|
|
Post by capttankona on Aug 21, 2009 11:29:53 GMT -5
I don't care if a woman wants to have an abortion or not. She damn well shouldn't do it on my dime, ever. And the problem with your juxtaposition is that no one got killed or assaulted by the man totting his assault rifle to the Presidential propaganda speech, yet someone always dies when a woman gets an abortion.
Abortion, legal, yes. Moral, never.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 21, 2009 11:36:39 GMT -5
Perhaps never moral for you (or Sarah Palin) but the rest of us logical folks can see that the potential human (cluster of cells) feels no pain and has no conscience. It is not "killing children" as you love to claim.
|
|
mrbose
Senior Member
Posts: 898
|
Post by mrbose on Aug 21, 2009 13:10:41 GMT -5
whats inhumane is that people with your mentality are walking the streets Lol. So in your mind that equates to mandated abortions?!?!?! Don't be so naive. Of course we will fund abortions for those who are unable and unwilling to care for potential children. It would be inhumane not to. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 21, 2009 13:18:55 GMT -5
Guess what, abortion is LEGAL. Just like toting assault rifles to a Presidential debate on health care. Irresponsible? Yes. But completely legal. I don't see anyone saying that it ISN'T legal. But then, you twist things the way you want no matter what anyone says.
Intersting anology you drew there. So, since abortion is legal and should be paid for with public money, and owership of firearms is legal (and I might add a specifcally enumerated and protected right, unlike the implied right to an abortion), then I should be able to get public money to buy firearms, right? On demand. No background checks, no waiting period. Walk in, gets some advice on what gun to buy, fill out some government forms and walk out with a gun all paid for by your taxes. I like it. Women are the ones who decide whether or not they want to have an abortion, not the government and not you. There are many different reasons leading to a woman's choice to have an abortion, for some it is easy, for others it is not. Your opinion of this completely LEGAL action is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 21, 2009 13:35:53 GMT -5
Too bad. In many cases abortions are medically necessary and if we are paying for people's health coverage then we will be paying for their abortions in those instances.
Look at how slanted the article Ferrous posted is:
In the first sentence it claims: "On July 17, 2007, Barack Obama pledged to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that abortion mandates would be included in his health care refonn proposals."
But they try to back that up with Obama's own words which do not reflect their statement whatsoever: "in my mind, reproductive care is essential care, basic care, so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose." Under his plan, he said, "insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care."
Newsflash: "Reproductive care" does not equate to "mandated abortions."
Ferrous needs to find a more accurate source of information to be taken seriously here.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 21, 2009 14:02:02 GMT -5
Too bad. In many cases abortions are medically necessary and if we are paying for people's health coverage then we will be paying for their abortions in those instances. . Is anyone saying anything different? An abortion because a kid would interfer with social or business life is NOT a medical necessity. If it is a true medical necessity, I don't think there is anyone that would deny it. From WebMD: About 30% of pregnant teens choose to have an abortion.4 About 60% of women under age 18 who have an abortion have a parent who knows of the abortion, and the majority of these parents support their daughters' decisions.4 (In the United States, some states require a parent's consent for women under the age of 18 before they can have an abortion. But in these states a minor has the right to seek a court order allowing an abortion without a parent's consent. For more information, contact your closest Planned Parenthood or other family planning clinic.) The most common reasons that teens and young women choose to have an abortion include:4 Awareness that they are not mature enough to have children.
Knowledge that they are financially not able to support or care for children.
Concern that having a baby would change their lives and compromise their (and a child's) future. Many young mothers don't ever manage to get the education and employment necessary to raise their children above the poverty line. Yeah, all those sound like medically necessary abortions. I can't find the source, but I seem to recall reading somewhere online that less than 5% of all the abortions performed are truely necessary from a medical point of view. Maybe you can dig up for me the percentage that are considered necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. (notice that it is always "the life of the mother" on potential mother or expectant mother, just mother without any modifiers) |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 21, 2009 14:10:36 GMT -5
Too bad. In many cases abortions are medically necessary and if we are paying for people's health coverage then we will be paying for their abortions in those instances. . Is anyone saying anything different? An abortion because a kid would interfer with social or business life is NOT a medical necessity. If it is a true medical necessity, I don't think there is anyone that would deny it. From WebMD: About 30% of pregnant teens choose to have an abortion.4 About 60% of women under age 18 who have an abortion have a parent who knows of the abortion, and the majority of these parents support their daughters' decisions.4 (In the United States, some states require a parent's consent for women under the age of 18 before they can have an abortion. But in these states a minor has the right to seek a court order allowing an abortion without a parent's consent. For more information, contact your closest Planned Parenthood or other family planning clinic.) The most common reasons that teens and young women choose to have an abortion include:4 Awareness that they are not mature enough to have children.
Knowledge that they are financially not able to support or care for children.
Concern that having a baby would change their lives and compromise their (and a child's) future. Many young mothers don't ever manage to get the education and employment necessary to raise their children above the poverty line. Yeah, all those sound like medically necessary abortions. I can't find the source, but I seem to recall reading somewhere online that less than 5% of all the abortions performed are truely necessary from a medical point of view. Maybe you can dig up for me the percentage that are considered necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. (notice that it is always "the life of the mother" on potential mother or expectant mother, just mother without any modifiers) All are excellent reasons to have an abortion. And let me point out that if all of these unwanted, un-cared for kids were being born it would cost us taxpayers FAR more than the abortion procedure. We would have to pay for an orphanage to take care of them and then, often times, pay for them to inhabit a jail cell when they have issues later in life. Plus, these young teens who have an abortion usually go on to have kids later in life (when they are actually ready to take care of them), kids they otherwise would not have had. So, in essence, they are bringing a life into this world that would otherwise never had existed had they not had an abortion. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 21, 2009 14:17:24 GMT -5
[ All are excellent reasons to have an abortion. And let me point out that if all of these unwanted, un-cared for kids were being born it would cost us taxpayers FAR more than the abortion procedure. We would have to pay for an orphanage to take care of them and then, often times, pay for them to inhabit a jail cell when they have issues later in life. Plus, these young teens who have an abortion usually go on to have kids later in life (when they are actually ready to take care of them), kids they otherwise would not have had. So, in essence, they are bringing a life into this world that would otherwise never had existed had they not had an abortion. No, no. Let's keep on the "medical necessity." All this other stuff is social/lifestyle stuff, NOT medical necessity. Also, if PP were to work as hard at providing adoption services as it does making sure that the undesireables don't reproduce, all of those kids you mentioned, or the vast majoryity, would be adopted into safe and loving homes. But you would rather kill them all. Face it, you deal in death. If someone is in the way, or an inconvienence, way, just kill him. No big deal. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Aug 21, 2009 14:19:40 GMT -5
Perhaps never moral for you (or Sarah Palin) but the rest of us logical folks can see that the potential human (cluster of cells) feels no pain and has no conscience. It is not "killing children" as you love to claim. And what about granny, gramps, the child with down syndrome, or the young student athlete who is paralyzed from$ an injury? Why can't we consider them to be just a "cluster" of tissues and organs? Afterall, given enough pain killers, they too will not feel the sting of death. This euthenasia should be authorized by your standard because the family members may not be able, willing, ready, or financially capable of caring for them. What say you? Shall we kill them too? |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 21, 2009 14:30:44 GMT -5
Perhaps never moral for you (or Sarah Palin) but the rest of us logical folks can see that the potential human (cluster of cells) feels no pain and has no conscience. It is not "killing children" as you love to claim. And what about granny, gramps, the child with down syndrome, or the young student athlete who is paralyzed from$ an injury? They are people. Obviously completely different. That's the sort of dimwitted argument that only a Republican would follow. By the way, if you are so concerned with every living cluster of cells then why don't you become a Jane, watch where you walk so you don't crush bugs, and wear a mask so you don't inhale bacteria. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Aug 21, 2009 14:31:45 GMT -5
Dude, that is some seriously twisted logic. Its quite obvious that you are childless. Can you imagine your only chil asking you, "daddy, why am I an only child?". And you saying, "well honey, your mother an I killed all your "potential" brothers and sisters.".
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 21, 2009 14:55:17 GMT -5
Dude, that is some seriously twisted logic. Its quite obvious that you are childless. Can you imagine your only chil asking you, "daddy, why am I an only child?". And you saying, "well honey, your mother an I killed all your "potential" brothers and sisters.". And why not, "your daddy and I decided to have you." |
|
