Public Funding for Abortion

You do know that every man who opposes abortion has women in his life he loves dearly (wife, mother, sister......) who are likely to become or have been pregnant at some point in their lives.

To infer or suggest that a "man" doesn't care about the health or well being of women just because the man can't become pregnant is utterly idiotic, ridiculous, and repulsive.

 

News for you, everything you do in life "endangers your health," and our bodies sustain permanent damage daily. If you weren't burdened by a gynocentric cognitive flaw, you would see the absurdity of the above instantly as any kind of rationale for any kind of policy whatever.

Now, admittedly, in the past, childbirth was FAR more risky to the mother, and I am sure you are as grateful as I am to the -men-, specifically -capitalist- men, who innovated the medical technology to make infant mother mortality an outlier. We live in 2017, though, and mother mortality/disability due to pregnancy is extremely low.

Since you have repeated (ad nauseum) a mantra of "pregnancy endangering women's health" here in the thread, you must be -especially- grateful to all the capitalist men who changed that and keep working to change that. Would you like to take a moment to say "thank you" to all those capitalist men who made things so much better for women in childbirth?

 

Oh, well the above was a shorthand version of my plan. Yes, defund PP and instead institute the following simple policies with respect to women, welfare and pregnancy:

1. Have more than one child (or fail a drug/alc/nicotine test) while on government benefits and ALL benefits terminate instantly and permanently. Applies to the father as well. So that this doesn't "punish the children" the savings from kicking Democrat baby factories off the welfare rolls will be put into child services and compensating foster parents. Someone so -irresponsible- that they have children they can't afford while on the dole is presumed unfit for parenting.

O look! That only took one number, simple!

 

What a load of sexist hooey!

No one, not even your Worshipped Royal Male, has changed what pregnancy does to a woman's body....I know you may think Males are Gods but even THEY have not and cannot change what pregnancy does to a woman's body.

You saying , ""everything you do in life "endangers your health,""..DOES NOT change the FACTS of what pregnancy does to women's bodies..

"gynocentric" is a flaw to you? How misogynistic.....but not surprising...denigrating what women do to give birth is misogynistic..


BTW, your ignoring what FEMALE doctors and researchers have done for having safer pregnancies is also misogynistic....

 

gee, you sure love BIG government!...and punishing children for being born.....Are breeding barns for women next in your plan?

 

Just because a man knows some women does not mean OBVIOUSLY that he knows what pregnancy entails...not all women who are/were pregnant know that.

 

Oh, my plan all takes place at the local level, because we have abolished about 80% of the AA jobs program/graft trough that is our federal government.

...and BREEDING BARNS? Hell no, only someone who believed women were special snowflakes, grown children in need of special handling by society, discriminatory treatment in the law, identity politics, could ever get to that kind of dehumanizing result. I believe in -equality- for ALL people under the law.

 

Unresponsive.

 

I have no idea if you care about anyone. I just know you will not die in childbirth

 

Vastly vastly more expensive

 

Basing any opinion on ignorance "taking a life" (such as eating cows ?) - is never a great plan.

Groups of people in society generally do not get to pick and choose how tax dollars are spent based on what they like or do not like. Many people are anti-war and/or isolationist and do not want tax dollars going to kill people and policing the world.

Unlike war and policing the world - which costs large amounts of money and harms our long term security- Abortion has a large return on investment.

The cost of an abortion is very little in comparison to the cost of a Child raised in a disfunctional environment (both social and economic cost).

Society then has a vested interest in funding abortion.

 

Self-Defense is misapplied and misunderstood. Moreover, Self-Defense does not apply when the victim initiated the action leading to the cause.

Better would be to have Liberals pony up their own money privately to fund their abortion sprees.

And the women knowingly took the risk, which negates the Self-Defense Doctrine.

 

People generally don't get to pick how their tax dollars are spent? That's not quite true. If you'd prefer to have restrictions placed on the abortion procedures taking place, is there anything you can do? As it turns out, there is: vote people into office who are of like mind on the subject.

Your society may have a vested interest in funding abortions. Mine does not.

 

What makes you think so?

Do you have a thought process associated with this?

Any favorite quotes from any State or the Federal Constitution?

Or did you just pull this out of your wazoo @TheNightFly ??

 

Did you learn this in your high school Civics class ??

 

And the same concept should apply to those seeking abortion.

Then have a bake-sale or something.

 

And here I thought there was a law preventing federal funding of abortions.

Where is that incorrect?

Is thread bullshit?

 

First apply it to smokers and get back to us

 

No, if you invite someone into your house, consent to let them enter , that does NOT take away your right to defend yourself if they attack you. You consented to letting them enter, you did not consent to anything else.

By law, not by your opinion, consent to one act is NOT consent to any other act.

You referring to "abortion sprees" sure doesn't do much for what little credibility you may have had...

 

While you are moving the goalposts somewhat - the response was based on the "I don't want my tax dollars spent that way claim" and you did not really address this, your point is somewhat valid in relation to the overall argument.

We do vote on the basis of policies. Rarely does a vote for someone mean one agrees with all of a politicians policies.
If we talk about a referendum - the question of a referendum is not "do you like or dislike something". The question of a referendum is "do you have legitimate justification to force your personal or religious beliefs on another citizen".

I don't like Alcohol - is not a legitimate justification. If you do not like alcohol - don't drink.
God does not like alcohol - is not a legitimate justification. This is logical fallacy - one can not prove God does not like alcohol.

Further - the powers of Gov't are supposed to be limited. The principles on which this nation was founded put individual liberty "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

Gov't is the not supposed to be making any law outside this legitimate purview- especially one messing with individual rights and freedoms.

 

When you cherry pick a post - you should make sure that your comment or question is not already answered in that post.

Are you suggesting we use only "bake sales" to fund roads, infrastructure, police and so on ?

 

The Hyde Amendment bars Federal dollars from being used for abortions.

Thisis a stupid thread

 

*****WARNING*****

HYPERBOLE AHEAD!

 

Let's use your alcohol example, for the purpose of illustration.

• If a person doesn't like alcohol, they are free not to drink alcohol.
• If enough people believe that alcohol is bad, a candidate's views about alcohol can be asked about, and the issue can become the basis by which one casts a vote.
• For the purposes of steering public policy, it does not really matter why a group of people believes alcohol to be bad. We can and should argue our points of view, understanding that not everyone is going to agree with us, and that if enough people disagree with us, an issue will remain an issue.
• If the government provides money for people to purchase alcohol, we are suddenly presented with a secondary question: should people opposed to alcohol be forced to fund the purchase of alcohol? If the number of these people is large enough, the question will have social implications.
• The question of "do you have legitimate justification to force your personal or religious/nonreligious beliefs on another citizen?" will continue to be asked about any issue for which roughly 50% of the American electorate disagrees with your position, no matter what the issue is or what your position on it is.
• The court system is not supposed to be making laws at all. When they start overstepping their Constitutional bounds, it's time to start worrying. And that, too, does not depend on the issue or one's position of the issue.

Anyway, that's my $.02 on the subject.

 

My post did not support the state funding the drinking of alcohol. Comparison to abortion - in relation to state funding - is a false dichotomy.

The point about alcohol was in relation to the state making a law banning it - and the principles that apply when one wants to ban something.

"I don't like it" is not a valid reason to vote to ban something in a referendum. What part of this do you not understand ? People do this all the time .. this does not make their justification rational and logical.

The bar for making a law messing with individual liberty is not supposed to be 50%. This was referred to in both Republicanism and Classical liberalism (not to be confused with the modern term Liberal) as "tyranny of the majority".

The bar is "overwhelming majority" - at least 2/3rd's.

Every Gov't has a simple majority mandate. There is no point in putting individual liberty "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't if Gov't is allowed to mess with individual liberty on the basis of a simple majority mandate.