Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know that they do but I'd rather pay to fund abortions than to pay for an unwanted child down the line. The latter is a lot more costly. Up to 18 years vs a one time fee for each woman and sometimes it doesn't end there. We may be paying for their adult children as well. It's a no brainer. We already pay enough for wanted children and that's fine but no need to spend money on children they never wanted to give birth to in the first place.
Yeah, finally someone with an opinion that, by some accounts, would at least be reasonable. Thank you.
I don't know that they do but I'd rather pay to fund abortions than to pay for an unwanted child down the line. The latter is a lot more costly. Up to 18 years vs a one time fee for each woman and sometimes it doesn't end there. We may be paying for their adult children as well. It's a no brainer. We already pay enough for wanted children and that's fine but no need to spend money on children they never wanted to give birth to in the first place.
I don't entirely disagree with you but why don't rich Democrats just make big donations for more birth control?
I noticed in the political discussion, Democrats never discuss policy. It's almost like they don't even know about policy. When they don't agree with you, they just attack your character. So, let's discuss some policy here. No character assassinations please.
I will start. Do you think that taxpayers should pay a private organization to fund abortions? I don't think so. I am prochoice, btw.
Maybe not recently, since the Democrats have increasingly declined into identity politics while Trump actually has the Republicans looking at the wages of ordinary Americans workers and the domestic economy for an incredible change.
But historically, IMHO the Democrats talked policy far more than the Republicans. At least since the 1980s when I began to follow politics.
The Democrats tended to concentrate more strongly on the domestic issues and were seen as weaker on foreign and defense policy. At the same time, the Republicans tended to concentrate on foreign affairs and defense policy and often neglected domestic affairs.
I remember when George Bush #1 came out with "a thousand points of light". Actually a good idea but even good words don't make up for basically not having a domestic policy and he lost his 1992 reelection campaign.
The main incentives people have for coming illegally is a huge market of low pay drudgery jobs. A higher minimum wage with good enforcement mechanisms will get rid of alot of the drudgery jobs and America becomes less attractive for very low skilled workers from third world countries. But employers dont want that. And right wingers argue vehemently against it as well.
Regarding your talking points about health care, we do not subsidize other countries. US taxpayers subsidize big pharma CEOs. Plenty of research going on in other countries. America is simply the most populous country so naturally more research will be going on here than in a small rich country. Adjust for population and things are very different.
Why are you against ensuring that everyone has the health care that they need in America? You never know when you'll get sick. To have people arguing against getting more, paying less and have everyone covered with a national health care system shows the power of big business propaganda.
Why do most Democrats oppose the wall if they actually want the flow of illegals curtailed? Why do the Democrats oppose e-verify? Some right wingers in congress are also guilty of it but not as many as the Democrats are. Please don't respond that the wall is a waste of money either or that the good walls don't work as I have debunked those arguments over and over. Great if Trump can get Mexico to pay for it but since congress passed the Secure Fence Act it should be up to them to fund it.
I noticed in the political discussion, Democrats never discuss policy. It's almost like they don't even know about policy. When they don't agree with you, they just attack your character. So, let's discuss some policy here. No character assassinations please.
I will start. Do you think that taxpayers should pay a private organization to fund abortions? I don't think so. I am prochoice, btw.
No. I am pro-choice also. I feel that so much of the discussion around abortion is woefully misguided. Firstly because abortion is already legal. So often during election campaigns, the buzz-words are "legalizing abortion" when, in fact, abortion is not and has not been illegal for quite some time now. And it's highly unlikely that we will ever see a day that abortion is illegal again, though many on the liberal side of the party line like to fear-monger with that idea as well. Secondly, many people seem bound and determined to spread the lie that it's their tax payer money or insurance premiums footing the bill for infanticide. Also not true. I promise.
As is current policy, no taxpayer contributes to private organizations performing elective procedures. Neither do most major insurance carriers, for that matter. Places like PP do receive taxpayer funds, but those funds are restricted to use for health screenings, treatments related to STIs, contraceptives, annual exams, and education. Those in need of a termination procedure pay out of pocket, or in some cases, procedures are funded by private, 3rd-party groups in existence to help women who need the procedure but can't afford it. Emphasis on need. A termination for a reason other than demonstrable medical need is considered elective in all cases and is not funded by private insurance, Medicaid, or any federal/state grant program.
I do not believe that tax payers should ever be required to fund something as controversial as abortion - this, to me, would be a serious infraction of the right to life and liberty. I say that, again, as a pro-choice + socially liberal uterus owner. I want the choice to elect this procedure if needed (and I want that choice protected by legislation) but I wouldn't want someone uncomfortable with the idea to feel as though they are forced participants via taxation. To do that would be to remove choice (of participation by proxy) from one side while giving choice to the other, and that's not the idea. That's not what any other liberal-minded woman I know wants either.
I wonder the same thing about Republicans. Trump and Republicans are all about soundbites and memes and "Making America Great Again" but they can't tell you exactly how America is being "made great again" other than the fact that we're "returning to our Judeo-Christian heritage" which actually just means a nation of white, straight, fundamentalist Christian supremacy.
No. I am pro-choice also. I feel that so much of the discussion around abortion is woefully misguided. Firstly because abortion is already legal. So often during election campaigns, the buzz-words are "legalizing abortion" when, in fact, abortion is not and has not been illegal for quite some time now. And it's highly unlikely that we will ever see a day that abortion is illegal again, though many on the liberal side of the party line like to fear-monger with that idea as well. Secondly, many people seem bound and determined to spread the lie that it's their tax payer money or insurance premiums footing the bill for infanticide. Also not true. I promise.
As is current policy, no taxpayer contributes to private organizations performing elective procedures. Neither do most major insurance carriers, for that matter. Places like PP do receive taxpayer funds, but those funds are restricted to use for health screenings, contraceptives, annual exams, and education. Those in need of a termination procedure pay out of pocket, or in some cases, procedures are funded by private, 3rd-party groups in existence to help women who need the procedure but can't afford it. Emphasis on need. A termination for a reason other than demonstrable medical need is considered elective in all cases and is not funded by private insurance, Medicaid, or any federal/state grant program.
I do not believe that tax payers should ever be required to fund something as controversial as abortion - this, to me, would be a serious infraction of the right to life and liberty. I say that, again, as a pro-choice + socially liberal uterus owner. I want the choice to elect this procedure if needed (and I want that choice protected by legislation) but I wouldn't want someone uncomfortable with the idea to feel as though they are forced participants via taxation. To do that would be to remove choice (of participation by proxy) from one side while giving choice to the other, and that's not the idea. That's not what any other liberal-minded woman I know wants either.
You apparently know very few "liberal-minded women" then - all of the ones I know want abortion treated the same as any other medical procedure. And we feel if some people get to opt out of paying for that via taxes or health insurance premiums, then all of us should get the option to pick and choose how our money gets spent. Until I get to - for instance - stop paying for ridiculously overpriced military equipment that even the military says they don't need or Viagra for old men, why should anyone else get to choose whether or not to pay for birth control or abortions for women?
You apparently know very few "liberal-minded women" then - all of the ones I know want abortion treated the same as any other medical procedure. And we feel if some people get to opt out of paying for that via taxes or health insurance premiums, then all of us should get the option to pick and choose how our money gets spent. Until I get to - for instance - stop paying for ridiculously overpriced military equipment that even the military says they don't need or Viagra for old men, why should anyone else get to choose whether or not to pay for birth control or abortions for women?
Um, because it goes against some people's principles to pay to abort a baby.
And to the last poster, they absolutely DO pay for abortions.
And why don't taxpayers fund any OTHER women's 'health clinics"? Answer: Because they actually HAVE health services like mammograms, which PP does not. PP is an abortion place, plain and simple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can Democrats ever discuss POLICY?
