House GOPers War On Birth Control

[GStarz]

It's pretty simple once you clear away all the absurd conversational garbage: until someone has a direct line to God, or can claim to be Him, to err on the side of caution is to assume that life begins upon conception. Some medical specialists have tried to play God by arrogantly categorically denoting - supposedly - when human life is manifest in a pregnancy, but then we don't know who they voted for last November, either - they aren't all saintly super-humans with a divine detachment to the garbage heap of humanity called liberalism.

Are you God? No? Then you have an obligation to err on the side of caution, or don't posture superior on ethics and morality. Assuming abortion is murder is the only intellectually honest extrapolation.

At the core, the debate isn't complicated.

WTF are you to dictate to me or to any woman what she should do with her body?

Two points:

I'm not telling you what you can or can not do, but rather what you should do. there's a difference. Angry indignation from leftists is an old song. It's dull and tiresome. you should stop trying to sing it because it's a bad song. Are you so highly placed that you can say for certain when life begins? Are you God?

second, it isn't only your body, or are you so mindlessly selfish and inconsiderate that you forgot that no matter how or why, you're carrying another person around inside you. Calling that a part of your body to do with what you like is not too dissimilar from shooting someone in your car and saying that it wasn't murder because the person belonged to you, since that person was in the car that belonged to you. You'll rant at the analogy, but tough shit. Murder your own kid if you feel the need, but don't go around espousing it to others.

 

[kaz]

I skipped from page 1 to page 15 and have only this to say. The state should be falling over themselves to fund anything that helps people who can't afford to raise children, not have them.

I agree with your sentiment, but why don't liberals ever say "I" instead of "the state?" Why don't you raise money for it? I'll contribute.

 

[Madeline]

It's pretty simple once you clear away all the absurd conversational garbage: until someone has a direct line to God, or can claim to be Him, to err on the side of caution is to assume that life begins upon conception. Some medical specialists have tried to play God by arrogantly categorically denoting - supposedly - when human life is manifest in a pregnancy, but then we don't know who they voted for last November, either - they aren't all saintly super-humans with a divine detachment to the garbage heap of humanity called liberalism.

Are you God? No? Then you have an obligation to err on the side of caution, or don't posture superior on ethics and morality. Assuming abortion is murder is the only intellectually honest extrapolation.

At the core, the debate isn't complicated.

WTF are you to dictate to me or to any woman what she should do with her body?

Two points:

I'm not telling you what you can or can not do, but rather what you should do. there's a difference. Angry indignation from leftists is an old song. It's dull and tiresome. you should stop trying to sing it because it's a bad song. Are you so highly placed that you can say for certain when life begins? Are you God?

second, it isn't only your body, or are you so mindlessly selfish and inconsiderate that you forgot that no matter how or why, you're carrying another person around inside you. Calling that a part of your body to do with what you like is not too dissimilar from shooting someone in your car and saying that it wasn't murder because the person belonged to you, since that person was in the car that belonged to you. You'll rant at the analogy, but tough shit. Murder your own kid if you feel the need, but don't go around espousing it to others.

Not every American believes in God. Not every American believes that each and every zygote is a "person". You are entitled to your POV and there are ways to ensure you never inceminate a woman who does not want to be pregnant -- in fact, we began this thread discussing the insanity of limiting access to birth control, if I remember correctly.

 

[Madeline]

I skipped from page 1 to page 15 and have only this to say. The state should be falling over themselves to fund anything that helps people who can't afford to raise children, not have them.

I agree with your sentiment, but why don't liberals ever say "I" instead of "the state?" Why don't you raise money for it? I'll contribute.

Kaz, paying taxes = "raising money for birth control". What's your gripe about public funds for public health?

 

[Jarhead]

It's pretty simple once you clear away all the absurd conversational garbage: until someone has a direct line to God, or can claim to be Him, to err on the side of caution is to assume that life begins upon conception. Some medical specialists have tried to play God by arrogantly categorically denoting - supposedly - when human life is manifest in a pregnancy, but then we don't know who they voted for last November, either - they aren't all saintly super-humans with a divine detachment to the garbage heap of humanity called liberalism.

Are you God? No? Then you have an obligation to err on the side of caution, or don't posture superior on ethics and morality. Assuming abortion is murder is the only intellectually honest extrapolation.

At the core, the debate isn't complicated.

WTF are you to dictate to me or to any woman what she should do with her body?

Two points:

I'm not telling you what you can or can not do, but rather what you should do. there's a difference. Angry indignation from leftists is an old song. It's dull and tiresome. you should stop trying to sing it because it's a bad song. Are you so highly placed that you can say for certain when life begins? Are you God?

second, it isn't only your body, or are you so mindlessly selfish and inconsiderate that you forgot that no matter how or why, you're carrying another person around inside you. Calling that a part of your body to do with what you like is not too dissimilar from shooting someone in your car and saying that it wasn't murder because the person belonged to you, since that person was in the car that belonged to you. You'll rant at the analogy, but tough shit. Murder your own kid if you feel the need, but don't go around espousing it to others.

Excellent.
Murder your own kid (as I see it)....I will not get in your way and I will not judge.
I offer you the respect of not voting against the right to choose...as I respect the sentiments of others.
Just dont ask me to pay for it.

 

[Madeline]

The US taxpayer paid for approximately 120 abortions last year, Jarhead. All on poor women or girls who were crime victims.

It may have cost you 0.02 cents.....is that too heavy a burden on your pocketbook?

 

[Jarhead]

I skipped from page 1 to page 15 and have only this to say. The state should be falling over themselves to fund anything that helps people who can't afford to raise children, not have them.

I agree with your sentiment, but why don't liberals ever say "I" instead of "the state?" Why don't you raise money for it? I'll contribute.

Kaz, paying taxes = "raising money for birth control". What's your gripe about public funds for public health?

Becuase there are ways to "control birth" that dont cost money.
I dont mind my tax dollars being used to reimburse ER's when someone in need of emergency medical care cant afford it.
I DO mind my tax dollars being used so that those that cant afford to enjoy something, opt to enjoy it anyway.
It is not a very difficult concept to understand. You may think otherwise, but it is wrong to simply knock my personal sentiments.
When I lose money playing craps, I dont expect others to pay for my losses.

 

[Anachronism]

...You are entitled to your POV and there are ways to ensure you never inceminate a woman who does not want to be pregnant -- in fact, we began this thread discussing the insanity of limiting access to birth control, if I remember correctly.

True. However those choices, and the requirement to pay for them are a PRIVATE, PERSONAL DECISION and MANDATE. They do not rise to the level of something at the Federal Government should be involved in at any level.

Kaz, paying taxes = "raising money for birth control". What's your gripe about public funds for public health?

How about the UnConstitutionality of using ANY Federal monies for ANY form of Public Health, since it is not a legitimate expenditure under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

 

[Jarhead]

The US taxpayer paid for approximately 120 abortions last year, Jarhead. All on poor women or girls who were crime victims.

It may have cost you 0.02 cents.....is that too heavy a burden on your pocketbook?

Not at all.
I am for a separation of "pregancy due to crime" and "pregnancy due to irresponsibility"
I will alway vote for legoislation saying that we, the people, should assist victims of crimes.

 

[Anachronism]

The US taxpayer paid for approximately 120 abortions last year, Jarhead. All on poor women or girls who were crime victims.

It may have cost you 0.02 cents.....is that too heavy a burden on your pocketbook?

How about we add those abortions to the tab that the perpetrators of those crimes has to pay? I have much less of an issue paying for assisting victims of rape, but I'm still not totally convinced that it's the responsibility of the Government to do so. That's really where PRIVATE Charitable Organizations should be stepping in, so far as I'm concerned.

 

[Jarhead]

The US taxpayer paid for approximately 120 abortions last year, Jarhead. All on poor women or girls who were crime victims.

It may have cost you 0.02 cents.....is that too heavy a burden on your pocketbook?

How about we add those abortions to the tab that the perpetrators of those crimes has to pay? I have much less of an issue paying for assisting victims of rape, but I'm still not totally convinced that it's the responsibility of the Government to do so. That's really where PRIVATE Charitable Organizations should be stepping in, so far as I'm concerned.

I agree with the charitable organizations....but when in times of deep recessions, those charities struggle as well....so as it pertains to victims of rape, the sure way to ensure they are cared for is through tax dollars.

 

[Madeline]

The US taxpayer paid for approximately 120 abortions last year, Jarhead. All on poor women or girls who were crime victims.

It may have cost you 0.02 cents.....is that too heavy a burden on your pocketbook?

How about we add those abortions to the tab that the perpetrators of those crimes has to pay? I have much less of an issue paying for assisting victims of rape, but I'm still not totally convinced that it's the responsibility of the Government to do so. That's really where PRIVATE Charitable Organizations should be stepping in, so far as I'm concerned.

Except that private charities never have, and never will, Anachronism. I have no heartburn over compelling criminals to pay victims, where possible. I do have heartburn over compounding a crime victim's suffering by forcing her to bear her rapist's child.

 

[Stephanie]

wow, it is nice to see they FINALLY admit ABORTION (the killing off of ones own child) is being used as a form of birth control.

Have we become this sick and twisted of a Society where we think THIS IS OK?

make me ill.

 

[goldcatt]

The US taxpayer paid for approximately 120 abortions last year, Jarhead. All on poor women or girls who were crime victims.

It may have cost you 0.02 cents.....is that too heavy a burden on your pocketbook?

Not at all.
I am for a separation of "pregancy due to crime" and "pregnancy due to irresponsibility"
I will alway vote for legoislation saying that we, the people, should assist victims of crimes.

If you look at the current language of the statute as-is, this is exactly what it does. Federal funds in the form of MA or other programs can only be used for abortion in the case of a crime, such as rape, molestation of a minor child or incest. This has been law for some time, and continues with PPACA.

The amendment does nothing to change this, except to narrow "rape" to "forcible rape". What it does do is exempt all other State "conscience" provisions from coverage mandates if the insurers decide to opt out of offering that coverage as a matter of "conscience". Which is where not only contraception, but end of life care and a host of other issues come into question.

 

[Jarhead]

The US taxpayer paid for approximately 120 abortions last year, Jarhead. All on poor women or girls who were crime victims.

It may have cost you 0.02 cents.....is that too heavy a burden on your pocketbook?

How about we add those abortions to the tab that the perpetrators of those crimes has to pay? I have much less of an issue paying for assisting victims of rape, but I'm still not totally convinced that it's the responsibility of the Government to do so. That's really where PRIVATE Charitable Organizations should be stepping in, so far as I'm concerned.

Except that private charities never have, and never will, Anachronism. I have no heartburn over compelling criminals to pay victims, where possible. I do have heartburn over compounding a crime victim's suffering by forcing her to bear her rapist's child.

I agree with this post 100%.
But I still do not feel it is the tax payers responsibility to supoport someone who cast aside caution and had unsafe sex knowing they can not afford to abort the child.
Sex without intention of having a child is not something that MUST be done...it is something people OPT to do for pleasure.
No different than satisfying ones urge to smopke, drink, gamble or do drugs....
It is an urge for pleasure.....

 

[Madeline]

Jarhead wrote:

I agree with this post 100%.
But I still do not feel it is the tax payers responsibility to supoport someone who cast aside caution and had unsafe sex knowing they can not afford to abort the child.
Sex without intention of having a child is not something that MUST be done...it is something people OPT to do for pleasure.
No different than satisfying ones urge to smopke, drink, gamble or do drugs....
It is an urge for pleasure.....

The US taxpayer, via Medicaid, Medicare and CHAMPUS (health care for veterans) pays for NO other abortions, Jarhead. Poor women who want such procedures done are required to pay cash, and it has been that way for over twenty years now.

 

[Anachronism]

I agree with the charitable organizations....but when in times of deep recessions, those charities struggle as well....so as it pertains to victims of rape, the sure way to ensure they are cared for is through tax dollars.

While I agree in total with the emotional portion of your arguement Jarhead, I STILL cannot find ANY MANDATE in the US Constitution for the citizenry to pay for ANY healthcare costs for the general population with tax monies. It's just that simple. Black & White. There's no Mandate, there no payment. That's the way I see it and always will see it.

Except that private charities never have, and never will, Anachronism. I have no heartburn over compelling criminals to pay victims, where possible. I do have heartburn over compounding a crime victim's suffering by forcing her to bear her rapist's child.

They haven't because they know that the Government will pay for it, so they don't have to even consider putting money aside for it. Besides, remove the taxes to pay for those things and the average citizen will have more money to donate to those charities that they believe in.

Maybe the right way to do it is to have the Government pay for it and be reimbursed by the labor of the criminal after the fact, or something along those lines.

I agree that no woman should be forced to bear the child of a rape. On that you will get absolutely NO disagreement from me. However, I still cannot find a Constitutional Mandate that allows the Federal Government to spend even $0.01 on that particular issue.

 

[Madeline]

wow, it is nice to see they FINALLY admit ABORTION (the killing off of ones own child) is being used as a form of birth control.

Have we become this sick and twisted of a Society where we think THIS IS OK?

make me ill.

If this is your POV, Stephanie, then contact your elected representatives to oppose the bill under discussion. One sure way to create a greater demand for abortion procedures is to limit access to birth control.

 

[Madeline]

I agree with the charitable organizations....but when in times of deep recessions, those charities struggle as well....so as it pertains to victims of rape, the sure way to ensure they are cared for is through tax dollars.

While I agree in total with the emotional portion of your arguement Jarhead, I STILL cannot find ANY MANDATE in the US Constitution for the citizenry to pay for ANY healthcare costs for the general population with tax monies. It's just that simple. Black & White. There's no Mandate, there no payment. That's the way I see it and always will see it.

You are wrong, and you will always be wrong. There is no mandate aka express language in the constitution for many things that did not exist in 1776, like the airline industry, yet we soldier on and cope, following the constitution under the guidance of the SCOTUS.

Except that private charities never have, and never will, Anachronism. I have no heartburn over compelling criminals to pay victims, where possible. I do have heartburn over compounding a crime victim's suffering by forcing her to bear her rapist's child.

They haven't because they know that the Government will pay for it, so they don't have to even consider putting money aside for it. Besides, remove the taxes to pay for those things and the average citizen will have more money to donate to those charities that they believe in.

Before there was a New Deal, are you under the delusion some private charity existed to provide abortion care to poor women? It did not. This will never attract private donations in adequate amounts.

Maybe the right way to do it is to have the Government pay for it and be reimbursed by the labor of the criminal after the fact, or something along those lines.

Works for me.

I agree that no woman should be forced to bear the child of a rape. On that you will get absolutely NO disagreement from me. However, I still cannot find a Constitutional Mandate that allows the Federal Government to spend even $0.01 on that particular issue.

Too bad. Read some SCOTUS decisions, Anachronism...the constitution was not engraved in cement.

 

[Jarhead]

Jarhead wrote:

I agree with this post 100%.
But I still do not feel it is the tax payers responsibility to supoport someone who cast aside caution and had unsafe sex knowing they can not afford to abort the child.
Sex without intention of having a child is not something that MUST be done...it is something people OPT to do for pleasure.
No different than satisfying ones urge to smopke, drink, gamble or do drugs....
It is an urge for pleasure.....

The US taxpayer, via Medicaid, Medicare and CHAMPUS (health care for veterans) pays for NO other abortions, Jarhead. Poor women who want such procedures done are required to pay cash, and it has been that way for over twenty years now.

Yes, I am well aware of this.
However, I am concerned that the more legislation we have as it pertains to helathcare and birth control, the more likely this will change.
And I am sure both you and I can agree that legislation of late has been so complex...so long...and so "all over the place", even our legislators admit to not reading some or most of many bills.
So I am simply expressing my sentiments.