Abortion is not a right.
Abortion is a choice, at least that is what I was told by those who are pro - choice.

Women do now have sole rights over their own body. Once they have sex, they have created something that is only %50 of their own doing. The child also indicated fathers rights.

Why should I pay for someone who does not realize that - No sex = no abortion. If it is not rape or incest, definitely no government paid abortion. If it is rape or incest and an abortion is desired, have the rapist pay for it, not the American Public.

*Do Not* rather than "do now"

What if the mother will die if she carries the child to term? (Rare, yes, but since Exps is talking in absolutes... : ) )

Was this known before or after the decision to have sex and possibly a child?

Most women are told by their doctors that it is dangerous for them to have a child and they might die, some try anyway, and when they find out that they will most likely not make it, the option for an abortion is there. I think that is false. You are either all in, or not in at all.

#5 I think thats depressing as hell for you to make that black and white. Think of all of the emotions a woman would be going through knowing they could 'selfishly' kill their child to survive so they decide to try to give birth. When they realize that it is in fact a death sentence, it makes sense that they may change their mind.

And they will certainly live with the guilt of that for the rest of their life. I don't think there are many "serial aborters", if they are human they will feel guilt and take precautions to not be put in that situation again.

If they casually get abortions, they are monsters.

I understand this. We are discussing state funding. If they take ther risk of needing an abortion, I think they should pay for it.

Prag talked about a woman who found out the baby might kill her. If she knew before conceiving, she took the ristk. She should pay for the abortion, not me, atleast not mandated by the state to do so.

You see, even if people have a "right" to abortion, I also have a right to my money. So if their "right" to an abortion is going to infringe upon my right to the money earned or provided for me, there is a problem.

Abortion is not a right.
Abortion is a choice, at least that is what I was told by those who are pro - choice.

Huh? You have the right to make a choice. Let's not split hairs here.

So if the woman doesn't know (that she could die) before having sex, the government can use "your money" to fund the abortion?

No, that gets into a whole other aspect of situations. At that point, if this is happenening so often, there would need to be an option to take this insurance additional to your personal taxes, but not anyone elses. Thus these people should pay a premium for that service, not others, however the financing of the abortion should only be taken from the pool of all those paying that premium.

However, we know that the government cannot successfully designate money for anything, as they tend to dip and borrow from wherever they want. If someone wan't an abortion I think they should foot the bill.

It is their personal choice. And Zombie, yes they have a right to choose, by they have no right to make me pay for their choice. They should pay for their choice.

When you make a choice, you take responsibility for that choice. What happens after you make that choice falls on you.

Should not the money earned by an individual be rightly kept by the individual without coercion from any outside source? Will they also cover what I wish to contribute to a local organization. I have a right to choose to contribute, does not that choice give me the right to have others pay for my choice?

Abortion is a tricky subject when dealing with a pool of money of which a majority is not yours. I don't like the pool of money scenerio in the first place, and I especially don't like it in the event that someone Chooses to have sex, then chooses not to have the child, and upon that choise, chooses to use money that I could have kept to help raise a child.

Maybe they need a seperate, segregated abortion insurance of which people can elect to pay into. Kind of like social security. They can choose to have money deducted from their pay checks, if they want it so bad, they will support others, and everything should be fine. Those who approve will be able to assist those who abort, those who do not, will not be coerced against their will to pay for abortions.

Everyone will be happy.

"I don't like the pool of money scenerio in the first place"

So you'd be for outlawing all insurance companies, then?

"chooses to use money that I could have kept to help raise a child."

You should offer to foster/adopt those children who are unwanted. Or maybe you do.

I would greatly enjoy personal responsibility. However it is almost impossible to be feasable right now.

I would rather we get rid of social security and the like.

I don't like the pool of money in terms of government control would be a more accurate statement. In terms of what happened with Social Security and things like that, falsely allocating monies to other ventures. No, I don't like the government in control of large pools of money that they can use that their leisure with no oversight.

I plan on it. When my fiance and I get married, adoption is in our future. Right now just supporting such endeavors.

No, I don't like the government in control of large pools of money that they can use that their leisure with no oversight.
Posted by ExpsRedemption

They only get away with that because we let them.

This is true. I don't trust other people to hold the government accountable either, because most Americans don't think past their own skin.

I have no problem helping someone with this problem, voluntarily. However it is not objectively ethical to coerce money from someone because of someone elses problems. Everyone gets sick, that is fine, everyone has medical issues, fine. Not everyone has an abortion, and therefore that should be a personally covered issue.

"I plan on it. When my fiance and I get married, adoption is in our future. Right now just supporting such endeavors."

I am impressed. I know I'm not that guy. I have two children, and I expect to have no more--either by the usual process, by adoption, or by foster care.

No shit. I'm not messing with you. I am impressed. The world needs more people who will take on those in need of care. (This doesn't help me understand the entirety of your stance on abortion, but it speaks well of you.)

Prag,

Put out a litte bit more and more children are a possibility.

:-)

Prag, I think women have the right to choose, however thier choice is their choice, and their responsibility.

That is my stance. I do now know why someone who is that that person, making that choice should have to pay for that choice. It is not a common medical situation in terms of comparison to other medical insurance issues.

It is a special case, a personal case, and therefore a personal choice and personal responsibility. If those who want to personally choose to fund an abortion insurance choose to do so, let the government set up that system seperate from healthcare to everyone else. they can pay in and reap the benefits of their support.

I don't find it a bad idea to have the same thing with those who want the children to be put up for adoption either. If the kids are going to be born, they need to be cared for, and those that don't want to support abortion and want to see the kids cared for should take money out of their checks to go towards that cause.

"Put out a litte bit more and more children are a possibility."

You're talking to the wrong partner. Have you ever been married, JJ?

: )

But seriously, thanks for the giggle. But seriously (get it?), two is plenty. (I don't see any Muslim hordes that need to be outnumbered... : ) )

Prag,

I am married.

Do you know why the bride is always smiling as she walks down the aisle?

Because she knows she's given her last blowjob!

:-)

I have no problem with the National Health Insurance paying for abortion.

So long as Roe v Wade's decision is held to be the law of the State.

"physician's medical judgment". If you can show the physician used medical judgment to support the need for the abortion, then let the gov't pay through the insurance program.

But, if there is no medical judgment, then Roe v Wade states that the State Gov't can intervene and prevent the Abortion. In fact, it becomes murder.

So, go ahead and pay for it. But, since the gov't has to pay, the Gov't can demand proof of the medical need- - medical judgment.

"the Gov't can demand proof of the medical need- - medical judgment."

Why do you always conflate "judgement" with "need"?

If the law says "physician's medical judgment", there is no legal requirement for a medical "need".

There will be some way around this. Believe me, the welfare system is setup to AVOID helping anyone if they can. It is in the states' best interest to pay for abortions because it costs about 100 times (or more) less than paying for a birth and 18 years of support.Even if the states have to set up special abortion funds or work the rules around to pay for them some other way like a special needs grant or something, they will be paid for. Either that, or the next step will be to make birth control use both mandatory and MONITORED or they will push sterilization. So, it's either pay for abortions, or let the state completely control woman's reproductive rights, but hey, poor women shouldn't be allowed to breed, right?

"Because she knows she's given her last blowjob!"

Thank God that's not true in my marriage! : )

Your body, your choice, your wallet.

I see nothing wrong with Abortions. It serves a need to society. We are overpopulated enough as it is.

Jackass, oh, if only your mother had thought the same ...

Is Abortion your right or your choice?
Is abortion the right to choose?
Is your choice also a right, or is it a choice?
Should your choice be payed for by someone else?
What about their choice? Why don't you pay for their choice?

Here's one. You make the choice to get an abortion, I will pay into the insurance system for you. I will make the choice to buy a 5 million dollar home, and I will thank you for paying for it for me, even though you did not choose to do that, and will take no part of it.

Thanks for the house, and the right to choose to choose your rights.

Thank God that's not true in my marriage! : )
#28 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-11-12 09:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll bet she's glad you admitted this on a blog, lol.

"the Gov't can demand proof of the medical need- - medical judgment."

Why do you always conflate "judgement" with "need"?

If the law says "physician's medical judgment", there is no legal requirement for a medical "need".

#26 | Posted by Danforth

There is a definition of medical judgment. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would not have referenced it as a requirement.

So, convince a jury that medical judgment was used when the abortion was performed : The baby would interfere with the mother's lifestyle, that she just didn't one a baby now, she's just wasn't ready yet to have one, that it'll be hard to be a parent, that the world it too dangerous to bring child into it, because someone else told her she would be stupid to have it, etc.

The State can intervene if there is no medical judgment. Guaranteed, a lawyer could prove that medical judgment wasn't reached on a majority of reasons given for abortion.

"I have a right to an abortion" is a clear-cut example of lacking medical judgment.

Guaranteed, a lawyer could prove that medical judgment wasn't reached on a majority of reasons given for abortion.

"Medical judgement" doesn't mean you have to be dying. It means that a doctor feels that the procedure would improve your health - mentally or physically.

The fact that you are seeking an abortion is generally a good indication that the procedure will improve your mental health. The alternative is being forced by the state to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. That would not make most people more emotionally stable.

Any pregnancy will also knock down your immune system and make you more vulnerable to disease. It is universally in the woman's best interest to not be pregnant. Terminating any pregnancy will reduce the mother's chance of suffering more severe complications from an infection. Women tolerate the immunosuppression when they want to reproduce. Demanding that they do so when the pregnancy is unwanted is asinine.

These points apply to any person seeking an abortion. Any abortion provider would be free to cite them as contributions to his "medical judgment" if Petrous ever filed suit to prevent a woman from having a mass of tissue removed. Abortion is legal. Get the fuck over it.

Zombie, abortion may be legal, but it does not mean that other people should pay for it.

It is not whether it is legal or not, it is how far someone elses right to choose chooses someone elses rights.

No one should pay for anyone elses abortion, unless it is voluntary.

How does this not make sense?
The person getting the abortion made the choice, therefore, let them pay for their choice. They did not have to choose to get an abortion. If it is not completely necessary, then there definitely is no reason for someone else to pay for it.

"I'll bet she's glad you admitted this on a blog, lol."

Well, you know, given the moralistic attitudes of some posters here, I just called my wife a slut! OH NOOOOO!

But you know, we is anonymites.

"Medical judgement" doesn't mean you have to be dying. It means that a doctor feels that the procedure would improve your health - mentally or physically.

#35 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-11-13 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

The fact that you are seeking an abortion is generally a good indication that the procedure will improve your mental health. The alternative is being forced by the state to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. That would not make most people more emotionally stable.

Any pregnancy will also knock down your immune system and make you more vulnerable to disease. It is universally in the woman's best interest to not be pregnant. Terminating any pregnancy will reduce the mother's chance of suffering more severe complications from an infection. Women tolerate the immunosuppression when they want to reproduce. Demanding that they do so when the pregnancy is unwanted is asinine.

These points apply to any person seeking an abortion. Any abortion provider would be free to cite them as contributions to his "medical judgment" if Petrous ever filed suit to prevent a woman from having a mass of tissue removed. Abortion is legal. Get the fuck over it.

And the woman enters the abortion clinic, asks for an abortion, and the doctor does what to prove all your allegations? Do you really think the doctor spends that much time to determine all those things you just listed?

18 year old woman enters clinic, wants abortion because she doesn't want children yet. The abortion is done the same day.

You are trying to say the doctor has made all those medical judgments, based on how much time for that evaluation?

Based on your analysis, any man getting a woman pregnant is guilty of a horrible crime - look at all the horrible things you say happens to every pregnant woman.

Abortions are not based on medical judgment in most cases based on every study done so far.

The decisions are not based on review, tests, etc. on the mental or physical health of the woman. It's done quickly with little consideration for such things.

If a woman entered a psychiatrists office asking for help, or a doctor for her physical health, there is much that will be done to establish what is good or bad for patient.

Abortions are not performed with this in mind except to make money and to be a convenience.