A Woman's Right to Choose, Not MY Responsibility to Pay!

from JoeUser Forums

When it comes to abortion, I support a woman's right to choose.

But I also support my own right to call at least 90% of abortions performed in America selfish, cruel, murderous acts (free speech 'n all that). And this is where I really get into it with "abortion rights" advocates.

You see, when you press MANY of them (NOT all, by a longshot), you will find that their agenda goes further than a right to choose. They support "abortion on demand"; a frightening term, to say the least. For while it is called "abortion on demand", it does not say "on demand BY WHOM. Planned Parenthood's own founder, Margaret Sanger, advocated for a "zero population growth" policy and mandatory government policies such as those in place in China that limit every family to one child. But she advocated going a step further and aborting the excess. And so, to her, "abortion on demand" meant "on demand by the government" (can you imagine the outcry by liberals if their own champion's policies were implemented and the projects "cleansed" by mandatory abortion for welfare mothers?). Critics dubbed Sanger a eugenist for many of her policies, but that's a charge I won't substantiate without further, solid proof (though it DOES bear investigation).

But I digress.

I see abortion as a moral wrong. I will always see it as such. Whether it is the "lesser of two evils" in certain cases, I cannot decide, but I have very low levels of respect for a woman who would regard the child growing inside her as a "lump of cells" and even (and yes, people have said this, on this very site, no less), a "cancer". And furthermore, I will not support legislation that appropriates tax dollars to abortion for that very reason.

If abortion rights advocates want abortions to be paid for, let THEM pay for it. Let them hold bake sales, telethons, what have you, to raise the funds to pay for abortion. With the exception of the March of Dimes and Planned Parenthood, very few private charities have been successful in convincing their donors to underwrite abortion. And they know this. And this is why they appeal to the federal government for financial support.

So, as the hearings for Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee John Roberts are underway, let us remember that Roe vs. Wade was NOT a mandate for federally funded abortions. It was, rather, a legal mandate for a woman's right to choose. And as such, I for one, support it, if not the many political movements that claim it as inspiration.

"
2,859 views 23 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with NOT wanting to pay for abortion, this is one of the main factors why the Universal Health Care failed in the 1990s. Hilary Cliton's plans was to have abortion covered by Universal Health Care and it was opposed to. It was such a dividing issue that's why the movement failed. I wouldn't support abortion on demand, or federally funded abortions. To me I am allowed to disagree and not to have someone else's abortions supported by MY tax dollars.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't support federal funds for abortions, either (most of the time. I agrue with myself a lot over it). I think people should be able to get special insurance to help cover them, however. And while I'm an adamant zero-population growth person, I don't think our constitution as it exists requires federal funds for abortion.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Isn't ironic that people cringe at the words "abortion on demand", but live by the words, "woman's right to choose". They mean exactly the same thing. The only difference is people who are "pro choice" usually use the words "woman's right to choose", while those who use the term, "abortion on demand" are usually from the "pro life" camp.

Unless I'm wrong with the above, once again the difference isn't in the arguments behind each political opinion, but who is using them and the words they choose.

If people want to see women being able to get an abortion simply because they want one, why would the words used to demand or choose make any difference? The same queition goes for those who don't.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

A government should not spend money to promote a religion.  by the same token, they should not spend money to destroy one.  IN the 'abort at any time up to and including partum', they have that capacity.  And that is why they must not.

Poor, dont have the money for an abortion?  Keep your farking legs together.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'd like to see more insurance coverage for birth control -- I've got a large problem with people (yes, a generalisation, don't jump me) saying "abortion isn't birth control" and then promoting a strict abstinence-only policy. I understand that from the moral viewpoints of some, that's the only good way to go, but y'all have to face facts: it doesn't work.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's not that abstinence "doesn't work" Myrrander, in fact whether it is birth control or STD "protection" it works every time it is used. However, as long as abstinence is treated as a joke in our culture, we are teaching our kids that it is a joke.

Case in point, I remember a time when drunk driving was taken as a joke. It was used by lawyers as an excuse to get someone a lighter sentence after either killing or hurting someone while driving drunk. Then we quit laughing, started taking it serious and now very few people take it as a joke. ((If you don't remember a time when drinking while driving was considered a joke, refer to a lot of movies in the 70s... "Mother, Jugs and Speed", "Smokey & the Bandit"... etc).

Just a thought.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
It need not be federal or state social funding. What happens when abortion becomes so work-a-day that it is commonly covered by insurance? Some cover it now. That means the money I pay to my insurance company subsidizes other people's abortions, the cost of which raises the amount I pay each month.

It makes me want to puke, frankly.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please note this day in history, for I at least partially agree with Myrrander on an issue/topic {shocked looking blinking smiley here maybe}

I fall in much the same general area here as does Gideon (by his description above) and again, partially with Myrr. I would much prefer my money (or the money that I contribute to the government) not go to abortion. I generally believe abortion is wrong, and is used as a mulligan for a lapse in judgement made by two individuals (a man and a woman are required for the act of conception, unless we're somehow talking about some famous female rock/movie stars and their famous former drugged up male friends).

I grew up in an area where poor women would get themselves pregnant so they could start their families at an early age. If they really didn't want a family, or didn't think the fish they'd hooked was gonna be a good husband/father, they'd get an abortion. Several of those women had several abortions each by their mid 20's, many of those abortions having been paid for by federal or state dollars because the women were poor and had no significant income.

Their use of abortion as "oops" birth control disgusted me. Their use of money I contributed to the government also disgusted me.... but....

I'm also a pragmatist and a realist. I've seen the numbers before, how much does a child cost over their lifetime. If you want to do the math the easy way, click here: bankrate.com child cost calculator.

Now, how much does an abortion cost? Here's another link for you: Get "In the Know": Questions About Pregnancy, Contraception and Abortion

The difference in the numbers is staggering.

Which is the best and correct choice? Honestly, I don't know. Each individual is different. Not everyone is meant to be a parent, or at least not everyone is meant to be a parent of what could have been a particular child at a particular point in the would be parent's life.

I don't believe I have the right to decide for someone else what is the best choice. I can encourage. I can provide counsel and advice, but I can't (or don't believe I should) decide.

I would encourage adoption as an option if possible, but again, the cost of the pregnancy alone can be very cost prohibitive, and despite what is said by some about the numbers of childless parents that might want children, not all children are wanted. Children of color, those with special needs, and other variables can keep some children from being adopted, or at least from being adopted for a longer period of time.

Some foster homes are run by individuals that should not be serving in the role.

How fair is it really to bring that un-wanted and potentially unloved child into the world?

Too many tough questions, and not enough easy choices. Which leads me back to thinking pragmatically that perhaps in some cases the best answer is provide the money for the abortion, no matter how much I dislike the act, and go on with the idea that the best decision has been made.

I would still prefer that abortions not be used like crazy, and I've said at times in the past that some individuals that abuse the use of tax-payer money for them should perhaps find themselves at the mercy of a government paid program of forced sterilization if they can't accept their own personal responsibility in the area. Cruel and heartless? I don't know... I'm not the one that would be asking for say my 3rd, 4th, 5th more more abortions on tax-payer money, am I?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I seriously wish that abortion only happened in the rarest of cases. And I don't think abstinence is a joke, but abstinence-only education is. Look at the difference between the US and Western Europe in teen pregnancy rates -- countries that used a more well-rounded education system have lower rates.

As far as insurance goes, it's not fair that my premiums help pay for people who eat grease all day and then have heart attacks. Or any number of other "high risk" groups that still get medical care. Abortion's the same situation in my mind.

But I don't believe in a "soul" or anything like that, so a lot of the anti-choice arguments don't make sense to me. Terp's cost analysis up there DOES make sense, and now that we're agreeing on this on at least a partial two way street, you may all pick your jaws up off the floor.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
As for insurance not covering birth control -- the same cost analysis can apply. Pre and post natal insurance coverage vs. about 20-30 dollars a month of BC. Big difference. I just would like people to understand that there are other options than abstinence -- that less than one percent failure rate for something like the Pill doesn't fly with me as a reason to dismiss it.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Abortion's the same situation in my mind.


I disagree, it stems from a more immediate action. It's not like health insurance paying poor eaters who get heart attacks, it's more like paying out life insurance to someone who likes to play Russian Roulette.

I am against abortion in general, and I am definitely against the use of federal funds freely granted. They got themselves into it, they shouldn't rely on a handout to get out of it. Yes I know, rape and incest cases, rape and incest, but these are relatively rare. The exception to the reason people get abortions, not the rule.

However, as long as abstinence is treated as a joke in our culture, we are teaching our kids that it is a joke.


Add cannonball run to your list, ted. I agree, abstinence is difficult, but it worked for me.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

However, as long as abstinence is treated as a joke in our culture, we are teaching our kids that it is a joke.

First word says it all.  Argue with that for the rest of you.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would encourage adoption as an option if possible, but again, the cost of the pregnancy alone can be very cost prohibitive, and despite what is said by some about the numbers of childless parents that might want children, not all children are wanted. Children of color, those with special needs, and other variables can keep some children from being adopted, or at least from being adopted for a longer period of time.

Some foster homes are run by individuals that should not be serving in the role.


Highlighting these comments and then pointing out the sad irony found here in new article posting: Eleven kids found in cages in home
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's not like health insurance paying poor eaters who get heart attacks, it's more like paying out life insurance to someone who likes to play Russian Roulette.


Ted, I love you man, but we aren't going to get this abstinence population you want. It hasn't happened in the entire history of humanity. We have the science now to let people avoid abstinence and be 99% sure they won't have to face the abortion question. That's important IMHO.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
'I see abortion as a moral wrong. I will always see it as such. ... If abortion rights advocates want abortions to be paid for, let THEM pay for it. Let them hold bake sales, telethons, what have you, to raise the funds to pay for abortion.'
I feel the same way, but about a variety of other issues - having nuclear weapons springs most readily to mind. The advocates of nuclear defence would have to have a pretty big cake stall ...
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ted, I love you man, but we aren't going to get this abstinence population you want. It hasn't happened in the entire history of humanity. We have the science now to let people avoid abstinence and be 99% sure they won't have to face the abortion question. That's important IMHO.


Misattribute understood.

In the 70s, if I had have told you that there would be a day when smoking would no longer be a legitimate excuse to take extra breaks at work, or that drunk drivers would become pariahs you would probably have used the above quote in response.

I am not for "abstinence only" sex education and yes, I think people (married or not) should use birth control if they don't want kids or STDs. We expect people to take responsibility for their actions in every other facet of life... why do we give everyone a pass when it comes to sex, STDs and pregnancy?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
'I've seen you advance some pretty stupid arguments before, but that one takes first prize.'
Ah, the insult ... one's best friend in the absence of a decent argument.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

As for insurance not covering birth control --

You might want to look into that again.  All the large, and most of the small insurance carriers *DO* cover birth control.  Almost all of them cover pills, IUD's and sterilization at the least.  You have to pay a co-pay (which is no different than other drugs), but they are covered.

There is no reason for unwanted pregnancies.  Birth control is available everywhere.  You can buy condoms as easily as bubble gum.  You can go to Planned Parenthood and get pills for dirt cheap and they give out condoms.  You don't need insurance or much money to get birth control.

The problem is that there is an easy out.  Just like divorces, they are simply too common for the typical person to be bothered by.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why would the goverment pay for an abortion? When my friend felt the need to do it, she had to pay for it.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is no reason for unwanted pregnancies. Birth control is available everywhere. You can buy condoms as easily as bubble gum. You can go to Planned Parenthood and get pills for dirt cheap and they give out condoms. You don't need insurance or much money to get birth control.


I agree. I'm with Blue Cross, and they don't cover anything for birth control, and they're a pretty big insurance company. But yes, I agree with you overall, there's no reason for unwanted pregnancies -- except one. Sex education in this country is a farce, and the religious types that promote abstinence only education (like that guy George who plays at being President) are putting a stigma on birth control that makes no sense.

Ah, the insult ... one's best friend in the absence of a decent argument.


Well, you can't expect much from her, I've noticed.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm with Blue Cross, and they don't cover anything for birth control

Ah...you confuse "not covered" with "don't have the correct rider".  Blue Cross offers coverage, but you have to have the correct prescription rider.  (I handle the insurance coverages here, so I'm quite familiar with what BC covers).

Sex education needs to start being a scare tactic.  They need to start showing girls video of real births- the ones that last 18 hours or more.  Show them what it does to their bodies.  Then back them carry around a "baby" (they actually make dolls that record what you do with them) and force them to "care" for it for a couple weeks- like getting up in the middle of the night a few times to feed it. 

Of course, if parents would take responsibility for teaching their children, we wouldn't even have to talk about sex education in the schools.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

And I don't think abstinence is a joke, but abstinence-only education is.

Absolutely, Myrr. I need look no further than Texas' "abstinence only" education and the fact that I know more teen mothers here than in all of the other places I've lived COMBINED.

Para's right, though, we need to stop treating abstinence as a joke and start discussion including it as an option but not necessarily as the ONLY option. Abstinence only education works on a "pass/fail" mentality as regards teen sexuality; when the teenagers "fail", they're often left without appropriate avenues to discuss birth control choices or responsible ways to proceed.