Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by canadianmouse
A wanted fetus is wanted, and if terminated by another person against the mothers will is murder while an unwanted fetus is not wanted and terminated is an abortion.

I'd hate to be the fetus in either one of those scenarios.

Murdered or unloved....what a grim picture.

You just have to love how the semantics of LAW have permeated the HEARTS of those who claim to have all the answers.

Oh yeah they do this all the time, and I figure, if their is nothing alive and growing in there? Then there is no reason to get an abortion and no reason for me to pay for one. I wonder what the death certificate says?

That would REALLY open her eyes

Originally posted by Kerry_Knight

Originally posted by criticalthinker
Oh, and "rape kits" are only composed when rapes are reported.

If aborting is contingent upon bringing criminal charges, god help women.

Chances are pal, that if she was really raped, all the rape kit and police reports and accusations including placing the male at the scene which is going to be really interesting, is the burden of the accuser. If any of that happens before she knows she is pregnant, chances are she is not making the accusation because she is pregnant.

Get it?

can a husband rape his wife???
I'd say yes they can, yes some do!!!
would they be reported, no probably not, because the wife already has a few kids and the husband is their only means of support....

Originally posted by HotSauce
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]

I see no problem w/ tax dollars covering a common medical procedure a stranger decides is in her best interest... if the govt can spend $300 for one gallon of gas to kill people in afghanistan, they can fork over the same amount for US citizens medical care.

Everyone should have more pressing things to worry about than legal and private dr / patient decisions others make... if what other people do is irrelevant to your daily life, mind your own business.

If you dont agree with the rules that allow strangers to be free and choose what they feel is best for them, dont hate the players, hate the game. Write letters, lobby, knit a blanket, and protest the man who made the rules.

I'd have to say the same as others, Ive always thought that abortion is an extreme decision to make.. If raped or cant afford a child then yea it should be covered by medical insurance instead of being on welfare.. I think the GOV. needs to give back more since its pretty much our money that they use for their own personal uses they call *research*..
Back to the subject.. Abortion may be right for others but most women rather give their child a chance then kill it.. It should have nothing to do with moral or religious beliefs, it should be about that said PERSON and whether or not to use more tax payers money by gettin on welfare and instead of helping the REAL NEEDY people.. Jus to get an abortion use your own money.. If you cant keep your legs closed due to excessive partying or because you have a sexual problem, Use you insurance to be put on birth control or go to a planned parenthood they also give you condoms!!
Women should know to use any form of birth control not just because it reduces their chance to conceive a baby but helps reducing std's.

Its pretty much like me saying id rather be on welfare using every1 elses money so i can buy what i want with mine.. THATS STUPID... Id rather strip then to take care of myself and i believe thats morally wrong and degrading to women but thats my opinon..

So i think it the womans choice to make under certain circumstances for it to be covered by tax money otherwise pay for it yourself if you have sex problem...

Originally posted by XTexan
Just wanted to add my 2 cents on this.

IF we ALLOW the morning after pill then there will be no need for abortions.

Problem solved.

Man... I'm good

Plan B " emergency contraceptive" pills are available here in Ca for free at many pharmacies, they work great... but I haven't run into a lot of people that know about them.

If your state is the same and you bring ruckus to the sack I highly recommend having a few on hand, not only do they offer piece of mind... they are lifesavers (pun intended).

Judging by the volume of screaming units the local high school kids have pumped out, they should be handing out Plan B M&Ms at LA unified.

Health care in my country covers abortions and I agree with it.

Whether or not you like abortion, it's still a medical procedure and thus should be and is covered when you have free health care.
I'd prefer it to be like that, rather than have people who might not be able to then afford the abortion end up giving birth or having to scrape by.

Originally posted by Abintra
Health care in my country covers abortions and I agree with it.

Whether or not you like abortion, it's still a medical procedure and thus should be and is covered when you have free health care.
I'd prefer it to be like that, rather than have people who might not be able to then afford the abortion end up giving birth or having to scrape by.

I am very much in agreeance with you. abortions are covered here as well, and thats the way I prefer it. i wouldnt want to see a child suffer with a mother who either cant take care of them, or doesnt want to take care of them. I also wouldnt want to see a desperate expecting mother have the procedure done illegally and/or not professionally by someone and getting injured.

I still say, that if its not YOUR body...then you have no right to decide what should be done with it, you have no right to make an opinion about it, you have no right to that other persons body in any way shape or form. YOU can decide what happens to YOUR body. THATS IT! and until that umbilical cord is cut and that baby is its own entity separate from its mother...its still attached to HER a part of HER body and she can chose what SHE wants done with it.

Originally posted by devilishlyangelic23
i wouldnt want to see a child suffer with a mother who either cant take care of them, or doesnt want to take care of them. I also wouldnt want to see a desperate expecting mother have the procedure done illegally and/or not professionally by someone and getting injured.

Under what conditions did you assume led to the above comment? Why did the mother become pregnant? Sounds like an unplanned pregnancy to me; one where the parties engaged in sexual activity did not think about the outcome. And, you proved my point a few pages back by, once again, citing the inadequate resources of the mother to take care of the child or who doesn't want a child. And you want (no demand) that a HUGE segment of the population against abortion subsidize this young woman's (and her partner's) irresponsibility, all because the government will now deem this an elective medical procedure.

So, wouldn't it have been FAR better to have had sterilization procedures (on the males) in place to have prevented this from happening? Then, she could do WHATEVER she wanted to with HER BODY (never fails to come up in any abortion argument) without FEAR or DESPERATION of becomming pregnant?! No child would have had to have been killed and this topic would be moot.

I don't advocate a permanent ban on reproduction, but I would rationalize that the mother in your example should not have been permitted reproduction rights at the present time as she (and partner, but you very rarely hear about the father...damn sperm donor is all he is) was ill-equipped financially or emotionally to have handled a baby.

Call it eugenics, call it evil, call it paramount to destroying what nature intended, but whaterver you call it you had better realize that this is your future as well as mine.

Welcome to the Orwellian future.

On subjects like this, no one is ever willing to compromise. Why? It is easy to work our way to middle ground. The moral issue is obvious. I am a man who is against abortion. I have asked every partner I ever had if she also was, before doing the deed. If she tells me that she is pro-choice, I leave the relationship for a new partner. The state has nothing to do with our morality. I am a man against governement telling folks how to run their personal lives.

The question becomes, who pays taxes for this? Well, say the government takes 10 percent of it's taxes for elective projects. You pay Social Security, property and medicade, after this they get 10 percent of earnings. You worked for that money so you decide where it goes. Hardcore right-to-choose people can elect their tax dollars towards abortion. I can choose to pay my tax dollars towards autism research, or orphanages. If something runs out of funding - like war in the Middle East, or tax-payed abortions those programs are SOL and end. This way I do not personally pay for things that I find repugnant. Many would elect to pay taxes 'generally' not wanting to take the time to research, in which case the government can do as it will.

Government running like this has become possible in a technological age. Representatives were only necessary when farmers couldn't leave the fields to tell Washington what they wanted. I can tell Washington right here from my PC now. I want equal representation for my tax dollars and I want those who disagree to have the same.

People do have a right to choose a government that impliments programs which change the constitution to allow for their interests to be met. The democrates got voted in, those they represent desire state sponsored abortions.
I disagree with the majority opinion, but it is within their rights to do this. People also have the right to choose a corrupt government if they wish. I do not want to take that right away from them. Without a complete system overhaul, it takes a majority of people willing to overturn the results of a government.

Some murder is legal, and we are all murderers to some degree. A mother has the right to murder her unborn child up to a certain point. A person has the right to fill their car with oil knowing the blood spilled to aquire it. A person has a right to eat a hamburger knowing that an animal had it's life taken by a human despite not wishing to die as long as they do not torture the animal first. A victim of a crime has the right to pursue a death penalty in some cases.

There is no party that meets my personal moral cut-off point on every one of these issues. That is the main problem. Both parties need more innovators to solve an issue like this.

I am pro-choice myself! To the point where if a woman/couple wants to abort a child, it is her choice. it should also be on her/there dime.

Originally posted by Kerry_Knight

Originally posted by Parallex


Oh I see you are from the UK, so nevermind, your opinion of how things are done in the US is IRRELEVANT

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Kerry_Knight]

As an American your whole thought process may as well be IRRELEVANT..

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
First off, not everyone pregnancy is due to poor choices. Mistakes are made, rapes are committed etc, etc.

Mistakes FAR outweigh the number of abortions performed due to rape, incest and health of the mother combined. And should a child be murdered that had nothing to do with the crime of rape or incest? Abortion is only to secure the well-being of the victim, correct? And who is to say that the emotional and mental turmoil from this crime and subsequent abortion won't manifest itself in various ways over time? You're playing with hypotheticals in this case that everything will be just peachy keen and that the victim can forget all about these horrendous crimes if only the baby was killed. This is one of the biggest hypocritical positions of the pro-life movement. All life should be treated as sacred. The ONLY time a pregnancy should be terminated is if the mother would not be able to carry to term and her life was in imminent danger.

Secondly, would you as a tax payer rather pay thousands to support a child for as many as 18 years than pay a few hundred just to know that she won't get an abortion.

No, but I would support giving males a vasectomy at the onset of puberty to prevent "mistakes" from happening. The costs for this would be a little more than an abortion but would save much more over the long term.

That is also a large assumption, that just because she is financially incapable of having an abortion she won't get one. Illegal abortions happen all the time and put the mother at much greater risk. I would gladly pay for a safe, legal abortion instead of having a back alley close hanger abortion on my conscious.

Ah, when in doubt, play the back alley coat hanger card. And, financially incapable people should not be granted reproduction rights. Not fair to the child, the mother, the father, the community nor the taxpayer. It is a selfish act to bring a child into this world without the means to support it and expect everyone else to foot the bill.