Parents, what do you build of this article?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_car…
I personally disagree with federal dollars meant to save people healthy going to abortion. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, it desires to be on her own dime. (I'm pro choice, but I don't believe federal money needs to be spent on something like that). I'm not even in favor of this condition bill to begin with (where do they propose all this money to cover it will come from? More taxes?? Anyhow, that's another story for another time).
What do you judge?
Oh. my... gawd.
I cannot believe the things I'm reading. How about if I home school then I don't remuneration taxes to public school? How about better yet.. if I don't own kids in school or kids at all.. after I can skip that tax altogether. Oh yea.. *scoffs* .. THAT makes sense.
and Texas.. I'm rarely affronted by your posts.. but wow.
Sterilization after one abortion!!? Oh .. wow.. I just don't know what to say. I'm so incredibly flabbergasted!! at that comment. It doesn't even make sense. Just because a 16 year dated or a 25 year old woman in a bad current predicament have an early term abortion (WHICH IS LEGAL and only the Christians belief early term abortion as a child *and HELLO.. we AIN'T ALL CHRISTIANS!), she should be sterilized to prevent her from loving and nurturing a child when she has adjectives her ducks in a row?
Ok.. I cannot reason with ppl near this. I can't. I have come to understand that some ppl will refuse to see logic.
i live in the United States. in the United States there is a separation between church and state. religion is not to path in on govt choices. abortion is a religious and moral issue. the govt should be able to say yes or no to that issue. it is lawful therefore it should be allowed. bottom line. denying abortions to me says the govt is operating without permission and not following the very constitution we have created.
picking and choosing which views we approaching is not how this country works. the right to bare arms anyone? no one wants that right taken away but the govt is allowed to permit religious views and religious people dictate what is okay for its citizens? sounds like a double and wrong standard. Source(s): i repugnance the war. im a pacifist. should i expect my tax dollars from the period of war to be sent by cash or money order? - same thing associates..
It's more expensive for the government to wage for food, health care, education, etc for a child than to foot for an abortion, so that's why they are making that move.
I don't come up with the government should pay for abortions unless the woman's life is dying out by maintaining the pregnancy. I DEFINITELY don't agree with using taxpayer money for this. I don't believe in abortion, so why should I clear for someone else to get one?
Answers: While I am not pro-choice, I agree with your argument. If a woman chooses to have an abortion for the purpose of convenience or an "oopsie", then it desires to be out of their own pocket. If it's not medically necessary, then I don't believe the government condition care should cover it. It's there to cover the cost of medical necessities, not terminating pregnancies of inconvenience.
This is exactly why I loathe the government dictating everything.
And yes, taxes will go up to pay for adjectives of this health care reform. Health prudence for all is a nice idea, but it's not going to happen in need a VERY VERY high price as in tax payers are forking over partly their paychecks.
Instead of unlimited government funded abortions why not do government funded sterilization after one abortion? No unwanted babies, no children abused and neglected because they aren't wanted, no woman is forced to take a baby they don't want. Problem solved, right?
***Edited because that last part be misinterpreted***
That last part of my answer was more or smaller number sarcasm (forced sterilization), but I don't think that sterilization is an outrageous thought if a woman keeps having abortions at an unlimited number. At some point plenty has to be enough. Clearly my answer was greatly misinterpreted.
Private insurance is rewarded for by the policy holders. Government insurance is paid for by people who don't even use the insurance.
And I never said anything about making abortion immoral. Do I wish it was? Yeah, I can't lie. But it's not. It IS however greatly abused and I devise it would get worse if women knew they could have it done at no expense to them. Has nought to do with my religious views, but everything to do with logical thinking and my moral view. Source(s): 100% against elective/non-medically necessary abortions. I don't agree with abortions and I don't believe they should be legal, but if they are going to verbs to be legal then the woman/parents needs to wages for it.
If a mother choices to kill a human one then she should pay for it 100%! Or give this child up for adoption at hand are plenty of couples out there that would give anything to have a babe-in-arms but they can't due to medical issues. So let these people adopt the child instead!
Federal dollars should not fund Abortions. Plain and simple, without stating which side of the issue I am on.
OK, so instead the kid and mom are on food stamps, medicare, cash assistance, and any other programs. How much of your tax dollars will that cost? It is a simple cost analysis.
Tax money will always go on something you don't agree next to. Not much you can do about it.
I think abortion should always be nearby as an option for women. I could care less who pays for it. In 30 years, it's not going to enjoy affected MY life. Don't like abortions, next don't have one. You have the right to make that choice. Other women who DO want an abortion own that right too.
I'm glad i'm not a chinese citizen, where some women are kidnapped and forced into having abortions, because of the sexual category of their babies. Just the fact that we have a CHOICE in what we do next to our bodies and pregnancies is enough for me.
I'd rather have my taxes walk to someones abortion, than have my taxes going towards raising someones 3 unwanted and unloved children for 18 years. But I don't complain, because that's the way duration is. Taxes go towards things that we don't agree with. There are worse tragedies in go.
I know plenty of woman who have had abortions because at THAT time they were unawares or prepared to give up their lives and bodies for a child, then went on to become amazing mothers a few years subsequently. But i've never met anyone who used abortion as birth control. I'm sure some people do, but they must make up a tiny percent of women who have have abortions. I would never support making women who have used their right to have an abortion, also be sterilized. A 18 year old making impossible decisions won't necessarily be the same person contained by another 5 years.
And what about the fathers? Should they be forced into vasectomies?
If abortions are going to be funded by federal money then so be it. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I can't control the choices others create, and it's not up to me to decide whether it is the wrong or right choice for them.
**Texas I hate the government dicating everything too. I would abominate it even more if they made abortions illegal and dictated that no one could have one. As of presently, abortions being legal, I have no problem near that because the government is NOT dicating that anyone MUST have an abortion. They give us a choice. Making it unendorsed would be dicating that no one could make that choice.
I don't judge a woman should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy or risk her own life going back ally, for a absence of funds
I disagree with people milking the system that could otherwise be working. However, just because i foot taxes, doesn't mean i get to say repeat offender can't collect, or illegal aliens can't have insurance. I have no say-so whatsoever.
Private insurances covers abortions, why not gov't insurance? In the long run it's a projected 5% of pregnant women that would go the abortion route instead of keeping the baby in the govt insurance allowed it. Which is cheaper for the govt- a $600 abortion (at the most) or 18 years of WIC, govt vigour insurance, TANF, etc? From a fiscal standpoint it makes sense to allow it.
**edited to take out argumentative points which clearly aren't appreciated***
Great points Smile!! There's a few things i don't want to pay for, so i'm submitting for a reimbursement for taxes that come out of my checks.
Very nice stay! Church meet state, get the hell out of state's business :) have a nice light of day
Texas, from a financial point of view, it will cost more to pay for a child a woman can't afford (18 years of food and medical and school) than to give her 100 abortions and forced sterlization will never occur, so that's not an option either
**fabulous lea! very economically said!
***Actually tex, if a woman had 6 early term abortions (which would be done contained by a dr's office and she'd walk away an hour later) it'd be roughly total $1500, whereas a tubal involves a major surgery and a hospital stay and is around $7500..not logical..even if she have 6 late term abortions it'd still be cheaper at $3600. and don't forget the govt never pays full price for anything.
It's a hott topic, i get where on earth you're coming from, we're just on 2 different sides
i agree with you redneck dad, im a country mama. i dont think that my tariff dollars should go to killing babies. im glad that some of my tax money go to giving out free birth control at health departments, but i dont want to make abortion a form of birth control by making it free
Related Questions:
Help next to exes clean gf (well they hold be together a year, so not really new)?
I'm scared out of your wits that...?
How would you accord beside these kids?
I personally disagree with federal dollars meant to save people healthy going to abortion. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, it desires to be on her own dime. (I'm pro choice, but I don't believe federal money needs to be spent on something like that). I'm not even in favor of this condition bill to begin with (where do they propose all this money to cover it will come from? More taxes?? Anyhow, that's another story for another time).
What do you judge?
Oh. my... gawd.
I cannot believe the things I'm reading. How about if I home school then I don't remuneration taxes to public school? How about better yet.. if I don't own kids in school or kids at all.. after I can skip that tax altogether. Oh yea.. *scoffs* .. THAT makes sense.
and Texas.. I'm rarely affronted by your posts.. but wow.
Sterilization after one abortion!!? Oh .. wow.. I just don't know what to say. I'm so incredibly flabbergasted!! at that comment. It doesn't even make sense. Just because a 16 year dated or a 25 year old woman in a bad current predicament have an early term abortion (WHICH IS LEGAL and only the Christians belief early term abortion as a child *and HELLO.. we AIN'T ALL CHRISTIANS!), she should be sterilized to prevent her from loving and nurturing a child when she has adjectives her ducks in a row?
Ok.. I cannot reason with ppl near this. I can't. I have come to understand that some ppl will refuse to see logic.
i live in the United States. in the United States there is a separation between church and state. religion is not to path in on govt choices. abortion is a religious and moral issue. the govt should be able to say yes or no to that issue. it is lawful therefore it should be allowed. bottom line. denying abortions to me says the govt is operating without permission and not following the very constitution we have created.
picking and choosing which views we approaching is not how this country works. the right to bare arms anyone? no one wants that right taken away but the govt is allowed to permit religious views and religious people dictate what is okay for its citizens? sounds like a double and wrong standard. Source(s): i repugnance the war. im a pacifist. should i expect my tax dollars from the period of war to be sent by cash or money order? - same thing associates..
It's more expensive for the government to wage for food, health care, education, etc for a child than to foot for an abortion, so that's why they are making that move.
I don't come up with the government should pay for abortions unless the woman's life is dying out by maintaining the pregnancy. I DEFINITELY don't agree with using taxpayer money for this. I don't believe in abortion, so why should I clear for someone else to get one?
Answers: While I am not pro-choice, I agree with your argument. If a woman chooses to have an abortion for the purpose of convenience or an "oopsie", then it desires to be out of their own pocket. If it's not medically necessary, then I don't believe the government condition care should cover it. It's there to cover the cost of medical necessities, not terminating pregnancies of inconvenience.
This is exactly why I loathe the government dictating everything.
And yes, taxes will go up to pay for adjectives of this health care reform. Health prudence for all is a nice idea, but it's not going to happen in need a VERY VERY high price as in tax payers are forking over partly their paychecks.
Instead of unlimited government funded abortions why not do government funded sterilization after one abortion? No unwanted babies, no children abused and neglected because they aren't wanted, no woman is forced to take a baby they don't want. Problem solved, right?
***Edited because that last part be misinterpreted***
That last part of my answer was more or smaller number sarcasm (forced sterilization), but I don't think that sterilization is an outrageous thought if a woman keeps having abortions at an unlimited number. At some point plenty has to be enough. Clearly my answer was greatly misinterpreted.
Private insurance is rewarded for by the policy holders. Government insurance is paid for by people who don't even use the insurance.
And I never said anything about making abortion immoral. Do I wish it was? Yeah, I can't lie. But it's not. It IS however greatly abused and I devise it would get worse if women knew they could have it done at no expense to them. Has nought to do with my religious views, but everything to do with logical thinking and my moral view. Source(s): 100% against elective/non-medically necessary abortions. I don't agree with abortions and I don't believe they should be legal, but if they are going to verbs to be legal then the woman/parents needs to wages for it.
If a mother choices to kill a human one then she should pay for it 100%! Or give this child up for adoption at hand are plenty of couples out there that would give anything to have a babe-in-arms but they can't due to medical issues. So let these people adopt the child instead!
Federal dollars should not fund Abortions. Plain and simple, without stating which side of the issue I am on.
OK, so instead the kid and mom are on food stamps, medicare, cash assistance, and any other programs. How much of your tax dollars will that cost? It is a simple cost analysis.
Tax money will always go on something you don't agree next to. Not much you can do about it.
I think abortion should always be nearby as an option for women. I could care less who pays for it. In 30 years, it's not going to enjoy affected MY life. Don't like abortions, next don't have one. You have the right to make that choice. Other women who DO want an abortion own that right too.
I'm glad i'm not a chinese citizen, where some women are kidnapped and forced into having abortions, because of the sexual category of their babies. Just the fact that we have a CHOICE in what we do next to our bodies and pregnancies is enough for me.
I'd rather have my taxes walk to someones abortion, than have my taxes going towards raising someones 3 unwanted and unloved children for 18 years. But I don't complain, because that's the way duration is. Taxes go towards things that we don't agree with. There are worse tragedies in go.
I know plenty of woman who have had abortions because at THAT time they were unawares or prepared to give up their lives and bodies for a child, then went on to become amazing mothers a few years subsequently. But i've never met anyone who used abortion as birth control. I'm sure some people do, but they must make up a tiny percent of women who have have abortions. I would never support making women who have used their right to have an abortion, also be sterilized. A 18 year old making impossible decisions won't necessarily be the same person contained by another 5 years.
And what about the fathers? Should they be forced into vasectomies?
If abortions are going to be funded by federal money then so be it. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I can't control the choices others create, and it's not up to me to decide whether it is the wrong or right choice for them.
**Texas I hate the government dicating everything too. I would abominate it even more if they made abortions illegal and dictated that no one could have one. As of presently, abortions being legal, I have no problem near that because the government is NOT dicating that anyone MUST have an abortion. They give us a choice. Making it unendorsed would be dicating that no one could make that choice.
I don't judge a woman should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy or risk her own life going back ally, for a absence of funds
I disagree with people milking the system that could otherwise be working. However, just because i foot taxes, doesn't mean i get to say repeat offender can't collect, or illegal aliens can't have insurance. I have no say-so whatsoever.
Private insurances covers abortions, why not gov't insurance? In the long run it's a projected 5% of pregnant women that would go the abortion route instead of keeping the baby in the govt insurance allowed it. Which is cheaper for the govt- a $600 abortion (at the most) or 18 years of WIC, govt vigour insurance, TANF, etc? From a fiscal standpoint it makes sense to allow it.
**edited to take out argumentative points which clearly aren't appreciated***
Great points Smile!! There's a few things i don't want to pay for, so i'm submitting for a reimbursement for taxes that come out of my checks.
Very nice stay! Church meet state, get the hell out of state's business :) have a nice light of day
Texas, from a financial point of view, it will cost more to pay for a child a woman can't afford (18 years of food and medical and school) than to give her 100 abortions and forced sterlization will never occur, so that's not an option either
**fabulous lea! very economically said!
***Actually tex, if a woman had 6 early term abortions (which would be done contained by a dr's office and she'd walk away an hour later) it'd be roughly total $1500, whereas a tubal involves a major surgery and a hospital stay and is around $7500..not logical..even if she have 6 late term abortions it'd still be cheaper at $3600. and don't forget the govt never pays full price for anything.
It's a hott topic, i get where on earth you're coming from, we're just on 2 different sides
i agree with you redneck dad, im a country mama. i dont think that my tariff dollars should go to killing babies. im glad that some of my tax money go to giving out free birth control at health departments, but i dont want to make abortion a form of birth control by making it free
Related Questions: