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.
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
|
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...
Edit: If finances are your concern, it's
cheaper to pay for abortion than long term
welfare benefits.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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 .
|
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.
|
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?
|
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:
tr>
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:
tr>
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:
tr>
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:
tr>
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.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.