Republicans succeed in ploy to increase unsafe abortions

Post Reply New Topic

We'd be a healthier, even wealthier country if healthcare were provided to all citizens. Especially preventative care, which includes contraceptives. No one is calling for giving gas and the like away.
So, yes, I get it.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

i think tax payers dollars couldnt be better spent. they are supposed to be spent on health care anyway and reproductive health is included. as it is the government spends far too much on the military(30billion/yr) and useless things like that whole education revolution where money was not given to schools that need them as it should have been or public funding for nonpublic schools. also i think your own personal opinions on contraception/abortion should not be an issue when it comes to policy making. being prolife is fine as long as it is for you only. to enforce that view on others is wrong. by not publically funding reproductive care you take the choice to control womens/transmens bodies from women/transmen anyway because they will have no other option but to carry the foetus to term or to have a dangerous abortion if they cannot afford care. it is misogynistic to deny women this.
having rights but not being able to access them is a sick position to be in. rights are near worthless or just downright tokenistic if that is so.
abacacus: condoms break, rape happens but the victim mightn't feel ok with reporting, peer pressure exists.

Abortions cost significantly less than a child.

Also, I believe no-one should have a kid they really don't want. It's better for society if they don't.

Of course the taxpayers’ dollars could be better spent. That’s always the case with government handling of revenue no matter what they spend it on.
On the other hand the government has higher responsibilities than healthcare and that includes defense among other things.
I don’t see contraceptives and abortions being healthcare services in true form, anyway.
As a citizen and voter I do have at least some say in what our government has responsibility for. If you want contraceptives or an abortion then go for it but use your own debit care, not the public’s. If you can’t afford them then give abstinence a shot until you can.

Oh, and I have no problem telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies when it comes to taxpayer funded abortions. I’ll do it all day long and not lose moments sleep over it.

If the government hands out contraceptive devices the contracts will go to the low bidder or to the "cronies" who will make an inferior product.

If the government runs the birth control business we will have a bumper crop of unwanted children.

Whatever the government touches, runs or supervises will turn brown, smelling and sticky in due course.

ruveyn

^

I feel the same way about the free market.

so poor people should not have sex like ever then? that is decidedly classist as well as sexist. contraception and abortion not health care? what? no really what do you mean? reproductive health is a huge part of a ciswomans or transmans health care. also as a citizen you might have a say in what your money goes towards(or you would in a democracy) but then so does everyone with a uterus and when it comes down to it you can tell women and transmen what to do with their bodies all you want but you should have no say in what actually happens. zero. you are a misogynist for thinking you should have that right. peopleshould get to decide what happens to their own bodies- not anyone elses.

so if people are able to choose when to have children and when they will not, if people can prevent accidents which would happen all the time without the pill, if condoms were freely available to stop semen reaching the ovum then there would be moe babies born? huh? not seeing it.

Wow...what a big ball of hateful straw men.

If a government is by and for the people, then individuals do have a say in how their money is collectively spent. If the majority feeling is that abortion is morally wrong then they may criminalize it if they want. If you live in a free republic, then you are merely fortunate that you are allowed to express views that the majority disagrees with. If abortion is wrong and/or at least the majority of voting individuals feel that it is, then they have the right to live within their convictions by not having their tax money spent on supporting it.

There's a simple solution: If more people are offended by publicly-supported abortion, then all federal funding for it should be withdrawn. Those who are rabid proponents of legalized (assuming we don't criminalize it) baby-killing should set up a fund or endowment with their own money from which poor would-be murderers can privately fund abortion. If abortion itself remains legal, and if these funding agencies operate strictly not-for-profit, they may even be able to file for tax-exempt status. This is basically PP without fed funding, and I understand they also receive money from other sources besides tax money. That way, only people who favor what is an otherwise objectionable practice still get to fund it while abortion-opponents still have a clear conscience in knowing that THEIR money isn't going to support infanticide.

You also have to think about how this affects freedom of religion. Christians tend to be the most outspoken against abortion--or at least they seem to get the most attention. Regardless of what you might think of Christians, they still have a right to practice their religion and avoid having those rights infringed upon by others. If a Christian believes that abortion=murder, then he or she cannot in good faith pay taxes in support of abortion. The Bible instructs Christians to fulfill their civil duties also, which means paying taxes. So...given a choice, Christians either have to disobey the government or fund an objectionable practice through taxes, and I think it's unfair to ask a religious group to choose a lesser of two evils. If abortion MUST be legal, don't ask abortion opponents to help pay for it.

As to ruveyn's comments, I think he's right when it comes to the reality of it. If you're trying to prevent getting a woman pregnant, do you really want low-quality, cheap, unreliable, inferior condoms? I had a brand-name condom break last year and the result will be born probably some time in late April. So, that's one mistimed condom break in 3 years of reliable use. But gubmint rubbers known to have gone to the lowest bidder? Given the reputation of government-funded "products," I'd anticipate a higher failure rate. If that really is the case, then yes, using faulty condoms really would result in more unwanted pregnancies than a privately-funded alternative.

I hate condoms, as does my wife. Thankfully, the pill is available for her. And while the pill can't stop STD's, it certainly is infallible when it comes to preventing pregnancy, thus should always be available to women in financial need trying to avoid getting pregnant.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

My wife can't handle the side effects of the pill very well. Kills the mood.

We don't like condoms, either, but there's a better chance of getting action (and liking it a little) with condoms than the pill. And good luck getting my wife to be consistent about taking the pill. Condoms are cheaper, anyway.

Digression alert:

We'd talked about the possibility of having another child and the possibilities of trying to conceive in the next year or two. I suppose now is just as good a time as any. In the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure I believe there really are such things as accidents.

My wife had to experiment with one pill after another till she found the right one.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

If I remember correctly one of the pills side effects happens to be a greatly increased chance of breast cancer.

Not sure where I heard/read that, I'm going to have to look it up now.


Personally I'm just going to get a vasectomy.

I don't support certain wars, but I still pay tax money to fund something I don't support.

Surely, these wars are often against a Christian's fundamental beliefs as well? Isn't the death penalty? Why are Christians more upset about state-funded abortions than they are about state-funded wars and executions?

Not all Christians are in support of those certain wars, for one. But, I mean, which "certain wars" are you referring to?

As general statement, the general rule regarding war is that military service is a civic duty. Christians can volunteer if they feel led to do so. But they ought not question their duties if they are called (conscripted) into service. Jesus said, "No man has greater love than to lay down his life for his friends" (paraphrased). A willingness to die to protect the lives of others is a noble trait.

Now, as to whether Christians support war or not... The New Testament is silent on the issue of war, but the general idea of war is opposed to higher values such as peace. Is it right to protect marginalized people in other countries? Why wouldn't it be? Is it right for a government to protect it's own citizens? It's not much of a government if it doesn't, right? Therefore, if a war is an unfortunate consequence of a nation protecting its friends or providing security for its own constituents, then it seems to me that it's a "just war" and that Christians would support it. But if a government's actions are unnecessary acts of aggression that neither secure the interests of its international friends nor protect its constituency, AND if Christians are free to oppose their government, then it seems to me that Christians would protest war for the sake of promoting peace. Keep in mind Christians don't always have a say in what happens everywhere that they live. I don't feel that war is ever "acceptable." At least in recent times, most wars that are fought are fought with the intention of a quick end to combat with minimal casualties. Our best is all we can do.

The death penalty is another one of those things that's never "acceptable." But the problem is that even if you go back and look at the OT reasons for the death penalty, the main reason for putting someone to death (purely religious motivations aside) was an exercise in lex talionis (eye-for-an-eye justice). The point of lex talionis is that there is equal retribution for every injury--nothing MORE than that can be assessed against someone. In other words, putting someone's eye out for injuring an eye is pretty worthless justice, but making them pay (literally) whatever an eye is deemed to be worth is only fair. The problem is that you cannot set a price for someone's life. So the only repayment that is allowable is life itself. That someone can demand life for life should not be surprising. And this principal is what western justice systems are based on. The death penalty isn't "acceptable" because murder is also unacceptable. No taking of life is a "good" thing. But, unfortunately, people DO murder. You have to expect that your government will provide justice for murder victims, and the death penalty is an unfortunate necessity.

Abortion (in general) is like all of those things in that it is never acceptable but sometimes necessary. If a woman's life is genuinely in danger, such as with ectopic pregnancy, or (for example) chemotherapy treatments for cancer patients would kill the unborn anyway, then a woman does have difficult choices to make whether she will spare herself or the child. I don't see anything wrong with that because in terms of murder, it's self-defense. So I think it should be taught and handled as an emergency procedure rather than something you can just walk into a clinic and casually have "taken care of."

Some might say that it's OK in the case of incest or rape. No, it's NOT "OK," and neither are incest or rape "OK." But I also think about what if something like that happened to my daughter--would giving birth and raising a child be a reminder of the circumstances of conception and do her more harm? So I think that just has to be up to the victim in those circumstances. I wouldn't consider it her fault if she killed her baby. HOWEVER, I DO think someone IS to blame--the rapist. I think rape should be an automatic death penalty as long as the victim is willing to bring charges. And by "rape" I mean the victim has reported it at the first immediate opportunity, that she has done everything to prevent or stop conception, and every avenue she could possibly take to avoid getting pregnant from rape has failed AND this has all been documented. I still think abortion is murder, even in the case of rape, and I think the rapist is the one who shoulders the blame for the death of his unborn. I would never put the blame for rape or any of its "unintended" consequences on the victim. Not every Christian would agree with me on this, but I feel strongly that this is Biblically consistent with the role of government granting justice to those who have been harmed, and I even think it has OT support in such a way as is relevant to NT Christians.

As to Christians being more/less upset by one thing or another... Christians don't know EVERYTHING and aren't always concerned about making up their own minds rather than just doing what some human "authority" has told them to believe. I wish more Christians would actually give it some thought. But I suppose if a Christian really DOES think about it, it is that war and the death penalty are often debated even among Christians who continue to seek and do what is right. WHY go to war? WHY execute murders? As long as there is some rationality for executing criminals or going to war (justice, protection), there's little reason why we should be upset over it. Same goes for abortion, and it's difficult to see in abortion given the casual attitude by which it seems to be often portrayed why it is so often necessary. It is so often NOT necessary, and this is where thinking Christians are going to be the most upset. Prove that giving birth actually poses a REAL threat to the life of the mother, as in death is imminent should birth be attempted, and you have an honest case. More often than not something can be done to insure the life of both the mother and the child, in which case abortion is not necessary.

When I was a Christian, I interpreted the NT as being very clear in requiring pacifism. I felt that Jesus was sufficiently unambiguous regarding his teachings of nonviolence and forgiveness that I saw the gravely unChristian nature of both war and capital punishment. This led me to being a Quaker. I also used to be against abortion at that stage of my life - but I didn't emphasise my pro-life stance any more than my anti-war and anti-death penalty one. I wanted to be consistent.

Now that I'm an agnostic and I don't believe abortion is murder, it's a non-issue. In a world where no-one has a soul zapped into their cells at conception, and where sentience is the only thing that matters - then the Christian objections to abortion really do look absurd. I can appreciate them and I would defend anyone's right to have those objections. However, if we have a society where most people agree with legalised abortion and would like it to be government funded (there are utilitarian benefits to funding abortions for those unable to afford them, whatever objections you have to the ethics) - then that's democracy for you. This really is a clash of values there is no easy answer to.

I don't know about the pill, but I had just asked my wife, and she mentioned the Neuvu ring, and the prevention patch as thought to have caused cancer.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer