Boxer: Denying women abortion coverage is like denying men Viagra

[Geezah]

As abortion took center stage in the Senate's historic debate over health care reform, Sen. Barbara Boxer was right in the middle of the fight, provocatively comparing an effort to limit women's access to abortion to restricting men's access to Viagra.

Her combative stance on the issue was a familiar one for the third-term Democrat, whose support of abortion rights has been central to her political career.

"Why are women being singled out here? It's so unfair," Boxer said on the Senate floor Tuesday. "We don't tell men that if they want to ... buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra that they can't do it."

Boxer was weighing in against an amendment offered by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., that would greatly restrict abortion services for women buying individual insurance through a new health care insurance exchange. While the amendment was rejected in a 54-45 vote, it was not the last word on the issue.

Largely mirroring a provision passed by the House last month as part of its health care reform bill, Nelson's proposal would bar abortion coverage for anyone who receives taxpayer subsidies to buy health insurance. Those who pay for health insurance completely on their own would have to purchase a separate "rider" in order to have abortion services covered.

"This amendment would be the biggest rollback to a woman's right to choose in decades," Boxer declared Monday. "What have women done to deserve this?"

Supporters said the amendment was meant to preserve a long-standing prohibition against spending federal funds on abortion.

The abortion proposal has emerged as one of the main stumbling blocks to a final deal on sweeping health care reform, pitting a handful of anti-abortion Democratic senators against their pro-choice counterparts.

Nelson has signaled that he would vote against the entire health care bill if his abortion amendment failed. That would leave Democrats one vote short of the 60 they need to break a filibuster. Forging a compromise is tricky, given the firm moral beliefs on both sides of the debate.

Abortion was a central issue in Boxer's first race for the Senate in 1992, when she defeated anti-abortion Republican Bruce Herschensohn, and she has used it successfully to rally her female base and twice win re-election. Next year, Boxer is expected to face either former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina or state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore — who both oppose abortion — in her bid for a fourth term.

Link (http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_13953999?nclick_check=1)

What is it with these Libtard fcukwits.

While I don't agree with abortion being used as a form of birth control, I sure as hell don't want my tax dollars being used to pay for someone else to get one!

[SoftLion]

"We don't tell men that if they want to ... buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra that they can't do it."

Yea, why don't you do that Barbara.

"This amendment would be the biggest rollback to a woman's right to choose in decades," Boxer declared Monday. "What have women done to deserve this?"

http://www.glogster.com/media/2/6/1/87/6018742.jpg

[Fat Lazy American]

I DON'T think Viagra should be covered by insurance and I DO think abortion should be covered. So there.

[Rakki]

I DON'T think Viagra should be covered by insurance and I DO think abortion should be covered. So there.

Agree. Although I personally feel that a contraceptive patch (compulsory UNLESS you do plan to have a baby) offers a better solution.

[Panchito12]

I DON'T think Viagra should be covered by insurance and I DO think abortion should be covered. So there.

Not a single one of the health plans offered to the Federal workforce covers viagra (although it does cover abortions & birth control). Interestingly all plans fail to cover in-vitro.

p.s. The DC Metro/Bus workers health plan does cover viagra. :cantbeli:

[SoftLion]

I DON'T think Viagra should be covered by insurance and I DO think abortion should be covered. So there.

What are you, 6? Let me try:

I think YOU should pay for it yourself, and if YOU don't want to, then YOU should not engage in promiscuous behavior likely to lead to pregnancy. And if YOU do get pregnant, YOU sure as hell shouldn't ask ME for MY tax dollars to fund YOUR cuddly abortion.

So there.

[Geezah]

I DON'T think Viagra should be covered by insurance and I DO think abortion should be covered. So there.


Here's an idea, why don't you along with others that think like you, cover those that do not agree with abortion being used as a form of birth control?
I'd be quite happy for you to pick up my part of the taxes I would pay towards it!

[SoftLion]

Here's an idea, why don't you along with others that think like you, cover those that do not agree with abortion being used as a form of birth control?
I'd be quite happy for you to pick up my part of the taxes I would pay towards it!

Read what you wrote (?).

[Ordie]

As a supporter of Health Care initiative and the Democratic Party, sometimes I wonder the wisdom of some of my representatives.

From what I see we are at the homestretch of Health Care reform. Boxer should tone down a bit for the sake of the greater good. At this rate we're (Democratic Party) are making the same mistakes in the 1990's when we lost the house.

[Fat Lazy American]

What are you, 6? Let me try:

I think YOU should pay for it yourself, and if YOU don't want to, then YOU should not engage in promiscuous behavior likely to lead to pregnancy. And if YOU do get pregnant, YOU sure as hell shouldn't ask ME for MY tax dollars to fund YOUR cuddly abortion.

So there.

But you don't think ANY medical care should be covered by tax dollars or by government regulated insurance, right? So why discuss abortion?

I mean, you scoff at paying 300 bucks for the result of promiscuity. What about the 10s of thousands it costs if there's no miscarriage? And then society has to bear the burden of unwanted children such as yourself growing up and getting Internet accounts.

At least Barbara Boxer is being honest. Some people are being completely intellectually dishonest when they claim this is about tax dollars. No one is trying to save tax dollars by defunding abortions.

[TheBelgian]

Link (http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_13953999?nclick_check=1)

What is it with these Libtard fcukwits.

While I don't agree with abortion being used as a form of birth control, I sure as hell don't want my tax dollars being used to pay for someone else to get one!

You'd rather a poor woman can't afford an abortion, and instead you have to use your valuable tax dollars to help fund the raising a child she can't afford for 18 years?

[Lemonz]

I DON'T think Viagra should be covered by insurance and I DO think abortion should be covered. So there.

agreed.


charlim




softlion you are.....well Im sure you know what I want to say.

[mas-36]

Lets clarify something here: Viagra helps men "get it up" to have a better time in bed, and possibly, with the objective of creating a human being.

Abortion kills a living being through various manners.

The comparison is as highly flawed as it could get.

You wanna rip your baby apart? Do it on your own dime.

[SoftLion]

agreed.

charlim

softlion you are.....well Im sure you know what I want to say.

Say whatever you want, I'm a big boy.


But you don't think ANY medical care should be covered by tax dollars or by government regulated insurance, right? So why discuss abortion?

I mean, you scoff at paying 300 bucks for the result of promiscuity. What about the 10s of thousands it costs if there's no miscarriage? And then society has to bear the burden of unwanted children such as yourself growing up and getting Internet accounts.

At least Barbara Boxer is being honest. Some people are being completely intellectually dishonest when they claim this is about tax dollars. No one is trying to save tax dollars by defunding abortions.

No, I don't want a hay-penny of my paycheck taken to fund someone else's abortion. I know that is hard for you to understand.

You would have me believe that a federally funded healthcare program providing abortion services would eliminate the "10's of thousands it costs" to raise kids otherwise aborted. You make a leap of logic there, I'll see if you can figure it out to answer your own question.

What is Boxer being honest about? As stated above, how does failure to federally fund abortions with taxpayer money have any effect on a woman's right to choose?

Roe v Wade is the law of the land. That law gives a woman a right to choose. Barbara Boxer, and many of you in this thread, want to believe that it means the federal gubmint must provide abortion as part of a universal health care program. You are wrong.

As for the cheap personal attack, sounds like the mainfestation of some insecurity in your life. Or you are just a complete cocksucker.

[Geezah]

Read what you wrote (?).


My bad, I quoted you instead of the Fat American.

Sorry about that.......

[Geezah]

You'd rather a poor woman can't afford an abortion, and instead you have to use your valuable tax dollars to help fund the raising a child she can't afford for 18 years?

Are you asking me to agree with murdering a child for no other reason than ***?

I would prefer to give that child a go at life rather than see them end up in a bucket.

The whole choose BS is getting old, they can choose if they want, but I would prefer not to have to pay for someone else to have an abortion!

[Chulo]

Not a single one of the health plans offered to the Federal workforce covers viagra (although it does cover abortions & birth control). Interestingly all plans fail to cover in-vitro.

p.s. The DC Metro/Bus workers health plan does cover viagra. :cantbeli:

GM Auto Workers Union has cost GM $17 million a year in viagra

The blue pill is covered under GM's labor agreement with United Auto Workers, as well as benefit plans for salaried employees. GM executives estimate health care adds $1,500 to the price of each vehicle but they do not break out how much of the premium is caused by erectile dysfunction expenses. GM provides health care for 1.1 million employees, retirees and dependents and is the world's largest private purchaser of Viagra.


Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/04/gm_viagra.html#ixzz0ZCpGG4Pb

[Sakop]

GM Auto Workers Union has cost GM $17 million a year in viagra
and thats for only 1.1 million employees, retirees and dependents? just think how much it would be for 300+ million people to be covered...

[coltfan111]

I think abortions should be free, you cannot always guarantee contraception will work. Also it will just lead to more births from people who do not want to have a child or perhaps even unable support it. But if people are getting repeat abortions in a short period then some sort of action shold be taken.


What are you, 6? Let me try:

I think YOU should pay for it yourself, and if YOU don't want to, then YOU should not engage in promiscuous behavior likely to lead to pregnancy. And if YOU do get pregnant, YOU sure as hell shouldn't ask ME for MY tax dollars to fund YOUR cuddly abortion.

So there.

Like ***? That is practically saying that if you cannot afford abortions don't have ***. Yer it's your "tax dollars" but things such as financial support for those who cannot afford abortions or contraception will make your country better in the long run.We live in a free and civilized world, things like this should be no problem in a country like America. i don't support unconditional benefits and payouts, but access to certain forms of free health care for those who cannot afford it should not even be a problem for citizens of a western and rich country. Unless you really want citizens of your country living like those of the 3rd world. I just don't understand how people can be against free ****** health clinics in their country.

[SoftLion]

I think abortions should be free, you cannot always guarantee contraception will work. Also it will just lead to more births of from people who do not want to have a child or perhaps even unable support it. But if people are getting repeat abortions in a short period then some sort of action shold be taken.



Like ***? That is practically saying that if you cannot afford abortions don't have ***. Yer it's your "tax dollars" but things such as financial support for those who cannot afford abortions or contraception will make your country better in the long run.We live in a free and civilized world, things like this should be no problem in a country like America. i don't support unconditional benefits and the like, but access to certain forms of free health care for those who cannot afford it should not even be a problem for citizens of a western and rich country.

There is no such thing as a free abortion - someone is paying for it. And I don't want my taxes to pay for someone else's irresponsibility.

If you are not man or woman enough to take responsibility for your actions, then you shouldn't be getting laid. Same goes for those who aren't in a financial position or mature enough - "O my, I had *** with someone and a pregnancy resulted - I had no idea!" Common sense means different things to different people, I guess.

Although abortion is legal, I find it appalling that you would believe that grown adults have such little maturity and culpability when it comes to procreation and ****ing that you rationalize abortion as a form of birth control.

[coltfan111]

Do you believe that people who cannot afford it should have access to the best contraception methods? Such as birth control pills and the like, even though it is at the cost of the tax payer? Or access to medical support for ****** health regarding ****** diseases?

[Geezah]

I think abortions should be free,

Free, how does that work?

Someone ispaying for it, so it is not free.



you cannot always guarantee contraception will work. Also it will just lead to more births from people who do not want to have a child or perhaps even unable support it. But if people are getting repeat abortions in a short period then some sort of action shold be taken.

There is always adoption?

There are plenty of parents that want children but cannot.




Like ***? That is practically saying that if you cannot afford abortions don't have ***.

How about sterilization, I wouldn't mind paying for that out of my taxes, and it would be alot cheaper in the longrun than abortion?



Yer it's your "tax dollars" but things such as financial support for those who cannot afford abortions or contraception will make your country better in the long run.

It would only make it better because there would probably be less Democrats like Boxer coming out with pure bile.



We live in a free and civilized world,

Killing unborn babies is considered civilized?



things like this should be no problem in a country like America. i don't support unconditional benefits and payouts, but access to certain forms of free health care for those who cannot afford it should not even be a problem for citizens of a western and rich country.

Nothing is free, it's paid for by someone, so please get this idea of free out of your head.



Unless you really want citizens of your country living like those of the 3rd world. I just don't understand how people can be against free ****** health clinics in their country.

There's that free again..............

[SoftLion]

Do you believe that people who cannot afford it should have access to the best contraception methods? Such as birth control pills and the like, even though it is at the cost of the tax payer? Or access to medical support for ****** health regarding ****** diseases?

Are you unable to respond to my posts and must simply beg for more?

I have a general problem with taxpayer support for the irresponsibility of others, as part of my general disdain for entitlement. There are programs already in place that provide some of what you refer to above.

[Imp]

Boxer must be a fan of Monty Python:
Ever sperm is sacred,
ever sperm is great,
when a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

That's the only logical way to equate ED meds to abortion.

Also, looks like the Cialis lobby in Congress has their work cut out for them.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I think abortions should be covered 100% up until the child is one month of age. I mean, you can't really tell if you'll like it at all until it's outside to begin with. It's kind of unfair to women to force this decision on them sight-unseen, right? So if you give them a month to decide, they'll know if it's the right ***, if it's cute enough, or if it has any embarrassing or expensive problems etc.

The left just cracks me up. Now it's no longer sufficient for women to have the right to terminate a 3rd party's life, they now apparently want the right to do that AND have yet another person pay for it.

[coltfan111]

Free, how does that work?

Someone ispaying for it, so it is not free.



There is always adoption?

There are plenty of parents that want children but cannot.




How about sterilization, I wouldn't mind paying for that out of my taxes, and it would be alot cheaper in the longrun than abortion?



It would only make it better because there would probably be less Democrats like Boxer coming out with pure bile.



Killing unborn babies is considered civilized?



Nothing is free, it's paid for by someone, so please get this idea of free out of your head.



There's that free again..............

I call it free because it's free for them. Use some common sense.I consider abortions civilized, I'm not religious;however I do not believe late abortions are moral.

If people want sterilization then they should be able to get it in the 21st century western world, even if they can't afford it.

[Sakop]

The left just cracks me up. Now it's no longer sufficient for women to have the right to terminate a 3rd party's life, they now apparently want the right to do that AND have yet another person pay for it.
x2 on that

[coltfan111]

Are you unable to respond to my posts and must simply beg for more?

I have a general problem with taxpayer support for the irresponsibility of others, as part of my general disdain for entitlement. There are programs already in place that provide some of what you refer to above.

I am just seeing if you are against any form of ****** health care for those who are not able to afford it. And as to your earlier post, many people think abortion is right (including myself) and you should not be exempt from paying taxes because you think a small fraction of the money you pay may go into a system you are not in favor of. If everybody did that then well....

And if you are against it for religious reasons, remember that you live in a secular society where state comes 1st. Not all Americans are Christians but all Americans are citizens of the state, it is not your right to deny people abortions because you do not agree. Being part of a free society and paying taxes means that sometimes you have to fund things you don't agree with.

[0rphie]

There is no such thing as a free abortion - someone is paying for it. And I don't want my taxes to pay for someone else's irresponsibility.

If you are not man or woman enough to take responsibility for your actions, then you shouldn't be getting laid. Same goes for those who aren't in a financial position or mature enough - "O my, I had *** with someone and a pregnancy resulted - I had no idea!" Common sense means different things to different people, I guess.

Although abortion is legal, I find it appalling that you would believe that grown adults have such little maturity and culpability when it comes to procreation and ****ing that you rationalize abortion as a form of birth control.

I would rather pay for an abortion with my taxes once then pay with the same taxes for years to support another welfare recipient. I would also pay with my taxes for mandatory sterilization of those who get pregnant and cannot financially support themselves/children

[SoftLion]

I am just seeing if you are against any form of ****** health care for those who are not able to afford it. And ass to your earlier post, many people think abortion is right (including myself) and you should not be exempt from paying taxes because you think a small fraction of the money you pay may go into a system you are not in favor of. If everybody did that then well. And if you are against it for religious reasons, remember that yo live in a secular society where state comes 1st. Not all Americans are Christians but all Americans are citizens of the state, it is not your right to deny people abortions because you do not agree. Being part of a free society and paying taxes means that sometimes you have to fund things you don't agree with.

I don't have the energy to point out how bassackwards, untrue, and incorrect that sounds, reads, and is.

[coltfan111]

I don't have the energy to point out how bassackwards, untrue, and incorrect that sounds, reads, and is.


No please reply, you seem to try and beat down anybody who challenges your point of view. I've also cleaned up the couple of type-o's so it's easy to read now.

[SoftLion]

I would rather pay for an abortion with my taxes ones then pay with the same taxes for years to support another welfare recipient. I would also pay with my taxes for mandatory sterilization of those who get pregnant and cannot financially support themselves/children

You are misinformed. You conclude that offering "free" abortions means that those that have kids who end up on welfare will utilize the "free" abortions available to them, eliminating those future welfare recipients (as no aborted kid would ever turn out to be a contributing member of society). You are wrong.

As for your mandatory sterilization line, your post reads like:
Sentence 1: Common liberal viewpoint
Sentence 2: Fascist Nazi

[SoftLion]

No please reply, you seem to try and beat down anybody who challenges your point of view.

Did you read what he posted? Please tell me you understand/support one iota of that, and I will respond in kind. And if by "beat down" you mean offer a rational opinion supported with reasoning, then: guilty. Try it sometime.

I have already offered my salient opinions on this matter. You have not responded one time to the points raised.

[SBL]

I would rather pay for an abortion with my taxes once then pay with the same taxes for years to support another welfare recipient. I would also pay with my taxes for mandatory sterilization of those who get pregnant and cannot financially support themselves/children
Exterminate the underclass!

[Kit]

I disagree with abortion. In fact, I hate abortion. I'm against it for secular reasons and religious reasons. It is a shameful procedure that's a product of a generation that wants shortcuts and easy-way-outs. I do realize that we're in an age where women aren't "daddy's little girl". They have ****** lives too. But this age of "Free Love" needs to come with some responsibility. Both parties need to remember that ***, at the most basic level, is for procreation. Yes it feels awesome, but it makes babies primarily. To treat pregnancy as a little fixable mistake, takes weight off that responsibility.

People need to use birth control, but also acknowledge that they're taking a risk. I don't want to pay tax dollars for baby killing. Makes me sick.

[0rphie]

You are misinformed. You conclude that offering "free" abortions means that those that have kids who end up on welfare will utilize the "free" abortions available to them, eliminating those future welfare recipients (as no aborted kid would ever turn out to be a contributing member of society). You are wrong.

As for your mandatory sterilization line, your post reads like:
Sentence 1: Common liberal viewpoint
Sentence 2: Fascist Nazi
have you resorted to using labels because fail to use arguments?

[SoftLion]

have you resorted to using labels because fail to use arguments?

Are you (and coltfan) familiar with the term "rational rebuttal"?

Oh yea, read what you wrote again, then read what I wrote again. Okay, once more. Synapses firing yet?

[coltfan111]

Did you read what he posted? Please tell me you understand/support one iota of that, and I will respond in kind. And if by "beat down" you mean offer a rational opinion supported with reasoning, then: guilty. Try it sometime.

I have already offered my salient opinions on this matter. You have not responded one time to the points raised.

Calling people 6 year olds for using capital letters to highlight things is pretty petty. As is refusing to respond to my viewpoint because you view it as "backward".


You are the one avoiding the issues I asked you about. you never said if you agree with me that whether the best forms of birth control (not including abortions) as well as ****** health care should be free to those who cannot afford it. ( and don't do the whole "it's not free" thing, you know what I mean).

I have responded to what you have said, I told you;I don't think abortions are wrong and they are a form of birth control, but should always be a last resort.Also that some tax payer money should go the poorest for this if they cannot afford it. there are very few 100% safe forms of contraception.Also what about the all too common cases of young teenage girls being coerced into unsafe ****** activity by older men? Or the rare cases of children likely to be born with serve disabilities into families unable to provide care?

[SoftLion]

.....
As is refusing to respond to my viewpoint because you view it as "backward".

the term you are looking for is "bassackwards", and it was in reference to your poor english (excusable) and misguided rant about the US and Christians and secularism and taxes and abortion (not)

You are the one avoiding the issues I asked you about. you never said if you agree with me that whether the best forms of birth control (not including abortions) as well as ****** health care should be free to those who cannot afford it. ( and don't do the whole "it's not free" thing, you know what I mean).

read the first post, ie the ****ing topic of this thread - now do you get it? I dont care about your offtopic "but what's".

Also what about the all to common cases of young teenage girls being coerced into unsafe ****** activity by older men? Or the rare cases of children likely to be born with serve disabilities into families unable to provide care?

Listen Mother Teresa, I don't have an answer for all the ill wills of this world, I am only discussing...........forget it.


....................

[Ordie]

The compromise here should be:

1) No funding for abortion
2) Increased funding for *** ed, contraception, adoption and family planning services.

[SoftLion]

The compromise here should be:

1) No funding for abortion
2) Increased funding for *** ed, contraception, adoption and family planning services.

Coltfan - see what Ordie did above? No? Okay.

[coltfan111]

Man cut the patronizing attitude to everybody and the grammar police routine. The things I am talking about are relevant, providing the poorest with the best methods of contraception will cut the pregnancy rate.

I'm trying to discuss with you about the ills of your poorest fellow citizens, not the world. I feel very sorry for them if the general attitude of Americans is this.

There is no need to act like a condescending **** when I hadn't even leveled an insult at you or your views. And what I was saying about the US being a secular society was referring to the fact that perhaps you are against abortions for religious reasons. Maybe If you just said what Ordie did instead of trying to insult me then that could have saved some time.

[Euroamerican]

I disagree with abortion. In fact, I hate abortion. I'm against it for secular reasons and religious reasons. It is a shameful procedure that's a product of a generation that wants shortcuts and easy-way-outs. I do realize that we're in an age where women aren't "daddy's little girl". They have ****** lives too. But this age of "Free Love" needs to come with some responsibility. Both parties need to remember that ***, at the most basic level, is for procreation. Yes it feels awesome, but it makes babies primarily. To treat pregnancy as a little fixable mistake, takes weight off that responsibility.

People need to use birth control, but also acknowledge that they're taking a risk. I don't want to pay tax dollars for baby killing. Makes me sick.

X10!

I'm pretty much on the same page as Geezah, SoftLion, and Kit on this.

I don't want to be complicit in baby killing.

[Elbs]

If you want an abortion because you didn't use contraception and got knocked up, tough ****. The state shouldn't have to pay for you being an idiot. Foot the damn bill yourself.

Cases of rape, incest, etc should be different.

[Panchito12]

The left just cracks me up. Now it's no longer sufficient for women to have the right to terminate a 3rd party's life, they now apparently want the right to do that AND have yet another person pay for it.


...but in their assanine logic, the left refuses to support a health bill that allows for in-vitro fertilization.

So it's ok to kill, it's ok to f**k while on the pill - they'll pay for that. But if you actually want to have children but need fertility treatment....NO WAY PAL!!

Go figure!:cantbeli:

[USMCRTop]

The compromise here should be:

1) No funding for abortion
2) Increased funding for *** ed, contraception, adoption and family planning services.

yep sounds good--why does the Left always say Abortion should be safe . available and rare when its not very rare at all...

[Geezah]

The compromise here should be:

1) No funding for abortion
2) Increased funding for *** ed, contraception, adoption and family planning services.

I could actually agree with you here, probably the first and last time.......go figure.

[Gleipnir]

The compromise here should be:

1) No funding for abortion
2) Increased funding for *** ed, contraception, adoption and family planning services.

That is a really good compromise.
I would be more than happy to see my taxes used for increased *** education, family planning, etc.

About abortion-
a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body.
End of story- it should be the decision of the parents unless they are under a certain age or under an inappropriate mental state to make such a decision.

I understand that there are many hypothetical situations that can be attributed to how the pregnancy happened, but all you statistics hounds can't see the ins-and-outs and/or nuance of every single case by case pregnancy.
I am not in favour of a black and white decision that affects all women at the cost of these factors.

Furthermore-
In SIMPLE terms of cost it would be less expensive to fund abortion in contrast to a childhood and all that this entails.
Is it fair to bring a child in to the world knowing that you can not take care of it and under a strong likelihood that it is going to have a low quality of life? I don't know- I would hope that those DIRECTLY involved have more entitlement to that decision than I do.

What about adoption? Not always a guarantee. A good option, and one I am not opposed to but it shouldn't be the only available option.

All you ardent pro-lifers put your money where your mouth is.
Adopt or make donations to adoption agencies.

[SoftLion]

All you ardent pro-lifers put your money where your mouth is.
Adopt or make donations to adoption agencies.

All you ardent pro-choicers: Keep banging away with no thought of culpability or responsibility for the act you are engaging in, knowing full well you can always fall back on a convenient abortion.

[Geezah]

What about adoption? Not always a guarantee. A good option, and one I am not opposed to but it shouldn't be the only available option.

All you ardent pro-lifers put your money where your mouth is.
Adopt or make donations to adoption agencies.

Shouldn't assume that they haven't already.......

[Thugut]

What are you, 6? Let me try:

I think YOU should pay for it yourself, and if YOU don't want to, then YOU should not engage in promiscuous behavior likely to lead to pregnancy. And if YOU do get pregnant, YOU sure as hell shouldn't ask ME for MY tax dollars to fund YOUR cuddly abortion.

So there.


And I think that Smokers that get lung cancer should have to pay for their own chemo.

Fat people for their own bypasses.

Old people for their own broken hip surgery (what do they expect, trying to try to climb steps with those matchstick bones).


Cool. By shoving down other people's throats our own morals as well as a healthy dose of "f@ck you, it's your own fault" I bet we can reduce taxes to zero. rofl

[Gleipnir]

Shouldn't assume that they haven't already.......

I'm not assuming they have or haven't. Just a provocation or a piece of advice.
You know the drill, Geezah! :)

[Gleipnir]

All you ardent pro-choicers: Keep banging away with no thought of culpability or responsibility for the act you are engaging in, knowing full well you can always fall back on a convenient abortion.

Hahahaha
if only reality was that cut and dry. Cool idea though.
You make it sound like abortions are easy to go through and live with.

Again, I think that improved education is the best option overall.

[SoftLion]

And I think that Smokers that get lung cancer should have to pay for their own chemo.

Fat people for their own bypasses.

Old people for their own broken hip surgery (what do they expect, trying to try to climb steps with those matchstick bones).


Cool. By shoving down other people's throats our own morals as well as a healthy dose of "f@ck you, it's your own fault" I bet we can reduce taxes to zero. rofl

What logic and wit, not to mention perfect analogies. I'm not shoving one piece of my morals down anyone's throat. Just the opposite - those with none could access my tax dollars to shove their irresponsible decisions down my throat, and make me pay for it. Is that lost on you? Yes /post

[SoftLion]

Hahahaha
if only reality was that cut and dry. Cool idea though.
You make it sound like abortions are easy to go through and live with.

Again, I think that improved education is the best option overall.


Why is that so hard for anyone in this thread to admit, along with the fact that the majority of unwanted pregnancies are the product of a combination of immaturity and irresponsibility?

Its not cool to take responsibility for your actions, I suppose.

EDIT:

Hahahaha
if only reality was that cut and dry. Cool idea though.


I think reality is perfectly cut and dry as I posted - how do you see it?

[seraosha]

And I think that Smokers that get lung cancer should have to pay for their own chemo.

Fat people for their own bypasses.

Old people for their own broken hip surgery (what do they expect, trying to try to climb steps with those matchstick bones).


Cool. By shoving down other people's throats our own morals as well as a healthy dose of "f@ck you, it's your own fault" I bet we can reduce taxes to zero. rofl

1. they do, private health insurance.
2. they do, private health insurance.
3. they do, private health insurance.

Want an abortion? Fine, go to hell on your own time, but pay for it yourself with...you guessed it, private health insurance.

And more money to education isn't the answer to unwanted pregnancy.
Public shaming of the guilty parties, like in stocks or in the local newspaper so they can be embarrassed. And no, not stoning them, but a little puritanical public humiliation would go a lot further than another pamphlet about how to put on a rubber.

[Gleipnir]

Why is that so hard for anyone in this thread to admit, along with the fact that the majority of unwanted pregnancies are the product of a combination of immaturity and irresponsibility?

Its not cool to take responsibility for your actions, I suppose.

One should definitely take responsibility for ones actions- Absolutely- I have no disagreement with that at all-

Although by not having an abortion as opposed to having one doesn't necessarily strike me as being a scenario whereby one isn't taking responsibility for ones actions. I see abortion as a responsible action in some cases.

However, I still believe that it's not up to me to decide whether the abortion or other options is the most responsible way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy for those directly affected.

I will agree with you that a majority of cases (as indicated statistically anyway) of unwanted pregnancy are likely the results of a combination of insufficient ****** education and poor judgement.

That's why I think that ****** education should be the most actively pursued and supported method of dealing with this problem.


I think reality is perfectly cut and dry as I posted - how do you see it?

Again- statistically speaking, the majority of abortions in the USA could indeed indicate that the unwanted pregnancies were largely caused by lack of ****** education and poor judgement-
but even though this may be a majority there is still a small percentage that do overwhelmingly validate the option of abortion in my mind. (rape, incest, health risk, etc.)

I don't think that making a decision that would affect all women the same is fair to those who do not fall under 'dumb and stupid'.
Also, I don't know the ins and outs of what contributed to the pregnancy or the state of the relationship of the individuals involved. Statistics can't speak to the human factor involved and I think it is unfair to suggest that all abortions are the direct result of only irresponsible people who see it merely as a birth control option as opposed to condoms, the pill, etc.

Furthermore-
Ensuring that those ir-responsible pregnant individuals actually take good care for and ensure a healthy pregnancy is going to be an increased burden not only financially, but also on those who have to constantly check on the mother to be and on those who are going to care for the baby after it is born.

Some of these parents could be horribly drug-addicted or have transferable diseases that will negatively impact the health and life the future child.

By taking away the option of abortion I honestly do not think that you are teaching these kinds of individuals a lesson.

Maybe repeat 'offenders' would know what lay in store, but quite honestly I fear that it won't make the actual root cause of unwanted pregnancies go away.

Again, this is why ****** education is far more important, because it addresses the problem before it actually begins.

Unwanted pregnancies are not going to go away, it's that simple. Outside of accidents happening, unfortunately there are people in the world who are never going to have the necessary responsibility to think their consequences through- this may have in large part been because of the quality of life they experienced in their upbringing- Were they born into an environment that couldn't give them the quality of life or education necessary to know what the consequences of their actions would be? Did they grow up neglected in foster homes?
Those are very real situations that again contribute to the cycle continuing.

It's sad, but the real world is not easily represented by figures or statistics.

If you take away the option for legal abortion there will always be those individuals who will seek it out anyway, often through very dangerous and non-medically sound means.

Do I think that it is enormously unfair that there are uncaring, unsympathetic individuals whose ir-responsible behaviour led to pregnancies and they then seek out abortion as a form of birth control?-
Yes, I do- Do I think that they should be held financially accountable?- Yes, I do (in an ideal world)

but this is in no way representative of the entire picture.
I know some people personally who had to go through abortions and won't hesitate to tell you that it was absolutely devastating for them. It is not an easy ordeal and that is why I personally have always been extremely careful so as to avoid such situations happening to myself. However, I had a very good ****** education - something that too many Americans today are not getting.

[break]

viagra make your **** hard
abortions kill unborn children
there fore, making you **** hard is as bad/ worse than killing unborn child

[2Sheds_Jackson]

yep sounds good--why does the Left always say Abortion should be safe . available and rare when its not very rare at all...

I always liked that Clintonism. "Safe, legal and rare". Why "rare" if there's nothing wrong with it? Talk about speaking out of both sides of the mouth - they can't even honestly articulate their position.



Public shaming of the guilty parties, like in stocks or in the local newspaper so they can be embarrassed. And no, not stoning them, but a little puritanical public humiliation would go a lot further than another pamphlet about how to put on a rubber.

What? Shame? In our society? You've got to be kidding. In most places we can't even shame felons while they're in prison by making them wear embarrassing prison duds. Shame is nearly as outdated as responsibility or accountability. They've all been replaced by self-actualization and entitlement. Sorry but you're on the wrong side of progress(ives) here. :|

[SoftLion]

One should definitely take responsibility for ones actions- Absolutely- I have no disagreement with that at all-

Although by not having an abortion as opposed to having one doesn't necessarily strike me as being a scenario whereby one isn't taking responsibility for ones actions. I see abortion as a responsible action in some cases.

However, I still believe that it's not up to me to decide whether the abortion or other options is the most responsible way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy for those directly affected.

I will agree with you that a majority of cases (as indicated statistically anyway) of unwanted pregnancy are likely the results of a combination of insufficient ****** education and poor judgement.

That's why I think that ****** education should be the most actively pursued and supported method of dealing with this problem.



Again- statistically speaking, the majority of abortions in the USA could indeed indicate that the unwanted pregnancies were largely caused by lack of ****** education and poor judgement-
but even though this may be a majority there is still a small percentage that do overwhelmingly validate the option of abortion in my mind. (rape, incest, health risk, etc.)

I don't think that making a decision that would affect all women the same is fair to those who do not fall under 'dumb and stupid'.
Also, I don't know the ins and outs of what contributed to the pregnancy or the state of the relationship of the individuals involved. Statistics can't speak to the human factor involved and I think it is unfair to suggest that all abortions are the direct result of only irresponsible people who see it merely as a birth control option as opposed to condoms, the pill, etc.

Furthermore-
Ensuring that those ir-responsible pregnant individuals actually take good care for and ensure a healthy pregnancy is going to be an increased burden not only financially, but also on those who have to constantly check on the mother to be and on those who are going to care for the baby after it is born.

Some of these parents could be horribly drug-addicted or have transferable diseases that will negatively impact the health and life the future child.

By taking away the option of abortion I honestly do not think that you are teaching these kinds of individuals a lesson.

Maybe repeat 'offenders' would know what lay in store, but quite honestly I fear that it won't make the actual root cause of unwanted pregnancies go away.

Again, this is why ****** education is far more important, because it addresses the problem before it actually begins.

Unwanted pregnancies are not going to go away, it's that simple. Outside of accidents happening, unfortunately there are people in the world who are never going to have the necessary responsibility to think their consequences through- this may have in large part been because of the quality of life they experienced in their upbringing- Were they born into an environment that couldn't give them the quality of life or education necessary to know what the consequences of their actions would be? Did they grow up neglected in foster homes?
Those are very real situations that again contribute to the cycle continuing.

It's sad, but the real world is not easily represented by figures or statistics.

If you take away the option for legal abortion there will always be those individuals who will seek it out anyway, often through very dangerous and non-medically sound means.

Do I think that it is enormously unfair that there are uncaring, unsympathetic individuals whose ir-responsible behaviour led to pregnancies and they then seek out abortion as a form of birth control?-
Yes, I do- Do I think that they should be held financially accountable?- Yes, I do (in an ideal world)

but this is in no way representative of the entire picture.
I know some people personally who had to go through abortions and won't hesitate to tell you that it was absolutely devastating for them. It is not an easy ordeal and that is why I personally have always been extremely careful so as to avoid such situations happening to myself. However, I had a very good ****** education - something that too many Americans today are not getting.

A well thought out and reasoned post, even if I disagree with some of your opinions.

I would add that I am not posting in this thread advocating the criminalization of abortion (didn't suggest that once). What I am stating, as you also stated above, is that it seems to me that there is a major lack of culpability regarding the actors involved in creating an unwanted pregnancy that leads to an abortion. However, I would also add that I don't think more *** education is necessarily the answer. Most semi-intelligent adolescents are intelligent enough to understand that babies don't come from storks.

Of course it is an agonizing thing to go through - how difficult is it to come to terms with the fact that your poor decision regarding *** or choice of ****** partner is leading you to terminate your offspring?

I have no love lost for women, men, or couples that hammer home a woman's right to choose. To me, that has nothing to do with my lack of respect for them. It is instead due to their inability to take responsibility for their bad decisions, using an abortive procedure in lieu of responsibility. It is hard to understand how these same "qualities" don't manifest themselves elsewhere in their lives.

Nowadays, there is always some reason to point the finger at someone else, shift blame, or find a loophole, when, in reality, it is a simple case of people lacking old-school sounding traits, like character, integrity, maturity, and responsibility.

Want an abortion? Go ahead. 9/10 times the procedure is a testament to the character of the actor(s) involved, or lack thereof. Everything else (welfare, cost of raising unwanted child, etc) are excuses to rationalize bad decision making on the front end, and failure to make responsible decisions. I was raised, rightly or wrongly, to answer for my own actions rather than pass the consequences on to the non-culpable (ie the unborn). That oftentimes hurts, is agonizing, and causes suffering. However, I am unaware of another way to learn from mistakes, which I view as the process by which we build character and integrity. /rant

[Gleipnir]

Great post, SoftLion

I am in total agreement when it comes to needing to take responsibility for one's actions and that there is an overwhelming number of ir-responsible individuals abusing a process that should be necessary to some under tragic circumstances. I won't deny that there are too many who abuse this choice and use it to further deny responsibility, as you suggest.

It's unfortunate that there are always going to individuals who ruin services that are available to those who actually really need them. Not just in the case of abortion. As much as I dislike these individuals and agree with your comments in regards to character, upbringing and culpability I am hesitant to act upon measures that would deny that slim minority who do need such services available.

Perhaps there could be steps taken to classify potential 'patients' but this gets into another slippery debate regarding equal protection. (Fourteenth amendment)

[Lemonz]

wow this forum is full of jesus freaks.

[Zoomie]

wow this forum is full of jesus freaks.
Funny thing is - you're the only one who mentioned him. And besides, what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? It contributes nothing whatsoever.

[Lemonz]

The majority of people obejtct because of religous reasons.
And also above else male.
So they should have no say in the matter anyway.

[Elbs]

I object to it from my wallet reasons.

I don't want to pay for some irresponsible person's mistakes.

That person was raped, or is in danger of losing her life due to the pregnancy, it's different. Didn't bother using a goddamn rubber, pay for that **** yourself.

[Chulo]

The majority of people obejtct because of religous reasons.
And also above else male.
So they should have no say in the matter anyway.
Yea, because it is not their child, son, daughter that is being murdered.

If men have no say in childbearing and child rearing , how about we just let women get pregnant on their own, with no man involved

[Lemonz]

lol you guys are hilarious.

[Chulo]

lol you guys are hilarious.
Maybe life just matters abit more for some of us than others. Life at conception as accepted by international law

[Elbs]

Nice argument, lemonz.

[Lemonz]

There is no need to argue against people who chronically undereducated, self righteous* and christian.
Not to mention anti woman.



(*made a mistake?got pregnant? and no money? too ****ing bad.)



I'm just glad that those kind of people are of a dying breed.
Just like the Republican party.

[Elbs]

Never mind.

[Chulo]

There is no need to argue against people who chronically undereducated, self righteous* and christian.
Not to mention anti woman.



(*made a mistake?got pregnant? and no money? too ****ing bad.)



I'm just glad that those kind of people are of a dying breed.
Just like the Republican party.
Yes, because anyone that does not share you views and belief are idiots. The arrogance and righteousness of having a position that disagrees with yours.

[Lemonz]

Its one thing to say you don't like abortion,who does anyway.
My point is when you go around saying **** like OMG YOU ARE A MURDERER etc is just plain stupid it defies logic it's just that a large amount of people don't wanna look beyond there outdated "moral" and or religious beliefs just because they can feel better about themselves.

Because that's what its really all about if the majority of *pro life* people really gave a **** they would all have at least 2 adopted children but they don't. They just wanna feel better about themselves and sleep better at night.

[Chulo]

Its one thing to say you don't like abortion,who does anyway.
My point is when you go around saying **** like OMG YOU ARE A MURDERER etc is just plain stupid it defies logic it's just that a large amount of people don't wanna look beyond there outdated "moral" and or religious beliefs just because they can feel better about themselves.

Because that's what its really all about if the majority of *pro life* people really gave a **** they would all have at least 2 adopted children but they don't. They just wanna feel better about themselves and sleep better at night.
Is it not hypocritical to point out to others that they cant share their moral beliefs as long as it contradicts your own?

Argue it out any way, but according to International Law, life of a child must be protected before birth as much as after

[Dercius]

Condoms are not that expensive, period;Its cheaper than abortion. You are old enough to have unsafe ***, you are old enough to face the consequences. You dont have money to afford condoms, you should worry about having something to eat instead of getting laid.

What really pisses me off is the quantity of idiots we have raised, nobody asumes its responsabilities anymore, when they screw it up, they always blame the system, society, etc.... But it wasnt society or system who put your ***** in that ******. Doing it for free will only encourage more ****tards to use abortion as an anticonceptive, you have clear example of whats going to happen, have a look at the mistakes done by other countries like Spain.

[Dercius]

The majority of people obejtct because of religous reasons.
And also above else male.
So they should have no say in the matter anyway.

I should have no saying in the matter but I should still pay for it??? Jeezz thats what I call Idiocracy.....ehhhhm sorry democracy :cantbeli:

[Jobu]

You wanna rip your baby apart? Do it on your own dime.

This .

[Zoomie]

There is no need to argue against people who chronically undereducated, self righteous* and christian.
Not to mention anti woman.



(*made a mistake?got pregnant? and no money? too ****ing bad.)



I'm just glad that those kind of people are of a dying breed.
Just like the Republican party.
Wow. . .I'm amazed how well you describe yourself in the first sentence. rofl

[Geezah]

Its one thing to say you don't like abortion,who does anyway.
My point is when you go around saying **** like OMG YOU ARE A MURDERER etc is just plain stupid it defies logic it's just that a large amount of people don't wanna look beyond there outdated "moral" and or religious beliefs just because they can feel better about themselves.

Because that's what its really all about if the majority of *pro life* people really gave a **** they would all have at least 2 adopted children but they don't. They just wanna feel better about themselves and sleep better at night.

And you would know this how?

There are plenty of familes/couples out there that want to adopt and do, so don't assume!

There is no logic behind your arguement as you want those that do not believe in abortion to pay for it.
If someone wants to abort their unborn child that is their choice, just don't make me pay for it, as you have now taken that choice away from me.

Elbs, I'm with you..........

[the_Wicked]

i don't think viagra should be covered by insurance and i do think abortion should be covered. So there.

x2.
.........

[eskachig]

I should have no saying in the matter but I should still pay for it??? Jeezz thats what I call Idiocracy.....ehhhhm sorry democracy :cantbeli:Oh come on that is a tired argument. Plenty of people say exactly the same thing about defense spending, and it's stupid there too. On this board they are usually referred to as whiny hippies. Your personal individual ability to affect the way the government spends money is usually minuscule, indirect, and far removed. Sorry.

There are reasons why abortion is a compelling candidate for national coverage. You may disagree with them, but dismissing them as idiotic is... silly. Abortion is an important issue for any society and people have been debating and pondering it for centuries. Both sides have fairly consistent and well reasoned positions, stemming from basic fundamentally incompatible axioms.

Argue it out any way, but according to International Law, life of a child must be protected before birth as much as afterLegal does not equate to moral, but in any case - I'd like to hear more on this, sounds interesting.

[Universal_Soldier]

That Boxer woman is a dummy!!!

[MaverickCowboy]

Left wing extremism is strong in this thread.

[Eye]

Everything should be covered by state! Including everybody's most perverse needs like possesing porsche carrera or something. Period.

[eskachig]

Left wing extremism is strong in this thread.Seriously?

All you ardent pro-choicers: Keep banging away with no thought of culpability or responsibility for the act you are engaging in, knowing full well you can always fall back on a convenient abortion.
It's strange that people think that women consider abortions to be a convenient birth control option. Abortions seriously suck, physically and emotionally.

As for culpability or responsibility, that's where you're getting to those fundamental axioms. Either abortion is murder or it isn't, hinging on the definition of personhood. If the embryo/fetus/baby/human/coma patient fits the person criteria then abortion is murder. If it does not, then abortion is a medical procedure and there is no culpability.

It is notoriously hard to define a person, so most of the time we just sort of drawing a line in the sand.

[Zoomie]

There is no need to argue against people who chronically undereducated, self righteous* and christian.
Not to mention anti woman.



(*made a mistake?got pregnant? and no money? too ****ing bad.)



I'm just glad that those kind of people are of a dying breed.
Just like the Republican party.`
And your viewpoint is anti-man. Following your line of logic, it should be okay for a man to flat out say no, he won't pay for child support, because it's his choice, and his body that earns the cash.

[SoftLion]

As for culpability or responsibility, that's where you're getting to those fundamental axioms. Either abortion is murder or it isn't, hinging on the definition of personhood. If the embryo/fetus/baby/human/coma patient fits the person criteria then abortion is murder. If it does not, then abortion is a medical procedure and there is no culpability.


Notice how you dance around that without addressing it. It is a very typical reaction.

[AgentX]

I don't see any point in paying for abortion, save for rape cases. That said, covering viagra is just as absurd.

[Chulo]

Legal does not equate to moral, but in any case - I'd like to hear more on this, sounds interesting.
Well then I wish people would make up their minds on what to do when talking about abortion. Some say its a moral issue and so legal standing must be changed, then others say its a legal issue and so morals have no bearing.

In the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of a Child, (which was adopted by the International Save the Children Union, Geneva in 1923 and endorsed by the League of Nations General Assembly in 1924 as the “World Child Welfare Charter” and adopted by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1386 session 14 as the “Declaration of the Rights of the Child” in 1959) states that:
Declaration of the Rights of the Child, G.A. res. 1386 (XIV), 14 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 19, U.N. Doc. A/4354 (1959).


Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.


A child’s rights must be protected before birth as well. Abortion contradicts this statement and there have been moves to remove/rewrite this preamble by redefining “before birth” in the 1989 UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The 1989 UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by nearly all the nations except for the United States and Somalia. http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_30197.html
Which means technically America still stands with the wording of the 1959 act.

[BMUS]

Here's an idea, why don't you along with others that think like you, cover those that do not agree with abortion being used as a form of birth control?
I'd be quite happy for you to pick up my part of the taxes I would pay towards it!
That's a great idea! How about the population that don't support current gun-laws refuse to pay taxes that cover all gun-inflicted medical care?

Sounds fair enough.

[coltfan111]

That's a great idea! How about the population that don't support current gun-laws refuse to pay taxes that cover all gun-inflicted medical care?

Sounds fair enough.

This is exactly what I was saying, living in a free society where you pay taxes means that sometimes your tax money funds things you do not always support. The anti war freaks could easily just make the case not to pay taxes.Or those who are against the death penalty. I'm not a socialist, but there are some elements of it that are good.

[Jobu]

It's strange that people think that women consider abortions to be a convenient birth control option.

It's strange that anyone would deny it. The numbers don't lie.

[KoTeMoRe]

I think abortions should be free, you cannot always guarantee contraception will work. Also it will just lead to more births from people who do not want to have a child or perhaps even unable support it. But if people are getting repeat abortions in a short period then some sort of action shold be taken.



Like ***? That is practically saying that if you cannot afford abortions don't have ***. Yer it's your "tax dollars" but things such as financial support for those who cannot afford abortions or contraception will make your country better in the long run.We live in a free and civilized world, things like this should be no problem in a country like America. i don't support unconditional benefits and payouts, but access to certain forms of free health care for those who cannot afford it should not even be a problem for citizens of a western and rich country. Unless you really want citizens of your country living like those of the 3rd world. I just don't understand how people can be against free ****** health clinics in their country.

Seconded.

Reminds me of what the 90's used to be...the 1890's in Africa. Don't have ***, since that leads to babies you're unlikely to sustain.

To the no-abortion crowd.

Abortion, unless you're fresh new on the applecart, leaves a permanent psycho-social mark. Repeated abortions, are not you're every day funday at the zoo. The women who abort or miscarry are often deeply attained by that pregnancy development.

In most cases abortion in Europe is a fact of ignorance. To that I have to concur, ignorance doesn't exclude from responsability. It is a tough call.

Chullo, what means before birth. I can argue that planning to have a baby can be considered as "before" birth. It's all part of the attempt. Does the unplanned character of the pregnancy constitute a possible leeway?

Does pregnancy through rape, abuse, deception count in?

Edit: Jobu, what numbers, where, are there any related social situations that lead to this phenomenon. In my view, your point has been debated and debunked. Men's imposition on women result in women taking any chance to escape from that grip.

[Jobu]

Edit: Jobu, what numbers...

The number of repeat abortions.
The number of abortions from women well into their 20's and older.
etc.

[Geezah]

That's a great idea! How about the population that don't support current gun-laws refuse to pay taxes that cover all gun-inflicted medical care?

Are you trying to compare a Constitutional Right to Abortion?

Hey, if someone chooses to have an abortion, then I think they should be responsible for the charges. People get shot through accidents or violent acts don't choose to get shot.




Sounds fair enough.

It's a long shot and the two don't compare.

[La8pv]

Well then I wish people would make up their minds on what to do when talking about abortion. Some say its a moral issue and so legal standing must be changed, then others say its a legal issue and so morals have no bearing.

In the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of a Child, (which was adopted by the International Save the Children Union, Geneva in 1923 and endorsed by the League of Nations General Assembly in 1924 as the “World Child Welfare Charter” and adopted by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1386 session 14 as the “Declaration of the Rights of the Child” in 1959) states that:
Declaration of the Rights of the Child, G.A. res. 1386 (XIV), 14 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 19, U.N. Doc. A/4354 (1959).


Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.


A child’s rights must be protected before birth as well. Abortion contradicts this statement and there have been moves to remove/rewrite this preamble by redefining “before birth” in the 1989 UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The 1989 UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by nearly all the nations except for the United States and Somalia. http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_30197.html
Which means technically America still stands with the wording of the 1959 act.


LOL. When did you americans start to care about the U.N?

So when is it a child? Is it from the moment you claim it's got a soul?

[BMUS]

Are you trying to compare a Constitutional Right to Abortion?
Can you point out where in the Constitution the proper right for medicare is mentioned?

Hey, if someone chooses to have an abortion, then I think they should be responsible for the charges. People get shot through accidents or violent acts don't choose to get shot.
If people chose to have guns in their home, they should be responsible for the medical charges a gun inflicted wound would creat.
After all, it's theyr god ridden choice to have guns at home. Not a constitutional demand.

It's a long shot and the two don't compare.
They sure as hell does, as a member of society you pay taxes for every ones greater good, not just the thing you like.

[LineDoggie]

LOL. When did you Americans start to care about the U.N?

So when is it a child? Is it from the moment you claim it's got a soul?Cant answer the question, eh?

Figures.......:roll:

I May not agree with Political Decisions of the U.N. but how was this Political? Seems a Basic Human Right. I've known 5 women who had Abortions over the years.

1 did it because she had 3 children already and couldnt handle anymore, with her Husband leaving her.

1 did it in the middle of Divorce proceedings to piss off the soon to be Ex (and she widely told us why)

the 3 others did it because they were too lazy to insist the men use Condoms

Granted, its a small sample, but its what I have to base my opinion on. I had sympathy for the first ones situation, not the other 4.

[Zoomie]

Can you point out where in the Constitution the proper right for medicare is mentioned?
He never said it was. He was referring to the 2nd Amendment.

[BlackFlag]

Analogy fail.

[DS73]

1 did it because she had 3 children already and couldnt handle anymore, with her Husband leaving her.

1 did it in the middle of Divorce proceedings to piss off the soon to be Ex (and she widely told us why)

the 3 others did it because they were too lazy to insist the men use Condoms

Granted, its a small sample, but its what I have to base my opinion on. I had sympathy for the first ones situation, not the other 4.
What about some sympathy for those children who would have to grow with such mothers?
How many kids are reminded every day that mothers didn't really want them?

[SBL]

What about some sympathy for those children who would have to grow with such mothers?
How many kids are reminded every day that mothers didn't really want them?
I agree. It's better to kill them.

[Geezah]

Can you point out where in the Constitution the proper right for medicare is mentioned?

Zoomie already covered this one!



If people chose to have guns in their home, they should be responsible for the medical charges a gun inflicted wound would creat.

OK, if I were to have an accident, I would pay for it. We have insurance, and I would pay the deductable, so no affect on tax payers.
Job done, no need to burden anyone other than myself with those charges!



After all, it's theyr god ridden choice to have guns at home. Not a constitutional demand.

Self Defence is a God Given Right, the 2nd Amendment is an extension of that. Owning firearms is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Killing the unborn is not! Get it?



They sure as hell does, as a member of society you pay taxes for every ones greater good, not just the thing you like.

I don't want Government run healthcare, and I sure as hell don't want to pay for someone else to kill their unborn child.
Still the two don't compare!

[DS73]

I agree. It's better to kill them.
Nice irony and it is quite useful here. Indeed miserable life is not a reason to kill somebody, and that is why many countries have ban on abortions after 8 weeks (12 weeks gestation). That is why there is "viability" limit in US as well.

But let return to his story: where these kids end up? Accidentally not in numerous risk groups? So what's about sympathy?

[chauncy republicans]

Yes, because having a rough childhood is the worst thing that can happen to your life. Period. I should just go kill myself because my Mother selfishly didn't do it for me. How I would be a such better man to this day if my parents had more money when I was growing up.

Abortions save children.

We should also abort all the Jews, cause Lord knows they wouldn't want another holocaust.
Think of the children.

[DS73]

Yes, because having a rough childhood is the worst thing that can happen to your life. Period. I should just go kill myself because my Mother selfishly didn't do it for me. How I would be a such better man to this day if my parents had more money when I was growing up.
Here we go with killing again.
What do you know about fetus development, like, when actually you have a fetus?

People who think they need a lot of money to grow a child are, in their vast majority, assh*les, and they grow mostly new ones. I say such people better be provided not only with abortion facilities, but offered full sterilization whenever asked. I feel very comfortable living in the country where it is the case.

[SBL]

But let return to his story: where these kids end up? Accidentally not in numerous risk groups?
I don't know, but we sure don't want any of them to make that determination for themselves, do we?

[Chulo]

LOL. When did you americans start to care about the U.N?

So when is it a child? Is it from the moment you claim it's got a soul?
I dont know, why did U.S sign it then?

When do i personally think something is human? At conception, when it is no more two separate parts but one living organism that will grow to be an adult human.

[Eye]

So when is it a child? Is it from the moment you claim it's got a soul?
So when foetus/human acquires the right to live according to you?