Abortions won't be paid for with Obamacare

[Dudde]

I would be against this use of abortion just as much as I would be against killing baby girls to meet child restrictions. As I said in my opinion I view abortion to be wrong under virtually all circumstances. If there were such food shortages in a country I would hope that the adults would do the responsible thing, and take proper percations against bring a child into the world they know they cannot raise.

 

Yes, darn them all it's so easy to go to walgreens and get condoms. I would use CVS personally, but I'm not sure if they've made branches in Africa yet.

[gre]

It should be easy for people to simply use condoms. I managed to use condoms and while being sexually active I have never produced children I was not ready for thanks to them. They are easy to obtain and with a few simple guidelines to stick to completely make this problem for the most part go away.

 

Though condoms do not protect against sexually transmitted viruses.

 

Using abortion in this manner would simply be gross. Overpopulation is a real problem that needs to be addressed in a manner that does not involve abortion being a contraceptive measure on any scale, that simply makes humanity more like pond scum, no offense to pond scum.

 

 

Ok, just to make the above senario less "gross" lets say a special magic pill that makes the fetus just disappear. Btw, use of condoms wasn't a part of my hypothetical question.

[DJBruce]

Yes, darn them all it's so easy to go to walgreens and get condoms. I would use CVS personally, but I'm not sure if they've made branches in Africa yet.

 

If a country is advanced enough to offer abortions, then it can probably produce condoms just as, if not easier.

[gre]

I would be against this use of abortion just as much as I would be against killing baby girls to meet child restrictions.

 

 

Interesting.. Is this a common attitude amongst pro-life folks? It is just as bad to abort a 2 month year old fetus (to prevent over population) as it is to kill a 2 year old (to prevent overpopulation)?

 

Strange

Edited November 10, 2009 by gre

[foodchain]

Yes, darn them all it's so easy to go to walgreens and get condoms. I would use CVS personally, but I'm not sure if they've made branches in Africa yet.

 

Actually the Bush presidency I think tried to kill programs that would make condoms easy to obtain in Africa from our side of it all with aid.

 

*Sorry, that was the pope on condom use and Bush said no condom education in the U.S, only abstinence.

[doG]

Reading bascule's first link I got the impression the ban's for government funded...

 

Small nitpick. There is no "government funded" anything, it is taxpayer funded. The government has no money of it's own, only the money it takes away from the people.

[Dudde]

Actually the Bush presidency I think tried to kill programs that would make condoms easy to obtain in Africa from our side of it all with aid.

 

*Sorry, that was the pope on condom use and Bush said no condom education in the U.S, only abstinence.

 

agreed. I see a large population against sex education and contraceptives/contraceptive education being the same population that is pro-life starting with stage one. I'm not generalizing of course, but what course of option do we really want to leave people with? Abstinance is clearly not working on a huge majority, but I don't think we really push it as a society either - how can you expect your teen not to want to have sex if you let them watch all these movies that glorify the hell out of it.

[foodchain]

agreed. I see a large population against sex education and contraceptives/contraceptive education being the same population that is pro-life starting with stage one. I'm not generalizing of course, but what course of option do we really want to leave people with? Abstinance is clearly not working on a huge majority, but I don't think we really push it as a society either - how can you expect your teen not to want to have sex if you let them watch all these movies that glorify the hell out of it.

 

Its not only that but there is a lot to the issue. How do we know how culture in any various nation "over there" works when it comes to helping, off hand how many people on this debate know about Ugandan culture, I sure the hell don't.

 

Then the other thing is that people have sex, always do and always will. So why not at least educate them. We complain so much about the abortion issue, but if people just played it safe abortion should be rare really.

 

Anyone here attend a high school that was totally sex free, I didn't.

 

Then if you do make abortion illegal you have all those negative ramifications, such as back alley abortion clinics.

[Mokele]

Oh wow. EVERYTHING is an arbitrary social construct. If you want to view it all nihilistically like that, then your "inherent human rights" are just manifestations of your wants and needs on a material level.

 

Welcome to reality.

 

And many people HAVE defined what they consider a human.

 

Really? You can give me a little box that, using purely empirical measures, will light up green for "human" and red for "not human"?

 

Because otherwise all people have done is come up with personal, subjective, arbitrary definitions that have no grounding in outside reality.

 

For me, it's when the fetus (which matches human DNA to around...oh...100%), starts to develop into a recognizable human. Now, I realize that's not all science-y, but it still fits into a general area of development.

 

Since it's got human DNA and is recognizably human, you consider a fetus with anencephaly to be human? Even though it's got nothing more than a brain stem?

 

So, let's say that there was some sort of species that was just as primitive as a fetus, and they would turn into a human in nine months. If they belonged to no one, and I decided to kill them all, going by "pro choice" logic, I'm guilty of no crime whatsoever. I can do what I want so long as it harms no humans. That's my right.

 

False comparison and dishonest tactics.

 

Neglecting the mother in this is a standard trick from pro-lifers, and I will not tolerate it.

 

I'd be mostly pro-life if humans laid eggs. But we don't. The ENTIRE issue is due to the fact that the mother is involved too, yet you simply ignore the fully, undoubtedly human individual to focus on a possibly, maybe, someday human.

 

Why can't the pro and anti abortion folks just come to an agreement in-between.. How about after 2 months... no abortion. Why can't there be compromise?

 

Because there are situations in which that simply cannot work. What if you're 4 months along, and suddenly you lose your job and entire financial support network, and will be utterly incapable of raising a kid? Sucks to be you?

 

owever, as there is no consensus on the issue I do not really feel that it is right for the federal government to take sides on the issue, and so was quite happy that the Stupak Amendment was accepted.

 

That *is* taking sides. You're DENYING people the choice.

 

It should be easy for people to simply use condoms. I managed to use condoms and while being sexually active I have never produced children I was not ready for thanks to them. They are easy to obtain and with a few simple guidelines to stick to completely make this problem for the most part go away.

 

Really? Condoms prevent rape?

 

hough condoms do not protect against sexually transmitted viruses.

 

Um, yes, they do.

 

This will mean that many congressperson who is considering voting in favor of the bill will be under great pressure from their opponent as they seek to be reelected.

 

Yeah, that whole 70%+ of the public supporting this bill will really put some pressure on.

 

Oh, wait, sorry, wrong numbers - 70%+ support it *with a public option*. The numbers are even higher without.

 

If a country is advanced enough to offer abortions, then it can probably produce condoms just as, if not easier.

 

Yes, once you learn to make rubber, then rape, birth defects, medical complications, domestic abuse, and child abuse all magically vanish, just like in the US.

 

Oh, wait.....

 

Small nitpick. There is no "government funded" anything, it is taxpayer funded. The government has no money of it's own, only the money it takes away from the people.

 

If I give money to a chairity, they're robbing me?

 

You seem to mis-understand this whole "democracy" thing.

[foodchain]

Delete, to gross.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Really? Condoms prevent rape?

 

 

 

Um, yes, they do.

 

To an extent, but you cant say its totally safe, so no they don't protect against an std.

 

Plus I was not arguing that condoms make abortion illegal, moot point.

Edited November 10, 2009 by foodchain
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mokele]

To an extent, but you cant say its totally safe, so no they don't protect against an std.

 

Yes, condoms *do* prevent STDs, both viral and bacterial. They're not 100%, but nothing ever is, even vaccines and antibiotics. The only exceptions are those diseases which can *also* be spread via other means, such as oral herpes or HPV.

[A Tripolation]

What if you're 4 months along, and suddenly you lose your job and entire financial support network, and will be utterly incapable of raising a kid? Sucks to be you?

 

Wait, wait, wait...don't I pay taxes to make sure this doesn't happen?

[The Bear's Key]

I think the "life begins at conception" people and the "no abortion has any moral implications" people suffer from the same fallacy, which is assuming that their definitions of when personhood begins are not arbitrary.

Let's begin with that very good observation. No one has absolute proof, just moral stances and different ideas of who's liberty needs to be focused on.

 

For most of us it's about acknowledging the ambiguity, and letting people decide for themselves.

Another excellent point, and one which DJBruce expanded on nicely...

 

Although I a personally vehimentally against abortions. I feel that the subject comes to rest to much on a person's own subjective interpratation of when life begins. Thus, I feel that I cannot force others to not have abortions simply based on my beliefs. However, as there is no consensus on the issue I do not really feel that it is right for the federal government to take sides on the issue...

I feel almost the same exact way, at least in regards to mine ever getting aborted. There are some issues the government needs to stay (reasonably) clear from. And I can't force my beliefs to trespass into the realm of anyone else's bodies.

 

 

 

Is it really that absolutely, completely unreasonable to consider the baby as a different person because s/he has a completely differing genetic makeup than the mother? And after about 5 months of pregnancy could even survive without the mother at all (if absolutely necessary)?

 

Would you say that there is never ever a reasonable restriction on an abortion?

Of course not. Taken to extremes, if the woman decided to abort on a personal whim hours before the delivery, that'd qualify as a no-no.

 

By the way, I think your arguments were laid out in a reasonable tone, and do view your exit from the thread as a loss (for everyone). I'm more than happy to debate with you (friendly and professionally).

 

 

Would you say that parents have no say and no rights to even be notified if their minor were getting an abortion? That abortion providers need not or even shall not notify authorities of suspected child sexual abuse on the part of, say, a step father? What if it is clear that said father is basically forcing the underage girl to have the abortion against her will?

Tough call. The girl would potentially be sending her father to prison and/or tossing the family into chaos, something that might prevent her from seeking the abortion and thus getting stuck with an incest child.

 

I do believe that there are valid reasons for an abortion, but surely you will agree that there can be valid reasons to deny or restrict this medical procedure as well.

Agreed, but from a medical opinion/standpoint and never from a political one.

 

You get the cases in the UK where girls get themselves up the duff just so they can get moved up the housing lists and get more benifits and a free flat. They see it as an advantage to have a child because their benefits increase. Not all of them, but alot of the really moronic ones do.

I've heard the same. But did you ever verify that with the girls, or just automatically believed the random people who said that's the case? i.e. where's the evidence?

 

 

The only "reasons" for restricting it all trace back to simple misogyny.

Not really, many people are concerned over a future life being ended.

 

 

 

And do you really feel that the father ought not and have ANY say over whether or not his contribution will get the chance to become a human?

Less than the mother's. Call it a price for not being informed enough about the woman he gets pregnant.

 

The man's possibly going to agonize the decision, be terribly hurt knowing the woman doesn't share his feelings about it. But unless with medical technology it becomes possible for him to develop the sperm/egg combo within his own body, there isn't much of an option for him.

 

That's just plain misandry right there.

Not really, many people are concerned over liberties trespassed into the mother's bodily processes.

 

 

All I'm saying is that if I got a girl pregnant, and she wanted an abortion, I would fight against it with every fiber of my being. Why shouldn't I be allowed to?

As would I, trust me. But I wouldn't resort to legal means, as that's forcing the law into her body's natural processes.

 

 

So you never step on bugs?

 

"Life" is not a metric of personhood. Cells in a culture dish have "life".

A Tripolation said with the qualifier it'd become a human being. Yet I'd add one more: with the qualifier that historically the insect or petri dish cells go on to become a normal, living human within about 9 months.

 

Because the moment you allow someone who is physically unaffacted to make decisions for someone else's body, you have effectively deprived them of personhood and reduced them to a walking incubator.

You make a great analogy with the incubator. That's really the crux of the whole issue. But let's not forget though in many cases the woman doesn't entirely lack a choice -- it's not as if the government placed the baby within her to incubate.

 

Although we need to compromise to ever hope lowering the divisiveness of the issue, the truth seems we've already compromised a lot, and keep doing so, while the other side's politicians keep hammering away for yet newer compromises that extend further in until nothing's left in our territory.

 

By compromise I don't mean simply having lost to the other side by default. I mean purposely resigning oneself to accept less than what's really desired, in order for both sides to gain.

 

agreed. I see a large population against sex education and contraceptives/contraceptive education being the same population that is pro-life...

They must do a compromise as well. To make a choice between which they desire more: to fight sex education, or to protect the unborn. Those goals work against each other too much.

 

 

I'd be mostly pro-life if humans laid eggs. But we don't. The ENTIRE issue is due to the fact that the mother is involved too...

Nail on the head.

 

If women laid eggs outside their body, I seriously doubt there's be much resistance against it being illegal to halt an egg's development. (or boil it for lunch)

 

Because there are situations in which that simply cannot work. What if you're 4 months along, and suddenly you lose your job and entire financial support network, and will be utterly incapable of raising a kid? Sucks to be you?

Not to mention sucks to be that baby, who sometimes ends up in a garbage dump, but often enough just suffers malnutrition which can negatively affect their mental development and future long-term health.

Edited November 10, 2009 by The Bear's Key

[gre]

Welcome to reality.

 

Because there are situations in which that simply cannot work. What if you're 4 months along, and suddenly you lose your job and entire financial support network, and will be utterly incapable of raising a kid? Sucks to be you?

 

 

Simply cannot work? Why? If you don't catch the pregnancy until after 60 days, or lose your income, or whatever might change someone's mind about raising a child, they could use adoption.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here are some more hypothetical questions for the anti-abortion folks...

 

 

What is worse having 10+ children or one abortion? Would you sacrifice a fetus for the quality of life of others (avoid future widespread disease and famine)?

Edited November 10, 2009 by gre
Consecutive posts merged.

[SH3RL0CK]

By the way, I think your arguments were laid out in a reasonable tone, and do view your exit from the thread as a loss (for everyone). I'm more than happy to debate with you (friendly and professionally).

thank you for your kind words. I am also happy to debate, as long as it is friendly and professional. However, this is all too often not the case with regards to this issue. What usually happens is the thread degenerates.

 

Myself, I've decided to only participate when I think it can be constructive. That would be when either I can learn something, or when it appears the other poster seriously wants to hear my point of view. At this point I see very few constructive posts in this thread...which is why I stepped out.

 

I find that when I listen to the views of people I disagree with, sometimes I end up changing my mind and agreeing with them.

 

In the abortion debates, however, I have heard and considered many viewpoints many times so it should not be surprising to anyone that I believe I am unlikely to have a major change of heart in this matter. Likewise, I recognize that Mokele, for example, is unlikely to become prolife on the basis of anything I might say. And it should be ok to disagree as long as we all respect each other.

[bascule]

How about a potential case Obamacare might cover?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy

 

In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized ovum implants itself in the fallopian tube, rather than the uterus.

 

In such a case, the pregnancy can be aborted by the mother ingesting methotrexate.

 

We're talking about a situation where it is almost impossible for the ovum to develop into a state where it could survive without the mother, and unless something is done, the mother will suffer severe trauma and likely die.

[SH3RL0CK]

How about a potential case Obamacare might cover?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy

 

In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized ovum implants itself in the fallopian tube, rather than the uterus.

 

In such a case, the pregnancy can be aborted by the mother ingesting methotrexate.

 

We're talking about a situation where it is almost impossible for the ovum to develop into a state where it could survive without the mother, and unless something is done, the mother will suffer severe trauma and likely die.

 

As a pro-life individual, I have absolutely no problem with the coverage of this type of procedure. In fact, I will be upset if it isn't included.

 

This is a clear illustration of the complexities of abortion politics. Very few people are 100% pro-choice or 100% pro life. There are lots of "hard cases" where a good answer does not exist and there are a lot of grey areas where a hard and fast line cannot be drawn.

[The Bear's Key]

Simply cannot work? Why? If you don't catch the pregnancy until after 60 days, or lose your income, or whatever might change someone's mind about raising a child, they could use adoption.

With our level of technology in communications and networking, we should be able to have a system that instantly connects a pregnant woman to an infertile couple looking to adopt. It's supposedly difficult finding children to adopt, so if true, wouldn't it solve both problems at once?

 

 

Here are some more hypothetical questions for the anti-abortion folks...

 

 

What is worse having 10+ children or one abortion? Would you sacrifice a fetus for the quality of life of others (avoid future widespread disease and famine)?

That's a wrong approach. You don't really want government to start making decisions of forcing population limits by any means while justifiying controversial ones with improved quality of life, now do you?

[SH3RL0CK]

With our level of technology in communications and networking, we should be able to have a system that instantly connects a pregnant woman to an infertile couple looking to adopt. It's supposedly difficult finding children to adopt, so if true, wouldn't it solve both problems at once?

 

There isn't a lack of children needing to be adopted and there isn't a lack of people willing to adopt. The problem is our adoption system is broken which causes incredible pain (by the lengthy legal process) for all parties. Adoption is a very difficult thing, at least for the couple who wants to do so, I know by experience. We have adopted two children and while we would like more children, we aren't sure we are up for the pain to do it again. Technology won't fix anything as the problems are not due to insufficient technology.

[The Bear's Key]

In the abortion debates, however, I have heard and considered many viewpoints many times so it should not be surprising to anyone that I believe I am unlikely to have a major change of heart in this matter.

Which is the right thing to do when you feel strongly about it. Changing your mind's one thing -- and which I don't seek. Changing your approach though is a different matter.

 

You can pick something you detest that many other people really haven't tried to forbid, and mandate government to pass laws forbidding it which just causes no end of problems. Or you can seek out the problem's roots and help facilitate ways to drastically reduce its occurence more naturally -- like examining what's broken in the adoption system.

 

I'm curious to know why it's so broken though. Really a shame.

[padren]

Just on the topic of the ObamaCare abortions issue:

 

Personally, I think it would be fair to require private health insurance providers to disclose if they offer plans within the pool that fund abortions. If they offered packages in conservative areas that loudly proclaimed to not cover abortions, yet had other packages in the same insurance pool that did cover abortions it would be fair to require that information be disclosed.

 

Secondly, as far as a public option, while I would hate to see the extra headache but I could concede that two public option pools be made available, with an "abortion firewall" between them. The public option is supposed to be a safety net and if we are taking about providing guaranteed access to medical coverage than you can't make a woman's access to abortion magically go away because some people don't like the idea of paying for it.

Likewise, people who don't want to pay for abortion will never be happy doing so, so why not create two separate pools? It's not like taxes pay for any of it - the pools are supported by those enrolled. Some enrolled people may have their plans paid for through social assistance programs, and those taxes going in would pay for abortions if the individual opted for that public option - that couldn't be helped - but if they are using the public option they could at least opt their money (whether their own or through social assistance) goes into the non-abortion pool.

 

 

 

Honestly my first thought is considering I have to pay for wars that I may very well consider murder and interrogations I consider torture, that Pro-Lifers should realize sometimes they don't always get to only pay for things they like and deal with it like the rest of us. Their plight is not unique.

 

At the same time, I have to acknowledge that anyone upset with their taxes being spent on war and torture should raise bloody hell about it, so I can't tell them to just suck it up without being disingenuous. (Maybe I'm bitter because they act like they are the only ones who are being asked to fund murders they don't want to be tied to)

Since as a nation we do make decisions to fully go to war or not, instead of "half go to war" we do have to accept some wars we may end up in we may not personally like and yet have to support financially. Considering all of this, I do think while a "two pool" system would be more convoluted, it could be the best compromise so everyone has access and "clean hands" in as of much as they can.

 

 

At least until the Jehovah Witnesses start decrying that they will not pay taxes if a single dime goes to blood transfusions.

[doG]

If I give money to a chairity, they're robbing me?

 

You seem to mis-understand this whole "democracy" thing.

 

Paying taxes is NOT giving money to charity. You are the one that seems to misunderstand the whole democracy thing which is technically "mob rule". BTW, the U.S. is NOT a democracy, it is a Constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition. It is NOT a majority rules system. It is a system designed to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. To protect individual rights from being trampled by the mob.

 

Would it be OK with you, for instance, if a majority suddenly decided we are going to harvest organs from prisoners and we're going to take money away from the people to pay for it? Just because a majority is in favor of something does not make it morally right and does not mean the minority should just chip in and keep their mouth shut.

[Mokele]

Just a quick hit-and-run to make sure everyone knows what this ammendment will NOT cover:

 

NOT covered:

 

- Abortions for the mother's health (as opposed to life)

 

- Severe fetal abnormalities, including those invariably lethal shortly after birth

 

- The mother's mental health, including in cases where the continuation of the pregnancy could lead to self-harm or suicide.

 

 

Yeah, real compassionate.

[bascule]

NOT covered:

 

- Abortions for the mother's health (as opposed to life)

 

- Severe fetal abnormalities, including those invariably lethal shortly after birth

 

- The mother's mental health, including in cases where the continuation of the pregnancy could lead to self-harm or suicide.

 

 

Yeah, real compassionate.

 

Oh jeezus.

 

So if your child has anencephaly (warning: graphic) which essentially means their brain is absent along with the top of their skull, Obamacare won't pay to have it aborted.

[iNow]

I'm not sure how helpful this may or may not be, but experience tells us that politicians tend to act based on how they perceive public perception on issues.

 

Add your name to the petition and maybe we influence the outcome a bit.

 

 

http://www.change.org/actions/view/tell_senate_leader_reid_stop_the_abortion_coverage_ban?alert_id=nSuRfNlqdh

 

The House of Representatives passed health-reform legislation that included an anti-choice amendment that will seriously jeopardize women’s access to abortion – making it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new health system to offer abortion coverage to women.

 

This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal, private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system.

 

We must stop health-care reform from being enacted with this ban!

 

Sign our petition calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to stand firm against a ban on abortion coverage for women in the new health system.

 

 

The letter:

 

Dear Senator Reid,

 

We, the undersigned, ask you to stand firm against attempts to attack women's reproductive-health care, including women's access to insurance coverage for abortion, when the Senate takes up the health-reform bill.

 

The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal, private funds to purchase an insurance plan that includes abortion coverage in the new health system -- a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private insurance plans cover abortion services.

 

Do not further entangle health-care reform in anti-abortion politics; please reject calls to insert the Stupak-Pitts language in the Senate's health-care bill.

 

[Your name here]