Bush & co trying to get around Roe v Wade (Clinton, website)

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by JTraik

Give me a break... Maybe you shouldn't be sleeping around with everyone, it is 100% preventable. You should need to rely on other people to be there when you mess up, people need to learn some personal responsibility.

Complete abstinence would be the only way it is 100% preventable. NO form of birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies 100% of the time. I've known people who've had tubal ligations and gotten pregnant, I've known men who've had vasectomies who've gotten unexpected news from their partners. It's rare, but possible. So I guess everyone who doesn't want children should just decide to never have sex again. Yep, that sounds like a workable plan.

[JTraik]

Originally Posted by newtoli

Would personal responsibility apply when a poor person cannot afford a baby, and has an abortion, rather than have the baby and go on welfare?

Are you implying that person became poor with the baby or what? Does not matter anyway, what you just said is the epitome of personal IRresponsibility.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

It's a little more than a funding issue ... bringing pressure on medical professionals financially to adhere ...

It's all about the Benjamins.

[pstratt]

I'm sure there are plenty of private non-profit groups that will supply condoms and birth control if asked.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by pstratt

I'm sure there are plenty of private non-profit groups that will supply condoms and birth control if asked.

Most non-profit groups get funding from the government. Even if they don't, their tax-exempt status is essentially a subsidy from the government. So if the government is forcing these groups to hire people who refuse to provide birth control pills (Condoms are not at issue here), then they are effectively limiting women's access to birth control. I don't think Health and Human Services' intent here is to stop women from being able to purchase birth control pills, though emergency contraception is clearly under attack. But this administration's consistent and deliberate disregarding of science and attempts to redefine the laws (and interpretation of the law is the job of the courts, not the executive branch) opens the door to abuses of the law.

[JTraik]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Complete abstinence would be the only way it is 100% preventable. NO form of birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies 100% of the time. I've known people who've had tubal ligations and gotten pregnant, I've known men who've had vasectomies who've gotten unexpected news from their partners. It's rare, but possible. So I guess everyone who doesn't want children should just decide to never have sex again. Yep, that sounds like a workable plan.

Then you know what... maybe these people need to get processed through some system to determine their eligibility for an abortion, rape would certainly be considered. However this free-for-all baby death factory bullsh*t for stupid, selfish, irresponsible "mothers" is just something I really can't stand for... and to see these hood rats and trailer trash sucking up my tax dollars for being a waste of a human being even furthers my rage.

[paullySC]

Originally Posted by zz4guy

Whoa, that is a little scary. Just a little.

Well, it is what they do isn't it? My post was sarcastic, I don't support abortion.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by JTraik

Then you know what... maybe these people need to get processed through some system to determine their eligibility for an abortion, rape would certainly be considered. However this free-for-all baby death factory bullsh*t for stupid, selfish, irresponsible "mothers" is just something I really can't stand for... and to see these hood rats and trailer trash sucking up my tax dollars for being a waste of a human being even furthers my rage.

So if they were raped or involved in incest, abortion would be okay? But if their properly used form of birth control failed, whether they were married or not, regardless of their social or financial status, they would be ineligible for abortion?

[JTraik]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

So if they were raped or involved in incest, abortion would be okay? But if their properly used form of birth control failed, whether they were married or not, regardless of their social or financial status, they would be ineligible for abortion?

I don't see how incest is an instant disclaimer... rape is certainly something that can be considered... I am still truly against abortion however, the child can always be given up for adoption or something of that nature.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by JTraik

I don't see how incest is an instant disclaimer... rape is certainly something that can be considered... I am still truly against abortion however, the child can always be given up for adoption or something of that nature.

Okay. You have your viewpoint and I totally respect it. Maybe this thread isn't about abortion, but about the balance in our government between the different branches, and how the Health and Human Services Department is using their powers of law enforcement to push an agenda? Even if you agree with that agenda, shouldn't people be concerned? Because today's it's an agenda you agree with, but tomorrow it might not be.