It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 21
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by WishForWings

Okay, so then if you re the one spreading the sperm, in your ideology, then you must pay also.

If you do not want to pay for it also, do not go along to sperm banks etc.......

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:13 PM
reply to post by Laurauk

I agree that men should help pay as it was a decision by both parties to risk getting her pregnant. Men need to stand up and pay for child support too instead of running from tehir responsibiities.

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:49 PM
If men are to help pay for the abortion
then they sould be a part of the 'choice' .
It couldn't fairly be any other way.
Why should he have to pay for an abortion when he wants the baby; that would be horrible,
although maybe it would encourage him to make sure things are covered so to speak, from the beginning.

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:56 PM
reply to post by AmericanDaughter

I agree. I think men should be a part of the choice regardless as long as they commit to being financially responsible for the child welfare, evenly wiht the mother.

Maybe one day they will have the tech to remove the child from the woman and implant it in a surrogate if the father wishes to raise it even though the birth mother doesn't want it.

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 08:43 PM

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
That's not even remotely true. Having an abortion is not in itself participation in eugenics and yes as a matter of fact I am calling progressive eugenicists nazis as well. Sterelizing mentally retarded people is eugenics. Forcing abortions of children of mentally retarded people is eugenics. A woman having an abortion because she was raped is NOT eugenics.

Oh contraire. One of the premises of early eugenics programs (and eugenics has had a very broad meaning and scope throughout history) was to get rid of "undesireables", whether, for example, they be poor, dumb, mentally ill, physically deformed, or of certain ethnicity. Euguenics programs have taken on many forms: infantcide, genocide, selective breeding, etc..

However, since a majority of today's abortions are performed to eliminate a "undesirable" pregnancy then, logically speaking, abortion could said to be an offshoot of eugenics.

And, using your logic, then anyone chosing to eliminate an undesireable is practicing eugenics and by your definition a nazi.

Weird, huh? Next time, don't be so eager to make associations like that.

Also, if find it very ironic that your screename is Transhumanist. I'm sure with a name like this, that you are well aware eugenics is often associated with the transhumanist movement.

For example:

Some critics of transhumanism allege an ableist bias in the use of such concepts as "limitations", "enhancement" and "improvement". Some even see the old eugenics, social Darwinist and master race ideologies and programs of the past as warnings of what the promotion of eugenic enhancement technologies might unintentionally encourage. Some fear future "eugenics wars" as the worst-case scenario: the return of coercive state-sponsored genetic discrimination and human rights violations such as compulsory sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, specifically, segregation from, and genocide of, "races" perceived as inferior.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by Freenrgy2]

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:26 PM
reply to post by Freenrgy2

No using MY logic an abortion of an undesired child is not eugenics. It is just an abortion. Using YOUR logic that all abortions are a form of eugenics combined with my logic that eugenicists are nazis allows you to reach that conclusion.

Being a transhumanist doesn't make me a nazi. In thousands of years, transhumans may have naturally eliminated the human race since it is reasonable to assume that all humans might one day decide to become trans or post humans after seeing all the benefits to it. Not through eugenics, but participatory evolution. There is nothing ironic about me being a transhumanist opposed to eugenics. Not every transhumanist falls in the same camp.

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 10:36 PM
i find opposition to the stupak amendment by liberals who previously supported or otherwise support the health insurance overhall to be VERY hypocritical.

if abortion is a medical procedure that deserves coverage because its a decision between a patient and her doctor and does not warrant interference by the government in any way, other medical procedures deserve the same classification.

this entire reform relies on the idea that the government will be able to cut costs. what does this mean? when obama says "maybe you don't need the pacemaker maybe you need the pain pill" is that not a medical decision he has no business meddling in?

for these reasons, and despite the fact that i am strongly pro-life. I AM AGAINST THE STUPAK AMENDMENT as of today. i am against it because it is not so much an anomoly in an other wise liberal bill, it perfectly fits with the spirit of such a bill and if it takes abortion to wake up the hypocritical feminists to the fact that choice matters and a government monopoly doesn't offer choice. I'll stand with them until they wake up.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:07 AM
reply to post by snusfanatic

Government monopoly? What healthcare reform are you talking about? Last time I heard, it was a public option. Singlepayer isn't even on the table. I agree with you that the government shouldn't be able to decide that women don't need a mamogram until a certain age or that a person gets pain relief over a pace maker however.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:17 AM
reply to post by The Transhumanist

I do not believe that a president who advocated his belief in a single payer system publicly as recently as 2 years ago intends for there to be very many choices.

We start with a public 'option.' But is it really an option when you are legally obligated to buy health insurance? When your employer can dump you onto the public system cheaper than providing you private care? When private options are saddled with unprecedented regulation - and have to make a profit or go under whilst competing with an entity that has ran up a $12 trillion dollar debt and keeps on rolling?

This is step one to a single payer system.

Beside's this however, my point is about the hypocrisy of the feminists with regards to the Stupak amendment. Single payer or not, long before abortion was targeted within the public option everybody knew other necessary treatments would already be denied by that option. I cannot conceive of an explanation why abortion is the only procedure that opens their eyes.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:40 PM

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

I find it interesting that people who want a rape exception for abortion are willing to execute the baby, but never talk about executing the rapist.

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:40 AM
Is there only a problem with men having a say if we were to disagree with the right for a woman to have an abortion?

i.e. would you deny me the right to support the pro-choice movement?

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

Look. I have issues with people equating a child to a melanoma, a wart, or something cosmetic. Yes, if you get skin cancer due to spending unprotected time in the sun, you are responsible for how you get it treated. You do not "treat" pregnancy by ending it. Pregnancy is not a disease, and that is how our culture seems to be defining it. Pregnancy is how the human race replicates itself.

You can only get pregnant by extreme intimate contact. For most people, not counting those who have suffered from being forced into acts against their will, sex, procreation, intercourse is something you make a choice to do. You realize, as a rational adult that you stand risk of bringing forth a new life into the world, for which you, its "creator" are now responsible. You make choices to either then not engage in intercourse, or take as many precautions as possible. If no one bothered to tell teenagers that sex can and most likely will eventually lead to a baby, then they have been done a great disservice.

A baby is not a baby only when it's cute wear L.L. Bean clothes. It's a baby from conception - seeing as prior to conception both sperm and ova do not grow or change into a new human being.

I do not want to pay for the killing of an infant. It's an infant, no matter what people tell themselves so they can sleep better at night.

And as if it matters, or could change the validity of my views, I am a woman. Anyone I've met who has had an abortion is usually fairly messed up in the head afterward. They understand they killed their child, sometimes on the incorrect belief the man in their life did not want it, causing a rift that can't be crossed.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:03 PM
This is purile and trollish in nature. Simple fact is there should be coverage for anything deemed medically needed. And yes, sometimes abortion is medically needed. But by the same token, I bet you prescriptions of Viagra and Cialis will be covered. Given you seem to express a very selective objection to what is covered I presume you are saying this is a 'human right' and the tax-payers should get 'stiffed' with that bill.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:43 PM
reply to post by Sheeple

and you are replying to my post where I said:

"if that unborn child is threatening the health and well being of the mother, then yes, it should be paid for by the new healthcare system.......
just like well, if you get skin cancer because you were dumb enough to lay out in the sun seeking that nice dark tan every day of your life, well, we're paying for that stupid mistake, aren't we??
if it's not a healthrisk, well, then it's elective surgery, isn't it? my current insurance policy doesn't cover alot of elective proceedures.

but, the day that I am hearing about women dying even when their doctors knew they were heading for major problems because some amoung us want to enforce their standards onto the rest of us, well, that will be the day that having sex will be seen by me as more dangerous to my health than cigarettes, and I will share that view with many, many women!! maybe even your wife!"


okay, then I don't want to have my tax money paying for any tumors that might pop up in your body!!

the minute that a baby becomes a real threat to the mother's life and well being, I am sorry, you have no right to try to force her to sacrifice her life and well being for anyone!! she may chose to, if she wishes, but you do not have the right. and like I said, if it's not a risk, then it's elective, and well, my insurance doesn't pay for alot of elective stuff!

posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 11:08 PM
A generic response to the title: "Do women have a human right to taxpayer paid abortions? I don't think so!"

Correct: After she has an abortion, she has to WORK HARD just like the rest of us TAXPAYERS and pay off her abortion. Taxpayers should not have to be burdened with the death of another. Yuchy.

posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 04:04 AM
reply to post by pikypiky

...unless that death prevents the death of the mother....
then well, it's just like treating any other kind of illness....unless of course, you have a problem with taxpayer's money going to treat children for flu symptoms or the common cold, which happens all the time!!

posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 04:09 AM
there is no human right to government funded anything.

posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 05:02 AM
reply to post by snusfanatic

there is if the gov't is funding something!!!

and they are funding the healthcare of many of the kids in this country, aren't they?
they are funding the healthcare of many adults in this country, aren't they??
so, well, if a women is gonna die if she tries to deliver a baby, then they shouldn't be able to deny her funding, just because the word abortion is involved in her treatment!

posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 03:37 PM
This is a very stupid post by the OP and also most of the replys here on this thread are of the emotional type..based on individual feelings.

It was very easy to see that when this legislation came out, in spite of the public sentiment on this issue, that taxpayer funded abortion would be privily and stealthly reinserted into law. This is necessary for political reasons. Translate that as votes.

Someone out here is willing to sell the bulk of Americans down the drain for political exediency on one issue after another thus illustrating to thinking Americans that we have a non represenative government. A government which represesnts someone or something but not the bulk of Americans peoples. We are seeing this on one issue after another now and the pace is quickening. A government which represents someone or something but not the American Peoples.
They represent mostly political expediency on the taxpayers purse strings in case after case. What Politics is looking for is votes...the path to more power..and I mean both political parties.

I am going to repeat some of what I have posted many times on ATS/BTS.

The major determiner of how monies are spent here in America is the female..not the male. The male will earn and take tremendous RISK in the earning of the monies but it is the female who determines how most of it is spent..particularly on big ticket items. Politicians and political strategists know this fact. They do not necessarily tell the public that this is true.

Anyone selling homes, cars, appliances, clothes, food,,,etc ..all across the spectrum knows that it is the female who must be sold ...not the male. The male is sold by appealing to the female's sensibilities. And the female is sold by appealing to the children's make the female/mother insecure about her femaleness/motherhood.
This puts tremendous economic/political clout in the hands of the females by social constructs.

What this means is that economic clout is witht the female..not the male. Therefore political clout is with the female ..not the male. Therefore the male must privily be put in second or third place in the pecking order while defaultiing political/economic clout to the females for votes. Particularly in states with high electorial votes where most of the females of voting age are to be found.

There must needs be an issue which will automatically galvanize females to a predictable, guaranteed, controllable vote at election time. The one issue with which women automatically gather and identify is sex/sexuality. Therefore Abortion was chosesn as the litmust test to guarantee the female vote and particularly on the four year election cycle.

It got so bad in times past that Abortion was used/misused to censor and control every office in the land unless you were associated with the one litmus test issue identified with one particular party. The democrats. You could not run for dog catcher unless you stated your views on abortion. Your qualifications meant nothing next to your views on abortion. In this manner abortion was used/misused to censor most elections and the American thought process.

Once you understand this template is easy to see how abortion must be firmly entrenched so as to guarantee female/feminine economic/political dominance across the American spectrum while hiding the true nature of this set up. Abortion itself must become part of the political process and on the public purse as are so many other vote guaranteeing programs. A political party which preys on the public emotions/fears/insecurities must gurantee the female vote by this issue.


the minute that a baby becomes a real threat to the mother's life and well being, I am sorry, you have no right to try to force her to sacrifice her life and well being for anyone!! she may chose to, if she wishes, but you do not have the right. and like I said, if it's not a risk, then it's elective, and well, my insurance doesn't pay for alot of elective stuff!

This is incredibly shallow and one sided. I can make the argument in this manner from your quote.
I can do this in relation to the baby as well as the female. That they both be aborted.

"The minute that baby/mother becomes a real threat to the fathers life and well being, I am sorry but you have no right to try to force a man to sacrafice his life and well being for anyone. He may choose to if he wishes but no one has the right to do so. And like I said..if it is not a RISK than it is elective. And my insurance requires much higher premiums for the most RISKY associations/electives or they drop you."

Men/males take RISKS all the time for women and children. It is done so often it is hardly noticed today in lieu of textbook male bashing to secure the moral and ethical high ground of female consumption rates on this male risk taking. This is a definite threat to male well being as we know males die off at a much higher rate than females or children.

Political whoredom is based on the willingness of the male to support and RISK for a system where he is constantly put second and third place while they feed this dummy sports, beer, and cheerleaders to keep him ignorant of this template and it has been remarkably successful.
Sports is conditioning for RISK taking...and now days also turned into amusements.

a- without

without thinking-amusement.

It is very easy to justify ones self off of the buffet line if someone else is required to pay and RISK for it. This is the tack our government is tending towards for continued power and control over the peoples and on the public purse. Both political parties..republicans as well as democrats. I know this because even the republicans do not explain this to the people about the political process financed by deficit spending. Thus both political parties are phonies in this. They are just a mirror reflections of the one party operating behind the scenes with the public caught between the mirrors.

By the very nature of the political processes going on out here, including abortion, we are seeing and will continue to see a political process which represents someone or something but not the American Peoples.
This is exactly the political process going in in England and the Continent where the governments represent anyone but the people they have sworn to represent

This is a definition of Royalty or Feudalism. Abortion is just a stepping stone to this absolute power.

To the readers out here ..I suggest you do not insert your emotions or feelings about abortion as the litmus test. I say this simply because the political power out here cares not one whit about how many unborn are killed or the well being of the women next to the value of the votes they will be getting on this issue. They obviously care not one whit about the RISK taking of the males. In the end they also care not one whit about the children of the females next to the votes they need and will get by such issues as abortion.
This is nothing more than the buying, selling, and trading of the very souls of the American Peoples for votes. The correct name for this type of default setting on the public purse is whoredom.

If you think this post is just a bunch of hot air...buckle up. In like whoredom the political process is now selling the very souls of the American Peoples and on the public purse for Illegal Aliens and Islam. For votes and power.
Exactly what has happened in England and the Continent.

We are slated by the whorish political process to become second place citizens while financing first place benefits for these groups who are protected by "victim status." If you are not being "amused" you can see this happening daily. This too is exactly what has happened in England and on the Continent.

As I said...'Buckle UP" while you are being "Amused."


edit on 23-10-2010 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 01:13 PM

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]

You are confused on the issue.

First...the original HCRB did not route taxpayer money to pay for abortions.
It did however have language that was non-specific enough to be exploited for political rhetorical purposes..."The bill pays for abortions."

Acknowledging that the language could be...albiet by a far reaching interpreted as taxpayer funded abortion...the language was tightened as requested by the GOP.

Not being happy about being denied a "hot-button" conservative issue the GOP didn't let the facts stand in thier way and continued to claim that the bill endorsed taxpayer funded abortions...thus the GOP senator/idiot who screamed "Baby Killer" at Bart Stupek during the final debate.

So..setting aside the inherent BS assumptions in your OP...the real question? Do Women have a right to taxpayer funded abortions? If it is a, if thier life is at risk due to the the case of rape or incest...IMO yes, but the TP candidates and far right have disagreed.

I don't know of any "Liberals" who contested that taxpayer dollars should pay for run-of-the-mill abortions.

new topics

top topics

<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in