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.
No, I never said that. I POINTED OUT that making abortion illegal would only hurt poor women....the ones who need the most help.
I understand...but I dont quite see how that is any different from what I just stated..If Im not mistaken, you explicitly stated that the reason that making abortion illegal would only hurt poor women, is because rich women would still find a way to get them overseas. Well, I was just trying to point out that anyone could go overseas to circumvent our laws. It doesnt mean that there is any sense in us legalizing crimes, or anything that our society deems inhumane.
At any rate, although I disagree with abortion being funded by taxpayers, one thing I would like to submit is that: even if we did approve it for the govt. healthcare plan, there will undoubtedly be a cap on the number of abortions that each woman could have funded by taxpayers; most likely only one or two at the most. This will still be unsettling to many women who wish to terminate lives at will. Further, I suspect that the abortion doctors who will be covered under the govt. healthcare plan wont be among the best. So malpractice lawsuits for it should skyrocket, but that will be the case among all medical procedures anyway.
But if we are going to fund abortions publicly, I think that since it is an elective procedure, women who have abortions should pay higher taxes than those who choose to keep their child/put it up for adoption/give the father custody. Or at minimum, women who dont have abortions should be given tax breaks, which should help them support their offspring, if they chose to raise it.
I understand...but I dont quite see how that is any different from what I just stated..If Im not mistaken, you explicitly stated that the reason that making abortion illegal would only hurt poor women, is because rich women would still find a way to get them overseas. Well, I was just trying to point out that anyone could go overseas to circumvent our laws. It doesnt mean that there is any sense in us legalizing crimes, or anything that our society deems inhumane.
At any rate, although I disagree with abortion being funded by taxpayers, one thing I would like to submit is that: even if we did approve it for the govt. healthcare plan, there will undoubtedly be a cap on the number of abortions that each woman could have funded by taxpayers; most likely only one or two at the most. This will still be unsettling to many women who wish to terminate lives at will. Further, I suspect that the abortion doctors who will be covered under the govt. healthcare plan wont be among the best. So malpractice lawsuits for it should skyrocket, but that will be the case among all medical procedures anyway.
But if we are going to fund abortions publicly, I think that since it is an elective procedure, women who have abortions should pay higher taxes than those who choose to keep their child/put it up for adoption/give the father custody. Or at minimum, women who dont have abortions should be given tax breaks, which should help them support their offspring, if they chose to raise it.
People ALREADY get tax breaks for pumping out kids!
The Wealthy in this country should also pay much higher taxes since they use more of the "commons" of the country....but SOME people don't want that.
Most anti-choice people just want to punish and control women.
How about taxing men who don't have a vasectomy MORE than others who do?????
anti-choicers are anti-woman. maybe they'd be better off living and preaching to the choir if they move to Chile, Nicaragua and Costa Rica .... where women have no choice.
end of story ... no more needs to be said.
over and out.
Pro abortionists are anti babys and love to kill because they have the right to kill. Move to China where abortions are loved
Most anti-choice people just want to punish and control women.
Really?...but arent a great deal of anti choice people women themselves? Are you saying then, that they want to control themselves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?!
How about taxing men who don't have a vasectomy MORE than others who do?????
That wouldnt make much sense to me...we'd have to tax each man and woman who havent chosen to sterilized themselves...I mean we could do that, but then neither women nor men would be incentivized to have children.
And worse yet, the men and women who havent been sterilized would be paying tax money that they would need to support their children.
See, here's the thing ... what you are advocating is taking a choice away ... you are saying that women, no matter what circumstances they may be under, or how they got pregnant, or what state the baby may be in, shall have that baby no matter what ... that's dictatorial and against the law. With your line of thinking, no babies would ever be born because you assume that always choose to abort. In case you haven't heard, millions of babies are born ... but you want millions more.
Get real and stay out of people's private affairs. It's gross.
Sex education is the key, but most of you anti-choicers don't believe in that either, which is even more gross.
Tax money is being used to promote and fund abortions in other countries and some want it to be funded through the govt. health reform.
It's now my business whether you like it or not.
I'll say it before and I'll say it again. Pro choice folks always seem to be for every choice except choosing not to have sex if they're not ready to be parents.
Really?...but arent a great deal of anti choice people women themselves? Are you saying then, that they want to control themselves?
Why not? Control freaks come in both sexes....there are women who believe they should be controlled by men...
That wouldnt make much sense to me...we'd have to tax each man and woman who havent chosen to sterilized themselves...I mean we could do that, but then neither women nor men would be incentivized to have children. """"
OH PUHlease ...people will NOT stop having babies for any reason...that's NOT an argument...
And worse yet, the men and women who havent been sterilized would be paying tax money that they would need to support their children.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,023,210 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?!
No, I never said that. I POINTED OUT that making abortion illegal would only hurt poor women....the ones who need the most help.
From my understanding, a lot of poor women tend to be more religious and shun abortion as opposed to those who are more affluent and don't give a damn about religion. Besides, this is a poor rationale for abortion. Just as the other poster stated, I can understand (but not agree) the whole argument of women having control of their reproductive systems. What I can't understand is this whole insistence of yours in keeping abortion legal just because the rich can just fly somewhere where abortion is legal and the poor cannot. We are not discussing a harmless procedure that is akin to the removal of a hangnail. We are talking about exterminating LIFE here. We are talking about a brutal procedure designed to kill an unborn child without ANY regards to pain or easing their discomfort. Where is your heart?
lol...floundering about what?..Im just enjoying a convo about Abortion funding..
anyway, how could you in one breath say that people should be taxed for having children or sterilized if they dont want to be taxed, and then say that it wouldnt deter people from having children?
Thats contradictory...lol...of course it would deter people from having children, if they have to be sterilized in order not to be taxed..
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,023,210 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Who?Me?!
You just can't address my post.
Correction. I cannot address your post to your liking. Everytime I attempt to address your posts, you just turn around and twist my words to mean something else entirely. Would you be happy if I told you that I think abortion should be illegal in ALL cases? Personally, I don't agree with abortion in rape cases but I'm not about to tell a woman to carry a rapist child to term as the women never consented to the sexual act. The woman was dehumanized in the act of rape and carrying the rapist child would likely exacerbate her trauma. Of course, there are women that actually have carried the child of their rapist to term but I don't think the law should force them to. If the mother's life is at stake, then how do you expect the unborn child to continue surviving? Chances are, the baby will die anyway so preserving the life of the mother should take precedence over the tenuous life of the child.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,023,210 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl
nope ... I can't believe they are still blathering about it. Their anti-choice hammer must be getting dull ... well, maybe not. Forcing women to carry a pregnancy ... yuck.
Have you ever seen photos of aborted babies? Talk about yuck!
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.
