN ABORTION.

america: to each his own. be free.

feminist: NOW PAY FOR IT.

___

I didn't realize this debate wasn't about autonomy and freedom of privacy. I guess it's really about your human right to have your choices funded by the collective. Thanks for the free education....

I live in a country where we have Government Run Health Care and we don't cover abortions. I would not want them to.

UNLESS it is the case of a rape victim or some other unspeakable crime that has occured.

People should take responsibility for their actions especially when it comes to children.

~Keeper

reply to post by HotSauce


I didn't say defend. I said conquest. There is a difference. Your mind is made up. There is no point in debating with a zealot. And now I really am off to the coffee bars. Have a great day.

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by concernedcitizan

 

Wow so you would rather pay for an unfortunate childs life to end more than you would be for paying to defend your country? To each his own I guess, but I must say I don't undertand or agree with your logic.

Your logic has the premise that your recent foreign policy is in any way defense. What exactly are you defending? Your hegemony? Don't get me wrong, I'm aware the American hegemon is not as bad as it could be to the rest of the world, but you have blood on your hands (as do the rest of us).

You cannot in good faith declare that abortion is murder, and then say a unilateral pre-emptive war, is not.

We agree to disagree

reply to post by Oscitate


Well we are getting a bit off track with the war thing seeming how it is unlrelated to abortion. However, I will say that one could see it as defense since we were attacked on 911. This is the last I will be disussing the wars. but if you would like to start a thread to discuss that I would be glad to participate.

Ok, I could be way off on this, but I think the issue is not whether or not to fund abortions but that proponents of abortion are concerned that opponents of abortion could find ways to contend that options that are currently available may be rendered illegal due to new rules imposed by the legislation. For example, if part of the makeover results in some funding to Planned Parenthood, let's say for covering mammograms or birth control pills, then the concern is that because Planned Parenthood receives that funding they would now be prevented legally from also providing abortion services.

In addition, there is concern that such organizations would not be permitted to opt out of the government funding and therefore would be unable to continue their mission. That concern is because of the bank situation where banks were bailed out that did not want or need the bailouts.

Originally posted by HotSauce
.......to not only vacuum cleaner out their babies........
[edit on 10-11-2009 by HotSauce]

Nice technical term.

This sums up the entire position of the OP.

I would rather my taxes pay for an abortion than pay for that mother to be on welfare.

reply to post by gwynnhwyfar


Well I think you may be wrong. The bill just doesn't let government funded insurance cover abortions. Women can still get them they will just have to pay for them instead of the tax payer.

If some people are such huge fans of paying to end kids lives before they even get a chance why don't they start a non-profit where people can donate to pay for abortions. Then the blood can be on their hands for paying for something they love and have a commitment too.

reply to post by wdkirk


Yeah I guess it does. Don't you find that to be horrendous? How would you like it if your mother decided to have you sucked out in pieces?

I am just givng a visual wording of what actually happens. It is not a pretty thing,so why should I try to make it so.

Originally posted by HotSauce
If some people are such huge fans of paying to end kids lives before they even get a chance why don't they start a non-profit where people can donate to pay for abortions. Then the blood can be on their hands for paying for something they love and have a commitment too.

Planned Parenthood accepts donations.

they even go so far as to accept them on a "race" basis. Source You can donate 5K to only be used on black babies. Sanger's dream come true.

reply to post by HotSauce


It was not my intention to derail your thread. Sorry. I just felt the main topic was funding, not abortion per se. And americans have little control over where those funds go. Again. Sorry.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Are you serious? That is insane and racist. So the KKK could dontate 50 grand to kill african american babies before they are born and it is all legal and acceptable. How can that be?

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
As an ex american citizen and taxpayer I am probably responsible for more deaths then I care to imagine. In my adopted country of The Netherlands we have gov. subsidized abortions up to the 24th week. I would rather pay for that then for imperial wars of conquest. And now I am off to the coffee bars.

Nearly 50 million dead babies in the US since 1971.

You would rather pay for that huh?

There's a thread for you.

An average of one in three American women has murdered a baby.

They're serious about that freedom of 'choice' huh?


[edit on 11-11-2009 by badgerprints]

HotSauce are you female?

reply to post by concernedcitizan


Hey no problem at all. I see your point to a degree and it is ok. I am just worreid that we would water it down and you are right part of it is about funding and you are free to talk about the cost of the wars, just don't expect me personally to respond in this thread. I am sure lots of others will so feel free.