Public Funding for Abortion

As an act of self defense, elective abortion is the ONLY healthcare service the government is morally obligated to fund.

 

Since when is the government in the morally business? Religions YES, government NO

 

Whaaaat?????

 

If the fetus was deemed a person it would be but right now the fetus has no standing as a person with rights.

 

If it's "elective" abortion then there is no compelling medical reason for it. In which case the "self defense" argument is utterly irrelevant.

 

The self defense argument is irrelevant because the fetus is not a person. Whether it's elective or not has nothing to do with it.

IF the fetus was ever deemed a "person" with rights the woman could claim self defense because ALL pregnancies cause harm (permanent and temporary) to women.


Plus, as you know, no person has the right to use another person's body to sustain their life without consent.

 

It is ridiculous that a vasectomy and viagra is covered and an abortion is not.

 

Elective abortion doesn't require a 'compelling' medical reason. Self defense is relevant whenever our right to consent is violated. An unwanted pregnancy is a violation of the mother's right to consent.

 

Since it was created. The whole point of government is to maintain a minimum set of laws that enforce a rational and unambiguous standard of morality. The problem is that the constitution never had one. It's just a set of arbitrary and ambiguous clauses, which the courts have taken great liberties with to extrapolate the steaming pile of nonsense known as the codes and statues. The clauses of the constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, are arbitrary not because they don't make sense but because they're not connected or justified by a common underlying framework of ethics.

Morality has nothing to do with religion because religion is not a rational source of anything.

 

Sorry, but the question of forcing a person to pay for an abortion is different from the question of whether or not a woman has the right to have an abortion.

That's an added twist. However, I don't think it makes a bit of difference on the question of whether or not it's right to force someone who objects to the procedure to finance it.

Again, irrelevant. There are enough people who have serious reservations about taking a life, no matter what stage of development it's at, that forcing these people to fund the procedure is simply unjustifiable. According to Gallup polling, roughly 20% of the American public believes that abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances. Add to that the roughly 30% who believe that it should only be allowed under certain circumstances, and you have a possible 50 / 50 split over whether an abortion should be allowed for a given situation. Sorry, but you want to force 100% of the population to pay for the procedure? By what reasoning?

 

Should not exist. This is not my problem, nor anyone else's.

 

You got THAT from my post : """The self defense argument is irrelevant because the fetus is not a person. Whether it's elective or not has nothing to do with it.

IF the fetus was ever deemed a "person" with rights the woman could claim self defense because ALL pregnancies cause harm (permanent and temporary) to women.

Plus, as you know, no person has the right to use another person's body to sustain their life without consent."""


WHERE in that did I say I want to force 100% of the population to pay for the procedure !?!?!?!


I guess in your hatred for women has blinded you so you only see what you want.....

YOU: ""There are enough people who have serious reservations about taking a life, no matter what stage of development it's at, that forcing these people to fund the procedure is simply unjustifiable"""


I guess you just LOVE funding the military which kills fetuses, pregnant women, babies and all others, YOU have NO qualms about funding that , do YOU!!????


And most Americans, no matter how they feel personally about abortion, have the brains and common sense to still want it legal.

 

The premise of this thread is bogus. There is no public funding of abortions. Let's be clear here

 

There should be public funding so that women who can't afford to have an abortion can get one if they need it.

 

Well there is some. States can fund it and even the federal government can under certain circumstances. I think it should be funded the same way as knee surgery is funded

 

You want to pay for abortions then host a Telethon. Get the government out of the funding business....

 

Make sure you fund your next war that way

 

The topic of discussion is the funding of abortion. My position is that a person should not be required to provide money towards funding this procedure. Why is that "hatred of women"?

And your final statement is completely irrelevant: you don't need to be supportive of the procedure to want to keep it legal, but that has nothing to do with requiring people to pay for a medical procedure which they object to.

Not true. Planned Parenthood received a good chunk of its funding through Title X. That public funding has gone away. If your statement were true, why the concern over this removal?

There shouldn't be public funding so people aren't forced to pay for a procedure which they have strong moral objections to.

 

Great cherry picking!


Planned Parenthood does not get federal money for abortions, the Hyde Act prevents that and PP has NEVER been found to be "cheating", they are audited.


YOU: ""There are enough people who have serious reservations about taking a life, no matter what stage of development it's at, that forcing these people to fund the procedure is simply unjustifiable"""

Cherry picked out:
I guess you just LOVE funding the military which kills fetuses, pregnant women, babies and all others, YOU have NO qualms about funding that , do YOU!!????


Oh, and "hatred of women" comes in when you wish women's lives to be even harder and want unwanted children brought into this world.

It comes in when you target a LEGAL procedure that is for women only.

It comes in when you want to impose YOUR "morals" on women and control what they can and cannot have..

 

Then why does our government prohibit funding of abortions?

My proposal is to replace "abortion" with "surgical delivery" where the zygote, embryo, or fetus is removed unharmed and intact from the woman's body and then whether it survives or not has nothing to do with the medical procedure. Of course prior to the 21st week it will always die of natural causes but it won't have anything to do with the surgical procedure.

 

Oh they should pay. There are enough baby-poppers to fill the world many times over.

 

If the government is funding medical services for the person then why wouldn't it fund this medical service for the woman?

As the Supreme Court determined in Roe v Wade, that wasn't disputed by the dissenting opinion, was that the woman was the only person affected by the abortion and the State of Texas could not present any argument for denying abortion because no other person is affected by the abortion. There's no legitimate reason for denying funding for the procedure because under the Constitution an abortion is no different than an appendectomy.

The opinion may not rise to the level of hatred but it unquestionably rises to the level of prejudice against women and misogyny can reflect either hatred or prejudice against women.

So the question that needs to be asked is why would someone oppose a medical procedure that's only applicable for women when the woman is the only person with a Constitutional Right to control the surgical procedures performed on her own body?

 

The problem is that there should be because it's just another medical procedure like any other medical procedure.

 

Then why not clean out the prison population and call the procedure 'late term abortions?'

 

Just because something is permitted by the constitution (currently) doesn't make it permanent and certainly doesn't make it moral.

Remember that slavery was one time permitted by the U.S. constitution.

For longer than abortion has been for that matter.