Abortion should be covered by healthcare, as childbirth is a matter of health for both the mother and the potential child. A mother that cannot afford private healthcare obviously can't afford a crying, shitting, food disposal. The only person abortion hurts is some fat mouth-breathing homeschooler's imaginary friend.
Fuck your god and fuck your bullshit belief that you have the right to tell someone else how to live.
I would rather pay for public abortion than for all the polygamist Mormons and fundamentalist Christians who bear litters of children like dogs and go on welfare (and they're all white, by the way)- why don't I see you assholes bitching about that?
Zoe Lofgren at least acknowledged that she wanted to force taxpayer funding of abortion. Obama did not even do that when he looked at the American public and lied "No federal dollars (in his health care proposal) will be used to fund abortions." I don't want to hear any "prochoice" group say "Don't impose your morality" when the same people turn around and say the rest of us have "no choice" but to fund other people's abortions with our tax dollars.
Having a baby is purely elective, too, so if abortion should not be covered under the health plan, per that silly argument of the Live Action religious freaks, then neither should pre-natal and OB care!! Let me see a response to that one! Nobody forces a woman to have a child, so it's "elective" just as abortion sometimes is!
Pre-natal and OB care are done to ensure the health of the mother. The majority of abortions, however, are not performed to protect the health of the mother.
...And, before you say it, abortion is already covered under Medicaid (Or is it Medicare? I can never remember which) if it's being performed for health reasons or because the woman was raped.
Jalex: The majority of abortion if not performed would have had no impact on the woman. Abortion nfor all intents and purposes is in the same realm as plastic surgery.
Where as Pre-natal and OB care are there to promote survival of the preborn baby.
And FYI. I was pro-life long before I was religious.
And tacking the term "freak" to it is an opinion only and thus not worth me attacking.
Wormer, you are stating that if a woman doesn't have an abortion in the case of unwanted pregnancy, it has "no impact?"Motherhood, especially if one is unfit or unprepared, has "no impact?" Wow, ignorant AND myopic - it's a FACT that unwanted pregnancies have a HUGE IMPACT, not only on the mother, but on society, the environment, the economy, the world. Why do the earth's poorest populations remain that way? Too many people, too few resources- no family planning and no abortion. Read the stats!
Just because the system is inherently flawed is no reason to do nothing. That makes little sense. Should we not punish thieves or murders because some thieves or muderers beat the system? Hell no, we shouldn't. Same thing here.
You've missed the point. Abortion isn't about punishing people. It's about helping people.
You can't apply that logic here. You're saying "we should restrict the rights of everyone to stop a few people abusing their rights", and comparing it to "we should stop punishing murderers because a few murderers get away with it".
1.) Please, stop presumptuously labeling abortion as a "right", as it cannot be a "right" if it infringes upon the life of well-being of another.
2.) Way to misrepresent my argument :'( I've said, numerous times, that abortion shouldn't be allowed specifically because it infringes upon the life and well-being of another without due cause. It's not this hard to understand. Someone else even said something to this effect to you.
You cannot have a "right" to an action which brings harm to another without due cause. That's the point. And just because you want to is most certainly not due cause.
Furthermore, I didn't ignore your argument. Outside of abortion, nowhere else does the law allow people to decide whether or not it's right or wrong to harm others. So why should abortion be given its own set of special rules which run contrary to the law in every other circumstance?
Did you ignore the whole thing about not being able to bring harm to another without "due cause"? If someone is threatening your life or well-being, that constitutes "due cause".
Yup. The zygote, which is a single cell for about 22 hours, is the-- For lack of a better word-- "Simplest" form of the human.
And did you ignore the whole thing about "you don't get to decide what due cause is"? Why do you get to make the distinction between what's causing harm and what isn't?
A zygote has absolutely none of the characteristics that would define something as human, short of genetic code. What gives it rights? There are dogs out there that can show more signs of humanity than a zygote, yet have less rights than it.
The law always finds "due cause" when someone is directly threatening your life or well-being. Outside of abortion, nowhere does the law find "due cause" to be "at the whim of another". Nowhere. I've asked you to show me evidence to the contrary, yet you adamantly refuse.
Furthermore, to be a human, you only need to belong to the genus homo and the species sapien. There is no special meaning to or defining characteristics of being human.
If you're going to die, your health is going to be negatively impacted (Mental or physical), or you had your rights violated, that necessitates a need. Simply because it would be easier for you to obtain an abortion (i.e., "Having a baby would negatively impact the woman's life") would be a want.
And once again ... who gets to decide where the line is? You say incest is having your rights violated? What if it were consentual? Let's say a woman gets pregnant, and early on in the pregnancy her husband is found to be a serial killing paedophile. Giving birth would cause immense psycholgical harm. Is that a "want" or a "need"?
For somebody so uptight about reading comprehension, I'm having a lot of trouble getting you to comprehend a simple question. Who decides?
1.) Rape and incest are linked together because it's assumed that neither act is consensual. If the act is consensual, then the woman wouldn't be allowed an abortion just because she wants it.
2.) This is why we have doctors and the like who perform medical evaluations. Shocking, I know. And needs protect one's life or well-being. I said this before.
Now, would you care to answer my questions you've thusly ignored?
So a doctor has the right to determine if a person has the right? Why's that? Because they're always right, and they'll never show any bias based on personal/religious beliefs?
Seriously, what you've just shown me is a blatant lack of knowledge about how abortions screened by medical professionals function in practice. The system is inherantly flawed.
You're stumbling about here a bit. There's no way of doing what you want without placing someone's rights in the hands of another person.
You do realize that's the system I'm advocating is the system we have in place for women seeking late term abortions, correct? As it currently stands, any woman who wants a late-term abortion must get the recommendation of two or more medical professionals, and those recommendations are open to outside review. Few doctors will risk their career making a false recommendation and opening themselves up to lawsuit :)
Given the assumption that Democrats give rise to more Democrats, along with the fact that most abortions are performed on Democrats, is it really wise for Republicans to oppose the Democrat's "right" to murder their children?
Think about it - eventually, the number of Democrats would be lower than G.W.Bush's I.Q; abortion would then become a non-issue. Let them abort all they want - just not at anyone else's financial peril.
sad to say this is my rep in san jose. as a statist, her attitude is entirely predictable. witness the work of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (an Obama advisor) who defines a hump shaped curve representing an individual's value to society vs their age. the value of newborn is ZERO and the value of the elderly decreases to ZERO. by extrapolation the curve will have a NEGATIVE value for a preborn. so sterile, so efficient.
Thank You, hydin 1! Call it for what it is!Margaret Sanger, founder of abortion, called fo a radical eugenics approach!! Research eugenics and Margaret Sanger...get the truth people! You can murder a baby in the womb, even into the 3rd trimester(partial-birth aborton) but let someone murder a mother and the baby in her womb and that's double homicide!! It's a horrific act...with long-lasting detremental consquences....IT"S ALL A LIE!!
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget to Obama (Deadly Doctors, NYP)
please read The Hyde Amendment this amendment can not just go away it would need to be voted on separate and go through courts please please people get facts straight abortion can not be funded so just grow up and learn to read and understand laws
the hyde amendment is only for medicaid funds. This would not be for medicaid, this would be a completely new system which the government can mandate abortion coverage in as minimum benefits.
Whether or not you support abortion.....the public should not pay for others who get this procedure unless it is medically necessary for the safety of the woman. If you run around screaming "my body my choice" then pay for it yourself.
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget to Obama (Deadly Doctors, NYP)
In this video clip Representative Lofgren does not say that abortion will be funded by taxpayers under HR3200. Actually abortion cannot be funded by federal funds because of the Hyde amendment, which is still in effect.
The Capp amendment to HR3200 allows providers to cover abortions. The cost of abortions will be paid by insurance premiums of people in those plans and would not be taxpayer funded.
Wrong. The Hyde Amendment would not apply, because as it stands, that only regulates Medicaid funds. This plan would abolish Medicaid and make the Hyde Amendment moot.
Also, with the committee amendments currently being added, the private insurance plans would become part of an exchange with mandates to cover all of the same services that the government plans cover (including abortion)
If you don't want to get pregnant, then don't do the act that results in pregnancy. It's that simple.
That would be like someone banging their head against a wall and then getting mad that, after they get a headache, the government doesn't want to give you free aspirin.
Just don't take off your pants and you won't have the problem. If you do, then accept the consequences and responsibilty of what may come with it
Yeah, the SCOTUS decision actually didn't consider the personhood of the pre-born, because at that time they stated that medical technology wasn't advanced enough. But now we have things like ultrasound, and DNA testing, and other common practices. This is a human being, not just a woman's pregnancy or "choice".
I'm a female conservative, and I've had a crisis pregnancy before. I'm still pro-life. Just because I became pregnant and wasn't planning for it didn't give me the right to kill my daughter, and it shouldn't give anyone else the right to kill theirs, either.
Well, like I said, I had a crisis pregnancy and was able to keep from killing my daughter. It's not as hard to not kill someone as you seem to think it is.
You're a man? So you'll never know what it's like to have another human life depend on your every breath. You can't even imagine what that is like. And that's just all the more reason I assure you your assumption would be wrong.
STFU dumbass. Too bad more women don't know what's actually going on. Dipshits like you use them, then get them to have abortions and call it "women's rights". Fuck you.
LLORT3 you are sooo right. Miss hypocrite xalisae, w/ her junk science & fake stats is in such denial,i.e. if men got pregnant, all the male right-wingers would still be anti-choice.Hilarious! We all know what HUGE hypocrites conservatives are-- they get busted for gay & extramarital affairs, drug addiction, tax evasion /book-cooking, drunk driving, abortion & a host of other "sins" they preach against-- if someone else is doing it, it's a sin, but OK for them, as long as they don't get caught
No, that's not what RvW said. Maybe you should read it. RvW said that the issue of "when life begins" could not be resolved by the courts, therefore meaning that states couldn't 100% restrict abortion as they had been doing while simultaneously stating that the issue of personhood be left up to the woman to decide for herself.
But, anyway, what's the difference between a "human being" and a "legal human being"? Aside from the word "legal", nothing. A human being is a human being.
Was this the congresswomans complete response or are you hiding the full context of this statement? It seems clear that she was saying more when you stopped the vid.
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the AMA, 6/ 18/ 2008).
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget to Obama (Deadly Doctors, NYP)
卍 卍 卍 Uncanny similarities between OBAMA and 卍HITLER 卍. It will scare the Hell out of You! Check out the video's on My channel to see why We must all join together, and protect the Constitution of these, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!
And their is the final nail in the coffin. I have been explaing this to people but no one would believe me. When the law doesn't mention something being illegal, then it isn't illegal.
Nowhere in the bill is abortion addressed, therefore it is concidered a medical procedure.
Another fun fact is that there is absolutely no benifit guidelines in the bill. They want to pass the bill and then decide what your worth to them.
If you have a job in the US then you should have good Heath Care if you don't have a job you should still be able to have Heath Care. No more sick care for profit in the US. The US is driving up our own debt with our Health Care system not to mention the debt of other countries with universal heath care.
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget to Obama (Deadly Doctors, NYP)
Why do people complain that health care reform is being "rammed down our throats"? Obama was campaigning for almost two years, and his platform included health care reform the whole two years. If you haven't understood the basic changes that are going to be in the bill by now, then you never will.
The problem is with the blatant dishonesty of calling it healthcare reform when it is a takeover of the healthcare industry. It is not health insurance or healthcare reform. There is nothing in the bill to reduce the actual costs involved.
The Republicans in Congress are finally waking up the the fact the the Dems are abusing the "reform" label to push the healthcare takeover. Great! We need to scream as loud as possible that we want "reform" and not "transform" healthcare. Lets keep up the good fight! Have a good one.
We really don't care what you think. The only thing you are supposed to do is represent the people that put you in office. That's what your job is; to represent us!
how long will it take for this comment to be removed??? i was just wondering, seeing that you won't even listen to people with opposing arguments. such is the republican party.
can you provide the commentors with facts and or instances of the republican parties ignorance? mind you your democratic as well as republican congressman are not much better considering there about to ram a most unwanted bill down our throats, never the less...
whats with the sexual subtext everytime conservatives complain of something they dont like, they always refer to as a subtle form of a guilty pleasure from forced sodomy?
I'm sorry what? I'm afraid i don't understand what your saying. I'm going to assume that you don't have an answer though hmm? very nice in defending you point and ty for being one of the many brainwashed Americans that will eventually destroy our great nation, needless to say i'd like to point out to the people reading these comments that the user
Username2322 is one of the many people in this country that is in fact an "obama worshiper" due to lack of intelligence
The imaginary government bureaucrats who will control the weather aren't MY friend, Atheist.
Why don't you proselytize your murderous mysticism to your fellow bottom-feeders who all recite the same mindless derision toward all those whose minds are not so dull.
In their short debut, Atheist governments have slaughtered about 160,000,000 of their own innocent civilians. That's more than all of everything Atheist can pin on others in all of recorded history.
Relative to Atheist bloodlust, even Muslims look civilized.
Seriously, try proselytizing less transparent, less stale Atheist dogma.
Your post is a wad of baseless decrees peppered with irrelevancies, and typifies that which Atheists mindlessly recite whenever the topic is raised. In other words, its yet more Atheist dogma.
The historical record of Atheist rule contradicts such dogma. Of course Atheists' notions affect their morals which affects their governance.
Atheists simply hide their notions under their closed loop contrivance of having none.
You regress to reciting your Atheist dogma. It's no less imbecilic the second time around.
I'm not suggesting Atheists are innately imbecilic, but rather their toxic notions require them to bitterly cling to a full wad of nonsensical and toxic notions, while hiding them from inspection by claiming they have none;, as I discussed above.
once again ty for proving my point which is that your an ignorant, mindless obama worshiper, i sincerely ty for this because it really shows people who there dealing with ty again and have a good week :D
The argument that if men could get pregnant they would be pro choice does not hold any weight, there are a lot of "women" who don't like abortion either. It is odd to me that we call our selves a civilized society, I guess we are a civilized society that does not care about those who cannot defend themselves. I suppose the "left" thinks its ok to protect an endangered fish or insect, but babies are disposable. Sounds like a phsycological issue to me.
A"civilized" society that cares far more for the zygote-non-human than the CHILDREN ALREADY BORN. Anti-Choice zealots spend all their time "protecting" the so-called "unborn" instead of working toward reducing poverty, starvation, child abuse, cuts to education and child healthcare programs,etc. All the $ & time wasted on this stupid issue could be put towards helping the BORN.This is more about telling people what to do than "protecting" anybody...
@LLORT3 Being sexually promiscuous and not planning appropriately is also a womens' health choice. I do not like abortion, but I am pro-choice because people need a way to safely do it. I would hate to hear stories of women and coat hangers. Most of what is preventable about abortion happens before the woman is even pregnant.
what ARE you talking about? simiansami (monkey-brain?) should read up on the topic before commenting...there are many states that have outlawed abortion via TRAP laws and other devices that render Roe v Wade useless- did you know that 80+% OF COUNTIES in the U.S. LACK ABORTION PROVIDES?The ignorance on this topic is astounding!
Women need more freedom than this. What about childen up to 18 years old that are a pain? Obamacare should pay to have them disposed of. And let's get rid of granny and the old man wasting oxygen. But better still, let's get rid of the women that spread their legs and create these problems of unwanted, worthless humans. Go for it, BO.
and what about all the slut-pig men out there who should be castrated for getting women pregnant and abandoning their kids? I guess they have no accountability, huh? It's quite obvious you are yet another ignorant American who has NO IDEA what they're talking about on this topic...
@jbeezy81275 This is real nice to tell you, and that is since you are just fine with taxpayer funded abortion being covered by healthcare, then you are just fine with people who are so against taxpayer funded abortion that they will enbezzle the percentage of their taxes that pay for abortion! Now if you do not like this, then you use private funds to support abortion, and not taxpayer funds to do so!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
in your opinion, it kills people.
In reality, it terminates a fetus prior to its full development, usually while it's still multipotent. Medically it's more ambiguous on whether it is classified as a human being. It isn't sentient, at the least, no more than your appendix.
On the other hand, this issue has been debated for nearly 40 years now. It's over. Let it go. The supreme court already looked into this several times. Abortion is legal, and a medical right in this country.
How would you even know? The cdc classifies many abortion-related deaths as caused by childbirth or pregnancy, because a woman injured in an abortion procedure is-get this-PREGNANT/BIRTHING at the time!
How would I know? I am a researcher & analyze the stats.The cdc is not the only org who tracks this. The anti-choice states make sure that if a woman dies of an abortion, it is documented/ reported as such, even if its not directly related to the procedure. E.g., if a woman ignores post-op care instructions, the procedure is blamed vs. her negligent behavior. Or if one dies from an illegal, back-alley abortion, its reported the same as if she got it at Planned Parenthood. WRONG AGAIN!
you're a researcher...you analyze stats...and you refer to those who oppose legalized abortion as "anti-choice". Soooooo...you make up your own stats for a living...I see why we're having problems with you.
True, but it's not men getting abortions. You understand that men can be forced to pay child support, right? Even if they wouldn't have chosen to have a baby?
I agree. Taking away the right to live of thousands of women every day through abortion will never improve the quality of life for their mothers or sisters. Abortion must stop before all lives can be recognized as worthy of protection.
Hahahaha. What masterful debating technique. "I say this. Do not question me."
Are you telling me that they cannot test the DNA of even the youngest fetal human and find that individual's gender? Are you honestly telling me that the doctor was lying when I went in for my ultrasound at 6 months pregnant with my daughter and told me my child was female? Give me a break.
But what the original poster was getting at is the American people, who are now more pro-life than pro-choice, according to the latest poll, should have the right not to pay for abortions through their tax money.
The majority of Americans are against the Iraq war as well. Do they have the right to cut all funding to America's troops?
If you give each individual person the right to determine what their tax money goes towards and what it doesn't, you have a world where people are controlled by the mob. Which is controlled by the media. Which is unacceptable to any decent person.
Most people of a libertarian slant would not only take issue with taxation for the purpose of abortion, but taxation for the purpose of providing ANY unnecessary government action-like providing healthcare. Many of the things the government currently does would be done better if taken over by private industry. "...controlled by the mob..." It's precisely that elitist "us Liberals know better than you stupid rubes" attitude that the American people are sick of.
How is it unnecessary? An abortion costs the taxpayer around $200. Do you realise how much more money the taxpayer would have to pay to support all the unwanted children that would result from limiting access to abortions?
Also, the mob can be liberal or conservative. It matters not. What matters is that the mob is controlled by media magnates. I refuse to lie back and allow our society's moral and political policy to be dictated by such people. The majority is not always right. Learn that.
Ummm...next to nothing, if the adoption/foster care system were reformed, and if people found abortion to be eliminated as a cheap and easy option. Not to mention what would be saved by replacing welfare systems with non-profit charities.
Hahaha. An advocate of the legalized shredding and incineration of thousands of the weakest and most vulnerable humans on a daily basis....and you want to lecture me about "moral". You're a joke.
You want to replace child welfare systems with charities? What? You want me to give the government my tax money, and in return have them entrust my welfare to a charity? What the hell do I bother paying taxes for then? Are you mad?
And yes, I'm lecturing you about your right to dictate to me what is and what is not moral. Homosexuality is immoral to some people; that doesn't mean that it should be illegal if you and the majority thought it was. Welcome to the land of freedom; get over it.
OK...first of all, if all of this was done by charities, the government wouldn't NEED tax money, so I'm not advocating that they GET it. You misunderstood.
Homosexuality isn't ending another human life or infringing on anyone else's rights. Freedom is great-when YOUR freedoms do not inhibit another human's freedoms. In this case, a woman's right to not be pregnant interferes with the life of the human (her offspring) within her.
I didn't misunderstand, because I gave you the respect of not actually being stupid enough to suggest what you suggested. Scrap taxes in favour of charities providing all services? Nobody's that retarded, surely?
We come back to the "rights" of a foetus. Frankly, it's ridiculous. Do you condemn condoms as violating the rights of a foetus to be conceived? A foetus is not a human being; it is a potential human being. And you're not going to convince anyone to give up human rights for a potential.
When one has life experience, they learn simple concepts like, "Private non-profits do a better job than the government." I worked for a non-profit, and my husband with the DoD. The level of incompetence and waste in the government is absurd. They're just about as stupid as you are. I can see why they are appealing to you.
I support contraceptives-oral hormonal pills, condoms, etc. Non-existent humans don't have a right to be created. Ones that are have a right to be allowed to live.
I'll say this slowly: charity is not financial security. How do you ensure a charity gets enough money to help everyone? Honestly, you are completely retarded for even suggesting it, and I really do not take those words lightly.
And you just contradicted yourself. A group of non-sentient cells is not an existing human.
The government isn't financial security either. Look at California having to print I.O.U.s for lack of funds! In your mind, is the government some sort of omnipotent being full of waiting teats with never-ending resources for everyone under the sun? THAT is pure ignorance.
What do you mean I contradicted myself? If you think that there is not an embryonic/fetal/neonatal/etc. progression of life in the life cycle of any and every human ever to live, you are a drooling moron.
Sorry, but you just lost all rights to talk about any of the financial aspects of this if you're going to suggest that charities would be better suited to taking care of people's welfare needs. You're suggesting that we turn over the fate of people's lives to altruism.
We have a government so that we can provide for the people; perfect it is not, but suggesting that charity would serve us better shows you have no understanding of economics.
Sorry...I lean conservative, and it's common knowledge that conservatives naturally just tend to donate more to charities to help the poor directly than those who lean liberal, even when they make less money. Funny how that works...if people don't take for granted that the government will provide...other people start providing, and some start doing for themselves! Welfare was supposed to be temporary due to The Great Depression, fyi. Not only do you not know biology, it's history too.
The fact that you advocate a return to the days where if someone needed financial aid they had to "do it for themselves" or rely on the whim of others shows a certain backwards thinking.
Charity would never come close to raising the amount of money annually that people in this country require in aid. That you can't see that makes me question your education.
Communities and charities used to do much more than they do now! Acting as though the government is a flawless provider which cannot be equaled is naive, and projecting a sort of mother-figure upon the government it was never intended to even resemble. The Constitution is rather old, too, should we throw that out as being "backwards thinking"?
Charity run as business is more efficient than you seem to think. As I've said before, I've experienced gov't and non-profits. The latter won, imo.
Flawless provider? No. Guaranteed by law provider? Yes.
If people simply aren't giving enough to the charities ... how do you propose the aid is given to the people who need it? My girlfriend, who is disabled and relies partially on disabled allowances .. if the charities simply ran out of money because not enough was being donated, or the people had deemed another cause as being more worthy; how would she get the aid under your system?
The government's not perfect, but we control it more.
I wouldn't oppose the government stepping in in times like you mention there as a safety net, but I think that everything else should be tried FIRST, not defaulting to the government to provide everything naturally. The most rudimentary safety net would be ideal. In the meantime, incentivise donations when needed. Find ways within the government to make donating more palatable if it is needed, but don't have the government assume a role it shouldn't have without trying everything else first.
So now you need the government as a safety net. If people know the government is going to give if they don't, then why is anyone going to donate? And if you've abolished taxes for it anyway, where's the "safety net" money going to come from?
You haven't thought it through in any way, shape or practical form. Charity is not a primary form of welfare for a developed nation's populus. It cannot do what the government does; provide stable financial aid to those who need it. And that's that.
your ignorance astounds me-- welfare IS temporary now, since Bill Clinton was president. Remember, WELFARE REFORM? Welfare-to-work programs? PRWORA - signed into law in 1997! Where did you go to school? Wal-Mart?
Direct cash assistance-type welfare IS limited to 5 years, but there are more forms of government assistance than just cash! Food stamps/WIC/etc. are provided for as long as there are minor children being raised in a household.
Selective reality...interesting concept you have there.
Sorry, dumbass...cash is limited to 2 years, not 5. I know all about WIC, Foodstamps, etc-- I have helped many mothers who were left by the loser father's of their children get TEMPORARY assistance. Except for the disabled, elderly, etc, many types of gov't assistance are temporary by choice- people strive to get off assistance. More junk stats to go w/ the junk science you live on, xalisae.
You contradicted yourself because you just said you support the use of oral contraceptives, which cause abortion of pre-embryonic foetuses. That contradicts everything you've said up to this point.
First of all, your ignorance of human development is astounding. There is no such thing as a "pre-embryonic foetus". I can only assume you're talking about a blastocyst or embryo. Also, MOST of the time, a blastocyst will implant and gestate successfully whether or not oral contraceptives are used. That's how women get pregnant even on birth control! If I opposed contraceptives, I'd have to also oppose sexually active women exercising, or drinking caffeine. YOUR ignorance is not my fault.
Pre-embryonic is the medical term for a fertilised ovum which has not yet been implanted into the uterine wall. It was incorrect to use the term "foetus", maybe. "Ovum" is more correct.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but oral contraceptives prevent implanatation of a pre-embryonic ovum, which is defined medically as an abortion. And that's the pro-life argument talking here. You support those contraceptives, you support abortion.
I get my information from many places. Some pro-abortion, some "anti-choice". I'm a moderate. I'm also an atheist, so you'll find I'm not exactly in the loving embrace of pro-lifers everywhere, but I'd rather try and find a solution everyone can live with than what the extremes have in mind.
Why does "Plan B" have a 59%+ failure rate? If that is indeed a purpose of oral contraceptives, they really suck at it.
Abortion should be covered by healthcare, as childbirth is a matter of health for both the mother and the potential child. A mother that cannot afford private healthcare obviously can't afford a crying, shitting, food disposal. The only person abortion hurts is some fat mouth-breathing homeschooler's imaginary friend.
Fuck your god and fuck your bullshit belief that you have the right to tell someone else how to live.
Grummur 1 year ago
@Grummur - you're good little Eichmann.
thomaserossi 3 months ago
Americans= dumb (most of them)
GordonTheWanker 1 year ago
I would rather pay for public abortion than for all the polygamist Mormons and fundamentalist Christians who bear litters of children like dogs and go on welfare (and they're all white, by the way)- why don't I see you assholes bitching about that?
Jalexd 2 years ago
Poor Jalexd. God loves you even if you did murder your child.
Torchdog 2 years ago
Zoe Lofgren at least acknowledged that she wanted to force taxpayer funding of abortion. Obama did not even do that when he looked at the American public and lied "No federal dollars (in his health care proposal) will be used to fund abortions." I don't want to hear any "prochoice" group say "Don't impose your morality" when the same people turn around and say the rest of us have "no choice" but to fund other people's abortions with our tax dollars.
Attozzam58 2 years ago
Ahem, politifact would like to have a word with subby.
snipzor 2 years ago
Having a baby is purely elective, too, so if abortion should not be covered under the health plan, per that silly argument of the Live Action religious freaks, then neither should pre-natal and OB care!! Let me see a response to that one! Nobody forces a woman to have a child, so it's "elective" just as abortion sometimes is!
Jalexd 2 years ago
Pre-natal and OB care are done to ensure the health of the mother. The majority of abortions, however, are not performed to protect the health of the mother.
...And, before you say it, abortion is already covered under Medicaid (Or is it Medicare? I can never remember which) if it's being performed for health reasons or because the woman was raped.
And not all of us are "religious freaks".
Bei1052 2 years ago
yeah you are... you are certainly not pro-woman, that's for sure...
Jalexd 2 years ago
Jalex: The majority of abortion if not performed would have had no impact on the woman. Abortion nfor all intents and purposes is in the same realm as plastic surgery.
Where as Pre-natal and OB care are there to promote survival of the preborn baby.
And FYI. I was pro-life long before I was religious.
And tacking the term "freak" to it is an opinion only and thus not worth me attacking.
wormer105 2 years ago
Wormer, you are stating that if a woman doesn't have an abortion in the case of unwanted pregnancy, it has "no impact?"Motherhood, especially if one is unfit or unprepared, has "no impact?" Wow, ignorant AND myopic - it's a FACT that unwanted pregnancies have a HUGE IMPACT, not only on the mother, but on society, the environment, the economy, the world. Why do the earth's poorest populations remain that way? Too many people, too few resources- no family planning and no abortion. Read the stats!
Jalexd 2 years ago
I have and they all say you're full of BS.
wormer105 2 years ago
Anywho, being a Friday night, I'm going out. 'Tis was nice arguing with you. I'll read your responses when I get back (Or maybe in the morning).
Bei1052 2 years ago
Comment removed
Jalexd 2 years ago
Just because the system is inherently flawed is no reason to do nothing. That makes little sense. Should we not punish thieves or murders because some thieves or muderers beat the system? Hell no, we shouldn't. Same thing here.
Bei1052 2 years ago
You've missed the point. Abortion isn't about punishing people. It's about helping people.
You can't apply that logic here. You're saying "we should restrict the rights of everyone to stop a few people abusing their rights", and comparing it to "we should stop punishing murderers because a few murderers get away with it".
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
1.) Please, stop presumptuously labeling abortion as a "right", as it cannot be a "right" if it infringes upon the life of well-being of another.
2.) Way to misrepresent my argument :'( I've said, numerous times, that abortion shouldn't be allowed specifically because it infringes upon the life and well-being of another without due cause. It's not this hard to understand. Someone else even said something to this effect to you.
Bei1052 2 years ago
You have a "right" to medical care (or you should do, America doesn't seem to believe as such).
And way to ignore my argument. You don't get to decide what "due cause" is. None of us do. That's a decision that the pregnant woman gets to make.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
You cannot have a "right" to an action which brings harm to another without due cause. That's the point. And just because you want to is most certainly not due cause.
Furthermore, I didn't ignore your argument. Outside of abortion, nowhere else does the law allow people to decide whether or not it's right or wrong to harm others. So why should abortion be given its own set of special rules which run contrary to the law in every other circumstance?
It shouldn't.
Bei1052 2 years ago
You've forgotten about self-defence laws, I see. You can hurt someone else if they're threatening harm to you.
Anyway, this comes back to the question you avoided. Is a single cell a complete human being?
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
Did you ignore the whole thing about not being able to bring harm to another without "due cause"? If someone is threatening your life or well-being, that constitutes "due cause".
Yup. The zygote, which is a single cell for about 22 hours, is the-- For lack of a better word-- "Simplest" form of the human.
Bei1052 2 years ago
And did you ignore the whole thing about "you don't get to decide what due cause is"? Why do you get to make the distinction between what's causing harm and what isn't?
A zygote has absolutely none of the characteristics that would define something as human, short of genetic code. What gives it rights? There are dogs out there that can show more signs of humanity than a zygote, yet have less rights than it.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
I haven't gone yet (As you can see).
The law always finds "due cause" when someone is directly threatening your life or well-being. Outside of abortion, nowhere does the law find "due cause" to be "at the whim of another". Nowhere. I've asked you to show me evidence to the contrary, yet you adamantly refuse.
Furthermore, to be a human, you only need to belong to the genus homo and the species sapien. There is no special meaning to or defining characteristics of being human.
Bei1052 2 years ago
I'll play, though.
If you're going to die, your health is going to be negatively impacted (Mental or physical), or you had your rights violated, that necessitates a need. Simply because it would be easier for you to obtain an abortion (i.e., "Having a baby would negatively impact the woman's life") would be a want.
Bei1052 2 years ago
And once again ... who gets to decide where the line is? You say incest is having your rights violated? What if it were consentual? Let's say a woman gets pregnant, and early on in the pregnancy her husband is found to be a serial killing paedophile. Giving birth would cause immense psycholgical harm. Is that a "want" or a "need"?
For somebody so uptight about reading comprehension, I'm having a lot of trouble getting you to comprehend a simple question. Who decides?
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
1.) Rape and incest are linked together because it's assumed that neither act is consensual. If the act is consensual, then the woman wouldn't be allowed an abortion just because she wants it.
2.) This is why we have doctors and the like who perform medical evaluations. Shocking, I know. And needs protect one's life or well-being. I said this before.
Now, would you care to answer my questions you've thusly ignored?
Bei1052 2 years ago
So a doctor has the right to determine if a person has the right? Why's that? Because they're always right, and they'll never show any bias based on personal/religious beliefs?
Seriously, what you've just shown me is a blatant lack of knowledge about how abortions screened by medical professionals function in practice. The system is inherantly flawed.
You're stumbling about here a bit. There's no way of doing what you want without placing someone's rights in the hands of another person.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
You do realize that's the system I'm advocating is the system we have in place for women seeking late term abortions, correct? As it currently stands, any woman who wants a late-term abortion must get the recommendation of two or more medical professionals, and those recommendations are open to outside review. Few doctors will risk their career making a false recommendation and opening themselves up to lawsuit :)
(Continued...)
Bei1052 2 years ago
Given the assumption that Democrats give rise to more Democrats, along with the fact that most abortions are performed on Democrats, is it really wise for Republicans to oppose the Democrat's "right" to murder their children?
Think about it - eventually, the number of Democrats would be lower than G.W.Bush's I.Q; abortion would then become a non-issue. Let them abort all they want - just not at anyone else's financial peril.
cartoonglutton 2 years ago
Abortion will sadly never be illegal. Too much money is this big business.
Check out the trailer for the new film "bloodmoney", it basically sums up why we will never see an end to this scourge.
yamagoof 2 years ago
I've come the conclusion that nearly all democraps are selfish and working for evil. They are a total disgrace to humanity!
Zile77 2 years ago
This bitch is "my representative" in San Jose, CA and she makes me sick!
Since she believes tax payers should pay for abortions, perhaps the world would have been a better place if SHE had been aborted by her mother!
ThePeachy1981 2 years ago
Uhh, the current bill only carries legislation passed in the 70's, a bill championed by a republican. Please, OP, abort yourself.
scourfish 2 years ago
sad to say this is my rep in san jose. as a statist, her attitude is entirely predictable. witness the work of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (an Obama advisor) who defines a hump shaped curve representing an individual's value to society vs their age. the value of newborn is ZERO and the value of the elderly decreases to ZERO. by extrapolation the curve will have a NEGATIVE value for a preborn. so sterile, so efficient.
dadfly4u 2 years ago 2
great camera man
dog69420 2 years ago
I need to know who is running against her in 2010 so I can support them!
Can someone let me know please.
evramos70 2 years ago
Thank You, hydin 1! Call it for what it is!Margaret Sanger, founder of abortion, called fo a radical eugenics approach!! Research eugenics and Margaret Sanger...get the truth people! You can murder a baby in the womb, even into the 3rd trimester(partial-birth aborton) but let someone murder a mother and the baby in her womb and that's double homicide!! It's a horrific act...with long-lasting detremental consquences....IT"S ALL A LIE!!
luvdahair77 2 years ago
HUMAN FILTH
invisablepersona 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget to Obama (Deadly Doctors, NYP)
teton99 2 years ago
please read The Hyde Amendment this amendment can not just go away it would need to be voted on separate and go through courts please please people get facts straight abortion can not be funded so just grow up and learn to read and understand laws
repubtodem 2 years ago
the hyde amendment is only for medicaid funds. This would not be for medicaid, this would be a completely new system which the government can mandate abortion coverage in as minimum benefits.
xalisae 2 years ago
True. Taxpayer funds would also be allowed to subsidize insurance plans that pay for abortion.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
Whether or not you support abortion.....the public should not pay for others who get this procedure unless it is medically necessary for the safety of the woman. If you run around screaming "my body my choice" then pay for it yourself.
shonester 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget to Obama (Deadly Doctors, NYP)
teton99 2 years ago
In this video clip Representative Lofgren does not say that abortion will be funded by taxpayers under HR3200. Actually abortion cannot be funded by federal funds because of the Hyde amendment, which is still in effect.
The Capp amendment to HR3200 allows providers to cover abortions. The cost of abortions will be paid by insurance premiums of people in those plans and would not be taxpayer funded.
jtrin097 2 years ago
Wrong. The Hyde Amendment would not apply, because as it stands, that only regulates Medicaid funds. This plan would abolish Medicaid and make the Hyde Amendment moot.
Also, with the committee amendments currently being added, the private insurance plans would become part of an exchange with mandates to cover all of the same services that the government plans cover (including abortion)
xalisae 2 years ago
Most of the private plans already cover abortion, anus!
Jalexd 2 years ago
If you don't want to get pregnant, then don't do the act that results in pregnancy. It's that simple.
That would be like someone banging their head against a wall and then getting mad that, after they get a headache, the government doesn't want to give you free aspirin.
Just don't take off your pants and you won't have the problem. If you do, then accept the consequences and responsibilty of what may come with it
biff6789 2 years ago
Ignacio (the guy who asked the question) is a hero standing up for truth and justice. Thank you for your boldness.
blytheka 2 years ago
Yeah, the SCOTUS decision actually didn't consider the personhood of the pre-born, because at that time they stated that medical technology wasn't advanced enough. But now we have things like ultrasound, and DNA testing, and other common practices. This is a human being, not just a woman's pregnancy or "choice".
xalisae 2 years ago
i bet if males could get pregnant the conservatives and religious types would all be pro choice hehe
LLORT3 2 years ago
I'm a female conservative, and I've had a crisis pregnancy before. I'm still pro-life. Just because I became pregnant and wasn't planning for it didn't give me the right to kill my daughter, and it shouldn't give anyone else the right to kill theirs, either.
xalisae 2 years ago 2
pfft
if men could get pregnant you know all the prolifers would become pro choice overnight hehe
LLORT3 2 years ago
No, I'm pretty sure they'd probably do the same thing I did.
xalisae 2 years ago
heh i doubt it
i think that if men could get pregnant you would see all the pro lifers especially male republicans turn pro choice in a second hehe
LLORT3 2 years ago
Well, like I said, I had a crisis pregnancy and was able to keep from killing my daughter. It's not as hard to not kill someone as you seem to think it is.
xalisae 2 years ago
no that's not what i am saying
i am saying that if we males could get pregnant, you would not see the religious right or pro lifers worrying about the sanctity of life anymore :)
life is overrated anyway
LLORT3 2 years ago
WAIT:
You're a man? So you'll never know what it's like to have another human life depend on your every breath. You can't even imagine what that is like. And that's just all the more reason I assure you your assumption would be wrong.
xalisae 2 years ago
yes i am a man
that is why i am pro choice
LLORT3 2 years ago
Wow...you're a real piece of work, aren't you? And by work I mean "shit".
So much for women's liberation!
But I've made this point before: abortion is just another tool for men to use women. Thanks for helping to prove it.
xalisae 2 years ago
i have no problem with using women hehe
LLORT3 2 years ago
STFU dumbass. Too bad more women don't know what's actually going on. Dipshits like you use them, then get them to have abortions and call it "women's rights". Fuck you.
xalisae 2 years ago
and out comes the christianity
LLORT3 2 years ago
I'm an atheist, you idiot!
"What?! You mean women don't LIKE to be used?! OMG!"
You're more of a moron than I thought.
xalisae 2 years ago
women should not have rights
it should be up to men to decide for them
LLORT3 2 years ago
And remember, everyone, LLORT3 is PRO-CHOICE. Oh yeah, abortion is totally about women's rights.
xalisae 2 years ago
i don't care about women
LLORT3 2 years ago
LLORT3 you are sooo right. Miss hypocrite xalisae, w/ her junk science & fake stats is in such denial,i.e. if men got pregnant, all the male right-wingers would still be anti-choice.Hilarious! We all know what HUGE hypocrites conservatives are-- they get busted for gay & extramarital affairs, drug addiction, tax evasion /book-cooking, drunk driving, abortion & a host of other "sins" they preach against-- if someone else is doing it, it's a sin, but OK for them, as long as they don't get caught
Jalexd 2 years ago
correct
the ones who preach morals are the ones who are really projecting their own hypocrisy
LLORT3 2 years ago
isn't that an unfair generalization that includes many people who do live consistently?
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
no.
LLORT3 2 years ago
Oh really, Miss Hypocrite?? You are so naive...
Jalexd 2 years ago
No, that's not what RvW said. Maybe you should read it. RvW said that the issue of "when life begins" could not be resolved by the courts, therefore meaning that states couldn't 100% restrict abortion as they had been doing while simultaneously stating that the issue of personhood be left up to the woman to decide for herself.
But, anyway, what's the difference between a "human being" and a "legal human being"? Aside from the word "legal", nothing. A human being is a human being.
Bei1052 2 years ago 2
IssuesAndJustice
Was this the congresswomans complete response or are you hiding the full context of this statement? It seems clear that she was saying more when you stopped the vid.
tzimtzum1618 2 years ago
Abortion is murder.. there is no right to kill, folks...
baltimoreravensfc 2 years ago 4
i like towns meetings lol... that site whoopsamerica has an article about that guy who screams at his constituents
hellorules2 2 years ago
What "freedom" does abortion give aside from the "freedom from responsibility"?
Bei1052 2 years ago 3
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the AMA, 6/ 18/ 2008).
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget to Obama (Deadly Doctors, NYP)
teton99 2 years ago
You save the whales
You save the seals
You save whatever's cute & squeals
But you kill "that thing" who's in the womb
Would not want no baby boom!
jimmmmie 2 years ago 2
eugenics that the word your looking for.
hydin1 2 years ago
The government should never come between a doctor and patient. Unless you're a woman with a functioning reproductive system.
papipablo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
卍 卍 卍 Uncanny similarities between OBAMA and 卍HITLER 卍. It will scare the Hell out of You! Check out the video's on My channel to see why We must all join together, and protect the Constitution of these, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!
daltongang79 2 years ago
Wow birth control and Abortions paid by the taxpayer. Will it pay for alimony and child support too- hhhmmm interesting.
lenny380 2 years ago
It's over, ended, done, finished, toast...
The Insurance Companies have won.
Costs will continue to go up.
DillonX 2 years ago
great camera work
moali68 2 years ago
And their is the final nail in the coffin. I have been explaing this to people but no one would believe me. When the law doesn't mention something being illegal, then it isn't illegal.
Nowhere in the bill is abortion addressed, therefore it is concidered a medical procedure.
Another fun fact is that there is absolutely no benifit guidelines in the bill. They want to pass the bill and then decide what your worth to them.
This bill has failed. thank god.
st4ticblu3 2 years ago
this people including Obama doesnt know what is in his care reform!!! No wonder people are upset
lebihus00 2 years ago
If you have a job in the US then you should have good Heath Care if you don't have a job you should still be able to have Heath Care. No more sick care for profit in the US. The US is driving up our own debt with our Health Care system not to mention the debt of other countries with universal heath care.
peter4redstar 2 years ago
abortion DEATHcare
everyone should call this obama DEATHcare
chan0chap 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a bunch of Christian nut.
ABORTION FTW
SuperSaiyan1983 2 years ago
Comment removed
XsteelrogueX 2 years ago
If fetuses could vote, the Democratic party would be PL.
Bei1052 2 years ago
Keep it up Folks! WE are WINNING the Fight!
tampabayproductions 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget to Obama (Deadly Doctors, NYP)
teton99 2 years ago
Why do people complain that health care reform is being "rammed down our throats"? Obama was campaigning for almost two years, and his platform included health care reform the whole two years. If you haven't understood the basic changes that are going to be in the bill by now, then you never will.
Instead of being "rammed," it is being spoon fed.
OrionPimpdaddy 2 years ago 2
The problem is with the blatant dishonesty of calling it healthcare reform when it is a takeover of the healthcare industry. It is not health insurance or healthcare reform. There is nothing in the bill to reduce the actual costs involved.
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
The Republicans in Congress are finally waking up the the fact the the Dems are abusing the "reform" label to push the healthcare takeover. Great! We need to scream as loud as possible that we want "reform" and not "transform" healthcare. Lets keep up the good fight! Have a good one.
spooderdoggy 2 years ago
We really don't care what you think. The only thing you are supposed to do is represent the people that put you in office. That's what your job is; to represent us!
czubspenx 2 years ago 2
how long will it take for this comment to be removed??? i was just wondering, seeing that you won't even listen to people with opposing arguments. such is the republican party.
illxplicit07 2 years ago
can you provide the commentors with facts and or instances of the republican parties ignorance? mind you your democratic as well as republican congressman are not much better considering there about to ram a most unwanted bill down our throats, never the less...
XsteelrogueX 2 years ago
whats with the sexual subtext everytime conservatives complain of something they dont like, they always refer to as a subtle form of a guilty pleasure from forced sodomy?
Username2322 2 years ago
I'm sorry what? I'm afraid i don't understand what your saying. I'm going to assume that you don't have an answer though hmm? very nice in defending you point and ty for being one of the many brainwashed Americans that will eventually destroy our great nation, needless to say i'd like to point out to the people reading these comments that the user
Username2322 is one of the many people in this country that is in fact an "obama worshiper" due to lack of intelligence
XsteelrogueX 2 years ago
Why don't you go talk to your imaginary friend.
SuperSaiyan1983 2 years ago
"Why don't you go talk to your imaginary friend."
The imaginary government bureaucrats who will control the weather aren't MY friend, Atheist.
Why don't you proselytize your murderous mysticism to your fellow bottom-feeders who all recite the same mindless derision toward all those whose minds are not so dull.
Abort Atheism -- it's inviable.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Try picking up a history book. Christianity has killed many more people than Atheism ever has.
Blabermouthe 2 years ago
"Christianity has killed many more..."
Your lie isn't even close. Here's a history book:
"The Black Book of Communism:
Crimes, Terror, Repression"
In their short debut, Atheist governments have slaughtered about 160,000,000 of their own innocent civilians. That's more than all of everything Atheist can pin on others in all of recorded history.
Relative to Atheist bloodlust, even Muslims look civilized.
Seriously, try proselytizing less transparent, less stale Atheist dogma.
TylerNull 2 years ago 2
Atheism isnt a dogma, Stalin didnt kill because of his atheism.
Its not an argument of "theocratic government vs non-theocratic"
It's about christianity being a concept of ideals,rules etc that leads to killing people.
Just like stalinism is.
Atheism says but one thing; the lack of belief in god(s).
You can be an atheist and a mass murderer or the most civilized person on earth
DavosLogos 2 years ago
"Stalin didnt kill because of his atheism."
Your post is a wad of baseless decrees peppered with irrelevancies, and typifies that which Atheists mindlessly recite whenever the topic is raised. In other words, its yet more Atheist dogma.
The historical record of Atheist rule contradicts such dogma. Of course Atheists' notions affect their morals which affects their governance.
Atheists simply hide their notions under their closed loop contrivance of having none.
TylerNull 2 years ago
I'm a pro-life atheist. Please do not generalize.
xalisae 2 years ago
"I'm a pro-life atheist. Please do not generalize." -- that's irrelevant. Please don't recite Atheist slogans.
Some dogs have three legs. That means dogs aren't four legged animals?
Observations of Atheists and their political tendencies isn't dependent on you personally. Reality still exists. (I double checked.)
TylerNull 2 years ago
But if you say "All dogs have 4 legs." and happen upon one with 3, it's still a dog.
xalisae 2 years ago
"But if you say ..." -- thus I didn't.
Hence your acknowledgment that mine was a "generalization", albeit only to wrongly imply that such is some kind of fallacy.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Generalizations are typically unwise. (haha)
Assumptions about other people to tend to be harmful and not very conducive to debate.
xalisae 2 years ago
You regress to reciting your Atheist dogma. It's no less imbecilic the second time around.
I'm not suggesting Atheists are innately imbecilic, but rather their toxic notions require them to bitterly cling to a full wad of nonsensical and toxic notions, while hiding them from inspection by claiming they have none;, as I discussed above.
TylerNull 2 years ago
Comment removed
SuperSaiyan1983 2 years ago
once again ty for proving my point which is that your an ignorant, mindless obama worshiper, i sincerely ty for this because it really shows people who there dealing with ty again and have a good week :D
XsteelrogueX 2 years ago
Comment removed
SuperSaiyan1983 2 years ago
The argument that if men could get pregnant they would be pro choice does not hold any weight, there are a lot of "women" who don't like abortion either. It is odd to me that we call our selves a civilized society, I guess we are a civilized society that does not care about those who cannot defend themselves. I suppose the "left" thinks its ok to protect an endangered fish or insect, but babies are disposable. Sounds like a phsycological issue to me.
var512 2 years ago 2
A"civilized" society that cares far more for the zygote-non-human than the CHILDREN ALREADY BORN. Anti-Choice zealots spend all their time "protecting" the so-called "unborn" instead of working toward reducing poverty, starvation, child abuse, cuts to education and child healthcare programs,etc. All the $ & time wasted on this stupid issue could be put towards helping the BORN.This is more about telling people what to do than "protecting" anybody...
Jalexd 2 years ago
i think the questioner was wrong
imho abortion does fall under the purview of healthcare
it is a reproductive health choice decided by a woman and her doctor
i think if men could get pregnant the conservative religious types would all be pro choice :)
LLORT3 2 years ago
@LLORT3 Being sexually promiscuous and not planning appropriately is also a womens' health choice. I do not like abortion, but I am pro-choice because people need a way to safely do it. I would hate to hear stories of women and coat hangers. Most of what is preventable about abortion happens before the woman is even pregnant.
Zoklor 2 years ago
Whatever happened to States' Rights. A Federal Law saying all states have to contribute to abortions is unConstitutional.
simiansami 2 years ago 3
what ARE you talking about? simiansami (monkey-brain?) should read up on the topic before commenting...there are many states that have outlawed abortion via TRAP laws and other devices that render Roe v Wade useless- did you know that 80+% OF COUNTIES in the U.S. LACK ABORTION PROVIDES?The ignorance on this topic is astounding!
Jalexd 2 years ago
Women need more freedom than this. What about childen up to 18 years old that are a pain? Obamacare should pay to have them disposed of. And let's get rid of granny and the old man wasting oxygen. But better still, let's get rid of the women that spread their legs and create these problems of unwanted, worthless humans. Go for it, BO.
TheTorchdog 2 years ago
and what about all the slut-pig men out there who should be castrated for getting women pregnant and abandoning their kids? I guess they have no accountability, huh? It's quite obvious you are yet another ignorant American who has NO IDEA what they're talking about on this topic...
Jalexd 2 years ago
@Jalexd Im sorry but it takes two.
jbeezy81275 9 months ago
@jbeezy81275 This is real nice to tell you, and that is since you are just fine with taxpayer funded abortion being covered by healthcare, then you are just fine with people who are so against taxpayer funded abortion that they will enbezzle the percentage of their taxes that pay for abortion! Now if you do not like this, then you use private funds to support abortion, and not taxpayer funds to do so!
kjbhlogkh 5 months ago
If the government pays for killing the unborn the next step is disallowing medical treatment to those who are terminal.
kholloway6 2 years ago
Great, let's murder babies and force all Americans to pay for it!! What's this country turning into?
mightydio 2 years ago 5
Taxpayer money should not be used to cover abortions.
Obama and others in Congress are perpetuating a fraud on the American people by pushing this Bill to pass.
It is about Government control over our freedom.
2687243 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What? They're giving women more freedom of choice, and that's somehow controlling our freedom?
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
They are taking away the life and freedom of small women not yet born.
Abortion is the most anti-women act. It kills millions of women every year.
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
in your opinion, it kills people.
In reality, it terminates a fetus prior to its full development, usually while it's still multipotent. Medically it's more ambiguous on whether it is classified as a human being. It isn't sentient, at the least, no more than your appendix.
On the other hand, this issue has been debated for nearly 40 years now. It's over. Let it go. The supreme court already looked into this several times. Abortion is legal, and a medical right in this country.
Username2322 2 years ago
So do condoms, by that logic. They probably kill billions by preventing sperm from fertilising eggs which would grow into people.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
Millions-- where? Show me the statistics, idiot! Last time I looked, childbirth kills more women each year all over the world, than abortion does.
Jalexd 2 years ago
How would you even know? The cdc classifies many abortion-related deaths as caused by childbirth or pregnancy, because a woman injured in an abortion procedure is-get this-PREGNANT/BIRTHING at the time!
xalisae 2 years ago
How would I know? I am a researcher & analyze the stats.The cdc is not the only org who tracks this. The anti-choice states make sure that if a woman dies of an abortion, it is documented/ reported as such, even if its not directly related to the procedure. E.g., if a woman ignores post-op care instructions, the procedure is blamed vs. her negligent behavior. Or if one dies from an illegal, back-alley abortion, its reported the same as if she got it at Planned Parenthood. WRONG AGAIN!
Jalexd 2 years ago
you're a researcher...you analyze stats...and you refer to those who oppose legalized abortion as "anti-choice". Soooooo...you make up your own stats for a living...I see why we're having problems with you.
xalisae 2 years ago
How about these women that need abortions exercise their freedom of choice not to be a slut and get pregnant....
jeffbatt2000 2 years ago
What an incredibly enlightened view. What about the one with a penis in this equasion? He had a choice too.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago 2
True, but it's not men getting abortions. You understand that men can be forced to pay child support, right? Even if they wouldn't have chosen to have a baby?
xalisae 2 years ago
Indeed, and I don't agree with that. But how is that in any way relevant to what we're talking about?
Taking rights away from women doesn't improve anything.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
I agree. Taking away the right to live of thousands of women every day through abortion will never improve the quality of life for their mothers or sisters. Abortion must stop before all lives can be recognized as worthy of protection.
xalisae 2 years ago
Foetus =/= woman.
End of argument.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
Hahahaha. What masterful debating technique. "I say this. Do not question me."
Are you telling me that they cannot test the DNA of even the youngest fetal human and find that individual's gender? Are you honestly telling me that the doctor was lying when I went in for my ultrasound at 6 months pregnant with my daughter and told me my child was female? Give me a break.
xalisae 2 years ago
Nope. I'm saying a foetus =/= a woman, a man, or anything in between up until it develops into such.
You can't tell me not to do something because I'll be harming the rights of something that doesn't exist yet. That would be stupidity.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
But what the original poster was getting at is the American people, who are now more pro-life than pro-choice, according to the latest poll, should have the right not to pay for abortions through their tax money.
xalisae 2 years ago
The majority of Americans are against the Iraq war as well. Do they have the right to cut all funding to America's troops?
If you give each individual person the right to determine what their tax money goes towards and what it doesn't, you have a world where people are controlled by the mob. Which is controlled by the media. Which is unacceptable to any decent person.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
Most people of a libertarian slant would not only take issue with taxation for the purpose of abortion, but taxation for the purpose of providing ANY unnecessary government action-like providing healthcare. Many of the things the government currently does would be done better if taken over by private industry. "...controlled by the mob..." It's precisely that elitist "us Liberals know better than you stupid rubes" attitude that the American people are sick of.
xalisae 2 years ago
How is it unnecessary? An abortion costs the taxpayer around $200. Do you realise how much more money the taxpayer would have to pay to support all the unwanted children that would result from limiting access to abortions?
Also, the mob can be liberal or conservative. It matters not. What matters is that the mob is controlled by media magnates. I refuse to lie back and allow our society's moral and political policy to be dictated by such people. The majority is not always right. Learn that.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
Ummm...next to nothing, if the adoption/foster care system were reformed, and if people found abortion to be eliminated as a cheap and easy option. Not to mention what would be saved by replacing welfare systems with non-profit charities.
Hahaha. An advocate of the legalized shredding and incineration of thousands of the weakest and most vulnerable humans on a daily basis....and you want to lecture me about "moral". You're a joke.
xalisae 2 years ago
You want to replace child welfare systems with charities? What? You want me to give the government my tax money, and in return have them entrust my welfare to a charity? What the hell do I bother paying taxes for then? Are you mad?
And yes, I'm lecturing you about your right to dictate to me what is and what is not moral. Homosexuality is immoral to some people; that doesn't mean that it should be illegal if you and the majority thought it was. Welcome to the land of freedom; get over it.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
OK...first of all, if all of this was done by charities, the government wouldn't NEED tax money, so I'm not advocating that they GET it. You misunderstood.
Homosexuality isn't ending another human life or infringing on anyone else's rights. Freedom is great-when YOUR freedoms do not inhibit another human's freedoms. In this case, a woman's right to not be pregnant interferes with the life of the human (her offspring) within her.
xalisae 2 years ago
I didn't misunderstand, because I gave you the respect of not actually being stupid enough to suggest what you suggested. Scrap taxes in favour of charities providing all services? Nobody's that retarded, surely?
We come back to the "rights" of a foetus. Frankly, it's ridiculous. Do you condemn condoms as violating the rights of a foetus to be conceived? A foetus is not a human being; it is a potential human being. And you're not going to convince anyone to give up human rights for a potential.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
When one has life experience, they learn simple concepts like, "Private non-profits do a better job than the government." I worked for a non-profit, and my husband with the DoD. The level of incompetence and waste in the government is absurd. They're just about as stupid as you are. I can see why they are appealing to you.
I support contraceptives-oral hormonal pills, condoms, etc. Non-existent humans don't have a right to be created. Ones that are have a right to be allowed to live.
xalisae 2 years ago
I'll say this slowly: charity is not financial security. How do you ensure a charity gets enough money to help everyone? Honestly, you are completely retarded for even suggesting it, and I really do not take those words lightly.
And you just contradicted yourself. A group of non-sentient cells is not an existing human.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
The government isn't financial security either. Look at California having to print I.O.U.s for lack of funds! In your mind, is the government some sort of omnipotent being full of waiting teats with never-ending resources for everyone under the sun? THAT is pure ignorance.
What do you mean I contradicted myself? If you think that there is not an embryonic/fetal/neonatal/etc. progression of life in the life cycle of any and every human ever to live, you are a drooling moron.
xalisae 2 years ago
Sorry, but you just lost all rights to talk about any of the financial aspects of this if you're going to suggest that charities would be better suited to taking care of people's welfare needs. You're suggesting that we turn over the fate of people's lives to altruism.
We have a government so that we can provide for the people; perfect it is not, but suggesting that charity would serve us better shows you have no understanding of economics.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
Sorry...I lean conservative, and it's common knowledge that conservatives naturally just tend to donate more to charities to help the poor directly than those who lean liberal, even when they make less money. Funny how that works...if people don't take for granted that the government will provide...other people start providing, and some start doing for themselves! Welfare was supposed to be temporary due to The Great Depression, fyi. Not only do you not know biology, it's history too.
xalisae 2 years ago
"Doing for themselves". Thrown to the dogs.
The fact that you advocate a return to the days where if someone needed financial aid they had to "do it for themselves" or rely on the whim of others shows a certain backwards thinking.
Charity would never come close to raising the amount of money annually that people in this country require in aid. That you can't see that makes me question your education.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
Communities and charities used to do much more than they do now! Acting as though the government is a flawless provider which cannot be equaled is naive, and projecting a sort of mother-figure upon the government it was never intended to even resemble. The Constitution is rather old, too, should we throw that out as being "backwards thinking"?
Charity run as business is more efficient than you seem to think. As I've said before, I've experienced gov't and non-profits. The latter won, imo.
xalisae 2 years ago
Flawless provider? No. Guaranteed by law provider? Yes.
If people simply aren't giving enough to the charities ... how do you propose the aid is given to the people who need it? My girlfriend, who is disabled and relies partially on disabled allowances .. if the charities simply ran out of money because not enough was being donated, or the people had deemed another cause as being more worthy; how would she get the aid under your system?
The government's not perfect, but we control it more.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
I wouldn't oppose the government stepping in in times like you mention there as a safety net, but I think that everything else should be tried FIRST, not defaulting to the government to provide everything naturally. The most rudimentary safety net would be ideal. In the meantime, incentivise donations when needed. Find ways within the government to make donating more palatable if it is needed, but don't have the government assume a role it shouldn't have without trying everything else first.
xalisae 2 years ago
So now you need the government as a safety net. If people know the government is going to give if they don't, then why is anyone going to donate? And if you've abolished taxes for it anyway, where's the "safety net" money going to come from?
You haven't thought it through in any way, shape or practical form. Charity is not a primary form of welfare for a developed nation's populus. It cannot do what the government does; provide stable financial aid to those who need it. And that's that.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
your ignorance astounds me-- welfare IS temporary now, since Bill Clinton was president. Remember, WELFARE REFORM? Welfare-to-work programs? PRWORA - signed into law in 1997! Where did you go to school? Wal-Mart?
Jalexd 2 years ago
Where do you get your facts, out of your ass?
Direct cash assistance-type welfare IS limited to 5 years, but there are more forms of government assistance than just cash! Food stamps/WIC/etc. are provided for as long as there are minor children being raised in a household.
Selective reality...interesting concept you have there.
xalisae 2 years ago
Sorry, dumbass...cash is limited to 2 years, not 5. I know all about WIC, Foodstamps, etc-- I have helped many mothers who were left by the loser father's of their children get TEMPORARY assistance. Except for the disabled, elderly, etc, many types of gov't assistance are temporary by choice- people strive to get off assistance. More junk stats to go w/ the junk science you live on, xalisae.
Jalexd 2 years ago
Why do you think our society produce so many loser fathers?
IssuesAndJustice 2 years ago
*sigh*
You contradicted yourself because you just said you support the use of oral contraceptives, which cause abortion of pre-embryonic foetuses. That contradicts everything you've said up to this point.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
First of all, your ignorance of human development is astounding. There is no such thing as a "pre-embryonic foetus". I can only assume you're talking about a blastocyst or embryo. Also, MOST of the time, a blastocyst will implant and gestate successfully whether or not oral contraceptives are used. That's how women get pregnant even on birth control! If I opposed contraceptives, I'd have to also oppose sexually active women exercising, or drinking caffeine. YOUR ignorance is not my fault.
xalisae 2 years ago
Pre-embryonic is the medical term for a fertilised ovum which has not yet been implanted into the uterine wall. It was incorrect to use the term "foetus", maybe. "Ovum" is more correct.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but oral contraceptives prevent implanatation of a pre-embryonic ovum, which is defined medically as an abortion. And that's the pro-life argument talking here. You support those contraceptives, you support abortion.
Your contradiction is baffling.
MurrayTheMac 2 years ago
I get my information from many places. Some pro-abortion, some "anti-choice". I'm a moderate. I'm also an atheist, so you'll find I'm not exactly in the loving embrace of pro-lifers everywhere, but I'd rather try and find a solution everyone can live with than what the extremes have in mind.
Why does "Plan B" have a 59%+ failure rate? If that is indeed a purpose of oral contraceptives, they really suck at it.