Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
medicare not paying for abortion would be a big mistake, a girl who cannot afford an abortion is most likely still going to have one anyways but probably not in a safe way. If she does have the baby, what do you think the chances of her dumping that child somewhere is?
So we should fund her killing the baby to make up for her utter lack of morality and humanity, not to mention basic common sense? And the benefit to us in doing so is . . . ?
Between 1995 and 2003, abortion rates dropped more in developed than in developing countries. And although it may be difficult for some to accept, rates fell most sharply in countries where abortion is legally available on broad grounds and widely available in practice.
You want viagra, a penis pump, a vagina restoration, an abortion, birth control? Pay for it yourself.
Why shouldn't those be included in insurance coverage?
So you're one of these people who think its the womans responsibility to prevent pregnancy? What if the was raped? Does that make her lack morality?
Spare me the sophistry. We aren't talking about women who are raped, and we both know it, and if you think for a second that I am going to allow you to try to hide a million convenience abortions a year behind the skirts of the less than 1% that are due to rape, you're as stupid as you are dishonest.
And yes, you're damned right I'm one of those people who think it's the woman's responsibility to prevent herself from becoming pregnant, just as I think it's the man's responsibility to prevent himself from making a woman pregnant, and I have no intention of being anything but proud of my belief that if you want to prattle on about "my body", you should act as though it's your body and take responsibility for it.
medicare not paying for abortion would be a big mistake, a girl who cannot afford an abortion is most likely still going to have one anyways but probably not in a safe way. If she does have the baby, what do you think the chances of her dumping that child somewhere is?
If she has a back alley abortion and dies as a result of an infection, I say adios to her.
That's just Darwinism at its best.
Lets make the man who impregnated her pay for it instead.
#1, very few rape victims seek abortion. #2, only a tiny percentage of them are unable to attain them in the technical form of a "D&C" from any MD.
and your point?
Americans are going to have universal health care (Medicare for all) provided by the government. It's going to happen next year. Get used to it.
Living in Canada we have had Medicare for over 40 years and it works quite well. Our Medicare system pays for ABORTION which is deemed as a medical procedure not a crime. Amercan's new medicare bill too will cover abortion, after all 85 % of private insurance plans pay for it and President Obama has said Mediacre will be equal to private insurance.
How do you feel about a woman being able to have an abortion (medical procedure not a crime) which will be paid for by tax dollars - your tax dollars? I'd like to read your thoughts on this subject and please cast your vote in my poll.
Thank you,
Yukon (retired Roman Catholic Priest)
People under the standard age limit will have to buy into the program. By the time the taxpayers are involved with payment, pregnancy wouldn't be an issue anyway. Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, it would be a violation of equal protection NOT to cover it.
medicare not paying for abortion would be a big mistake, a girl who cannot afford an abortion is most likely still going to have one anyways but probably not in a safe way. If she does have the baby, what do you think the chances of her dumping that child somewhere is?
So we should fund her killing the baby to make up for her utter lack of morality and humanity, not to mention basic common sense? And the benefit to us in doing so is . . . ?
Between 1995 and 2003, abortion rates dropped more in developed than in developing countries. And although it may be difficult for some to accept, rates fell most sharply in countries where abortion is legally available on broad grounds and widely available in practice.
Cohen, Susan A. New Data on Abortion Incidence, Safety Illuminate Key Aspects of Worldwide Abortion Debate Guttmacher Institute. 2007. Volume 10. 4. http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/8D...2A/0/Death_Denial_unsafe_abortion_poverty.pdf
#1, very few rape victims seek abortion. #2, only a tiny percentage of them are unable to attain them in the technical form of a "D&C" from any MD.
and your point?
Lemme spell it out for you, Einstein. If a million abortions a year are performed, and less than 1% of them are due to rape, then a discussion about taxpayer-funded abortions is not about women who are impregnated through rape, and you're wasting everyone's time trying to pretend that it is.
You want viagra, a penis pump, a vagina restoration, an abortion, birth control? Pay for it yourself.
Why shouldn't those be included in insurance coverage?
I know you're not going to understand this, but every procedure covered by an insurance company is paid for by spreading the cost among all the policyholders of that company by way of raising their premium rates. It is completely ridiculous to expect other policyholders to accept higher rates to cover non-essential, elective procedures. It is the equivalent of expecting food stamps to pay for beer and cigarettes. The purpose of health insurance is to indemnify - ie. protect - people against serious health threats, not to get them big woodies on demand.
and your point?
Lemme spell it out for you, Einstein. If a million abortions a year are performed, and less than 1% of them are due to rape, then a discussion about taxpayer-funded abortions is not about women who are impregnated through rape, and you're wasting everyone's time trying to pretend that it is.
Tell that to the 10,000 women impregnated by rape every year (using your unsourced numbers).
Why shouldn't those be included in insurance coverage?
I know you're not going to understand this, but every procedure covered by an insurance company is paid for by spreading the cost among all the policyholders of that company by way of raising their premium rates. It is completely ridiculous to expect other policyholders to accept higher rates to cover non-essential, elective procedures. It is the equivalent of expecting food stamps to pay for beer and cigarettes. The purpose of health insurance is to indemnify - ie. protect - people against serious health threats, not to get them big woodies on demand.
Every one of those things listed (with the exception of birth control) are legitimate medical treatments for (or prevention of) complications of serious medical conditions. So, I ask again. Why shouldn't they be covered by health insurance?
I know you're not going to understand this, but every procedure covered by an insurance company is paid for by spreading the cost among all the policyholders of that company by way of raising their premium rates. It is completely ridiculous to expect other policyholders to accept higher rates to cover non-essential, elective procedures. It is the equivalent of expecting food stamps to pay for beer and cigarettes. The purpose of health insurance is to indemnify - ie. protect - people against serious health threats, not to get them big woodies on demand.
Every one of those things listed (with the exception of birth control) are legitimate medical treatments for (or prevention of) complications of serious medical conditions. So, I ask again. Why shouldn't they be covered by health insurance?
No, as a matter of fact, they aren't. The inability to get and sustain an erection is in no way a threat to someone's life or health. If a man has a condition which has as its side effect an erectile dysfunction - say, prostate problems - the treatment is already covered under Medicare, and it most assuredly is not Viagra. Abortions, by and large, are not treatments for any condition other than being a careless slut. In those rare instances where something else is at play - say the mother needs radiation therapy or has an ectopic pregnancy - abortions are already covered. There is no reason to cover all abortions merely to deal with situations that are already being handled. And once again, I'm not going to allow the disingenuity of pretending that abortion debates are about only the hard cases, so give it up. That is the equivalent of trying to compare breast implants for a woman who had a double mastectomy with breast implants for a porn star.
Interestingly, birth control IS already covered by private medical insurance AND government health programs, because it is deemed more cost-effective than paying for healthcare for a pregnant woman and then later for the resultant child.
#1, very few rape victims seek abortion. #2, only a tiny percentage of them are unable to attain them in the technical form of a "D&C" from any MD.
and your point?
Lemme spell it out for you, Einstein. If a million abortions a year are performed, and less than 1% of them are due to rape, then a discussion about taxpayer-funded abortions is not about women who are impregnated through rape, and you're wasting everyone's time trying to pretend that it is.
Now, is that clear enough for you, or do I need to break out the Crayolas and draw a picture?
If she has a back alley abortion and dies as a result of an infection, I say adios to her.
That's just Darwinism at its best.
Lets make the man who impregnated her pay for it instead.
Why? Is he somehow more responsible for the resulting pregnancy than she is? Last time I checked, it takes two people to have sex.
. . . At least two.
You want viagra, a penis pump, a vagina restoration, an abortion, birth control? Pay for it yourself.
Why shouldn't those be included in insurance coverage?
Every one of those things listed (with the exception of birth control) are legitimate medical treatments for (or prevention of) complications of serious medical conditions. So, I ask again. Why shouldn't they be covered by health insurance?
No, as a matter of fact, they aren't. The inability to get and sustain an erection is in no way a threat to someone's life or health. If a man has a condition which has as its side effect an erectile dysfunction - say, prostate problems - the treatment is already covered under Medicare, and it most assuredly is not Viagra. Abortions, by and large, are not treatments for any condition other than being a careless slut. In those rare instances where something else is at play - say the mother needs radiation therapy or has an ectopic pregnancy - abortions are already covered. There is no reason to cover all abortions merely to deal with situations that are already being handled. And once again, I'm not going to allow the disingenuity of pretending that abortion debates are about only the hard cases, so give it up. That is the equivalent of trying to compare breast implants for a woman who had a double mastectomy with breast implants for a porn star.
Interestingly, birth control IS already covered by private medical insurance AND government health programs, because it is deemed more cost-effective than paying for healthcare for a pregnant woman and then later for the resultant child.
What a shame you think all women who become pregnant are careless sluts.I notice you dont have a label for the 'fathers'. Is it a case of 'men being men' and 'doing what men do' (nudge nudge wink wink) What name do you give to them?
and your point?
Lemme spell it out for you, Einstein. If a million abortions a year are performed, and less than 1% of them are due to rape, then a discussion about taxpayer-funded abortions is not about women who are impregnated through rape, and you're wasting everyone's time trying to pretend that it is.
Now, is that clear enough for you, or do I need to break out the Crayolas and draw a picture?
So you dismiss them do you? or are they sluts too and 'asked for it' ?
Lets make the man who impregnated her pay for it instead.
Why? Is he somehow more responsible for the resulting pregnancy than she is? Last time I checked, it takes two people to have sex.
. . . At least two.
You said it...takes two but somehow you don't think he counts...its just the sluts responsibility
So we should fund her killing the baby to make up for her utter lack of morality and humanity, not to mention basic common sense? And the benefit to us in doing so is . . . ?
Between 1995 and 2003, abortion rates dropped more in developed than in developing countries. And although it may be difficult for some to accept, rates fell most sharply in countries where abortion is legally available on broad grounds and widely available in practice.
Cohen, Susan A. New Data on Abortion Incidence, Safety Illuminate Key Aspects of Worldwide Abortion Debate Guttmacher Institute. 2007. Volume 10. 4. http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/8D...2A/0/Death_Denial_unsafe_abortion_poverty.pdf
. . . And I'm looking for a point, and I'm looking for a point . . .
Nope. No point visible.
