You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should people who are morally agaisnt abortions be forced to pay for those who w
In a nut shell:
Nancy Pelosi agreed to add a provision (in the public option health care bill) that would prohibit federal funds from being used for the purchase of plans that cover abortion in a new health care exchange. Leaving out the amendment would force taxpayers (who are morally against abortions) to subsidize abortion.
Pelosi’s decision to give the anti-abortion lawmakers what they wanted in exchange for their accession to passing the bill.
The Hyde amendment already prohibited federal dollars from subsidizing abortions, with the only exceptions of rape and incest. The first half of this current amendment is pretty much redundant as it's already federal law. It's the second part that's ridiculous. The amendment prevents people who are subsidized by the government to help pay for private insurance to purchase plans that include abortion coverage. This primarily hurts poor minorities twofold: it ensures that there will be higher birth-rates, helping in the increase in single-mother families and potentially poverty rates, and it will necessarily limit the variety of insurance they can choose.
That's 100% correct. Which is why people who cannot afford an abortion should abstain from sex.
Lets say that I buy a house and then realize that I can't make the payments, are you going to subsidize me? Or is it only women who need these special priviledges you're tallking about.
Why do you hate poor people so much Joe? Are you seriously saying that your solution to this is that if you're poor, you can't have sex, because there is a small chance that contraception may fail? Just so we're clear, is that actually what you're suggesting? That there should be a minimum criteria that you must meet to engage in something that humans have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years?
"This has nothing to do with poor or rich people."
Unfortunately it does, because what is proposed is financial help for the poor towards the cost of an abortion; being rich or poor has everything to do with the argument. However, this is slightly different to what I am opposing, which is Joe's view that "People who cannot afford an abortion should abstain from sexual intercourse."
Clearly, this is advocating a criteria on those who should be allowed to engage in sex, which is both ridiculous and naive. Paying for the abortions of those who cannot afford them when they are patently required isn't going to encourage people to have sex. I doubt the cost of an abortion would ever be something that is going through someone's mind when they decide to engage in sex.
The thing you have to decide is: do you just ignore the problem, or try to combat it? Allowing this regression of poor kids born to poor families, not to mention the fact that these kids are most likely unwanted, unplanned, and unlikely to be born with the proper financial planning which should always be a factor when having or planning to have a child, means that, in the long run, this child will mostly likely have a poor quality of upbringing and be more of a financial burden then initially paying for the abortion.
Sex happens, and you can't stop it. What you can do, however, is make a decision about how you best combat the rising gap between the poor and the rich in America, and how your tax dollars are best spent. Do you want 18 years of supporting a child through welfare (and most likely far more than 18 years), or do you want a small one-time financial burden, not to mention stopping an unwanted child who will most likely have a poor quality of life being bought into the world?
It's not that I hate poor people. It is that I do not condone irresponsible behaviour; ever.
If you are a low-income woman, the last thing you need is a baby. Since contraceptives are not 100% effective, you should abstain from sexual intercourse. Facials, blow jobs, etc. are OK. Sexual intercourse would be irresponsible because you would be gambling a fetus' life for temporary pleasure.
Now, I expect that you would not want to be held liable for someone else's gambling debt, so why should I be held liable for a woman who gambled that she would not get pregnant and lost?
The law states that you can legally have an abortion within a certain period of time. The law does NOT guarantee that an abortion will be provided for you, free of charge.
OK, then. The government is not responsible for paying for abortions. Here's my argument.
The Hyde Amendment, implemented in 1977, restricts the use of federal funds for abortion. These public funds can only be used when an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, or when the pregnancy results from assault rape or incest.
Are you saying that the court ruling did not happen? Are you saying that the court ruling is not in effect? How far are you willing to go to prove your ignorance?
OMG when will people stop making these poor arguments about poor people? They are poor. They KNOW they are poor. They still took the risk of pregnancy KNOWING that they may not be able to hold the burden. Why should we feel sorry for these people?
"They still took the risk of pregnancy KNOWING that they may not be able to hold the burden. Why should we feel sorry for these people?"
Again I ask, are you advocating that finances should be a criteria in people having sex? Is that seriously what you're saying? Because to me, it looks like your argument is "don't have sex if you're poor."
I think the message they are trying to get across is that given the fact that:
The Hyde Amendment, implemented in 1977, restricts the use of federal funds for abortion. These public funds can only be used when an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, or when the pregnancy results from assault rape or incest.
If you cannot afford an abortion, then it is a good idea to refrain from sexual intercourse (other sexual acts are OK). If you don't refrain from sexual intercourse and you end up pregnant, then you better have a back up plan for funding your abortion because Uncle Sam is not responsible for paying for it.
Here's another way to say the same thing.
Government Protected Constitutional Right does not mean that the government has to pay people to exercise their constitutional rights.
That's not the analogy. Leaving the house and having sex are the equivalents. Both are choices made that can have potential problems. When leaving the house, and equally when having protected sex, the risk aspect is greatly reduced to a point where it shouldn't have a bearing on the decision to act.
So, the argument of not having protected sex if you can't afford an abortion is equivalent to saying don't leave the house if you can't afford any risks that may equally occur from that decision, such as being hit by a car.
Engaging in protected sex and leaving the house are both choices that can have negative consequences. Saying you should spend your life avoiding possibilities because of potential unlikely negatives is ridiculous.
"Which is why people who cannot afford an abortion should abstain from sex"
...in your opinion. I can just see the GOP ads now..."Stop the poor from having sex!!" Now there's a "winning" argument!
"Lets say that I buy a house and then realize that I can't make the payments, are you going to subsidize me?"
It depends. There are a lot of people out there that were lied to when they purchased loans, and I feel that at least some of them should have the ability to try & get a judge to modify their terms so they can try & stay in their homes.
"Or is it only women who need these special priviledges you're tallking about."
LMAO! Since when are CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS "special privileges"??
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS become "special privileges" when I have to pay people to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
The Hyde Amendment, implemented in 1977, restricts the use of federal funds for abortion. These public funds can only be used when an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, or when the pregnancy results from assault rape or incest.
The government is not responsible for paying you to exercise your Constitutional rights.
The government is only responsible for protecting your rights. If you want an abortion, then the government guarantees that there will not be any federal obstacles keeping you from exercising your right.
If you can't, or wont exercise your rights, that's not the governments fault. otherwise I could bill the government to fly me to Washington DC in order for me to exercise my Constitutional right of freedom of speech and talk about how ridiculous it is for the government to pay you to exercise your rights.
Once again, it's so "magnanimous" of you to sit in judgment of when people should have or not have sex...ugh...get over yourself... Once again, are YOU practicing what you preach??
So let me get this straight. A woman can force me to suffer the consequences of her actions by forcing me to pay for her abortions but I cannot force her to accept the consequences of her actions. It's a one way street, right? Only women get to force other people into things, right?
I have never disputed the fact that women have a constitutional right to get an abortion. What I am disputing is the fact that the government is not responsible for paying you to exercise your Constitutional rights. The government is only responsible for protecting your rights.
If you can't, or wont exercise your rights, that's not the governments fault. otherwise I could bill the government to fly me to Washington DC in order for me to exercise my Constitutional right of freedom of speech and talk about how ridiculous it is for the government to pay me to exercise my rights.
This entire string of counter arguments is completely irrelevant to the debate. The issue is not if and how abortions should be avoided, but who they should pay them when they do happen.
And by the way joe, sex is great, you should really try it sometime. Maby it will get some of the bigotry out of you.
your poor wife....how many kids you got? so you only procreated twice? oh i said poor wife,stupid me, she is prob glad you feel the way you do.-means she doesnt have to have such a vile critter like you in her.whats your hang up joe ? oh thats right your sexually deprived. If sex is for nothing more than procreation than whats orgasm for? a reward for abstinence?
The Hyde Amendment, implemented in 1977, restricts the use of federal funds for abortion. These public funds can only be used when an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, or when the pregnancy results from assault rape or incest.
OR, they could not get pregnant! OR they could give the child up for adoption! OR they could save a little money to pay for the abortion themselves! When do we hold people accountable for their actions?!!!
You live in a larger society and it doesn't simply revolve around your will, but the good of the greater collective. While America prides itself on liberty, autonomy should never supersede solidarity.
Look, I can tell you're a nice guy. So..., why don't you take out your check book and write as much compasion as you can afford and show me a little compansion (not by giving me money but) by not taking my money away from me and giving it to a cause I don't believe in. ;)
"So..., why don't you take out your check book and write as much compasion as you can afford and show me a little compansion (not by giving me money but) by not taking my money away from me and giving it to a cause I don't believe in."
Because, simply put, that's NOT how our system of govt. works, period. One does NOT get to pick exactly how their tax dollars are used. We live in a representative democracy, NOT a direct one!
funny but i cant help but notice how joe keeps telling people to pull out their check books ,not just in this debate but throughout, you sure your not fishing for a handout joe. just saying.
funny but i cant help but notice how joe keeps telling people to pull out their check books ,not just in this debate but throughout, you sure your not fishing for a handout joe. just saying.
OK, so let me put it to you simply. Right now, this very moment, as I type, in this country, there exists a law that states that GOVERNMENT MONEY CANNOT BE USED TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS!!!
But you are welcome to try and change the law if you are so inclined ;)
The Hyde Amendment, implemented in 1977, restricts the use of federal funds for abortion. These public funds can only be used when an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, or when the pregnancy results from assault rape or incest.
The government does not place any restrictions on how you spend your money. The government is not allowed (by law, see the Hyde Amendment above) to fund abortions that are not needed to save the life of the mother, or when the pregnancy results from assault rape or incest. Therefore (being the good semaritan that you are) you should take out your check book and write as much compasion as you can afford for those poor women who aren't getting a government subsidized abortion. Put your money where you mouth is. Or are you a hypocrite? It's real easy to be generous with someone else's money ;)
Well, what happens when people start to have the option of opting out for paying for national "defense", the endless War on Drugs, prisons, etc., etc.??
Let's face it, abortions are totally legal medical procedures which women have a Constitutional right to, period!
This whole abortion issue is just a distraction from the main issue of health care reform. It doesn't amount to a roll of beans...
Actually, there is no constitutional right to Abortion. Roe v Wade was an issue pertaining to a right to privacy. Abortion as a practice can be accepted however not funded as there are enough people in this country who are against the procedure weather it be moral, religious, or socioeconomic.
And just because something is protected by the constitution does not automatically make it an entitlement.
"I which [sic] the federal government did only those things spelled out in the constitution."
Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
You mean like imposing a tax to provide for the general welfare of the United States by ensuring that all citizens are provided with healthcare?
Nationalized health care is not for the benefit of the U.S.
Nationalized health care is for a small percentage of the population. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
And paying for abortions is definitely not for the benefit of the U.S. We need more natural born citizens than illegals.
Stop trying to subvert this country with your socialist views. We didn't like the way the Brits ran their government before during and after the revolutionary war and we still haven't changed our minds. ;)
"Nationalized health care is not for the benefit of the U.S."
That's opinion, and seeing as America is only 36th in the developed world for healthcare (behind a load of countries with nationalised healthcare, including the UK and Canada), it's clearly an uneducated opinion at that. Please explain how countries with nationalised healthcare are ahead of the US in the WHO rankings if nationalised healthcare can not be of benefit to a country?
"Stop trying to subvert this country with your socialist views. We didn't like the way the Brits ran their government before during and after the revolutionary war and we still haven't changed our minds. ;)"
Falling back on "blah blah communism/socialism" is admitting that you actually have no real arguments to make. Like Godwin's law, but less informed of political theory. Such a shame. And I don't like the way our government is run either, because it's run far too much like yours.
I don't believe in any socialist idea. They all start out sounding like a great idea and then reality sets in. Just like welfare. "Lets be compassionate and help the poor." And now we have generational welfare recipients. If your parents were on welfare, then chances are you will too. Somehow I don't think that is what was intended but that is the reality of the results.
"Nationalized health care is not for the benefit of the U.S."
Well, that's NOT what's on the table here in the USA at all right now, but I would disagree with your premise none-the-less.
"And paying for abortions is definitely not for the benefit of the U.S. We need more natural born citizens than illegals."
You do know that one the main reasons that this country's population continues to grow is through immigration, don't you?? BTW, paying for abortions helps those low income women that can't afford to take advantage of their Constitutional rights.
I was simply stating a FACT, which you tried to twist out of context through lies, that one of the only reasons that America's population continues to grow is through immigration. Abortions have nothing to do with that issue, period. That's just you, again, trying to change the issue that is at hand...unsuccessfully I might add...
BTW, you are the KING of the "nonsensical argument" on here Joe...don't project your faults onto me tyvm!
The Hyde Amendment, implemented in 1977, restricts the use of federal funds for abortion. These public funds can only be used when an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, or when the pregnancy results from assault rape or incest.
"I which the federal government did only those things spelled out in the constitution"
Too vague an answer.
"One of them being to protect the borders."
I agree, and I even agree that we should build a fence down along our southern border...just to prove how stupid an idea that really is. Instead, what we should do is hire more well-trained Border Patrol guards, and try to help those south of our border have better lives through improved environmental & labor regulations in their own countries.
OK, I see the problem here. You seem to think that "Supreme Court affirmed Constitutional protection" means that the government has to pay people to exercise their constitutional rights. The fact is that "Supreme Court affirmed Constitutional protection" means that the government will not place any obstacles that will prevent you from exercising your constitutional rights. There's a big difference.
Agreed. However, since when are taxes designed to pay for peoples personal choices? Taxes are to help provide necessities of society. Not personal choice.
And our government is to spend it on what society needs. Not some random abortion for someone who does not want the consequences for their actions. If they want an abortion, PAY FOR IT!
So true! BTW........... Ive noticed that no-one gives a toss about how much money they are lining the G.O.D.s'(see profile for explanation) personal pockets with,Evident the lack of attendance to my debate "FEEDING THE POLITICIANS"
Agreed 100%. Abortion is a choice (not a necesity) that arose from the choice (not the necesity) to have sexual intercourse instead of other forms of sex. That's why they call it pro-choice ;)
There isn't a growing need for society to sponsor free abortions.
You seem to think that "Supreme Court affirmed Constitutional protection" means that the government has to pay people to exercise their constitutional rights. The fact is that "Supreme Court affirmed Constitutional protection" means that the government will not place any obstacles that will prevent you from exercising your constitutional rights. There's a big difference.
Here they go again. The churches excersizing their right to representation without taxation.
I would be glad to pay for abortions and would in no way feel forced (which is very strong and obviously biased wording which leads to an unfair and untrue debate, btw).
If anyone does feel forced, then they dont understand democracy.
For as long as I have been paying taxes, they have been going to support a war I have never believed in. I have, just as effectivly, paid for this war as anyone would have to pay for abortions.
As I can never trust your statistics or facts to be truth, I double checked that quote and found that it is not the real wording of Thomas Jefferson.
The real quote is: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "
If you ask for the opinions of others, don't doom them to sound ignorant before they even speak.
Taxes - To compel a man to furnish contributions of money ;)
But either way. I do not want to be compled to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions (abortion) which I disbelieve and abhor because that would be sinful and tyrannical. ;)
Oh, look at you! You spotted a spelling error, wow you got me! Zing!
It seems to me that we agree. You seem to believe that if abortion should not be paid for by tax dollars, then neither should the death penalty or the war.
Other than that, the matter is only a difference of opionion regarding the morality of abortion.
I have participated in other debates regarding abortion. If you wish to know more about my personal opinion on abortion, and its relation to my opinion on the death penalty, that information is available to you.
I think that point is; should people against the death penalty and against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan be forced to pay for that? Should people who don't have kids be forced to pay for the schools that are giving your kids an education? Should people without cars be forced to pay for roads? Should people with cars be forced to pay for mass transport like trains and buses? Should people completely against the idea of war fund the military at all? Should people who believe in open borders fund border control policies? Should people opposed to the whole idea of the penal system be forced to put a single cent into funding it? A simple yes or no will suffice.
That's a ridiculous answer, and I'll bet that you know it too. In a representative democracy, we do not get to decide specifically how our collective tax monies are spent!
Thats true. We do have the right to stand up and object to things we do not agree with. The debate is, should the government pay for abortions. Not some technicality about how we can't choose where all the money goes. Paying for an optional procedure from tax dollars is a waste and unnecessary. End of story.
"Which is why our tax dollar should go towards national defense instead of abortions"
...in your opinion. BTW, how much would paying for low-income women's abortions cost in relation to "national defense"?? Can you say drop in the bucket??
And thus you prove the absurdity of your argument.
I bet there are lots of things that you support that lots of other people don't, and thus things you feel important, such as border control and national defence, could end up not having enough funding to be able to operate. This is why you don't get a choice in exactly which specific initiatives that your taxes go towards.
If we all chose to only fund those initiatives which we ourselves support, it would spell the end of democracy.
That's right. We shouldn't be spending our tax money frivolously. We should spend it on useful things like national defense instead of abortions for women to stupid to realize that if they can't afford an abortion they should abstain from sexual intercourse and opt for a facial instead. I can't believe that you are actually abdicating telling women to go out and have sex and if they get pregnant that we will pay for her to have an abortion. What bone headed way of thinking is that?
"We shouldn't be spending our tax money frivolously."
Opinion.
"We should spend it on useful things like national defense instead of abortions for women to stupid to realize that if they can't afford an abortion they should abstain from sexual intercourse and opt for a facial instead."
Think about the amount you'd pay in taxes for a single abortion compared to a lifetime of taxation to support an unwanted child born to a poor family. Incidentally (back to your silly idea that people should only be taxed for things they support) I'd rather have my taxes spent on an abortion then funding a military any day.
"I can't believe that you are actually abdicating telling women to go out and have sex..."
I'm not. I just happen to have some grasp on the real world, unlike yourself, who seems to think that women only have sex because they know they can have an abortion afterwards, which is ridiculously idiotic thinking.
"...and if they get pregnant that we will pay for her to have an abortion."
Try to understand the difference between the fantasy world you live in and the real world. People do have sex. Women do get pregnant. Sometimes, those women can't afford a child or are not in a position to properly care for a child. I would rather fund an abortion then allow an unwanted child which will either not be properly cared for or will be born to a family to poor to provide for it to be bought into world, which ultimately, statistics show you'll end up paying far more for in the long run.
What we're talking about here is funding abortions for the poor. Statistically, a child born to a poor family will itself end up being poor, which means you'll end up paying for support taxes such as welfare.
"What bone headed way of thinking is that?"
It's a way of thinking grounded in reality, not in your pie in the sky fantasy land where as soon as people think they can have a free abortion they're going to go out and start fucking anyone who comes along.
OK, so if I use your logic it explains why liberals are against the death penalty. See, the liberal argument must go something like this:
Think about the amount of money you'd pay in taxes for a single execution or for life time imprisonment compared to just letting the murderer out of jail.
I just happen to have some grasp on the real world, unlike yourself, who seems to think that murderers only kill because they know they wont get the death penalty or because they know that they can get out of jail afterwords, which is ridiculously idiotic thinking.
Try to understand the difference between the fantasy world you live in and the real world. People do commit murder. People do get killed. Sometimes, those murderers can't afford to the time for their crime. I would rather fund an early release program then allow a convicted murderer to rot in jail, which ultimately, statistics show you'll end up paying far more for in the long run.
What we're talking about here is funding an early release program for felons. Statistically, a felon cannot be rehabilitated, which means you'll end up paying for a rehabilitation that you know is not going to work.
It's a way of thinking grounded in reality, not in your pie in the sky fantasy land where as soon as people think they can have a get out of jail free card they're going to go out and start killing anyone who comes along.
Congratulations on the most stupid Reductio ad absurdum argument ever made. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Lol. I thought you didn't believe in God? Did I make a believer out of you ;)
My argument is simply this. If someone makes a mistake, you let them suffer the consequences. Otherwise you propagate the notion that it's no one's fault and thus no one has to take responsibility for their actions.
"We should spend it on useful things like national defense instead of abortions"
Translation: I value the ability to make war more than I do a woman's Constitutional rights. What a surprise...
My goodness...your obession with "facials" is quite telling, especially from someone that tries to devalue the importance of sex in a relationship. I'll bet that I could give your so-called wife a REAL good time...lol...
"I find it quite interesting how liberals think that it is OK to kill an innocent fetus but it is not OK to kill a convicted murderer."
Hmmmmm, one of those is actually alive & the other one is an unviable fetus, not a real person, period.
"In a democracy people decide what is legal. For example, should we make abortion legal?"
Well, it IS legal, and, more importantly, it is Constitutionally protected! We do NOT get to vote on what basic rights people should or shouldn't have!
"In a democracy people don't decide what they are going to force on the other people."
Of course they do...never heard of majority rule??
Hmmm...., one of them is proven to be a murdering bastard and the other one has potential to become saint. So, lets keep the one we know for a fact to be a bad apple (give him a chance) and lets get rid of the innocent one istead of giving him a chance. Do you even read what you type?
Taxes - To compel a man to furnish contributions of money"
Wrong again...taxes are a contribution for the support of a govt. from persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that govt. in order to raise revenue for that govt., levied on the income or property of persons or organizations, on the production costs or sales prices of goods and services, etc..
In short, taxes are necessary for govt. to exist at all.
OK, so if taxes are any monies that the government requires in order to exist then not a damn penny should go towards abortion because government doesn't need abortions in order to exist. Instead every penny should go towards national defense because that is what the government needs in order to exist. ;)
I have never disputed the fact that women have a constitutional right to get an abortion. What I am disputing is the fact that the government is not responsible for paying you to exercise your Constitutional rights. The government is only responsible for protecting your rights.
If you can't, or wont exercise your rights, that's not the governments fault. otherwise I could bill the government to fly me to Washington DC in order for me to exercise my Constitutional right of freedom of speech and talk about how ridiculous it is for the government to pay me to exercise my rights.
1. The Hyde ammendment took rights away, it did not keep the status quo at all.
2. The Bill without that shortsighted and completely useless ammendment keeps the status quo, it doesn't increase pro-choice rights at all.
So as is the case with every dabate Joe has ever made, it's based around an incorrect assumption, and tagged idiotically, and he will go on to answer disproofs with fallacies, and when all else fails he will begin making jokes.
Because the fact is, Joe is wrong, and instead of owning up to it, he will continue to hide behind "humor" then make an identical debat 3 days later only worded a bit differently.
That said,
I'm morally against the war in Iraq, and that killed people who were actually alive.
I still have to pay taxes.
This debate shows a fundamental misunderstanding of every aspect of democracy, and is quite pathetic.
This is how democracy works, Not everyone gets what they want, but the majority does. I may not like my tax dollars being sent to support Israel, I might disapprove of the war in Iraq, I may have a moral objection to a multitude of things my government spends money on, but that doesn't mean I only pay the taxes for the things i want. People have a right to health care, and just because some people don't think people should have that right, doesn't mean that those people can impede on the rights of those who want to exercise it. I think John Stewart put it well when he compared paying taxes to going to a zoo. If the charge is $20.00, you cant just pay $10.00 and say "I don't like zebras."
The majority of people want their tax dollars spent on other peoples choices? I somehow doubt that. Just because people are for abortion does not mean they will support funding it. I ask again, when will we begin to hold people accountable for their own actions?
There is hundreds of families waiting to adopt. A parent cannot just abandon their child. That is illegal. Orphans are people are just children that have nobody.
and many go un- adopted. parents do abandon their children regardless of what is legal. those poor kids, what must go through their minds watching selfish adults hand sellect their preference of child,mind you i am NOT disputing adoption nor am i criticising those selfless adults who do adopt in the interest of giving those children a loving nurturing enviroment. however in a situation of an unwanted pregnancy such as that of rape etc why should anyone have to pay for an abortion out of their pocket.and as far as you sexist pigs making your comments on how a woman should keep her slut legs closed- maybe your right -i mean then vile critters such as yourselves wouldnt have been born.- but seriously what about those forced pregnancies you insist on? you who dont want to pay for the abortion are happy to pay for this child to sit in an orphange pondering his existence. you evil selfish do-gooders
You under estimate children. They are very resilient. Think about children that have been in accidents and have lost body parts. more often than not I see adults cringing and saying, "Oh man, I couldn't handle loosing a pinkie let alone a leg." And then I see the kid in a wheel chair having a good time. This leads me to believe that most individuals would rather live in a wheel chair than never have lived at all. Same for orphans.
Also, babies are quickly adopted. If a mother truly doesn't want the kid and would have preferred an abortion instead but couldn't afford it, she can always put the kid up for adoption while he's still a baby. I think that the scenario you paint is bleaker than the reality.
oh boy oh boy oh boy where will this end . i actually spent eleven long months at a childrens hospital, with my own child who fought for her life and won . but how heartbreaking it was.and through my experience there ,the sad things i saw, i could also offer up viable evidence in support of my debate. but i think ive had about enough of this bullshit debate that YOU created.YOU did after all only create it to stir foul air amongst debaters, not for any good reason ,just cause your a nasty piece . id love to hear what your wife and kids really thinks of you and your male chauvinistic views but then you probably dont let them have an oppinion for themselves. BTW have you ever seen a heroin baby.i dont think so ,in fact i dont think youve seen much of reality at all. Now arent you missing your dragon game ?,oh loyal husband and father and guru of advice .
So basically, you are trying to say it is better to KILL the child than to have it an orphan? By that logic, why not just blow up the orphanage? Besides, just because someone might abandon their child, does not make it right or legal. Nor does it justify paying for their abortion.
no,shit head, i dont want to blow up an orphanage. i dont think its ok to kill kids -dumbass!!!! keep reading. think again before you suggest im a baby killer you fukn moron.dont insult me because you dont have the knowledge to comprehend.
Well first off, we have been saying that in cases of rape or the mothers life being at risk that the government should pay for it. So the rest of your statement was irrelevant. Secondly, if you are pro abortion because of children ending up in an orphanage, then what else was I supposed to say?
hmmm again about the mothers life, bloody hell,so your saying "fuck it if the baby is born into suffering,if its mothers fault let her pay for it" .you make me sick how shallow and narrowminded you are.
I dont believe anyone has the right to choose who comes into this world. Especially based on their quality of life. Who are we to say "well your life will be shitty anyway so...lets just not let that happen?" Give me a break
give you a break ? you just called me a baby killer and ya want me to give you a break . so its ok to make a little bub go through heroin detox. fuck your a nasty person.
oh get of your self rightiousness bullshit will you. who the fuck are you to decide its ok for a baby to be born with the dangerous cruel withdrawals from heroin etc or who are you to say its ok for a child to have to live with knowing they are the result of rape,etc who are you to dictate that shit.so you have the right to condemn a life to any of the numerous "hells" that versitility of life allows because you think thats how it should be. are you even fighting for the rights of children or are you just another narrow minded tight arse thats only argueing this issue because you dont want to part with your precious cash..... you sad sad thing!
have you seen a little baby in withdrawal from heroin before? call me a fukn baby killer ,seems you dont mind subjecting them to torture.whose the nasty one...bloody hypocrytical do-gooder .
I am morally against murder, yet my tax dollars go into funding several wars. If you don't like what your taxes are being used for, call your senators and congresspeople, vote for representatives who share your views, or suck it up. In a democracy we have to accept when we are in the minority.
No, I don't think people who are against abortion should have to fund abortions. One, its against their moral convictions. Two, it is not a life saving procedure: it is simply a woman trying to rid herself of responsibilties.
The Hyde Amendment, implemented in 1977, restricts the use of federal funds for abortion. These public funds can only be used when an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, or when the pregnancy results from assault rape or incest.
Heroin is a highly addictive, semi-synthetic opioid drug. Heroin is sometimes used illegally for recreational use because it produces intense feelings of euphoria and relaxation. Tolerance to heroin often leads users to require more of the drug to produce the same effects over time.
Heroin is also available under other names for pharmaceutical purposes like relief from acute pain and treatment of heroin addiction. Heroin is only legally available on the pharmaceutical market in some countries.
Methadone is also a synthetic opioid drug. It is available for medical purposes, including pain relief and treatment of addiction to other drugs such as heroin and morphine.
When a pregnant women uses heroin, the child takes heroin into the blood stream via the placenta. In this way, a baby may become addicted to heroin before birth.
Heroin in Unborn Babies
Unborn children of mothers addicted to heroin are at increased risk for a premature or stillbirth, in addition to the complications they may face after their birth. However, mothers addicted to heroin should not attempt to stop heroin use without consulting a physician. To safely reduce the mother's dependence on heroin, a physician may use methadone.
Heroin Addiction and Withdrawal After Birth
A baby that is exposed to heroin is at high risk for a number of afflictions after birth, including hypoglycemia, intracranial hemorrhage, premature birth, breathing problems and low birth weight. While in withdrawal from the drug, the baby may experience tremors, seizures, vomiting, moodiness, achiness, difficulty sleeping, fever and diarrhea.
Methadone Treatment for Mothers on Heroin
Methadone reduces or eliminates an addict's craving for heroin while blocking the effects, thus allowing the user to transition from heroin addiction to a drug-free lifestyle with less severe withdrawal symptoms. This is especially important for pregnant mothers because the symptoms of withdrawal may cause contractions of the uterus, initiating a premature birth or even causing the mother to miscarry.
Methadone Withdrawal in Infants
Infants born of mothers who were taking methadone during pregnancy might experience withdrawal symptoms. These symptoms are similar to the effects of withdrawal from heroin. They include sleeping problems, lack of appetite, moodiness and fussiness, vomiting, tremors and fever.
Long Term Effects
It is not precisely known what the long-term effects of heroin and methadone are on children. Many children born addicted to heroin and methadone require special education classes in school, and some need to repeat one or more grades. Whether this is the result of exposure to drugs or for other reasons is unknown.
oh your a real card you are joe.im not saying hand out abortions.i cant be any clearer on what my beliefs are....not my fault you dont have the knowledge to comprehend.
But your whinging about paying for them, using excuses that are vulger, and not a fair representation of those situations where abortions may be legitamately required.Being against the idea of paying for someones promiscous behaviour is entirely different to the situations of which may arise from the results of some pregnancies.Telling people that they are sluts or baby killers is about the only thing ive heard people use as reasons for against why they should be forced to pay. If this is how callous you americans are, than no wounder most of you want gun ownership .
:) thats better joe. i like you when your being civil.....................and yes i can agree with that,but do you think we could just take into account the unborn child,as i already explained one reason(subjection of suffering). not referring so much as to those that may become orphans but for those that would otherwise be born into medical suffering.ie would you really want to bring a fetus into life if it meant that they will only be subjected to a short life span that consisted of medical suffering.im not saying i am right on this i am merely saying that if a heroin, hang on lets civily broaden this, "crack whore" fell pregnant, regardles of HER personal behaviour or financial situation, would you not prefer to give the unborn fetus a humane option rather than subjecting them to months of painful ,life threatening,withdrawal? I understand that SHE very well ought to be using contraception,certainly condoms being a sex worker, and that SHE is responsible for HER actions,however, is that unborn fetus responsible for HER actions?..........................................................................................so people dont accuse me of scabbing another point i will just edit this next bit in............................................................................................................................btw FOR ALL YOU ANTI-ABORTIONISTS THAT WANT ABORTION BANNED ENTIRELY-ASK YOURSELF THIS- does a person have the right to subject a fetus to a life of certain suffering due to the actions of the mother?,does a person have the right to subject a fetus the repercussions of the mothers actions?
WOW,notice the difference in me, when im not all fired up from offence -i didnt swear once in that last post...if people dont like how i rebut-tough read my profile. and deal with it. Either that or go ask CD to ban me..but that WILL arouse another debate entirely.
you keep bringing up your constitutional rights. so fukn what. what about it. whats that got to do with?.. .just a bloody copout. human nature is how it is and your constitutional rights wont change that.
using your book of constitutional rights to slam whatever you dont like is no different to using a bible. Why people cant think for themselves and resort to using copout excuses baffles me.
BTW..Promiscuity, is one of the many side effects of child abuse.Which is a damn good reason, why people should think twice before calling someone a slut.
I have a friend who has no limbs.HE said,he wanted to swim with the dolphins,he said. So with a special vest he did indeed swim with the dolphins.AND HE WAS HAPPY.......NOW, there is a couple who, recently raked in a free holiday to a resort(courtesy of a charity for kids) so they could grant their dying, disabled, childs wish to swim with the dolphins. This child,( who cannot function to any degree without assistance,the child cannot even speak,laugh or cry to communicate for itself,WHO WAS BORN LIKE THIS )was fitted with a special vest and indeed was assisted to swim with the dolphins.BUT...did the child say that they wanted to swim with the dolphins?NO...WAS THE CHILD HAPPY ? WHO KNOWS!.........so is it ok to impose life onto someone ,who is born with this degree of disability?.Is it ok to insist that the parents have this child and then dictate to the child its life, despite not even knowing what the childs thought or feelings are?....THAT IS NOT LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It seems to me that liberals are the kind of people that (when they can't do something for themselves) try to force others into doing it for them.
If they can't afford health care, they want to force others to pay for it.
If they can't afford an abortion, they want to force others to pay for it.
Women have the right to get an abortion. They don't have the right to force other people to pay for it. Jeez.
What is it that is so difficult to understand? This planet is full of conflict because everyone is trying to force everyone else into something they don't want. And then those same retards act surprised when they experience an overwhelming backlash. My solution? Simple. Don't force anyone into anything they don't want to do. Just work around the problem given the resources you have at hand.
Or maybe they could live with the consequences and give birth to the baby! They made the decisions to have sex and if they get an abortion or not, I don't see why my taxes should help their mistakes.
My goodness...I'm utterly amazed at the number of men out there that are so willing to decide how a woman should use HER OWN BODY! Would you like the reverse to be done to you??
Nobody is dictating how they use their bodies. I am not sure where you get this from. They made the CHOICE to have sex. They will make the CHOICE to have an abortion. Therefore, they should have to bear the burden. This does not restrict their rights.
She decided what to do with her body. It was her choice to have sex and her choice to opt for an abortion. What we are arguing about is:
After she has made her choice, WHY ARE THE REST OF US RESPONSIBLE FOR HER ACTIONS/DECISIONS/CHOICES? Are women so mentally inferior to men that they need to be protected like little children? Are you conceding that women are incapable of sound judgement and that we are thus responsible to save women from their stupid decisions; save them from the consequences of their actions/choices? If you are so concerned about women, tak out your check book and write as much good will as you can afford and leave the rest of us out of it.
Hey, YOU'RE the one making ridiculous argument after ridiculous argument...so don't try & project your opinion about yourself onto me.
"After she has made her choice, WHY ARE THE REST OF US RESPONSIBLE FOR HER ACTIONS/DECISIONS/CHOICES? Are women so mentally inferior to men that they need to be protected like little children? Are you conceding that women are incapable of sound judgement and that we are thus responsible to save women from their stupid decisions; save them from the consequences of their actions/choices?"
Nice try at changing the subject, but it's not working. Woman have a Constitutional RIGHT to abortions that the govt. cannot restrict, period.
The government is not restricting their Constitutional RIGHT by not paying for abortions.
If I used your argument then Uncle Sam should pay my plane fair ticket to Washington DC in order for me to exercise my Constitutional right of freedom of speech and talk about how ridiculous it is for the government to pay you to exercise your rights. The government is only responsible for protecting your right.
The reverse IS done to us. WE have no say on what happens to OUR child. We are simply saying that people should live with the consequences of their actions!
The government is not responsible for paying you to exercise your Constitutional rights. The government is only responsible for protecting your rights. If you can't, or wont exercise your rights, that's not the governments fault. otherwise I could bill the government to fly me to Washington DC in order for me to exercise my Constitutional right of freedom of speech and talk about how ridiculous it is for the government to pay you to exercise your rights.
Well..., they can turn a few tricks to raise the money. I mean, it's not like they're going to get any more pregnant than they already are. Besides, they should have thought about that before spreading their legs. If they were willing to spread their legs once, what's a few more times in order to get the money they need.
But aside from that. I have freedom of speech. Will you pay for me to present my views or are you one of those hypocritical liberals? ;)
A better question is: are you one of those hypocritical conservatives who cry-cry-cry liberty but try to legislate and prohibit behavior that you disapprove of?
What behavior am I trying to legislate? Maybe you missed one of my posts. Specifically this one:
"This planet is full of conflict because everyone is trying to force everyone else into something they don't want. And then those same retards act surprised when they experience an overwhelming backlash. My solution? Simple. Don't force anyone into anything they don't want to do. Just work around the problem given the resources you have at hand."
You can find it at the top of the page.
So in answer to your question, no, I don't want any more legislation. Especially on behavior. So no, I am not a hypocrite.
"Well..., they can turn a few tricks to raise the money. I mean, it's not like they're going to get any more pregnant than they already are. Besides, they should have thought about that before spreading their legs. If they were willing to spread their legs once, what's a few more times in order to get the money they need."
Wow, you must be one of those "compassionate conservatives" that I keep hearing about...wow...
"I have freedom of speech. Will you pay for me to present my views or are you one of those hypocritical liberals?"
Excuse me? What the heck does that have to do with abortion?? Since when do you need the govt. to pay you to spout off??
Look, incest happens...rape happens...accidental pregnancies happen (even when people take the necessary precautions!). To not acknowledge that is to deny reality.
OK, I'll make an exception for rape and incest victims. Accidental pregnancies can be prevented. It's called abstinance. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Why should I pay for an abortion just because some slut can't keep her legs closed? I don't think so. No. She wanted to get screwed and well..., now she's screwed ;)
"OK, I'll make an exception for rape and incest victims."
Wow, that's so "magnanimous" of you to sit in total judgment of when a woman can & can't exercise her Constitutional rights...ugh...
"Accidental pregnancies can be prevented. It's called abstinance."
And once again, it's so "magnanimous" of you to sit in ultimate judgment of when a person should or should not have sex. BTW, I hope you are practicing what you preach!
OK, so let me get this straight. You are saying that a woman should whatever the hell she pleases and then when things don't turn out the way she wants I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT???!!!!
How about I get to do whatever I want and then if things don't turn out the way I want then YOU GET TO PAY FOR IT.
"Well..., they can turn a few tricks to raise the money. I mean, it's not like they're going to get any more pregnant than they already are.... If they were willing to spread their legs once, what's a few more times in order to get the money they need."
Are you acutally saying that women who cant afford abortions should resort to prostitution? Is that your solution? Just have them be whores because of corse anyone who needs an abortion must be a whore, right? Thats very christian of you. What happened to "love thy neighbor?" You should be ashamed of yourself sitting back and being so judgemental of others.
If you are the model of a "true christian" then heaven must be awful being full of bigot assholes like you. I wish hell was real for people like you.
Hey, all I'm saying is that if they are willing to risk getting pregnant for a few minutes of pleasure they should be willing to risk getting a few sexually transmitted diseases for more minutes of pleasure and money for an abortion. ;)
Oh, and.... BTW.... who the hell said I was a model of a true Christian? ;)
Did you have to work to make yourself as stupid as you are, or were you born this way? If you honestly think that prostitution is the solution to paying for abortion, and that all women who get abortions are all whores, i think you may have downs syndrome. Your logical thinking skills are roughly on par with that of the average 5th grader. ; )
Oh, and.... BTW.... regardless of how christian you are, you are still a huge piece of shit and tremendously stupid. ; )
Well..., how else is a woman (who made a conscious decision to gamble that she would not get pregnant and) who can't pay for an abortion going to pay for an abortion? Surely not by using my tax dollars. Maybe you can find those women and pay for their abortions out of your pocket, sister. May God bless you ;)
We all pay for things in the tax codes which we don't agree with and this must be one of the smaller measures of money I can think of. How about someone who has no children paying school taxes all through the years? It's all, or should be, for the greater good.
Except that abortion has an ethical/moral side to it. Would you consider it to be for the greater good if your tax money was used to support the freedom of speech of an anti-gay group? What if they advocated killing gays? What if the amount of tax money used was "small?"
If it has nothing to do with them, and they're not the ones wanting/needing an abortion in the first place, when WHY should they have to pay for someone else's (that they probably don't even know)??
Yea, and you live in fear because of how you view human nature. As I've said before, "conservatives" fear the nature of man, and this irrational fear drives almost ALL of their ideologies, period. Thanks for making my point!
What are you talking about? Fear is caused by unknowns. I fully expect people to act and behave a certain way and they haven't let me down yet. Since i know what to expect, I can plan for it. Since I have a plan and since my plans have served me well, I have no fear because I know I will be able to handle the situation.
I do NOT want to pay for some bimbo girl to go get her 15th abortion! I don't care if it's $.01 or $1000! The only abortions I would help pay for are the ones that I believe are morally acceptable (endangerment of mother's health, rape, and incest) and honestly, only if it's for an immediate family member. I do NOT want my future taxes going toward abortion. Fuck them!
Look, this is really simple. If you are a woman and you can't afford an abortion, then you should either abstain from sex or suffer the consequences of your actions. The rest of us are not responsible for you.
What are you talking about? That is just plain common sense. If you can't afford something, then you shouldn't buy it. A person should not live beyond their means. How does that translate into "the poor have no rights?" That's just hyperbole.
If a woman doesn't have enough money for an abortion, then she's probably not working. If her abortion is payed for by the tax payers, then you are basically taking money from those who are willing to work and giving it to those who do not.
A great mand once said:
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
I believe health care is a fundamental right. I do not believe abortions fall under that right unless the abortion is solely for saving the mothers life. Otherwise, you made your bed, lie in it.