ABORTION and MEDICARE

[Emma]

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.

When it comes to rights, majority vs minority doesn't have a damned thing to do with it. The majority can't 'vote' away the rights of the minority.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

When it comes to rights, majority vs minority doesn't have a damned thing to do with it. The majority can't 'vote' away the rights of the minority.

But apparently in your view, the minority can sue away the rights of the majority. Hmmm.

 

[Emma]

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.

When it comes to rights, majority vs minority doesn't have a damned thing to do with it. The majority can't 'vote' away the rights of the minority.

But apparently in your view, the minority can sue away the rights of the majority. Hmmm.

Feel free to provide a post where I stated that. Thanks.

 

[Christopher]

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.

Meaning you are not going to fully participate in a discussion, got it.

Caring for a women's medical needs is one thing, terminating a developing human life for the woman's "convenience" is another.

 

[Christopher]

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.

Outlawing anything never makes it stop. Just look at banned substances and handguns for instance.

 

[Jon]

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.

There's a beautiful double standard to be found in the abortion debate.

Women have the right to abort a child they do not want. But men are forced to pay child support for children they do not want.

If a man wants his unborn child, and the woman does not, the man is shit out of luck.

Like I said, it's a very beautiful standard.

As for the issue of abortion in the health care debate, I notice that the topic of Viagra continues to come up. Why do abortionists think the solution is, "If they cover Viagra, they cover abortions?" First of all, the two things are not related. Secondly, maybe the issue should be, "Why don't we STOP covering Viagra?" Because personally, I don't see any medicinal use that comes from the drug.

 

[Hinemoa]

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.

There's a beautiful double standard to be found in the abortion debate.

Women have the right to abort a child they do not want. But men are forced to pay child support for children they do not want.

If a man wants his unborn child, and the woman does not, the man is shit out of luck.

Like I said, it's a very beautiful standard.

As for the issue of abortion in the health care debate, I notice that the topic of Viagra continues to come up. Why do abortionists think the solution is, "If they cover Viagra, they cover abortions?" First of all, the two things are not related. Secondly, maybe the issue should be, "Why don't we STOP covering Viagra?" Because personally, I don't see any medicinal use that comes from the drug.

Ok so my sarcasm doesnt match others here though I dont resort to name calling.

Can you imagine the outcry if Viagra was stopped?

 

[Emma]

"Why don't we STOP covering Viagra?" Because personally, I don't see any medicinal use that comes from the drug.

Sildenafil is used for pulmonary arterial hypertension and raynaud's.

 

[Jon]

Ok so my sarcasm doesnt match others here though I dont resort to name calling.

Can you imagine the outcry if Viagra was stopped?

So your solution is to that two wrongs do make a right? Ignorance at its best.

 

[Hinemoa]

Ok so my sarcasm doesnt match others here though I dont resort to name calling.

Can you imagine the outcry if Viagra was stopped?

So your solution is to that two wrongs do make a right? Ignorance at its best.

Not at all. The point that you're missing is simply that there is an alternative for the 'medical' need of Viagra but going by the posts in this thread, the 'alternative' for abortion is to have either back street ops or to have unwanted children, possibly in care or a millstone around the unwilling fathers neck.

If this discussion is supposedly about the costs involved re abortion and medicare then which is the greater pull on the tax payers purse?

 

[Jon]

the 'alternative' for abortion is to have either back street ops or to have unwanted children, possibly in care or a millstone around the unwilling fathers neck.

The alternative to abortion is to use condoms or for one to have a tubal ligation and/or have their partner get a vasectomy. We know what causes pregnancy, and we know how to prevent it. Why should insurance companies (or in this case taxpayers) have to pay for the ignorance of others?

 

[Yukon]

EMMA,

have you ever had an abortion and if so how much does it cost in the USA ? In Canada it's covered by Medicare.

 

[Emma]

EMMA,

have you ever had an abortion and if so how much does it cost in the USA ? In Canada it's covered by Medicare.

No, and I have no idea.

 

[Yukon]

Thank you Emma....an abortion in the USA costs approximately 1500.00 - 2000.00 with no complications. In Canada the procedure is free regardless of complications.

It won't be long though when American women will get free procedures. Obama is bringing in Medicare which will bring American society completely into the 21st century. You wont go bankrupt because you can't afford Health Insurance.

 

[rightwinger]

Medicare is for people 65 and older.

If you are over 65 and pregnant, you deserve an abortion

 

[Hinemoa]

the 'alternative' for abortion is to have either back street ops or to have unwanted children, possibly in care or a millstone around the unwilling fathers neck.

The alternative to abortion is to use condoms or for one to have a tubal ligation and/or have their partner get a vasectomy. We know what causes pregnancy, and we know how to prevent it. Why should insurance companies (or in this case taxpayers) have to pay for the ignorance of others?

Well thats the same as saying why pay for smoking related conditions when people still smoke or alcohol caused conditions when people still drink.We know the causes of both but people still choose to ignore advice. Its a bit late for condoms etc when the pregnancy has occurred isnt it.

 

[Yukon]

75% of Americans are OBESE from eating junk food 24/7. You people are so fat, and so lazy that eventually every dime you make will go towards eating junk food and going to Chinese Doctors.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Medicare is for people 65 and older.

If you are over 65 and pregnant, you deserve an abortion

From Medicare.gov:

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administers Medicare, the nation's largest health insurance program, which covers nearly 40 million Americans. Medicare is a Health Insurance Program for people age 65 or older, some disabled people under age 65, and people of all ages with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure treated with dialysis or a transplant).

I already said this, but God forbid you should read, let alone think and remember.

 

[rightwinger]

Medicare is for people 65 and older.

If you are over 65 and pregnant, you deserve an abortion

From Medicare.gov:

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administers Medicare, the nation's largest health insurance program, which covers nearly 40 million Americans. Medicare is a Health Insurance Program for people age 65 or older, some disabled people under age 65, and people of all ages with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure treated with dialysis or a transplant).

I already said this, but God forbid you should read, let alone think and remember.

In that case...make the abortion mandatory

 

[Cecilie1200]

Medicare is for people 65 and older.

If you are over 65 and pregnant, you deserve an abortion

From Medicare.gov:

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administers Medicare, the nation's largest health insurance program, which covers nearly 40 million Americans. Medicare is a Health Insurance Program for people age 65 or older, some disabled people under age 65, and people of all ages with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure treated with dialysis or a transplant).

I already said this, but God forbid you should read, let alone think and remember.

In that case...make the abortion mandatory

Why? Cripples shouldn't be allowed to breed, Dr. Goebbels?