Sincere request to help me understand why you feel abortion is not murder.

I never called you a Republican, see how confused you are? And if you think Repubs are liberal you are worse than they are when it comes to rights.

The rest of your post proves that's not true.

Sorry, you didn't refute one word of my post.....it was all the same old same old Anti-Choice claptrap .....even the insane "just don't have sex"......and the standard ""taxes are only for things I approve of" blather, the denial that Repubs try to shut down clinics over trumped up charges that they don't meet the requirements that they by law don't have to meet, the ignorance of the Hyde Amendment and the denigration of women........etc.

 

I see that you believe any pregnant woman has a right to choose an abortion, but your concern about public funds going toward abortion seems illogical (given your reasons for thinking abortion should be an option). If a woman has to have a baby because she cannot afford an abortion, she creates another person who (odds are) will cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars and be raised by a person you really do not believe to be qualified to be a parent. I am reminded of the expression "cutting off the nose to spite the face" here. Withholding funds from Planned Parenthood (just because they offer abortions) or withholding assistance for abortion (as in the Hyde Amendment) might save $500 per abortion but it costs the taxpayers millions through those other programs that you listed. Is that logical?

 

I am surprised you didn't much past the holier-than-thou part. I had no problem getting past your holier-than-thou part.

Generally, two birth control methods at a time are recommended, even if one of them is a vasectomy.

Regarding the abortion after contraception issue, I would be interested to see the study. Common sense would indicate that it happens, but the question is why.

Some of that is the condom hole problem, and some of it is very likely misuse/sloppy use--things like missed pill doses or starting to put a condom on backwards, thus contaminating the tip with pre-ejaculate.

It is anywhere from practically impossible to severely problematic to get reliable data, simply because it primarily relies on self-reporting after the fact, sometimes weeks after the fact.

 

The government is not the only pathway/source of money. Those people who believe in Planned Parenthood and similar organizations, who want to subsidize abortions are perfectly capable of making donations.

I think the main problem with government funding any part of people's private lives is the inevitable result of government intrusiveness into people's personal lives?

As much as I think most people are unimpressive intellects, I still think that any one such intellect is better able to order his or her life and solve his or her problems than the government is able to do.

In general, when people are left to be responsible for themselves, and accountable for their own decisions (including financially accountable) they make decisions more in line with who they are, what they really believe in, and what they want. Moreover, it does not matter how we feel about it.

In general, when the government (taxpayers) provide funding, the funding comes with oversight, regulations, limitations, and intrusions, mandating what some people think should be best for all people.

I firmly believe that people's (consenting adults) sex lives, and the natural results of people's private sexual choices are none of the government's business, not to ask about, not to control, not to pay for.

I know many people want freedom without personal accountability, but that is not a reasonable expectation. It is no mystery as to what causes pregnancy. With or without funding, pregnancy is voluntary, parenthood is the result of freely made choices.
(Except cases of rape, of course).

 

It is true that government funding is a two-edged sword... but some restrictions are a good thing (e.g. the abortion should not be performed with a coat hanger). When we try to punish abortion providers (e.g. refuse to fund other Planned Parenthood programs) that goes beyond the "hands off" approach. It suggests an intent to reduce abortions by making them more expensive. Why else would one stop funding other Planned Parenthood services?

 

Zygote:



Human being:



Notice a difference?

 

So might a sperm. Masturbation is mass murder.

Good point. But actually, the Bible never says thou shalt not have an abortion. That is just religious fluff added by the churches, for whatever reason you might want to ascribe to it.

 

In fact, the Bible instructs the priests to give a woman a potion that causes an abortion if she has been unfaithful to her husband, and it (according to the Bible) affects her womb such that every pregnancy after that will be aborted intentionally by miscarriage.

 

What specific things in my post prove, or even indicate, that I am not in favor of women having the right to have abortions?

The funding cannot possibly be it. There is no conflict between believing people should have particular rights, and believing the government should not pay for the exercise of those rights.

Consider: I believe you have the right to buy shoes. In fact, I believe this is a universal right.

I do not care whether you are the one to pay for your shoes, or whether it is your parents, friends, or an NGO. I would certainly be against any proposition to make it illegal for you to buy or own shoes. I would also be against a "compromise" that allowed you to buy only left shoes, but denied you the right to buy shoes for your right foot.

At the same time, and without conflict, I do not believe that the government should pay for your shoes. Neither do I believe it is the place of government to ensure there are shoe stores conveniently close to you, or that .

Indeed, this is the exact situation in the US vis-à-vis shoes, yet no one seems to think that people who think this a reasonable arrangement are against anyone having the right to buy and own shoes.

So, what statement have I made that you think proves I am not in favor of women having the right to have abortions?

 

What verse is that? That would be some great ammunition when talking to religious crazies.

 

You don't think it's a legal medical procedure.

You refuse to see that the Hyde Amendment protects your precious pennies from being used for something you don't approve of even though it is just a medical procedure.

I don't have that special right you have.....my taxes have to go to killing people I wars which I don't agree with.

You don't believe less fortunate Americans should be helped and you do believe women should be punished for having sex.....don't bother arguing that one, It's evident....you just refuse to see it.

 

Among other passages that indicate that a fetus is not considered the same as a born person.

 

What special right do I have?

My taxes also go to killing people in wars I do not agree with.

Whose posts are you reading?

Which statements have I made (use quotations) that say, or even imply any of these things.

Are you arguing with some figment of your imagination and then addressing it to me?

 

Numbers 5 (this is from the New International Version)
23“ ‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

In many of the other versions, the translators chose more obscure words (e.g. her thigh will rot, or shrink) to avoid offending the readers.

 

And since condoms are the only really reversible and easily available male contraceptive that failure goes back to men not owning the abortion problem. The man fails in his duty to prevent pregnancy but it is the woman who pays. Perhaps the solution should be that every male who wishes to have sex should deposit (I know fraught word usage there ) a "sex tax" in a special government repository. Now if they have unprotected sex and the woman becomes pregnant she can either apply to that repository to have the abortion funded or the resultant child supported for life. If she chooses the latter the genetic father is notified to ensure adequate funds are in the repository to support the child for the rest of its life. This would stop those who are serial fathers but do not take responsibility tor offspring, it would certainly slow down a lot of adultery and it would take the tax burden off of those who are currently griping about funding other people's indiscriminate outcomes of unprotected sex

 

Okay let us drill down on this objection to funding

Are you objecting to the "Morning after" pill (which is not abortion)
Are you objecting to "Medical abortion" (use of Mifepristone) which means the woman can visit a GP take a pill and then basically abort at home with follow up check up

Is your objection only to surgical intervention? This is known, for the early abortions as a D&C or Dilatation and Curettage

As can be seen bu the link below this procedure is used for multiple gynaecological problems and not just abortion

https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/dilatation-and-curettage-dc

So are you going to defund it for all those problems or just for abortion?

 

Thanks! This is a great way to discharge religious fervor, and derail the God-agrees-with-me train.

 

The problem being, of course, that Roe presented no need for any such resolution, 10A being dispositive as to the lack of federal authority in the matter.

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Which is of no moment whatever, seeing they have no authority to so decide.

Yeah, really.

I'll be the judge of that; and if you don't like it, go snivel to someone who gives a damn.

murder her unborn child. I get it. Too bad you don't.

What is there, an echo in here?

Inter alia,, it brazenly violates 10A and presumes to extract from 14A a definition of personhood which facilitates the desired conclusion.

How the hell would I know?

No, you are not looking at it with anything resembling the concern and consideration that I have.

Do you notice any difference between an infant and an adult, Brainiac?

There are no such passages in the Bible.

 

The sex tax smacks of the government acting as a pimp selling sex to fund social welfare programs.

It is an intriguing concept, but the implementation would be awkward and problematic. "I am horny & I love you, let's go online and make a funds transfer" (or however it would work.)

I would say both parties need to deposit into individual escrow accounts, like a Health Savings Account (not a government fund -- remember what happened to the Social Security Trust Fund). It would have to be both parties because both are equally responsible for the act and the result. That way, if they do not conceive at that time, the values of the separate accounts accrue for meeting any future child/pregnancy-related expenses, his account for his fertility (checked via DNA test), and her account for her fertility.

It is more cumbersome than marriage, but less so than divorce. It is an alternative to MGTOW. The main holes in the plan are when the parties do not make deposits, or their accounts are not sufficient to cover costs. Both holes are mammoth.

In these cases, the problem of equal responsibility is difficult too ensure. The need for two methods of birth control (each party responsible for using a method) is not just to decrease risk of method failure, but to protect each party from possible faithlessness by the other. In the event of pregnancy, I do not see how to determine after the fact if who, if any, were careless/faithless. It would invariably devolve to he said/she said.

The easiest way is automatically assigned equal responsibility for resulting costs.

This raises another problem. If both parties are equally irresponsible, or both methods of birth control fail, the costs and powers are unbalanced. He gets no say in whether she has an abortion, but she gets to decide if he pays for half of an abortion or half of a child's living expenses. I see no way around this except the option to voluntarily and permanently relinquish parental rights and responsibilities.

Your concept is certainly no worse than our present system, provided it is applied equally to men and women.

 

I do not care what kind of abortion it is, or what kind of medical procedure it is of any kind, whether abortion or appendectomy. I am fine with any or all of them being paid for by medical insurance, by the patient, by any private person, or by any NGO, business, or charity, but not by the Government.

As I said in multiple previous posts, medical care, child care, food, lodging, car repairs, recreational drug use, and any other personal matters are none of the government's business, so the government should not pay for them.

My position is that individual people, families, and communities should take care of their own private lives and personal problems, and leave the Government out of it.

Our Government does nothing well or efficiently, does everything more expensively than necessary, and tends to screw up most of what it touches, and tends to be intrusive. What could possibly make anyone think it can improve their personal lives by getting the Government involved?

Personal responsibility for our own choices, accountability for our own actions, and dealing with our own problems are easy concepts to understand, and they are more likely to result in liberty.

 

Keep on moaning and groaning. (Sorry you fell apart so easily, but the kitchen is no place for someone who cannot stand the heat.)

Anyway...for now it is legal for a woman to decide to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body...even if there are people like you who think THEY will decide what is legal and what is not.

Perhaps things will change when the people who claim to want less government take over in January.

 

"""My position is that individual people, families, and communities should take care of their own private lives and personal problems, and leave the Government out of it."""

Except the government had to be in it (abortion) since there are creeps who insist women have no right to an abortion , that abortion is something other than a medical procedure ....so government had to step in and protect what should be obvious rights for women. If slobbering misogynists would just have minded their own business government wouldn't have to do anything with or about abortion. And those Anti-Choicers are almost all Repubs....who "don't like Big Government"...

 

Good post but the "people" who took over our government will use Bigger and Bigger government for their own ends and to control any opposition.

Righties only claim they want smaller government when they have to face laws that protect Americans...

 

Are you aware that the Roe v Wade decision did not require that Government step in to protect women's rights to have abortions, but rather the Roe v Wade decision required the government to step out of women's lives by removing the legal prohibition?

Government involvement is precisely what limited women's personal health choices prior to 1973. It was cultural norms, and religious belief, and lack of widespread knowledge of prenatal neurobiology, used by well-meaning women and men who supported government involvement in people's personal lives. Government did not "have to be in it" at all, but nice people got Government involved because they wanted the world to be better.

I know it is popular on the left to demonize people in other ages for thinking in accordance with their times, but that leads to a grievous misunderstanding of how people's rights get abridged, and how to protect those rights to begin with. The people who supported, and still support the illegalization of abortion generally do so, not because they are "slobbering misogynists." They do it because they want to protect children. This has nothing to do with misogyny, saliva, or any desire to oppress, but is founded on good intentions.

THE GOOD INTENTIONS ARE THE PROBLEM.

Good intentions are the problem when they insert government into people's personal lives, because the good intentions are what initiate and fuel popular acceptance of government intrusion and oppression. The process goes faster if the Government funds it all. If we just look for "bad", "mean" people trying to do bad things, we will miss the good and protective people who push for laws that are the foundation of the next wave of oppression.

It is much easier to keep Government, and government money, entirely out of people's personal issues, regardless of how noble it sounds to try and protect people from themselves and solve their personal problems. Good intentions have no effect on the actual outcome.

I think it is funny, too.

That is why I refer to Republicans as "liberal wussies." They are almost as likely as Democrats to push for expensive, wasteful, oppressive, policies that insert Government where it has no business going. I am just thankful that socialism is not super popular in the US. Those good intentions are especially oppressive.

 

Nope, good intentions are NOT involved.

If you read enough in this forum many Anti-Choicers start out all "reasonable" and "let's talk intelligently" and by the time they have had all their ideas trashed with facts and science and law they end up blubbering, "She should just keep her legs together", "no penny of mine should be spent on abortion" , "women should pay the price for having sex", "women are murderers!" , ""women who want abortions are sluts" , "women are children who need guidance".

Yes, there may be one or two Anti-Women's Rights advocates who really think killing a fetus is murder but they are in a tiny minority and can't think beyond what forcing women to give birth really means.

I understand what RvW did. Government shouldn't be needed to protect rights already in place.

There should be NO laws concerning abortion.


If righties just minded their own business and didn't promote Bigger Government by insisting women lose rights and be controlled like animals no government interference would be necessary...