Abortion Debate Forum - Pro Lifers to Pay For Abortions
medical questions | health forums

Pro Lifers to Pay For Abortions

New Topic  Reply  Ask A Doctor - Offline
Medical Questions-> Health Forums -> Abortion Debate -> Pro Lifers to Pay For Abortions
Author Message
diamond splinter

Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 611
Location: ,
Pro Lifers to Pay For Abortions
Posted: 04-05-07 05:37am

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.





“Ultimately, it’s a constitutional right, and therefore if it’s a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected,” Giuliani said in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash in Florida’s capital city.







That’s the stupidest statement and the most offensive position possible.





It’s a stupid statement because just because someone may have a right to something doesn’t create an obligation for society to provide it. We have a right to free speech, but there’s no obligation that society buy me airtime on national television. I have a right to a gun, but nobody is obligated to purchase one for me. I really wonder how bright a person is that makes such a statement.





It’s offensive because a large number of people consider abortion to be homicide. Guiliani wants to force those people to pay for an act that they abhor.





I’m pro-life but I’m also pro-federalism. I’ll allow that the people of New York might disagree with my views on abortion. I guess I’ll have to live with that. But I sure don’t want President Guiliani to decide that I should have to pay for abortions in New York.





Is Guiliani ready to pay for my free speech?

http://www.k xmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=110891
Did you find this post useful?
|
Jules

Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3840
Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 91
Thanked:77

Posted: 04-05-07 06:10am

I don't want to have to pay for lazy slobs to sit around on their arses all day drinking beer and claiming benefits but unfortunately, we can't pick and choose where our tax money goes Sad
Did you find this post useful?
|
Birch

Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 4159
Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16

Posted: 04-05-07 06:26am

Eh, don't worry, the GOP isn't going to win the pres in 08. This is Guiliani's attempt at looking less like a traditional conservative so he can rope in the folks who are disturbed with the current administration and want a change. If he looks like a liberal leaning republican, he might have a chance.

So he thinks... Wink

Edit: If finances are your concern, it's cheaper to pay for abortion than long term welfare benefits.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Carifairy

Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Posts: 2610
Location: Charlotte n.c.
Thanks: 12
Thanked:0

Posted: 04-05-07 10:46am

I mean really!

300-400$ IS AN ABORTION, 20,000+ is prenatal care and delivery...

IF cost is really your concern, then abortion is more cost effective.

I have a feeling that cost is not the concern though, but 'morality' is instead.

Sorry, MY morals sat that it is wrong to expect the government to pay for women to have babies, they should either pay for their own care, or go without. Like many millions of uninsured americans.
Did you find this post useful?
|
jenn_smithson

Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 808
Location: Texas
Re: Pro Lifers to Pay For Abortions
Posted: 04-05-07 12:39pm

diamond splinter wrote:
It’s offensive because a large number of people consider abortion to be not a nice act. Guiliani wants to force those people to pay for an act that they abhor.
The title of your thread is misleading.

We are all "forced" to pay for abortions regardless of our stance on the issue. We are "forced" to pay for a very, very small minority of abortions through medicaid/medicare when the health and life of the woman are threatened by the pregnancy. Surely you are not advocating that these women be denied life-saving care simply because they are too poor to afford it independently? No one is that heartless.

As to other, so-called "social", abortions, the hyde amendment garauntees that public funds are not spent on "unnecessary" abortions. So, really the only public money spent on abortion are those abortions that .a.r.e necessary. Contrary to what you believe, many .women each year .n.e.e.d an abortion. They shouldn't be denied or put at further risk simply because they don't make very much money.
Did you find this post useful?
|
diamond splinter

Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 611
Location: ,

Posted: 04-05-07 14:01pm

so we should also pay for every depressed infertile woman to have ivf treatment should we?
I mean after all depresion is a medical condition right you don't want the baby you claim your depressed they abort for you under medical grounds so therefor you want a baby and can't have one become depressed then they should get free ivf on medical grounds i'm sure you wil agree after all medical grounds are medical grounds .
Did you find this post useful?
|
Carifairy

Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Posts: 2610
Location: Charlotte n.c.
Thanks: 12
Thanked:0

Posted: 04-05-07 14:45pm

IVF is like plastic surgery, it is a lifestyle medical expense, and could(should) be covered under certain circumstances I am sure...

You see, medicaid covers cosmetic surgery under certain circumstances, much like health insurance does.

Many health ins companies cover an abortion.
Did you find this post useful?
|
jenn_smithson

Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 808
Location: Texas

Posted: 04-05-07 17:07pm

diamond splinter wrote:
so we should also pay for every depressed infertile woman to have ivf treatment should we?
I mean after all depresion is a medical condition right you don't want the baby you claim your depressed they abort for you under medical grounds so therefor you want a baby and can't have one become depressed then they should get free ivf on medical grounds i'm sure you wil agree after all medical grounds are medical grounds .
No, because there are other ways of becomming a parent without resorting solely to ivf (and fyi, there are public funds available to people who want to adopt in most cases so that it will not be too expensive for them). And, the childless woman is not going to .d.i.e if she does not become a parent. Some pregnant .women .w.i.l.l .d.i.e if they do not receive a timely abortion. Abortions can and .a.r.e necessary for thousands of .women every year. You're trying to compare two situations that are very different from one another.

However, there are no other ways to treat an ectopic pregnancy than to remove it. If it is not removed, the woman will die. There has only been one woman, ever, who survived an ectopic pregnancy and that was because it implanted in her abdominal cavity and not her fallopian tubes. Implantations in the fallopian tubes .a.r.e fatal. These .women who experience them should not have to die because you disagree with abortion. An abortion is necessary for them and .w.i.l.l save their life. And there are many, many other life threatening defects, diseases, and illnesses that can put a .woman's life in jeopardy.

Are you seriously advocating that poor .women die instead of receive the medical care that will save their lives?
Did you find this post useful?
|
Tylanas

Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Re: Pro Lifers to Pay For Abortions
Posted: 04-05-07 20:53pm

diamond splinter wrote:
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.

“Ultimately, it’s a constitutional right, and therefore if it’s a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected,” Giuliani said in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash in Florida’s capital city.

That’s the stupidest statement and the most offensive position possible.


Of course you'd think that, you're anti-rights. If it's not funding of something you approve of, especially if it pertains to women's rights, you're not going to like it. You're against anything that would allow a young woman to save herself from a life of living off welfare and raising an unwanted child. You pay for welfare in case you forgot. Less women would be on welfare if more women could afford an abortion. Think about that.

Quote:
It’s a stupid statement because just because someone may have a right to something doesn’t create an obligation for society to provide it. We have a right to free speech, but there’s no obligation that society buy me airtime on national television.


Too bad that your "comparisons" are completely different.
Right now, there isn't public health care at all, and there needs to be. We need health care like th euk or canada. I grew up as an army brat and I can tell you, public health care is wonderful.

Oh and by the way... I don't like some people's choice of religion, but I would pay for them to have the right to worship.

Quote:
I have a right to a gun, but nobody is obligated to purchase one for me. I really wonder how bright a person is that makes such a statement.


Someone brighter than you.

Quote:
It’s offensive because a large number of people consider abortion to be not a nice act. Guiliani wants to force those people to pay for an act that they abhor.


Canada and the UK don't seem to be falling apart at the seams because of it.

Quote:
I’m pro-life but I’m also pro-federalism. I’ll allow that the people of New York might disagree with my views on abortion. I guess I’ll have to live with that. But I sure don’t want President Guiliani to decide that I should have to pay for abortions in New York.

Is Guiliani ready to pay for my free speech?

http://www.k xmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=110891


I guess we shouldn't support any public funding of anything at all, since someone might dissagree with what one of those public organiztions are doing.
Did you find this post useful?
|
nightangel73

Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 2769
Location: ,
Thanks: 19
Thanked:18
online

Posted: 04-05-07 20:55pm

jenn_smithson wrote:


However, there are no other ways to treat an ectopic pregnancy than to remove it. If it is not removed, the woman will die. There has only been one woman, ever, who survived an ectopic pregnancy and that was because it implanted in her abdominal cavity and not her fallopian tubes. Implantations in the fallopian tubes .a.r.e fatal. These .women who experience them should not have to die because you disagree with abortion. An abortion is necessary for them and .w.i.l.l save their life. And there are many, many other life threatening defects, diseases, and illnesses that can put a .woman's life in jeopardy.

Are you seriously advocating that poor .women die instead of receive the medical care that will save their lives?


jenn we all agree that abortion is necessary when there is ectopic pregnancy. The majority of the abortions are not ectopic pregnancies, they are social abortions.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Birch

Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 4159
Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16

Posted: 04-05-07 21:22pm

Diamond splinter, why should only rich women be allowed to have abortions?

If you don't allow equal opportunity for all to receive medical care, you create fissures between socioeconomic classes.

Do you think that you should be able to decide if poor women (on medicaid) get certain medical procedures? Do you want to review each case and determine if a poor woman needs a mole removed, a heart transplant, or psychiatric care?

Many prolife people accuse prochoice people of discrimination, yet here is an example of class discrimination by a prolife person.

Think about the implications of what you say.

nightangle wrote:
jenn we all agree that abortion is necessary when there is ectopic pregnancy. The majority of the abortions are not ectopic pregnancies, they are social abortions.


I think what jenn is getting at (not that she needs me to explain, sorry if I step on toes) is that diamond splinter doesn't think society needs to pay for abortions period; she did not delineate between reasons for abortions. So it is apparent that she thinks poor women with etopic pregnanies or other life threatening conditions who cannot afford abortions should die rather than have the public pay for her abortion.
Did you find this post useful?
|
jenn_smithson

Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 808
Location: Texas

Posted: 04-06-07 01:04am

nightangel73 wrote:
jenn_smithson wrote:


However, there are no other ways to treat an ectopic pregnancy than to remove it. If it is not removed, the woman will die. There has only been one woman, ever, who survived an ectopic pregnancy and that was because it implanted in her abdominal cavity and not her fallopian tubes. Implantations in the fallopian tubes .a.r.e fatal. These .women who experience them should not have to die because you disagree with abortion. An abortion is necessary for them and .w.i.l.l save their life. And there are many, many other life threatening defects, diseases, and illnesses that can put a .woman's life in jeopardy.

Are you seriously advocating that poor .women die instead of receive the medical care that will save their lives?


jenn we all agree that abortion is necessary when there is ectopic pregnancy. The majority of the abortions are not ectopic pregnancies, they are social abortions.
.and those pregnancies are .n.o.t the ones that are paid for by medicaid/medicare and thus, .they are not the ones we are discussing.

Please attempt to stay with the current conversation. Rolling Eyes
Did you find this post useful?
|
sillyakchick

Supporter
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2712
Thanks: 8
Thanked:1
Paying For Lifestyle Choices
Posted: 04-12-07 13:31pm

Many people are under the false belief that those who seek abortion are "destitute, uneducated women who are not motherly, are unwed, and have no recourse". many assume that women who become unintentionally pregnant did so due to a lack of self control or ethics. I think that this is the reason that people do not want abortion to be publicly funded. As stated above by others, Medicaid has no problem covering prenatal, maternity and postnatal care for uninsured mothers. Furthermore, insurance and medicaid covers gastric bypass surgery for obesity caused by the inability to curb one's appetite over time. It covers cardiac surgery for those who are not able to make the dietary choices necessary to avoid high cholesterol problems leading to clogged arteries. There are many other examples.

The reason this is a hot button is because it involves sex, which for whatever reason people like to try to dictate moral solutions about. All I can tell you is that I paid OUT OF POCKET to have a tubal ligation after the birth of my second child because my insurance would not pay for it. The reason I did this is because my post partum was so horrible, I knew i had no business having another child.

If I should happen to be the .01 percent or whatever who get pregnant despite sterilization surgery, i can pretty much guarantee that I would seriously consider an abortion for the sake of my own sanity. If abortion were made illegal, or if i had to prove medical grounds for insurance to pay, I would then have to fight for my right and prove in a court of law that it was for "health reasons" even though my physical health would not be directly in jeopardy. Do you see how dictating the conditions under which a woman should be granted "access" to a life-saving procedure becomes dangerous? Think of Andrea Yates.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Related Topics
This Forum This Category All Forums
Jump to:  
New Topic   Reply



We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health
information:
verify here.