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

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.......

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.

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.

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.

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:



[edit on 19-11-2009 by Freenrgy2]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!