How to decrease the number of abortions

[TemplarKormac]

Education.

Education.​

Education.​

Crosby Stills Nash & Young Teach Your Children - YouTube

With Monkeys, the sooner they're told the truth about where babies come from, the better.

True Story!​

Education. I think we still need to quit paying them bounties for breeding in the first place.

Like I said, rw's want the poor to starve.

They want federal control over women's reproduction but don't even think about the children resulting from unwanted pregnancies.

Shameful

That has NOTHING to do with what he just said. It's the pro choice crowd demanding that the government sanction abortion in the first place! If you don't want government involved, DON'T INVOLVE THEM!

You idiot.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Read the ******* link you dumbass.

You ask much of Luddy. He has reading problems and he has problems finding the linked article. But you're welcome to keep trying.

Nah, once was enough.

You dingbats are always whining about how federal money is paying for abortion. Its not and it hasn't for at least 30 years.

There is no real indication in that OP/ED piece that the Hyde Amendment will suddenly change that FACT.

I can't tell the future. Neither can you and neither than that ASSSinine rw OP/ED piece of phony news.

YOU are wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You ask much of Luddy. He has reading problems and he has problems finding the linked article. But you're welcome to keep trying.

Nah, once was enough.

You dingbats are always whining about how federal money is paying for abortion. Its not and it hasn't for at least 30 years.

There is no real indication in that OP/ED piece that the Hyde Amendment will suddenly change that FACT.

I can't tell the future. Neither can you and neither than that ASSSinine rw OP/ED piece of phony news.

YOU are wrong.

How am I wrong exactly? Care to explain? Did you ever get around to reading the link? Nevermind:

Although the Hyde Amendment restricts the use of federal funds for abortion, with the exceptions of pregnancies caused by rape and incest, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, released a paper on Thursday that showed how Multi-State Plans created through the Affordable Care Act could result in taxpayers subsidizing up to 111,500 abortions each year.

Multi-State Plans (MSPs) are the Affordable Care Act’s version of the “public option” health insurance plan.

“Multi-state” is another word for “national” and the degree of regulation of plan content, control of medical-loss ratios, and other factors ensure that these plans will operate more like regulated utilities than truly private insurance.

MSPs will be gradually introduced through a four-year period. By 2015, 35 states are expected to have MSPs in place, and all 50 states will have MSPs by 2017. The plans are intended to create “competition” in state markets, but will have the advantage that their administrative costs will be taxpayer funded, unlike a private insurance company.

According to the Lozier paper, however, these plans could be the key to taxpayer funding of abortions:

What these advantaged plans will do with respect to abortion coverage is not yet fully clear. However, Section 1334(a)(6) of the ACA states that:

In entering into contracts under this subsection, the Director [of OPM] shall ensure that with respect to multi-State qualified health plans offered in an Exchange, there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in section 1303(b)(1)(B)(i). (Emphasis added).

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Education. I think we still need to quit paying them bounties for breeding in the first place.

Like I said, rw's want the poor to starve.

They want federal control over women's reproduction but don't even think about the children resulting from unwanted pregnancies.

Shameful

That has NOTHING to do with what he just said. It's the pro choice crowd demanding that the government sanction abortion in the first place! If you don't want government involved, DON'T INVOLVE THEM!

You idiot.

As usual, you're wrong.

The pro-choice crowd is not "demanding that the government sanction abortion" because government IS ALREADY involved.

Just shut up for a moment and THINK.

What is the LAW the rw nutters would like to be repealed?

Roe v Wade

Abortion is legal.

Its you who is the idiot because you did not know that federal money is not used for abortion and because, amazingly, you didn't know that abortion is legal.

Indeed, you don't seem to know very much at all.

 

[syrenn]

How to decrease abortions: my taxpayer dollars pay for the first one, and the mandatory sterilization when the woman has received her "freebie".

right along with mandatory sterilization for the baby daddies.....

Oh, forgot that...correct! Baby daddies get snipped, too. Problem often is identifying said daddy. Maybe just do the list of possible prospects?

if babby momma wants any kind of entitlements... then she must identify the correct baby daddy....one that matches the DNA..... pretty simple.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Like I said, rw's want the poor to starve.

They want federal control over women's reproduction but don't even think about the children resulting from unwanted pregnancies.

Shameful

That has NOTHING to do with what he just said. It's the pro choice crowd demanding that the government sanction abortion in the first place! If you don't want government involved, DON'T INVOLVE THEM!

You idiot.

As usual, you're wrong.

The pro-choice crowd is not "demanding that the government sanction abortion" because government IS ALREADY involved.

Just shut up for a moment and THINK.

What is the LAW the rw nutters would like to be repealed?

Roe v Wade

Abortion is legal.

Its you who is the idiot because you did not know that federal money is not used for abortion and because, amazingly, you didn't know that abortion is legal.

Indeed, you don't seem to know very much at all.

That's not an answer. You will always encounter resistance by those who don't want their tax dollars paying for infanticide. I also cited from the law itself, am I wrong just because you say I am? I could care less about Roe v. Wade. How about you shut your liberal mouth and THINK for five seconds.

So if the government is already involved in abortion, why are you alleging that Republicans want to use it to interfere with their abortive rights?

You're a one trick pony, Ned.

/argument

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That has NOTHING to do with what he just said. It's the pro choice crowd demanding that the government sanction abortion in the first place! If you don't want government involved, DON'T INVOLVE THEM!

You idiot.

As usual, you're wrong.

The pro-choice crowd is not "demanding that the government sanction abortion" because government IS ALREADY involved.

Just shut up for a moment and THINK.

What is the LAW the rw nutters would like to be repealed?

Roe v Wade

Abortion is legal.

Its you who is the idiot because you did not know that federal money is not used for abortion and because, amazingly, you didn't know that abortion is legal.

Indeed, you don't seem to know very much at all.

That's not an answer. You will always encounter resistance by those who don't want their tax dollars paying for infanticide. I also cited from the law itself, am I wrong just because you say I am? I could care less about Roe v. Wade. How about you shut your liberal mouth and THINK for five seconds.

So if the government is already involved in abortion, why are you alleging that Republicans want to use it to interfere with their abortive rights?

You're a one trick pony, Ned.

/argument

1) Tax dollars do not pay for abortions
2) Roe v Wade is the law
3)Are you really saying you do not know that the R is anti-freedom and wants to outlaw abortion?

BTW, you would have no way of knowing this but Ronnie Ray-Gun signed a bill which has forced the holders of health care insurance to pay for abortions and births.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That has NOTHING to do with what he just said. It's the pro choice crowd demanding that the government sanction abortion in the first place! If you don't want government involved, DON'T INVOLVE THEM!

You idiot.

As usual, you're wrong.

The pro-choice crowd is not "demanding that the government sanction abortion" because government IS ALREADY involved.

Just shut up for a moment and THINK.

What is the LAW the rw nutters would like to be repealed?

Roe v Wade

Abortion is legal.

Its you who is the idiot because you did not know that federal money is not used for abortion and because, amazingly, you didn't know that abortion is legal.

Indeed, you don't seem to know very much at all.

That's not an answer. You will always encounter resistance by those who don't want their tax dollars paying for infanticide. I also cited from the law itself, am I wrong just because you say I am? I could care less about Roe v. Wade. How about you shut your liberal mouth and THINK for five seconds.

So if the government is already involved in abortion, why are you alleging that Republicans want to use it to interfere with their abortive rights?

You're a one trick pony, Ned.

/argument

Well, that’s very conservative of you, refusing to listen to opposing positions.

And no one cares that you don’t care about the law of the land; the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and the right to privacy is indeed part of the Constitution.

You may ignore that fact if you wish, but you’re still thankfully prohibited from attempting to codify your hate and ignorance.

Consequently, it’s ignorant idiocy to refer to abortion as ‘infanticide,’ it is not ‘murder’ if a woman has an abortion in accordance with her state’s laws. And as already correctly noted, taxpayer’s money is not allowed to pay for abortions, you might want to do some research first before exhibiting your ignorance.

Last, it’s not an ‘allegation’ that republicans seek to interfere with the right to privacy, as several republican controlled state legislatures have recently sought to enact anti-abortion measures placing an undue burden on a woman’s right to individual liberty, in direct violation of the Constitution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As usual, you're wrong.

The pro-choice crowd is not "demanding that the government sanction abortion" because government IS ALREADY involved.

Just shut up for a moment and THINK.

What is the LAW the rw nutters would like to be repealed?

Roe v Wade

Abortion is legal.

Its you who is the idiot because you did not know that federal money is not used for abortion and because, amazingly, you didn't know that abortion is legal.

Indeed, you don't seem to know very much at all.

That's not an answer. You will always encounter resistance by those who don't want their tax dollars paying for infanticide. I also cited from the law itself, am I wrong just because you say I am? I could care less about Roe v. Wade. How about you shut your liberal mouth and THINK for five seconds.

So if the government is already involved in abortion, why are you alleging that Republicans want to use it to interfere with their abortive rights?

You're a one trick pony, Ned.

/argument

Well, that’s very conservative of you, refusing to listen to opposing positions.

And no one cares that you don’t care about the law of the land; the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and the right to privacy is indeed part of the Constitution.

You may ignore that fact if you wish, but you’re still thankfully prohibited from attempting to codify your hate and ignorance.

Consequently, it’s ignorant idiocy to refer to abortion as ‘infanticide,’ it is not ‘murder’ if a woman has an abortion in accordance with her state’s laws. And as already correctly noted, taxpayer’s money is not allowed to pay for abortions, you might want to do some research first before exhibiting your ignorance.

Last, it’s not an ‘allegation’ that republicans seek to interfere with the right to privacy, as several republican controlled state legislatures have recently sought to enact anti-abortion measures placing an undue burden on a woman’s right to individual liberty, in direct violation of the Constitution.

Tl;dr. Can you do something other than call me ignorant? Or is that all the argument you have against me?

 

[gallantwarrior]

That has NOTHING to do with what he just said. It's the pro choice crowd demanding that the government sanction abortion in the first place! If you don't want government involved, DON'T INVOLVE THEM!

You idiot.

As usual, you're wrong.

The pro-choice crowd is not "demanding that the government sanction abortion" because government IS ALREADY involved.

Just shut up for a moment and THINK.

What is the LAW the rw nutters would like to be repealed?

Roe v Wade

Abortion is legal.

Its you who is the idiot because you did not know that federal money is not used for abortion and because, amazingly, you didn't know that abortion is legal.

Indeed, you don't seem to know very much at all.

That's not an answer. You will always encounter resistance by those who don't want their tax dollars paying for infanticide. I also cited from the law itself, am I wrong just because you say I am? I could care less about Roe v. Wade. How about you shut your liberal mouth and THINK for five seconds.

So if the government is already involved in abortion, why are you alleging that Republicans want to use it to interfere with their abortive rights?

You're a one trick pony, Ned.

/argument

Government became involved with abortion when codified abortion as lawful.
To clarify: I personally don't care whether a woman decides to murder her unborn child. In some respect, it is preferable to condemning said child to a life of abuse and neglect. It is preferable also on the basis that the taxpayers should not be made financially responsible for supporting children engendered primarily for the purpose of securing public assistance. My objection is this; I do not feel it is my responsibility to fund a procedure that, while legal, is morally and ethically repugnant. Additionally, if a woman requires some variety of mental health counseling or treatment based upon her earlier decision to abort her child, public funds should not be used to pay for that treatment, either. She made her decision, now let her live with it.

Now, back to the original OP: Do you think it is appropriate to sell your unwanted children if allowing the sale of such children would decrease the incidence of abortion?

 

[Unkotare]

I personally don't care whether a woman decides to murder her unborn child. In some respect, it is preferable to condemning said child to a life of abuse and neglect. It is preferable also on the basis that the taxpayers should not be made financially responsible for supporting children engendered primarily for the purpose of securing public assistance.

That is a morally reprehensible position.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I personally don't care whether a woman decides to murder her unborn child. In some respect, it is preferable to condemning said child to a life of abuse and neglect. It is preferable also on the basis that the taxpayers should not be made financially responsible for supporting children engendered primarily for the purpose of securing public assistance.

That is a morally reprehensible position.

How is it morally reprehensible?