Abortions in the U.S.

[cj's dad]

Since 1973 (Roe v. Wade) there are viable estimates of 50,000,000 deaths by abortion in this country. To put that in perspective, The 2 biggest years of the "baby boom" generation were 1956 and 1961 with total births in each year at 4,300,000.

Abortion has cost this country an entire generation of citizens.

Allowing that a % of the abortions were medically or emotionally necessary, this figure is astoundingly high for a "civilized" nation.

[Overlay]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34471795/ns/health-pregnancy/

The above article reports that a new blood test has been developed in the Netherlands that will allow 100% accurate determination of the fetus' sex within five weeks of conception, rather than less accurate first-trimester tests currently available, or definitive (but more invasive) tests performed near the end of, or outside, the first trimester, as previously. Ethicists fear that it will give rise to more abortions based solely on gender preference.

[lamboguy]

not only that, its a sick way to go. a life is precious and priceless and anyone having abortions are selfish. not only that life is a complete miracle and haveing abortions not only cheapens the person having one but also the society that we live in by making it like an every day occaision.

[Tom]

If we must pay for abortions, I want to pay to pay for Holocaust Harry's.
Or, hell, any adult dem for that matter.

[Robert Goren]

I am always amazed by the pro-lifers and it is a sin to have an abortion, but are willing to let a child die because his parents can not afford the medical treatment to keep it alive.

[46zilzal]

I am always amazed by the pro-lifers and it is a sin to have an abortion, but are willing to let a child die because his parents can not afford the medical treatment to keep it alive.


exactly
It is the WOMAN'S DECISION................ no one else's NO ONE!

OVERPOPULATION is rampant and you want MORE people. Thomas Malthus and Dr. Paul Erhlich were 100% correct.

[Tom]

I am always amazed by the pro-lifers and it is a sin to have an abortion, but are willing to let a child die because his parents can not afford the medical treatment to keep it alive.

BS.

[exactaplayer]

I am always amazed by the pro-lifers and it is a sin to have an abortion, but are willing to let a child die because his parents can not afford the medical treatment to keep it alive.
Excellent point.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I can't say that I'll miss any of the unwanted, aborted babies...

...but I don't feel anyone but the individual that makes this choice should pay for it in any form... and it certainly isn't a procedure that should be promoted or encouraged by legislative policy any more than euthanasia should be.

If you want the government out of your vag, fine by me - just keep your vag out of my government as a reciprocal courtesy.

[cj's dad]

exactly
It is the WOMAN'S DECISION................ no one else's NO ONE!

OVERPOPULATION is rampant and you want MORE people. Thomas Malthus and Dr. Paul Erhlich were 100% correct.

That it is no one elses decision is insane. Husband and wife have sex, wife becomes pregnant, husband is euphoric, wife is not. She gets more votes than him simply because the laws of nature have made her the child bearer ??

You must be a huge fan of Euthanasia.

BTW-Where do Hitler, Pol Pot. Idi Amin and their ilk fit into your 100% correct group.

[chickenhead]

if men had to give birth we'd be extinct.

[ArlJim78]

,..but I don't feel anyone but the individual that makes this choice should pay for it in any form... and it certainly isn't a procedure that should be promoted or encouraged by legislative policy any more than euthanasia should be.

If you want the government out of your vag, fine by me - just keep your vag out of my government as a reciprocal courtesy.
exactly right :ThmbUp:

[Valuist]

That it is no one elses decision is insane. Husband and wife have sex, wife becomes pregnant, husband is euphoric, wife is not. She gets more votes than him simply because the laws of nature have made her the child bearer ??

You must be a huge fan of Euthanasia.

BTW-Where do Hitler, Pol Pot. Idi Amin and their ilk fit into your 100% correct group.

I don't have numbers to prove it, but I'd have to think the majority of abortions are to unwed, usually teenage girls.

[Tom]

Excellent point.

No,it is a stupid point and the two are not at all related.
It is like saying you are against bank robbery but you are willing to allow people to have their homes repossessed. The level of debate here, on the left side of the aisle, has dropped to new lows. Are logic and facts obsolete now?

Frankly, I find is absurd that those who have no problem tearing apart the unborn with a vacuum cleaner had no stones for simple water being poured on someone to get information while not harming him in any way whatsoever.

[chickenhead]

I don't have numbers to prove it, but I'd have to think the majority of abortions are to unwed, usually teenage girls.

they are. whats not often talked about, for whatever reason, I guess because "good" news doesn't sell -- is that the # of abortions has fallen for something like 19 years straight. Considering how much our population has grown over that same period that is striking. The # of abortions tracks the # of teenage pregnancies very well, which has also fallen for many years in a row, it's down something like 40% off it's peak.

Help keep poor unwed teenage girls from getting pregnant, and you cut down the # of abortions substantially. And that is actually what has been happening, for going on two decades.

[kenwoodallpromos]

WOW! But, how many births were prevented due to all types of contraception and to visectomies?

[boxcar]

exactly
It is the WOMAN'S DECISION................ no one else's NO ONE!

OVERPOPULATION is rampant and you want MORE people. Thomas Malthus and Dr. Paul Erhlich were 100% correct.

If it's no one else's business, then why is the U.S. government involved?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I am always amazed by the pro-lifers and it is a sin to have an abortion, but are willing to let a child die because his parents can not afford the medical treatment to keep it alive.

How many children have the pro-lifers allowed to die? Got those numbers handy for us?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

WOW! But, how many births were prevented due to all types of contraception and to visectomies?

Why do you ask? Are you attempting to make a moral equivalency?

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

shocking, another post of CJ"s dad i get to disagree with!!

we're overpopulated as it is and overtaxed as it is, imagine if we were having to pay to support those 50 million unwanted kids?

50 million abortions, none have effected my life, so maybe thats why i don't really care. It should be the two people who were involved at conception, gov't shouldn't pay for any of it, but it's their bodies, their call.

[Tom]

How many children have the pro-lifers allowed to die? Got those numbers handy for us?

Boxcar

I do.
Holocaust Harry claimed that two people die every 10 minutes for lack of HC.
Rush calculated it out yesterday to 241,000 people who will die waiting for this HC bill to take effect as far as providing care.

[boxcar]

shocking, another post of CJ"s dad i get to disagree with!!

we're overpopulated as it is and overtaxed as it is, imagine if we were having to pay to support those 50 million unwanted kids?

50 million abortions, none have effected my life, so maybe thats why i don't really care. It should be the two people who were involved at conception, gov't shouldn't pay for any of it, but it's their bodies, their call.

You say "overpopulated"? I suppose those murdered fetuses wouldn't be useful to grow up as taxpayers and help pay down the small" debt we owe? Fewer people to pay off such an humongous debt makes eminently more sense to you, so that fewer people would incur a larger tax burden? Is this what you think?

Permit to give you a heads up on the next great public policy debate that looms ahead on the horizon, i.e. What to do with the illegal aliens within our borders? One of the primary arguments the libs will use to justify giving them
amnesty will be that they'll become taxpayers and as such will help pay down this huge national debt. Most honest, inquisitive minds would be led to wonder, therefore, why libs would give tacit approval to the murder of millions of potential taxpayers!

Boxcar

[Black Ruby]

How many children have the pro-lifers allowed to die? Got those numbers handy for us?

Boxcar

Checking the numbers of children killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan could give you a good start.

[Tom]

No, you can blame SH and the Taliban/Bin Laden, and Obama for his
murderous attacks on Pakistan.

A very weak argument and one that shows an inate inability to argue abortion on its own. You can't justify abortion so you try to change the subject. The reality of it is, the situations in the middle east were NOT caused by us and our response to then was NOT intended to murder babies. Abortion is ALWAYS about killing babies.

[Quagmire]

You say "overpopulated"? I suppose those murdered fetuses wouldn't be useful to grow up as taxpayers and help pay down the small" debt we owe? Fewer people to pay off such an humongous debt makes eminently more sense to you, so that fewer people would incur a larger tax burden? Is this what you think?
Boxcar

Boxcar not to sound cold but wouldn't those "murdered fetuses" have been dependents for their first 18 years and resulted in larger tax refunds for their parents...would that help pay down the deficit? Wouldn't they have mostly been born into poverty resulting in higher welfare payouts to their parents...would that help pay down the deficit? Some of them might eventually grow into taxpayers but some of them would also grow into criminals requiring more jails and higher budgets to pay for them...would that help with the deficit?

[RaceBookJoe]

Maybe they can put an amendment in that if you have an abortion...then both the mother and father have to pay to have their reproductive systems removed so it wont happen again . :bang: rbj

[boxcar]

Checking the numbers of children killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan could give you a good start.

What do war casualties have to do pro-lifers allegedly killing babies here in the U.S.? Your red herring adds nothing to the discussion.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Boxcar not to sound cold but wouldn't those "murdered fetuses" have been dependents for their first 18 years and resulted in larger tax refunds for their parents...

With that argument, none of us should have been allowed to live. What an excellent reason to abort a human fetus. :rolleyes:


would that help pay down the deficit? Wouldn't they have mostly been born into poverty resulting in higher welfare payouts to their parents...would that help pay down the deficit? Some of them might eventually grow into taxpayers but some of them would also grow into criminals requiring more jails and higher budgets to pay for them...would that help with the deficit?

Again, with any of these arguments, you make a great case for the entire human race to obliterate itself! How could taking a risk on anyone's birth justify allowing that birth? Even many kids born on the "right side" of the railroad tracks can lead unproductive, empty lives.

Furthermore, your argument also suggests that only the rich should have kids. You're actually making a case for justifying mandatory abortions for everyone who doesn't meet specific financial conditions. Is this what you're advocating that America should become?

You're attempting to play God here with all your hypotheticals. What if this, what if that, what if something else, etc., etc.

Boxcar

[Quagmire]

You're actually making a case for justifying mandatory abortions for everyone who doesn't meet specific financial conditions. Is this what you're advocating that America should become?

You're attempting to play God here with all your hypotheticals. What if this, what if that, what if something else, etc., etc.

Boxcar

I'm not making a case for mandatory abortions at all, just for the right to choose. Can you go into further detail about your plans to pay off the national debt by outlawing abortions.

[Show Me the Wire]

I'm not making a case for mandatory abortions at all, just for the right to choose. Can you go into further detail about your plans to pay off the national debt by outlawing abortions.

Let me jump in. If you have a right to choose, you have no right to have someone else pay for your choice.

You have many rights, but none of them are funded by other people, so why should abortion be granted such a special position to be funded by the federal governement, when my right to bear arms is not funded, and my right to choose smoking is not funded?

The federal government does not automatically pay for a gun or my cigarettes (btw I don't smoke, just an example of choice). I don't see any difference between the above-scenarios to justify the federal gaovernment funding abortions and not funding gun or cigarette purchases.

In fact, funding abortion is even more detrimental as evolution depends on new life.

[cj's dad]

shocking, another post of CJ"s dad i get to disagree with!!

we're overpopulated as it is and overtaxed as it is, imagine if we were having to pay to support those 50 million unwanted kids?

50 million abortions, none have effected my life, so maybe thats why i don't really care. It should be the two people who were involved at conception, gov't shouldn't pay for any of it, but it's their bodies, their call.

How 'bout this for an idea to bolster your thought process. Lets go through all the nursing homes, elderly care facilities and the like and just "do away with" all of those above 70 who are senile, have Alzheimers, are on the gov't dole for their monthly care etc.... After all they are a drain on society and if we could just "eliminate" them; my gosh look at the savings for the gubbmint.

By the way, once again to put things in perspective, the 50,000,000 would be equal to a crowd of 70,000 at your local NFL stadium for 700+ consecutive weeks (14 years without break). Yeah, that's what I want my elected officials to facilitate; mass murder.

[Quagmire]

Let me jump in. If you have a right to choose, you have no right to have someone else pay for your choice.

You have many rights, but none of them are funded by other people, so why should abortion be granted such a special position to be funded by the federal governement, when my right to bear arms is not funded, and my right to choose smoking is not funded?

The federal government does not automatically pay for a gun or my cigarettes (btw I don't smoke, just an example of choice). I don't see any difference between the above-scenarios to justify the federal gaovernment funding abortions and not funding gun or cigarette purchases.

In fact, funding abortion is even more detrimental as evolution depends on new life.

Would you support a womans right to choose if no govt funds were used to pay for the abortions?

[Show Me the Wire]

Yes. The government has no rights to compel birth or limit birth.

It is not about whether or not the right exists, but who financially pays for personal choices to exercise a personal right.

[chickenhead]

Yes. The government has no rights to compel birth or limit birth.

It is not about whether or not the right exists, but who financially pays for personal choices to exercise a personal right.

It's really kind of a tangential argument -- Medicaid provides health care to poor people, whether they're having babies or having abortions (or anything else) Medicaid and by extension you are paying for it. For the types of poorer younger girls on Medicaid health care is pretty much all about pregnancy in one way or the other. If they have a crack baby -- you pay for that too. If they do everything right, but still have a baby with troubles, you pay for that also. We pay for their decisions no matter what those decisions are, because we (the collective) decided it's more abhorrent not to, up to a certain point.

Your argument is really about whether we should provide health care for poor people or not (I'd argue this includes old people as well as young, people that can't afford it are people that can't afford it). Pregnancy and its outcome is not unique, many things that require health care is as a result of choices people make. You brought up smoking and guns -- if you're on Medicaid and you smoke and get cancer, the gov't does pick up the bill. If you're on Medicaid and you shoot yourself in the foot with your gun, the gov't picks up the bill. You climb a ladder with no one holding it and tip over, the gov't pays for that too. Also a poor decision.

Realistically, even if you aren't explicitly on some gov't program, just don't have any money -- the collective still foots the bill, just in the form of higher premiums.

[46zilzal]

You must be a huge fan of Euthanasia.


I have been TORMENTED by dying people in severe pain begging me to "leave them something to help get out of this life" often enough to know that euthanasia has a pace in medicine. We treat our pets with more respect in that regard!

[Show Me the Wire]

It's really kind of a tangential argument -- Medicaid provides health care to poor people, whether they're having babies or having abortions (or anything else) Medicaid and by extension you are paying for it. For the types of poorer younger girls on Medicaid health care is pretty much all about pregnancy in one way or the other. If they have a crack baby -- you pay for that too. If they do everything right, but still have a baby with troubles, you pay for that also. We pay for their decisions no matter what those decisions are, because we (the collective) decided it's more abhorrent not to, up to a certain point.

Your argument is really about whether we should provide health care for poor people or not (I'd argue this includes old people as well as young, people that can't afford it are people that can't afford it). Pregnancy and its outcome is not unique, many things that require health care is as a result of choices people make. You brought up smoking and guns -- if you're on Medicaid and you smoke and get cancer, the gov't does pick up the bill. If you're on Medicaid and you shoot yourself in the foot with your gun, the gov't picks up the bill. You climb a ladder with no one holding it and tip over, the gov't pays for that too. Also a poor decision.

Realistically, even if you aren't explicitly on some gov't program, just don't have any money -- the collective still foots the bill, just in the form of higher premiums.

Elective aborting is not health care. If it is a medical necessity to save the mother's life, it properly falls under health care of a living being.

Big difference between remedying health issues to continue living and elective procedures. If there wasn't everyone should receive elective plastic surgery to have a better quality of life.

[chickenhead]

Elective aborting is not health care. If it is a medical necessity to save the mother's life, it properly falls under health care of a living being.

Paying for broken fingers, toes, and noses isn't a medical necessity to save anyone's life either -- people choose whether to have them "fixed". We can go 'round and 'round forever, I understand your point, you understand mine, and the cost of abortions is much lower than the cost of all sorts of other procedures that we pay for that are either "elective" by your definition, or as a result of a decision made by the recipient.

Again, this is a much broader argument, it's not specific to abortion.

[cj's dad]

I have been TORMENTED by dying people in severe pain begging me to "leave them something to help get out of this life" often enough to know that euthanasia has a pace in medicine. We treat our pets with more respect in that regard!

FWIW, I actually have no problem with that as it is a decision made by a competent person who in most cases has lived their life and at this point there is no quality of life remaining.

An aborted child has zero say in the decision to end its' life.

[Show Me the Wire]

Paying for broken fingers, toes, and noses isn't a medical necessity to save anyone's life either -- people choose whether to have them "fixed". We can go 'round and 'round forever, I understand your point, you understand mine, and the cost of abortions is much lower than the cost of all sorts of other procedures that we pay for that are either "elective" by your definition, or as a result of a decision made by the recipient.

Again, this is a much broader argument, it's not specific to abortion.


It can be, but let's limit it to rights. No person had the right t ohealth care under the Constitution. We as a people decided to extend health care for the welfare of the population.

Abortion is a right per the Constitution, under privacy. As such it should be treated as all rights gauranteed under the Constitution. No other constitutional right is federally funded and abortion is not an exception.

Rights are rights and are given Constitutional protection. Very different from compassion and charity, which led to health care. Health care benefits can be revoked at any time. Abortion rights can't be revoked. No consitutional right should be elevated above another through federal funding.

[chickenhead]

All medical decisions, like fixing your broken arm, also lives under that same exact right as abortion. The government can't outlaw fixing broken arms either. And the charity comes in deciding what we're going to pay for. Abortion is in no way shape or form unique from any other run of the mill medical decision in that regard. They are all protected rights. The decision was that abortion was *no different*, not that abortion was particularly special.

[Show Me the Wire]

All medical decisions, like fixing your broken arm, also lives under that same exact right as abortion. The government can't outlaw fixing broken arms either. And the charity comes in deciding what we're going to pay for. Abortion is in no way shape or form unique from any other run of the mill medical decision in that regard. They are all protected rights. The decision was that abortion was *no different*, not that abortion was particularly special.


Not true. Your your medical records are protected under privacy rights. Big difference between Constitutional rights and what we deem as a society to do. Medical care is not a right, it is benefit we decided to give some people. All health care subsidies can be erased by a vote or executive order.

You do have the right to pursue happiness, so I want to be happy by having elective cosmetic surgery. Based on your logic the federal government should pay for my elective right to be pursue happiness.

No Constitutional right should be federally funded. It is indeed a slippery slope.

[sandpit]

50 million abortions, none have effected my life, so maybe thats why i don't really care. It should be the two people who were involved at conception, gov't shouldn't pay for any of it, but it's their bodies, their call.

How can you say this? One of those aborted persons may have grown up to be your spouse, your in-law, your boss, your lover, your worst enemy, your AA mentor, just about anybody that could touch your life...and if you take the 50M as roughly 1/7 of our current population, the odds are very good that you would have met and been affected by some of them.

I'm not endorsing one side or the other, but just exploring a possibility.

[chickenhead]

Not true. Your your medical records are protected under privacy rights. Big difference between Constitutional rights and what we deem as a society to do. Medical care is not a right, it is benefit we decided to give some people. All health care subsidies can be erased by a vote or executive order.

You do have the right to pursue happiness, so I want to be happy by having elective cosmetic surgery. Based on your logic the federal government should pay for my elective right to be pursue happiness.

No Constitutional right should be federally funded. It is indeed a slippery slope.

You are combining two completely separate issues, repeatedly, I am not.

We have the right to pursue medical treatment. Absolutely. Whether that is an abortion or getting a cast put on an arm. It is the exact same right in both cases. That is the entire essence of the 1973 decision. It didn't create a new right for abortion, it said abortion falls under the same protections as other forms of medical care. If you've never considered that you pursuing care for a broken arm is a right, its only because no one has ever tried to deny that right to you. It is the same exact "right" that protects both. You have the right to pursue treatment. Its your body. your decision. Your right. The government cannot remove that right from you.

What we pay for, what we provide as a form of general welfare, has nothing to do with rights. It's an entirely different thing, which is why I called this entire argument tangential. It's whatever we decide we want to pay for, for whatever reasons we decide to pay for them. Period.

But if you want your logical rule to be "Do not fund anything that is a right", that we should not pay for abortions BECAUSE pursuing them is a right we hold the individual to have, to be consistent you must also believe that we should not pay for fixing broken arms, or breast cancer, or anything else. Because those are all protected under the exact same rights. Pursuing all of those things is a right. Paying for any of those things, any kind of medical care, is federal funding of a right.

Abortion is not unique, in any way shape or form, in that regards.

[boxcar]

I'm not making a case for mandatory abortions at all, just for the right to choose. Can you go into further detail about your plans to pay off the national debt by outlawing abortions.

I never said I had any plans. Go back and reread those earlier remarks.

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

FWIW, I actually have no problem with that as it is a decision made by a competent person who in most cases has lived their life and at this point there is no quality of life remaining.

An aborted child has zero say in the decision to end its' life.
A fetus never was a child.

[Tom]

ALL children were once fetuses.
Fetuses do not become anything but children.
Tell, me oh master of all knowledge, when does one become a child?
Before or after birth?
Magically, as it passes through the birth canal?
Magic dust by the OR nurses?

[46zilzal]

Fetuses do not become anything but children.

Strange I dissected Fetal pigs and cats and they didn't become anything either, but WOULD have, if allowed to go to term, become pigs and cats respectively.

[boxcar]

A fetus never was a child.

So saith the godlesss! What else would we expect? But what saith God?

Luke 2:5
5 in order to register, along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child .
NASB

Matt 24:19-20
19 "But woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days!
NASB

Luke 1:41
41 And it came about that when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb
NASB

In God's mind, a pregnant woman is not with "blob" or with a "mass of cells". A pregnant woman is with a human being (albeit not fully formed) made in His image.

The fury of hell will be unleashed upon all murderers of all the innocent babies -- in and outside the womb!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Paying for broken fingers, toes, and noses isn't a medical necessity to save anyone's life either -- people choose whether to have them "fixed". We can go 'round and 'round forever, I understand your point, you understand mine, and the cost of abortions is much lower than the cost of all sorts of other procedures that we pay for that are either "elective" by your definition, or as a result of a decision made by the recipient.

Again, this is a much broader argument, it's not specific to abortion.

But mending of broken limbs has never considered an "elective" procedure. However, the vast majority of abortion do fall under this category.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Strange I dissected Fetal pigs and cats and they didn't become anything either, but WOULD have, if allowed to go to term, become pigs and cats respectively.

Very good, you got your annoying irrelevant post out of the way for the holidays. Were you under the assumption were were talking about barnyard animals here? :rolleyes:

[chickenhead]

But mending of broken limbs has never considered an "elective" procedure. However, the vast majority of abortion do fall under this category.

Boxcar

Hip replacements, pacemakers, angioplasty, knee surgery, shoulder surgery, tumor biopsy, colonoscopy, all the woman stuff, etc etc -- these are all elective procedures. The way most people use elective is only in reference to plastic surgery, or to mean frivolous, which is one kind, but that isn't the medical definition.

Elective procedure is any that is made at the patient and doctors choice, but is not an emergency and does not need to be done at that time. A lot of the most common things fall under the elective category. Elective procedures can be very important to quality of life and/or duration of life.

[Tom]

I have no problem with elective surgery to correct health problems. Abortions do not fall into that category - pregnancy is itself a choice.
Having a degenerative hip is not like being pregnant.

Given X dollars to spend, X doctors to spent it on, how many legitimate procedures will be denied because funding goes to socially convenient abortions? Do we spend it on radiation therapy or abortions?

Many here have whined endlessly about how poor our HC is here in the USA - proudly flashing graphs showing us inferior to Upper Slobovia in cancer treatment.....so we improve that by killing babies??

[boxcar]

Hip replacements, pacemakers, angioplasty, knee surgery, shoulder surgery, tumor biopsy, colonoscopy, all the woman stuff, etc etc -- these are all elective procedures. The way most people use elective is only in reference to plastic surgery, or to mean frivolous, which is one kind, but that isn't the medical definition.

Elective procedure is any that is made at the patient and doctors choice, but is not an emergency and does not need to be done at that time. A lot of the most common things fall under the elective category. Elective procedures can be very important to quality of life and/or duration of life.

So, then...we agree that nothing should be paid for at the taxpayer's expense that isn't an emergency procedure? No one should have the right to dip his hand into my pocket to pay for his elective procedure. Do you agree with this?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I have no problem with elective surgery to correct health problems. Abortions do not fall into that category - pregnancy is itself a choice.
Having a degenerative hip is not like being pregnant.

BINGO! You nailed it perfectly, Tom! Most abortions are not performed to health-related reasons. Most are abortions-on-demand and are performed because the child is an inconvenience for one reason or another. But the possibility of carrying this "inconvenience" in the womb should have been thought of prior to making the CHOICE to engage in sexual activity. Why is anyone obligated to pay for someone else's poor choices?

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

So, then...we agree that nothing should be paid for at the taxpayer's expense that isn't an emergency procedure? No one should have the right to dip his hand into my pocket to pay for his elective procedure. Do you agree with this?

Boxcar

No, I think there are tons of non-emergency procedures it makes sense to pay for. Pretty much all preventative care is non-emergency and elective. It's much cheaper to pay for the non-emergency care, which reduces the costly emergency care, than it is to pay for the emergencies that come up from lack of elective preventative care. So I'm just about the polar opposite on that, on a purely cost basis.

Abortion, as a component in that who pays for what debate, is not that important to me. I don't look at it this way, but if we're just purely talking economics, paying for an abortion is much cheaper than paying to raise the child as a ward of the state. Again, that's a pretty cold hearted view, but if we're only concerned about how much we have to spend for other peoples choices, abortion is a huge saver of money when you look at the totality of costs.

I'm a lot more interested in making sure we're doing everything we can to reduce the number of abortions, by keeping girls that don't want to get pregnant from getting pregnant in the first place. Almost one third of all women have had an abortion, 40% of women 40-55 have had an abortion -- next time you see 10 women standing in a group consider that. Either many many many women are monsters, or, to view it with a little more empathy, for a variety of reasons, had to make a very heartbreaking decision as some time in their past, one it's biologically impossible for me to ever be faced with. I'd say my empathy overwhelms any importance I give to my own sense of righteousness.

Abortion, as an issue, will never be resolved, its a very dark and ugly and sad situation, a mother not wanting to take a pregnancy to term. Once you end up there all outcomes suck -- for the child, the mother, the family, the tax payer, everyone. No law is going to change that, and no change in Medicaid coverage.

[Tom]

No, I think there are tons of non-emergency procedures it makes sense to pay for.

Makes no sense to me for ME to pay for it unless I receive it. If you receive it, it makes sense to me that you pay for it. Not that I wouldn't give you my blood if you needed it! ;)

That should be the vast majority case - 90+%.

[Tom]

Once you end up there all outcomes suck....

You don't end up there - you go there.
You end up at Denny's. No one goes there. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

No, I think there are tons of non-emergency procedures it makes sense to pay for. Pretty much all preventative care is non-emergency and elective. It's much cheaper to pay for the non-emergency care, which reduces the costly emergency care, than it is to pay for the emergencies that come up from lack of elective preventative care. So I'm just about the polar opposite on that, on a purely cost basis.

Man...do I have you pegged or what? :rolleyes: As God is my witness, I knew you'd come back with this kind of an answer -- an answer, in fact, that many a liberal mind would concoct.

Okay....let me see if I have this right: Since we were discussing all the numerous "elective" procedures out there, you are now saying that there are tons of THOSE that it makes sense to pay for -- that's it's cheaper and so on, correct? So, if this is the case, then just how "elective" are they? At some point the lines between "elective" and "necessary" become somewhat blurred, don't they? It certainly isn't necessary for a woman to go out and get her face shot up with a bunch of botox, but something like a colonoscopy that a physician for one reason or another may actually recommend to his patient moves a lot closer to the line of "necessity" rather than an outright frivolous choice. In fact, very many "elective" procedures would seem to spill over that "necessity" line, wouldn't they with respect to long term health-related concerns? What might be considered "elective" now will often prove out to have been the right, common sense, health-related decision down the road. Is this right?

But abortions-on-demand certainly fall into the botox category from a health standpoint. There's no blurring of any lines with these kinds of abortions.

Abortion, as a component in that who pays for what debate, is not that important to me. I don't look at it this way, but if we're just purely talking economics, paying for an abortion is much cheaper than paying to raise the child as a ward of the state.

You just made a great case for how to lower everyone's property taxes significantly. All pregnant women should get abortions, this way I won't have to spend any money on sending their kids to school. If you're going to put a price tag on human life and think of human lives in terms of dollars and cents, then you have to do that all across the board -- for every human life.

Again, that's a pretty cold hearted view, but if we're only concerned about how much we have to spend for other peoples choices, abortion is a huge saver of money when you look at the totality of costs.

Yes, it's downright cold-hearted because you're not opposed at all to someone else paying for other people's poor choices, nor are you opposed to having the innocent life within the womb pay the ultimate penalty for someone else's poor choices. And you're certainly not opposed to having the selfish mothers walk away without any consequences, notwithstanding the emotional ones that will often attend those decisions. But again, the emotional stress that will often follow is directly attributed to another bad choice, isn't it! I guess we taxpayers should pay for their follow up mental care, as well?

Abortion, as an issue, will never be resolved, its a very dark and ugly and sad situation, a mother not wanting to take a pregnancy to term. Once you end up there all outcomes suck -- for the child, the mother, the family, the tax payer, everyone. No law is going to change that, and no change in Medicaid coverage.

Abortions-on-demand could be resolved. They should be outlawed. It's murder, plain and simple. If a woman doesn't want the child, then let someone adopt the child or place him/her in a foster home or be placed in an orphanage. It's always, always, always best for a society to do the righteous thing, regardless of the price tag. It is written that "righteousness exalts a nation"!

Boxcar

[Tom]

I'm willing to allow that a woman's choice to abort or not is between her and her God, and he punishment or reward is beyond my control. But what about M choice? I choose to believe it is murder and do not wish to assist (pay) for it. I choose to believe all babies have a right to life, the woman chooses to believe she has the right to abort. Why is her right trumping mine?

[johnhannibalsmith]

At the risk of jumping into the crosshairs: (chuckle)

Abortion just doesn't fit in with other medical procedures in any capacity when applied to these debates.

I, personally, have ZERO problem with women choosing to abort. I would probably have a hard time making that decision, but yeah, I'm one of those 'liberal minded' sorts that sees the sum total of banning abortion as a greater potential domestic problem than allowing them is.

But see, I have no qualms respecting that unlike other medical issues, this one is unique and I respect the moral implications for folks like Tom and Boxcar. I don't think there is any law that can remedy the disparity in opinions on the matter, so I simply respect the variety of opinions and hold abortion to a distinctly different standard than I do any other medical procedure. There are very few (prominent) medical issues that are as hot-button as this and fewer that have such fiery moral implications for so many.

For that reason, and that reason alone, this is one case where it seems that despite the fact that Tom, Boxcar, and I will disagree on abortion's place in society, I can fully and completely concede that given their respective moral objections, abortion is a unique issue and as it pertains to taxpayer subsidies, should not be supported by a divided public. Forcing those that disagree so vehemently, for whatever reason, to do so serves only to stoke the fires of the public divide unneccessarily.

[Tom]

I do support government paying for boob jobs.
I can compromise if I have to. :cool:

[boxcar]

At the risk of jumping into the crosshairs: (chuckle)

Abortion just doesn't fit in with other medical procedures in any capacity when applied to these debates.

I, personally, have ZERO problem with women choosing to abort. I would probably have a hard time making that decision, but yeah, I'm one of those 'liberal minded' sorts that sees the sum total of banning abortion as a greater potential domestic problem than allowing them is.

But see, I have no qualms respecting that unlike other medical issues, this one is unique and I respect the moral implications for folks like Tom and Boxcar. I don't think there is any law that can remedy the disparity in opinions on the matter, so I simply respect the variety of opinions and hold abortion to a distinctly different standard than I do any other medical procedure.

So let me see...Congress just got done writing a gazillion-page, incomprehensible "health care" bill that will supposedly remedy the disparity between the haves and have-nots in terms of providing "affordable" insurance coverage. This congress can do. But congress cannot draft bill that would be a few pages in length to ban the willful murder of all the innocent unborn? Would you mind explaining your rationale for such thinking?
Why is one possible, and in fact almost a reality, but the other is an impossibility?

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

... But congress cannot draft bill that would be a few pages in length to ban the willful murder of all the innocent unborn? Would you mind explaining your rationale for such thinking?
Boxcar

For the same reason that I do not believe that taxpayer dollars should fund abortion - the issue is too divisive to legislate effectively. You call it 'willfull murder', but the law does not. I may agree with you in some capacity, but the collective is divided and the law respects that division.

Count me among those that suspend my own personal belief in deference to the choice of individuals and with respect for the law that clearly delineates abortion from first-degree murder. My philosophies (as we've detailed in the past) are not derived from scripture in totality, though many of my beliefs would probably be in accordance.

More to come, I'm sure... ;)

[46zilzal]

BINGO! You nailed it perfectly, Tom! Most abortions are not performed to health-related reasons.

Boxcar
Baloney I scrubbed in as an assistant on lots and the majority were for health reasons, You ever been IN THE O.R.?

[chickenhead]

So, if this is the case, then just how "elective" are they? At some point the lines between "elective" and "necessary" become somewhat blurred, don't they? It certainly isn't necessary for a woman to go out and get her face shot up with a bunch of botox, but something like a colonoscopy that a physician for one reason or another may actually recommend to his patient moves a lot closer to the line of "necessity" rather than an outright frivolous choice. In fact, very many "elective" procedures would seem to spill over that "necessity" line, wouldn't they with respect to long term health-related concerns? What might be considered "elective" now will often prove out to have been the right, common sense, health-related decision down the road. Is this right?

Boxcar -- we speak a language, its called English. Words have meanings. What elective means as a phrase is not up to your whim, its a medical phrase, its means something in the medical world. Elective means something, as an atomic unit of thought. Beneficial means something, as its own atomic unit of thought. They are neither mutually exclusive or synonymous. Something doesn't have to quit being one to be the other. There is no blurring of any lines that has to take place.

I have never said that abortion is not usually elective (in all cases except a medical emergency), it is, without question. I've never even come close to implying otherwise. This exchange began because you jumped in, unprompted, and shoved your foot in your mouth about what electives are.

You and Tom have every right in the world to believe what you want to believe, both in terms of what the legality of abortion should be, and that you don't want to pay for it. It's a perfectly respectable position.

With that said, I've got some Christmas plans and have to let this one go. Merry Merry all.

[boxcar]

Baloney I scrubbed in as an assistant on lots and the majority were for health reasons, You ever been IN THE O.R.?

I bet you saw a lot of baloney in dire need of abortions.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Boxcar -- we speak a language, its called English. Words have meanings. What elective means as a phrase is not up to your whim, its a medical phrase, its means something in the medical world. Elective means something, as an atomic unit of thought. Beneficial means something, as its own atomic unit of thought. They are neither mutually exclusive or synonymous. Something doesn't have to quit being one to be the other. There is no blurring of any lines that has to take place.

And all I basically said is that there is a wide spectrum between frivolous electives and must have emergency treatment, and that in between there lies a large area of degrees of "electives". I'd bet my last dollar that you would not want to pay for someone's botox treatments, or for someone cellulite removal, or for someone's wart removal, etc., etc., etc. Yet, you have no problem paying for a non-health related "elective" called an abortion. And if you put these kinds of elective procedures in the same class as recommended MRIs or colonoscopies, then your priorities are entirely skewered.

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

Baloney I scrubbed in as an assistant on lots and the majority were for health reasons, You ever been IN THE O.R.?

Just because of your "experiences", does not make them "MOST" as in what Tom originally said 46! Yes, there are probably many (when you look at the number only) of abortions that happen due to health issues. But that by no means that "MOST" (when taken in the context of totality), happen due to health issues. The majority of abortions happens in my opinion due to previously mentioned reasons...such as INCONVENIENCE to unwed, young teens.

[boxcar]

For the same reason that I do not believe that taxpayer dollars should fund abortion - the issue is too divisive to legislate effectively. You call it 'willfull murder', but the law does not. I may agree with you in some capacity, but the collective is divided and the law respects that division.

Wrong. The law does not! There is no such thing as a morally neutral law, which you seem to be implying! "Neutral" by definition means not aligned with one side or the other, not engaged with one side or the other, indifferent on an issue, etc. But that is not the case with this law. The wicked law respects no division. It has squarely come down on the side of the evil-doers. The law, by not prohibiting the murders of the innocents gives its tacit approval of the those murders! Laws of a moral nature, such as those prohibiting stealing, lying, cheating, murder, etc. are there not only for the negative reason of prohibiting these kinds of immoral activities, but they're also there to tacitly promote the good.

Count me among those that suspend my own personal belief in deference to the choice of individuals and with respect for the law that clearly delineates abortion from first-degree murder. My philosophies (as we've detailed in the past) are not derived from scripture in totality, though many of my beliefs would probably be in accordance.

More to come, I'm sure... ;)

So, by "suspending your personal belief", you have taken a morally neutral position. Do you really believe that you live in some kind of moral vacuum or bubble -- that you're an moral island unto yourself fully insulated from all the evil around you? That you can just step aside and watch on the sidelines and not take a stand against evil or a stand for good in society? That you're outside of the society in which you live? Do I need to remind you about what Jesus said in Revelations about those who are morally/spiritually lukewarm? The fact that you don't take a proactive stance against this kind of evil really makes you and people like you a big part of the problem of the advancement of evil in this society because somehow you have come to believe that there is no ripple effect to a society's evil actions -- somehow you personally are going to escape any and all ill effects. Your magic bubble will protect you?

I'm sorry, my friend, but there is no neutral ground between Good and Evil. Most of it is really Black and White -- very, very little gray area. (Only moral relativists live in the blinding fog.) Nor is there any compromising between the two.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

Well, again, any retort that I come with here that is genuine will fly in the face of your personal belief system as my last one clearly did...

I don't consider people that have abortions inherently evil. Again, I have never been in the position where I must make the decision, therefore I simply do not feel comfortable having a strong belief, as you do. Your position does not offend me, but neither does it elevate you to a position of moral superiority in my eyes.

I don't see things simply as moral and immoral as a course of normal observation. I just don't. I try to see the other side in all things that I can and if possible, make my evaluations from a position of objectivity. I can't begin to relate to the decision to abort and though I may find it offensive on a level, it just isn't something that I feel comfortable passing judgement on others about.

I know that offends your sensibilities, but that's a difference that will temper each of these debates and ultimately render them tedious clashes in which you question my godliness and I roll my eyes at your divine condemnation.

If I'm in a magic bubble, okay fine, perhaps it will protect others from any tendency that I may have to force my beliefs upon their freedoms.

[newtothegame]

Wrong. The law does not! There is no such thing as a morally neutral law, which you seem to be implying! "Neutral" by definition means not aligned with one side or the other, not engaged with one side or the other, indifferent on an issue, etc. But that is not the case with this law. The wicked law respects no division. It has squarely come down on the side of the evil-doers. The law, by not prohibiting the murders of the innocents gives its tacit approval of the those murders! Laws of a moral nature, such as those prohibiting stealing, lying, cheating, murder, etc. are there not only for the negative reason of prohibiting these kinds of immoral activities, but they're also there to tacitly promote the good.



So, by "suspending your personal belief", you have taken a morally neutral position. Do you really believe that you live in some kind of moral vacuum or bubble -- that you're an moral island unto yourself fully insulated from all the evil around you? That you can just step aside and watch on the sidelines and not take a stand against evil or a stand for good in society? That you're outside of the society in which you live? Do I need to remind you about what Jesus said in Revelations about those who are morally/spiritually lukewarm? The fact that you don't take a proactive stance against this kind of evil really makes you and people like you a big part of the problem of the advancement of evil in this society because somehow you have come to believe that there is no ripple effect to a society's evil actions -- somehow you personally are going to escape any and all ill effects. Your magic bubble will protect you?

I'm sorry, my friend, but there is no neutral ground between Good and Evil. Most of it is really Black and White -- very, very little gray area. (Only moral relativists live in the blinding fog.) Nor is there any compromising between the two.

Boxcar

Wow Box.....
And please do not take this as a personal attack on you.
I do not think John meant he was literally suspending his beliefs. After all, I am not sure anyone can suspend what they believe. They may change what they believe but no so sure you can just suspend them.
I think what john was saying was that he was not gonna post them here so as to avoid confrontation. In earlier post, he went so far to say that he may even agree with you on many topics but I took it as him saying, that he respected all opinions. I just dont think he wanted to become confrontational with anyone based on their beliefs nor do he want to become confrontational based on his.
With all that being said, I think it would be unfair for me to jump in and out of this thread without MY opinion.
First and foremost, I do NOT think the gov't has any business in telling ME that I need to pay for someone elses abortion.
The difference in abortion and say "broken fingers" is that in the case of abortion, someones bad decisions led them to that result. In this case, sex!
Now tere are gray areas which I do understand such as rape, molestation, etc etc.
I do feel that in the case of the welfare of the mother (child bearer), she has a right to healthcare. But ONLY in cases where the mothers life may be in jeapordy. If the mothers life is not in jeapordy, then she is responsible for her actions, NOT ME!
In the case of broken fingers, I see this as different because the action which may have resulted in broken bones. Not many people I know go to close the car door thinking "I am gonna break my fingers". Unprotected sex on the other hand usually only has one major consequence.
I also think it is the choice of the two, who consented in the first place, on abortion as to whether or not to abort. I Have no right in telling them yes or no. That is between them and their beliefs. And just as I feel it is between them and their beliefs, the government needs to stay out of it as well.
Hope I covered everything....:)

[boxcar]

I also think it is the choice of the two, who consented in the first place, on abortion as to whether or not to abort. I Have no right in telling them yes or no. That is between them and their beliefs. And just as I feel it is between them and their beliefs, the government needs to stay out of it as well.
Hope I covered everything....:)

What about a moral obligation -- moral duty to God and to society as a whole to promote that which is virtuous, good and holy? You say, you have "no right in telling them..." (therefore implying I'm not going to interfere in someone else's business), but do you have any sense of moral duty to share with others that there are godly and more noble alternatives to what they are contemplating?

Or take this scenario: You're walking across a high bridge in the country because it's a beautiful time of the year, and on your walk you come across
a young person who is perched rather precariously on the rail in the middle of the span ready to take the fatal leap. Would you just continue merrily and nonchalantly on your walk, and all but ignore this poor guy because, after all, you have "no right" to interfere in his personal business? If he wants to jump, what is it to me? Why should I get involved in someone else's personal affairs? Would that be your attitude? Is this how we love our neighbor?

I tell you a truth, sir, in all sincerity: The world is filled with good, decent people like yourself and John who , nonetheless, will make excuses for not taking a stand against that which is evil. And more often than not, the excuse is one of "rights" -- what "right" do I have....? But the real issue is not of rights, but of moral duty to God and to our fellow man, not to mention acting out of our love for both.

The second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. But can we truly express that kind of love by turning a blind to some evil deed that our neighbor is contemplating, especially when we know that we would not personally condone or approve of such deed for ourselves because by the grace of God we know that is is wrong? Yet, we'd be willing, in the name of "live and let live" or in the name of a lack of some supposed right to allow our neighbor to take a plunge into misery, grief and sorrow and embark on a course of action that he or she would likely regret for the rest of her life? This is love? Yes...in a sense, I suppose, it is: It's a worldly, natural, godless love -- but far removed from the eminently lofty, biblical standard.

We can all make excuses for why we stand on the sidelines watching the battles between Good and Evil play out right before our eyes, but in this spiritual war there are no neutral parties. Everyone is involved whether we know it or not or accept it or not.

I am done with this topic, not only because it's the holiday season but because I have other matters to which I need to attend, as well. So, as O'Reilly would say, "I'll let you have the last word." :)

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

So, as O'Reilly would say, "I'll let you have the last word." :)
Boxcar

Thank you for your opinion, I value it regardless of whether or not I share it. :)

[newtothegame]

What about a moral obligation -- moral duty to God and to society as a whole to promote that which is virtuous, good and holy? You say, you have "no right in telling them..." (therefore implying I'm not going to interfere in someone else's business), but do you have any sense of moral duty to share with others that there are godly and more noble alternatives to what they are contemplating?

Or take this scenario: You're walking across a high bridge in the country because it's a beautiful time of the year, and on your walk you come across
a young person who is perched rather precariously on the rail in the middle of the span ready to take the fatal leap. Would you just continue merrily and nonchalantly on your walk, and all but ignore this poor guy because, after all, you have "no right" to interfere in his personal business? If he wants to jump, what is it to me? Why should I get involved in someone else's personal affairs? Would that be your attitude? Is this how we love our neighbor?

I tell you a truth, sir, in all sincerity: The world is filled with good, decent people like yourself and John who , nonetheless, will make excuses for not taking a stand against that which is evil. And more often than not, the excuse is one of "rights" -- what "right" do I have....? But the real issue is not of rights, but of moral duty to God and to our fellow man, not to mention acting out of our love for both.

The second greatest commandment is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. But can we truly express that kind of love by turning a blind to some evil deed that our neighbor is contemplating, especially when we know that we would not personally condone or approve of such deed for ourselves because by the grace of God we know that is is wrong? Yet, we'd be willing, in the name of "live and let live" or in the name of a lack of some supposed right to allow our neighbor to take a plunge into misery, grief and sorrow and embark on a course of action that he or she would likely regret for the rest of her life? This is love? Yes...in a sense, I suppose, it is: It's a worldly, natural, godless love -- but far removed from the eminently lofty, biblical standard.

We can all make excuses for why we stand on the sidelines watching the battles between Good and Evil play out right before our eyes, but in this spiritual war there are no neutral parties. Everyone is involved whether we know it or not or accept it or not.

I am done with this topic, not only because it's the holiday season but because I have other matters to which I need to attend, as well. So, as O'Reilly would say, "I'll let you have the last word." :)

Boxcar

Box...first off let me say sir, that I GREATLY VALUE you, your opinions, and our dialogue.
With that being said, in the example you proposed, I would stop, talk with the guy on the bridge, and show him what I BELIEVE. But, ultimately its still his or her decision to jump. Lets say we tackle the person and prevent them from jumping. Who stops them tomorrow? Maybe the weather isnt as nice and I am not out walking. I guess my point is that we can only do so much. But, to your original question, NO I could not nor would I just walk past without trying.
You also bring up another interesting topic though. Morality! What is morally right? Is our morals right for someone else? I believe morality to be what we believe as to right and wrong. Not everyone has the same beliefs. Therefore, I can only express mine and hope I have an understanding person on the other end who is recieving my message. Being a morally good person is taught from many different media. One is parenting. One is the bible...etc etc. In my opinion, there are many different people from all walks of life with many different beliefs. I do not feel I have the right to judge them for I do not walk in their shoes. I know not of their sufferings. I can only offer love and possible guidance.
The one things I do know (was taught at a very early age) is that I should value everyones opinion. Even if they may differ from my own. I may not agree, and I may continue to try to get my message to that person. But, it doesnt diminish the fact that without their opposing opinion, I wouldnt have much of a conversation.
With that being said Sir.....may you and yours have all that the season may be able to offer. Be safe, be merry, and I look forward to seeing you again soon on here....
newtothegame a.k.a Paul

[kenwoodallpromos]

Does anyone disagree with me that the vast majority of abortions are done because 2 people were careless? That the vast majority of abortions can be eliminated by proper use of contraception?

[PaceAdvantage]

Does anyone disagree with me that the vast majority of abortions are done because 2 people were careless? That the vast majority of abortions can be eliminated by proper use of contraception?Of course this is the reason why a majority of abortions are performed.

To think otherwise is to ignore reality:

Reasons for abortions
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[26] (http://#cite_note-25) Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[27] (http://#cite_note-26)

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby (http:///wiki/Baby)
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child (http:///wiki/Child) will disrupt education (http:///wiki/Education) or job (http:///wiki/Employment)
7.9% Want no (more) children (http:///wiki/Children)
3.3% Risk to fetal (http:///wiki/Fetal) health
2.8% Risk to maternal (http:///wiki/Maternal) health
2.1% Other
According to a 1987 study that included specific data about late abortions (http:///wiki/Late_term_abortion) (i.e. abortions “at 16 or more weeks' gestation”),[28] (http://#cite_note-27) women reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion:

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other
Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

[46zilzal]

...such as INCONVENIENCE to unwed, young teens.
A good third of the ones I saw were in the 13 to 14 year old group.

What kind of rearing would that be? CRAP Psychologically screwed forever and a burden to the rest of society.

[fast4522]

Abortion fits right in with the left wing because the left wing is very interested in being part of the "New World Order" controlled by the Bilderberg Group who has declared in its meetings to limit the world to cap at 4 billion. Is is not funny that the cap and trade agreements that are next on our congress and administrations agenda again are to tax us and send our money off? There is good reason to not pay for abortion if you find the New World Order distasteful and immoral. Just think of this for a moment, why do "We The People" need a New World Order, or a World Bank, or the World Court.

[boxcar]

Abortion fits right in with the left wing because the left wing is very interested in being part of the "New World Order" controlled by the Bilderberg Group who has declared in its meetings to limit the world to cap at 4 billion. Is is not funny that the cap and trade agreements that are next on our congress and administrations agenda again are to tax us and send our money off? There is good reason to not pay for abortion if you find the New World Order distasteful and immoral. Just think of this for a moment, why do "We The People" need a New World Order, or a World Bank, or the World Court.

The godless greatly desire these kinds of global institutions to pave the way and set the stage for their hero -- the antichrist.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

What kind of rearing would that be? CRAP Psychologically screwed forever and a burden to the rest of society.You are a person with what seems like a terribly flawed outlook on life. What happened to you to cause such a distortion?

[fast4522]

The war hero's days are numbered, twisted personality's of that ilk run away from everything until there is no place to run.

[boxcar]

You are a person with what seems like a terribly flawed outlook on life. What happened to you to cause such a distortion?

People who view life from the gutter perspective frequently ride on their imaginary high horse because it's the only opportunity they get to look down on everyone else.

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

You are a person with what seems like a terribly flawed outlook on life. What happened to you to cause such a distortion?
The REALITY of my experiences trumps the theoretical you find on the internet all the time.

AT THE TIME, I scrubbed into ETOP cases (elective termination of pregnancy) what I reported, was in fact true and what I experienced.

Anyone else here scrubbed into these cases? let them produce their experiences then.

[boxcar]

The REALITY of my experiences trumps the theoretical you find on the internet all the time.


This is sweet and will surely be remembered for future reference. Count on it.

AT THE TIME, I scrubbed into ETOP cases (elective termination of pregnancy) what I reported, was in fact true and what I experienced.

Anyone else here scrubbed into these cases? let them produce their experiences then.

Have you written the tutorial, yet, on how we can reproduce our own subjective experiences on the internet? Or have you YouTubed all your own so that we can view them?

Boxcar

[Tom]

The REALITY of my experiences trumps the theoretical you find on the internet all the time.

AT THE TIME, I scrubbed into ETOP cases (elective termination of pregnancy) what I reported, was in fact true and what I experienced.

Anyone else here scrubbed into these cases? let them produce their experiences then.

Your limited and isolated experiences amount to sample error.

[boxcar]

Your limited and isolated experiences amount to sample error.

You gotta love the "ETOP" euphemistic phrase, too. I guess plain ol' "abortion" sounds to harsh, too cruel?

Boxcar

[GaryG]

We have a women's organization in town that is funded by local churches. They counsel young (and not so young) women who are considering an abortion. They have some pictures that would really open the eyes of those who are "pro choice". Choice being just another euphemism for abortion. I was considering posting one of those here but thought better of it. It is a grisly, horrible thing regardless of the terminology. Enjoy your leftover turkey.

[boxcar]

We have a women's organization in town that is funded by local churches. They counsel young (and not so young) women who are considering an abortion. They have some pictures that would really open the eyes of those who are "pro choice". Choice being just another euphemism for abortion. I was considering posting one of those here but thought better of it. It is a grisly, horrible thing regardless of the terminology. Enjoy your leftover turkey.

I have seen videos. They absolutely repulsed me. And we call ourselves "civilized" with a straight face, yet? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

We have a women's organization in town that is funded by local churches. They counsel young (and not so young) women who are considering an abortion. They have some pictures that would really open the eyes of those who are "pro choice". Choice being just another euphemism for abortion. I was considering posting one of those here but thought better of it. It is a grisly, horrible thing regardless of the terminology. Enjoy your leftover turkey.

yeah the local planned parenthood always has picketers out front with big huge signs and pictures of the dead fetus'

[BenDiesel26]

This problem can very easily be solved. Many people have argued in other threads that a tax on existence, i.e. a tax on those who choose not to buy health insurance is easily justified, since they have a body and that body needs health insurance right? Well, all of them also must agree with this. A woman has a uterus and they have the ability to get pregnant, therefore all women who do not have abortions covered under their current health care plan will also be required to pay a $750 dollar penalty to cover the possibility that they might get pregnant. Failure to pay might result in jail time. Anybody who made the other argument OBVIOUSLY agrees with this point as well. It's just like car insurance right?