ABORTION and MEDICARE

[Yukon]

In the USA abortion freedom for the Negro woman has reduced the rate of crime in areas like Washington DC which is a dryug inveted, disgusted Negro ghetto. Fewer Negros being born equals reduced crime. This is a statistical fact.

 

[Emma]

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.

Whether you like to admit it or not, they indeed are.

 

[Hinemoa]

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?

What a shame you can't read, because nowhere did I say, "all women who become pregnant are careless sluts." Why don't you graduate the fifth grade and THEN come back and try to debate with the adults?

I have lots of labels for men who make babies outside of wedlock, as it happens, but THEY aren't the ones having said babies cut into chunks and tossed in biohazard bags, which happens to be the topic here. When you get into the fifth grade reading class, they'll teach you about "topic".

You're an adult ? oh

You have repeatedly referred to women having abortions as sluts and not once have referred to the fathers at all as though the woman is the only one making the decision.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

In the USA abortion freedom for the Negro woman has reduced the rate of crime in areas like Washington DC which is a dryug inveted, disgusted Negro ghetto. Fewer Negros being born equals reduced crime. This is a statistical fact.

Yukon.....Nevermind.....

 

[Hinemoa]

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' ?

No, numbfuck. I don't dismiss them. I stick to the topic of conversation, rather than wandering down tangents like a brain-damaged homeless person, trying to pretend that a conversation about abortion in America is all about raped women.

You might as well give it up now, because no matter how many times you keep posting, trying to drag this thread over to raped women, I'm going to drag it right the fuck back to the real issue, and then call you a dishonest coward.

Noone said it was all about raped women.
Perhaps you could reread?

 

[Hinemoa]

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

When men have some legal and biological control over what happens to the baby after he's created, I will talk about men in the context of abortion. Until then, we're talking about abortion, and you can get your cowardly ass right the hell back onto the subject and quit trying to change it.

Call me when you grow a pair, poltroon.

That lets you off the hook then because men dont have biological control after their moments of fun do they?

You 'are' an adult are you?...probably not

 

[AllieBaba]

In the USA abortion freedom for the Negro woman has reduced the rate of crime in areas like Washington DC which is a dryug inveted, disgusted Negro ghetto. Fewer Negros being born equals reduced crime. This is a statistical fact.

Bullshit, you idiot. Provide the fucking stats. Because I know for a fact the murder rate QUADRUPLED in DC after they tightened gun control in the 70s, which happens to be shortly after Roe v. Wade, and it still hasn't come down to pre-gun control days.

THere are absolutely no statistics which support your claim nimrod.

 

[Barb]

In the USA abortion freedom for the Negro woman has reduced the rate of crime in areas like Washington DC which is a dryug inveted, disgusted Negro ghetto. Fewer Negros being born equals reduced crime. This is a statistical fact.

Honestly, you're an asshole.

 

[FA_Q2]

All right, I guess I picked one hell of a topic for my first post
There are some points here that I HAVE to address. First: THE MAN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. PERIOD. It is interesting that people keep bringing this up. Abortion is a choice the woman makes and the man has absolutely no say in whether or not to keep the child he has created. Interestingly enough, if the woman chooses to keep the baby then the man now must take responsibility but a woman can get out of responsibility of the child with an abortion.
Second: The fact is, this is a matter of personal responsibility and should be treated as such. Abortion should not be covered under government healthcare because you are REQUIRED to pay taxes and abortion is not a required procedure. In special cases like rape and endangerment then it should be covered but that is it. In civilian insurance it is a different story. I have a choice on what policy I am going to purchase so I can choose not to purchase the one that covers abortion.
Third: The poll is just plain dumb. I refuse to vote because there is no option for me to select. ADD No. Abortion is a choice and you should have to pay for your choices.
I also want to point out the dishonesty and inherent danger in quoting random statistical evidence. Statistics in of themselves mean nothing without the details behind them. It is lunacy to believe that making abortion free will somehow magically reduce the number abortions. The statement said that it was lower in countries that had it widely available which is the case now. Nothing in that statement points to free abortion (or at least free for the individual) decreased its use. I would also like to point out that it is entirely possible that the reductions had nothing to do with the availability of abortion.
Abortion should NOT be covered under a national health plan. Then again I don’t think there should be a national health plan. To be clear, I am a pro choice republican-go figure. BUT I believe that abortion should be tightly regulated to the first trimester. If you screwed up you have a chance to fix it. If you are so lazy or inattentive as to not get it fixed in three months then you have to live with it. Quite frankly, you are an idiot if you don’t consider that a fetus IS a living person. Giving it another name does not make it something else. I am pro choice out of necessary evils, not because it is right.

PS.. I will not even respond to yukon's idiodic (and racist) post.

 

[Yukon]

Bullshit, you idiot. Provide the fucking stats. Because I know for a fact the murder rate QUADRUPLED in DC after they tightened gun control in the 70s, which happens to be shortly after Roe v. Wade, and it still hasn't come down to pre-gun control days.

THere are absolutely no statistics which support your claim nimrod.

Actually, you disgusting, uneducated, foul-mouthed, red-necked, Conservative wackjob, the stats are there in support of my claim. It is people like you, too ignorant to understand statistics, that require enlightening.

You really are a sad waste of human flesh. That being said I ask you to review the data if you can undertstand it...........

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

 

[Big_D]

In the USA abortion freedom for the Negro woman has reduced the rate of crime in areas like Washington DC which is a dryug inveted, disgusted Negro ghetto. Fewer Negros being born equals reduced crime. This is a statistical fact.

And you call the Republicans racist?

How about my last post in this thread, "Father" Yukon? You clearly are a liar as you proclaim to be a pro-choice catholic priest. My question to you is, why are you lying?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Whether you like to admit it or not, they indeed are.

Well, gee, I guess since one of the biggest mouthbreathing imbeciles on the board has asserted it, that makes it true.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

What a shame you can't read, because nowhere did I say, "all women who become pregnant are careless sluts." Why don't you graduate the fifth grade and THEN come back and try to debate with the adults?

I have lots of labels for men who make babies outside of wedlock, as it happens, but THEY aren't the ones having said babies cut into chunks and tossed in biohazard bags, which happens to be the topic here. When you get into the fifth grade reading class, they'll teach you about "topic".

You're an adult ? oh

You have repeatedly referred to women having abortions as sluts and not once have referred to the fathers at all as though the woman is the only one making the decision.

Of course I haven't referred to the sperm donors. That would be because the topic is abortion, and men don't have them. And yes, it IS the woman making the decision. That's the way the law is set up. Whether or not she listens to someone else in making that decision, she is still the one making it. Welcome to reality.

Now stop wasting everyone's time with your lame attempts at insults and your even worse attempts at changing the subject and diverting.

The topic is abortion and Medicare. The government has no business funding elective abortions. Your next post will directly address this topic, or be taken as a surrender. Your choice.

 

[Hinemoa]

What a shame you can't read, because nowhere did I say, "all women who become pregnant are careless sluts." Why don't you graduate the fifth grade and THEN come back and try to debate with the adults?

I have lots of labels for men who make babies outside of wedlock, as it happens, but THEY aren't the ones having said babies cut into chunks and tossed in biohazard bags, which happens to be the topic here. When you get into the fifth grade reading class, they'll teach you about "topic".

You're an adult ? oh

You have repeatedly referred to women having abortions as sluts and not once have referred to the fathers at all as though the woman is the only one making the decision.

Of course I haven't referred to the sperm donors. That would be because the topic is abortion, and men don't have them. And yes, it IS the woman making the decision. That's the way the law is set up. Whether or not she listens to someone else in making that decision, she is still the one making it. Welcome to reality.

Now stop wasting everyone's time with your lame attempts at insults and your even worse attempts at changing the subject and diverting.

The topic is abortion and Medicare. The government has no business funding elective abortions. Your next post will directly address this topic, or be taken as a surrender. Your choice.

My post will directly address what 'I' choose and not you.

'Ofcourse' you dont mention the sperm donor because that allows you the questionable labelling of women as 'sluts'. Why it pleases you to do this only you know.
The Government has has every business in funding elective abortions if it cares for its womens medical needs.

 

[frazzledgear]

It's early yet but the vote is 100% in favour of the procedure being paid for by Medicare. Bravo my enlightened friends.

Not surprising though one person responded with atypical Conservative, stone-age mental capacity.

Zoom-boing you should consider moving back to the stone-age society of Afghanistan - you'll most certainly feel right at home !

In THIS country, we aren't supposed to be living under the forced rule of the minority over the majority. Forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for elective abortions when more than 2/3 oppose that on MORAL GROUNDS -cannot ever be considered "enlightenment". Let's call it by its real name - TYRANNY.

A recent poll showed that 71% of Americans are ANGRY at their own government. And I bet you haven't a clue why that is. Last time Americans got very angry at their own government it didn't turn out so well for that government. And unlike for you Canadians, our Constitution -the contract between WE THE PEOPLE and our government -specifically states that WE THE PEOPLE reserve the right to tear it down and start over if it fails to do the job for which we created it. Because in THIS country government is supposed to be our SERVANT, not our master. Maybe those totalitarian loving liberals who are just 20% in this country but believe they have a "right" to rule and force their will on everyone else don't want to accept this fact -but it was never created to become a tyrannical nanny state of forced rule. And the vast majority of Americans reject that since they place FAR greater value on their true freedoms instead.

Just because liberals place no real value on their own freedoms (and many don't even know what freedom really is, thinking it means "free to kill my unwanted unborn child" "free to buy the services of a prostitute" and "free to legally buy marijuana"none of which has a thing to do with real freedom) does not EVER mean I must forfeit my own.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're an adult ? oh

You have repeatedly referred to women having abortions as sluts and not once have referred to the fathers at all as though the woman is the only one making the decision.

Of course I haven't referred to the sperm donors. That would be because the topic is abortion, and men don't have them. And yes, it IS the woman making the decision. That's the way the law is set up. Whether or not she listens to someone else in making that decision, she is still the one making it. Welcome to reality.

Now stop wasting everyone's time with your lame attempts at insults and your even worse attempts at changing the subject and diverting.

The topic is abortion and Medicare. The government has no business funding elective abortions. Your next post will directly address this topic, or be taken as a surrender. Your choice.

My post will directly address what 'I' choose and not you.

'Ofcourse' you dont mention the sperm donor because that allows you the questionable labelling of women as 'sluts'. Why it pleases you to do this only you know.
The Government has has every business in funding elective abortions if it cares for its womens medical needs.

You're done, newbie. Your surrender is duly registered. B'bye.

FLUSH!

 

[Hinemoa]

Of course I haven't referred to the sperm donors. That would be because the topic is abortion, and men don't have them. And yes, it IS the woman making the decision. That's the way the law is set up. Whether or not she listens to someone else in making that decision, she is still the one making it. Welcome to reality.

Now stop wasting everyone's time with your lame attempts at insults and your even worse attempts at changing the subject and diverting.

The topic is abortion and Medicare. The government has no business funding elective abortions. Your next post will directly address this topic, or be taken as a surrender. Your choice.

My post will directly address what 'I' choose and not you.

'Ofcourse' you dont mention the sperm donor because that allows you the questionable labelling of women as 'sluts'. Why it pleases you to do this only you know.
The Government has has every business in funding elective abortions if it cares for its womens medical needs.

You're done, newbie. Your surrender is duly registered. B'bye.

FLUSH!

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

Clearly, you have some reading comprehension issues. Read only the parts of my post in bold above. If the aim is to reduce abortion, outlawing it or making it harder to obtain is a proven failure.

You're making a LEAP in logic that legal abortion results in LOWER abortion rates which is ludicrous on its face. Abortion rates have been quite high for a long time in countries where it was legal. So if the rates have recently dropped, pure common sense tells you the reason for it must be due to some OTHER factor that has also changed with it. It can't be because of its legality because it has been legal all along when the abortion rates were also higher.

So it means identifying what has CHANGED, not what has remained the same and pretending THAT is what accounts for the drop in rates. When you check on what people think about abortion today compared to even a decade ago, you will find that public opinion regarding abortion has done a turn around. The majority of people oppose abortion on demand, an increase in the percentage of those who consider abortion to be murder, an even larger majority than before who consider it to be immoral, an even larger overwhelming majority than before who oppose allowing the abortion of a viable fetus, a smaller majority than before now believe it should be allowed to save the mother's life or in the cases of rape and unlike just a couple of decades ago -today nearly HALF think it should not be legal under any circumstances. Obviously among the growing group that is now nearly half the population who no longer holds with the "its a woman's body so she can kill her unwanted child and have its body butchered up like a slab of meat if she feels like it today" -are those women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy and refuse to have their child killed to pay for their own irresponsibility in preventing pregnancy. (And really, in THIS day and age every excuse used to justify reproductive irresponsibility is ridiculous. You don't want a child, make sure you don't get one started then and plenty of reliable products for men and women alike to choose from in order to do that. Once you get a child started, that child's life doesn't belong to anyone but it.)

Poll: Majority favor abortion funding ban - CNN.com 60% oppose public funding of abortion.

Support For Abortion Slips: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press 45% favor making abortion illegal in all cases, 65% believe it is good to reduce the number of abortions in this country and a DECREASE in the percentage of those who think a "middle ground" on the issue should be found. Meaning MORE people want it just outlawed, MORE people want it more restricted and more difficult for women to get - and FEWER people are willing to accept a compromise on it.

What has CHANGED is people's attitudes towards and opinion about abortion and that holds true even among women who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy -thereby reducing the abortion rates.

 

[Barb]

. . . And I'm looking for a point, and I'm looking for a point . . .

Nope. No point visible.

Clearly, you have some reading comprehension issues. Read only the parts of my post in bold above. If the aim is to reduce abortion, outlawing it or making it harder to obtain is a proven failure.

You're making a LEAP in logic that legal abortion results in LOWER abortion rates which is ludicrous on its face. Abortion rates have been quite high for a long time in countries where it was legal. So if the rates have recently dropped, pure common sense tells you the reason for it must be due to some OTHER factor that has also changed with it. It can't be because of its legality because it has been legal all along when the abortion rates were also higher.

So it means identifying what has CHANGED, not what has remained the same and pretending THAT is what accounts for the drop in rates. When you check on what people think about abortion today compared to even a decade ago, you will find that public opinion regarding abortion has done a turn around. The majority of people oppose abortion on demand, an increase in the percentage of those who consider abortion to be murder, an even larger majority than before who consider it to be immoral, an even larger overwhelming majority than before who oppose allowing the abortion of a viable fetus, a smaller majority than before now believe it should be allowed to save the mother's life or in the cases of rape and unlike just a couple of decades ago -today nearly HALF think it should not be legal under any circumstances. Obviously among the growing group that is now nearly half the population who no longer holds with the "its a woman's body so she can kill her unwanted child and have its body butchered up like a slab of meat if she feels like it today" -are those women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy and refuse to have their child killed to pay for their own irresponsibility in preventing pregnancy. (And really, in THIS day and age every excuse used to justify reproductive irresponsibility is ridiculous. You don't want a child, make sure you don't get one started then and plenty of reliable products for men and women alike to choose from in order to do that. Once you get a child started, that child's life doesn't belong to anyone but it.)

Poll: Majority favor abortion funding ban - CNN.com 60% oppose public funding of abortion.

Support For Abortion Slips: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press 45% favor making abortion illegal in all cases, 65% believe it is good to reduce the number of abortions in this country and a DECREASE in the percentage of those who think a "middle ground" on the issue should be found. Meaning MORE people want it just outlawed, MORE people want it more restricted and more difficult for women to get - and FEWER people are willing to accept a compromise on it.

What has CHANGED is people's attitudes towards and opinion about abortion and that holds true even among women who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy -thereby reducing the abortion rates.

Its not a "leap in logic," sparky, its a documented fact. Some of what changes is that unmet need for birth control lowers where abortion is legal. "Outlawing" abortion doesn't make it stop, it drives it underground, where it is more dangerous.

International Planned Parenthood Federation, Death and Denial: Unsafe Abortion and Poverty.4. http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/8D...2A/0/Death_Denial_unsafe_abortion_poverty.pdf (Accessed April 22, 2009).
US Deparment of State. " Population at the Millenium.” “Unmet need for Family Planning.” Fact Sheet. 24.

 

[Barb]

It's early yet but the vote is 100% in favour of the procedure being paid for by Medicare. Bravo my enlightened friends.

Not surprising though one person responded with atypical Conservative, stone-age mental capacity.

Zoom-boing you should consider moving back to the stone-age society of Afghanistan - you'll most certainly feel right at home !

In THIS country, we aren't supposed to be living under the forced rule of the minority over the majority. Forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for elective abortions when more than 2/3 oppose that on MORAL GROUNDS -cannot ever be considered "enlightenment". Let's call it by its real name - TYRANNY.

A recent poll showed that 71% of Americans are ANGRY at their own government. And I bet you haven't a clue why that is. Last time Americans got very angry at their own government it didn't turn out so well for that government. And unlike for you Canadians, our Constitution -the contract between WE THE PEOPLE and our government -specifically states that WE THE PEOPLE reserve the right to tear it down and start over if it fails to do the job for which we created it. Because in THIS country government is supposed to be our SERVANT, not our master. Maybe those totalitarian loving liberals who are just 20% in this country but believe they have a "right" to rule and force their will on everyone else don't want to accept this fact -but it was never created to become a tyrannical nanny state of forced rule. And the vast majority of Americans reject that since they place FAR greater value on their true freedoms instead.

Just because liberals place no real value on their own freedoms (and many don't even know what freedom really is, thinking it means "free to kill my unwanted unborn child" "free to buy the services of a prostitute" and "free to legally buy marijuana"none of which has a thing to do with real freedom) does not EVER mean I must forfeit my own.

Let’s unpack last week’s big number: 15.

That’s the percentage-point swing toward the “pro-life” position on abortion in the last year, according to new Gallup Poll results.

In May 2008, 50 percent of respondents to Gallup’s nationwide survey identified themselves as “pro-choice,” or in favor of abortion rights; 44 percent identified themselves as “pro-life,” or opposed to abortion rights.

But this May, just 42 percent of respondents said they were “pro-choice” and 51 percent said they were “pro-life.” The result marked the first time “pro-life” had finished ahead of “pro-choice” since Gallup began asking the question in 1995.

And it dovetailed with a poll taken in April by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finding that the 54 percent-41 percent public opinion lead held in August by those who say abortion should be legal in most or all cases had closed to a 46 percent-44 percent virtual tie against those who say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

These numbers were quite provocative, coming out just ahead of President Barack Obama’s controversial speech at the University of Notre Dame on Sunday and in the lead-up to the inevitable battle over how Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court might rule on Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 ever-vulnerable decision that established a woman’s right to choose.

So here’s a little context:

A Quinnipiac University poll in April with twice the sample size of Gallup’s survey found that those who think abortion should be legal in all or most cases hold a 52 percent-41 percent advantage in public opinion over those who think it should be always or usually illegal.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll in April showed “pro-choice” with a 49 percent-45 percent lead over “pro-life.” Two years ago, “pro-life” had a 50 percent-45 percent lead, and one year ago, “pro-choice” had a 53 percent-44 percent lead.

Of the 13 times FOX News/Opinion Dynamics has asked the “life/choice” question in the last decade, “pro-life” has come out ahead three times – in June 1999, January 2000 and April 2004, according to the archives at PollingReport.com.

“Pro-life” and “pro-choice” each won two of the four Time/CNN polls taken from March 1999 to January 2003. And Zogby International Poll results posted to the National Right to Life Web site show “pro-life” with a 49 perent-45 percent edge in an April 2004 survey.

These snapshots show that the pendulum swings slightly around the midpoint but doesn’t gather much momentum either way.

The most telling numbers from Gallup I found were the ones that separate out those who hold unambiguous views on this issue:

Those who say abortion should be legal under any circumstances – April 1975: 21 percent; May 2009: 22 percent.

Those who say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances – April 1975: 22 percent; May 2009, 23 percent.

Over 34 years, the staunch opponents haven’t budged and the middle remains mushy.

If you’re looking for a more telling number to unpack, try 68: That’s the percentage of respondents who told pollsters from CNN/Opinion Research over the weekend that they do not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

But if you’re looking for resolution or even real movement on this issue in the near or even distant future, the surveys say you’re out of luck.

Abortion polls back and forth - Chicago Tribune