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

reply to post by HotSauce


By your logic, then I should not have to pay for anything for anyone, ever. Need that high school? Too bad. Need that bridge replaced? Oh well. Before you or anyone else says it's not the same thing, it most certainly is. As a taxpayer, you pay for a great many things you will never personally use/interact with or even physically see or know exists. Just because you don't 'approve' of abortions doesn't mean you can force your opinions onto others.

As for the whole: "I don't want them spending my money on things like that!"

Two things.

Firstly, it ceases to be YOUR money when you pay your taxes. What .gov does with it after that, is really none of your concern. It is like a business transaction. For example, at the grocery store, do you get to tell the cashier what she can do with the bills once you hand them over? Of course not, same thing here.

Secondly, it was never YOUR money to begin with, it belongs to the fed. They 'let you hold it', for a bit, to use as you will. But eventually it all comes back home to papa, which pretty much negates point one, but WTH...

Chrono

If men have to pay taxes for these procedures, then they should have a say in what terms are acceptable. Otherwise that would be taxation without representation right?

IMO abortion should not be paid for or subsidized by taxes aka the public; its a private matter thus should be privately funded. The only exception where taxpayer assistance is acceptable is where the pregnancy is due to rape or threatens the mothers life; basically a healthcare/criminal issue.

For those who want others to butt out of their decision to have an abortion, please respect our want to not have to pay for it. If its a private matter don't make the public pay for it.

With all due respect you are a bit misinformed on who can and cannot receive an abortion at tax payer expense according to the government health care bill.

Women who have been raped, are victims of incest, or who are at danger of losing their own life by giving birth to the baby are the ones who the tax payers would be paying for if they decided to have an abortion.

Women who willingly slept with some one and got pregnant and simply do not want the baby will have to find their own way to fund the abortion as the tax payers will not pay for that.

As weird ass it sounds, I am pro life AND pro choice. While I am personally not in favor of abortions, I respect every womans right to choose whether they have an abortion.

I am sure there are things out there that each of you do not like but would not stop another person from doing because it infringes on their rights. I am sure that you would not like it if you were doing something that is a right and is legal yet had complete strangers yelling at you trying to make you feel bad for doing what you have every right to do.

Smokers in the US, you should understand where I am coming from.....

All that said, I have no problem paying taxes that go to women who have been raped, are victims of incest or are at risk of losing their own life. I am glad that is a part of the bill.

What happened to the women who will receive tax payer money for abortions, is a horrible sad thing and I support their right of women who were raped, victims of incest and are in danger of losing their own lives, to have an abortion...Whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by galatea

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
reply to post by galatea

 

I find these threads most amusing. Here you have people who are against control of any kind yet come out in force and say "But with this the government should be in complete control. No abortions at all". What they are really saying is all women are merely incubators. They should have no rights whatsoever when it comes tp pregnancy. Kinda makes you feel like a second class citizen, doesn't it. At least thats how my wife feels. That's why we got out.

yeah.. and majority of "pro llfers" in this thread are men and it really irks me.

sorry men, but unless you are carrying the baby in your body.. you don't get a choice.

Men should have a choice. Especially when we are made to support a woman after she has had a child. The idea that because a woman carries the baby, that nobody else in the world is relevant, is what irks me.

reply to post by juggle


1. Rape and incest are covered in the HC bill and I support it, except I thnk a whole lot of women are going to start screaming rape and incest to get a free abortion.. but I guess there isn't much you can do about that.

2. Only1-3% of abortion are due to rape or incest, while 78% are due to inconvienience for the mother.

reply to post by Zerra


Very good point Zerra. To be honest you have made more sense than anyone on this thread including me. You have shown a wonderful mix of compassion with common sense and if I had the ability to give you applause(bonus points) I would.

reply to post by Chronogoblin

Firstly, it ceases to be YOUR money when you pay your taxes. What .gov does with it after that, is really none of your concern. It is like a business transaction. For example, at the grocery store, do you get to tell the cashier what she can do with the bills once you hand them over? Of course not, same thing here.

This is just the kind of thinking that has lead to the overtaxation that is destroying this country. It is every citizens concern on how their country spends money, espeially when that government is over budget,borrowing money in our and our children and grandchildrens name, and especially when they are devaluing the currency by printing money that they don't really have.

reply to post by HotSauce


If American citizens can watch their government bail out their crooked banks with Tax Dollars... why can't a woman bail out of a drunken one-night-stand with Tax Dollars?

Do you really want a generation of fatherless "Booze Babies" stumbling in our future and leaching what pennies are left?? America, I don't think so.

reply to post by Level X


We should not have bailed out the banks from thier mistakes and we should not be bailing out women from their mistakes. Especially, when bailing out the woman means we have to help pay for her to kill her own child.

That is the bigest stuff that is wrong with this country. Nobody wants to get the consequences from their bad decisions. Everybody wants to be to big to fail or be the victim of something. Nobody wants to admit it was their fault.

By basically helping them to avoid all consequences we enable them to continue to make the same poor decisions over and over again, because they never recieve the punishment and lessons that natural consequences bring.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by HotSauce]

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.

24 weeks is far too late!!! the child is fully formed and alive!! I believe that is nothing short of murder.
Now, I'm not totally against abortions and believe that sometimes that may be an option e.g. in cases of rape or deformity or such. However, to terminate a normal healthy pregnancy in my opinion is wrong.
Hope you enjoyed your coffee

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

Well said. But given the OP is some pro-life hardcore , you speak in the void Galatea.

to OP : I'm French, and as our coffee bar friend ( post n2 ) we have state-paid abortions. I was at age 17 involved in an abortion, which I helped my girlfriend go through. My condom just failed , like in 1% of any sex act involving a condom. Being a father at age 17 because of some pro-life christians dictating our behavior towards cells multiplying in a womb didn't make me feel happy - it still doesn't 10 years later - .

On the other hand , if you don't want to look like a christian neo-con, try using better words than " vacuum clean the baby " or whatever terms you use. A cell splitting in two then four then eight and so on is NOT LIFE. When the baby opens his/her eyes and screams for the first time, this is life. Not before. Got it ?

I will add myself to the list here of others saying they would rather pay for an abortion than for a child to live in a home where they will not be loved, taken care of or wanted.. whats the point? and please Gods dont let someone say after this 'children homes' ! as often as that does work, it more often than not leads to even more problems of abuse usually, and a slew of emotional/mental issues.. or the child is left to rot in a childrens home where he then becomes property and burden of the state/country..That said, i dont believe abortions should be used as a form of birth control, there are dozens of reasons to have one, but the major problem is the women likely to have them need to stop just spreading their legs for any thug lowlife that they meet! Its going to sound harsh, but its true.. i see kids every day where i live that absolutely should have been aborted instead of brought into this world..usually the mothers of these children are living on government help and have up to 7 or 8 kids each..many with different fathers... in cases like that abortion isnt the answer so to say, but somethings got to be done about it..forced sterilization of obvious cases of this would be a start...

''Do women have a human right to taxpayer paid abortions?''
I would love to ask Nidal Malik Hasan this question when he wakes up.

This is one of those absurd questions that truly gets to the heart of our existentialist dilemma in the modern world. We make more of ourselves by the coupling of opposites. Then we let the Government have an option on our sons. The Government can confiscate our sons and kill them in the process of war. We accept this because it seems obvious that somebody needs to go fight the good fight. But when it comes to these unborn critters of questionable worth, folks get all upset.

What is the question here really?

Do we not want to pay for extermination of undesirables?

Do we fear that once the Government takes over payment then the Government will also take over the decision about which ones to abort and which ones to birth?

What is it really?

Do fat people have the right to heart transplants?

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire


Do we fear that once the Government takes over payment then the Government will also take over the decision about which ones to abort and which ones to birth?

What is it really?

This is the problem i have.. I, like many others, do not want to give the governments any more control as i feel they have far too much as it is.. but at the same time, someone should have a say over women that continue to breed like bunnies just to get more money out of the system for each spawn..

reply to post by HotSauce


We should take note as to which politicians are pushing the agenda you're talking about. It is these people who are the ones pushing the NWO depopulation plan along. This is just another step.

I'm sure it is Planned Parenthood, which is nothing more than Nazi Germany's eugenics program moved/adopted here on U.S. soil.

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by dawnstar

 

You know the thing I dont get with you bringing up that the mother could die as a result over and over again, is that most women I know would choose to die before their baby.
Source

and, because you would be willing to die for your baby (but well, not pay child support, if you're a little bunny!).....you think that value should be enforced on the 12% that have to make that decision......even if they already have a few dependent children looking at them to meet their needs that will be left orphans because of your value system???

it's like the healthcare bill itself....who's the 4% or 6% or whatever it is that will be left uninsured? are they the ones that will be left in that canyon, ya know the one that exists now, filled by people who are too rich to deserve help, but still to poor to get medical coverage? are they the ones that will be the first to be thrown into jail because they can't afford the insurance or the fine?? isn't it just a tad bit unjust to take even more money from these people to pay for a healthcare system they are still finding themselves blocked from?

I don't care if it's only one person!!! it's still an injustice! Most of what the government has been doing for the past few decades has been unconstitutional....and many times quite immoral! But, well, as long as the majority of the people seem to be benefitting from it, well, it's all peachy! Somewhere along the line we have to let justice have her say. or are we throwing that out along with the constitution?


[edit on 11-11-2009 by dawnstar]

Well, actually I'd say that they *do* have the right, as long as abortion is legal.

Already my tax dollars are being used to fund a war that is immoral, illegal, and futile. There are many people who are total pacifists, who consider any killing to be abhorrent. And yet, their tax dollars are being spent to kill. Some of their tax dollars get spent for wars; others on executing criminals.

So why is it OK to spend tax dollars to kill some people, yet it is wrong to use tax dollars to kill other people?

Simple answer: in a democracy, we're stuck paying for things we don't want to pay for. Not one person in this country is probably OK with everything his tax dollars are used for. Everyone has some sort of beef, be it against killing, against education, whatever. So yeah, we all wind up funding things we hate, but it's part of being in a democracy.

reply to post by chiron613

breast enlargements are legal also, do insurance companies pay for that at the present time??

I think that need vrs want should play into this, if it's needed, then fine, let taxpayer money pay for it, as long as we don't leave a mass of people out of the loop all together who are footing the bill... otherwise, it's elective, not needed, if they want it bad enough, let them pay for it themselves!

Polarity is not intelligent.

No matter wich way you go, you will be wrong half the time.

Every persons life is different. Every situation unique. What seems a simple idea, is actually too simple to apply intelligently.

Laws are for lazy-ass societies who don't want to get involved in micro-societal self managing. We have too many laws. Laws are highly contrasted and no gradations are possible. Usually the situation is complex and a court or usually over burdened counseling services are just bureaucratic labyrinths that only serve themselves by seperating themselves from responsibility by following the written law blindly.

In this, and EVERY OTHER SOCIAL PROBLEM WE FACE, is the education of our people, our youth and our educationally starved populations. Give the money for making laws to the direct educational needs. Teaching about sexuality, psychology of relationships and real world understanding of the impact of pregnancy and child raising is critical to their understanding the responsibility and the loss of their youth will be enough.

Not teaching the 3 R's but real progressive and intelligently designed educational methods and systems. In comparison such would make state and city run public schools look like no more than regimental holding pens.

Keep religions and corporate interests away. Pay teachers fairly and give them and the kids all the resources they need. Leverage the wisdom base of the communities by involving the senior members. Use the experts and have them serve so many weeks a year as service to the schools. Require everyone to participate, or

Educate to Elevate.

Nip the problem in the bud, then dig up and trim the roots. The problem of early pregnancy and irresponsible sexual practices will slowly dissolve.

Then when you do have a unique situation with an abortion related issue you can deal with that easily.

ZG