Do you support federal funding of abortion?

Even if you do agree with abortion (which most people don't), there hasn't been a single sentient argument in this thread for federal funding of this kind of conduct. The only thing this discussion makes clear is that about 90% of society gets mad when abortions happen. There is obviously no public good when most people are irate, so logically, there is no case for public funds.

 

Didn't you say earlier that you didn't see the woman as a murderer, but as a victim?

A woman's relationship to the fetus is expectant mother. She is not a mother until birth, according to OED.

 

Yes I did and have for sometime...years. I do know the term of murder and understand it as the deliberate taking of an innocent life. In fact during my military service is when I first became aware of abortion advocates, acutely so for one who had a particular hellbent war on pregnant servicewomen who might choose a discharge over duty.

The child exited the womb via the birth canal. A rose by any other name...dearest Cady.

 

I will, but must ask first about photoshop and if not are you sharing these photos as examples of people you would select for abortion?

 

Uuuhhhh....had nothing to do with what you quoted from me but ok.

 

90% of society gets mad when abortions happen?

How do you know this?
If it's true then 90% of society is mad all the time....is that what you're saying?

 

And that is how you have described abortion.

Over half of all fertilized eggs never implant and are expelled during menstruation. Does that mean unknowing "mothers" are discarding their "children" along with used tampons?

There is a reason women become mothers at birth. Until then, they are called expectant mothers because there may not be a live birth.

 

none of the pictures are photoshopped, here are direct links to each of them.

Picture 1 - http://www.bestgore.com/medical/craniopagus-parasiticus-story-manar-maged-conjoined-twin-islaam/
Picture 2 - http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2011/10...ating-after-surgery-to-remove-parasitic-twin/
Picture 3 - http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/2-show-article-1.1144731

and no that is not the purpose of the question as to whether they should be selected for abortion, there is a purpose to the question which will become apparent after you answer.

 

none of the parasites in those photos have heads/faces/brain activity waves, unlike a fetus.

 

Yet again WRONG

STOP TROLLING

 

You're joking right?

[video=youtube;a9h6JpXZ5N8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9h6JpXZ5N8[/video]

Meet Abby and Brittany who definitely have two separate brains.

[video=youtube;zr3JicWVSEQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr3JicWVSEQ[/video]

And meet Manar and Islaam who have separate brains that are joined together. Islaam is the unofficially named parasitic head to Manar. The nurses named her Islaam because while she could not make any sounds she still moved, blinked and smiled at them. To them she was still a person. Unfortunately both died from the procedure that separated them. Islaam of course died immediately since she had no organs in her unformed body except for her brain and her sister Manar ended up dying from an infection after the procedure.

It's a good documentary about the girls. You should watch it.

 

I would have left him to wallow in ignorance because at this time I firmly believe that this poster is just stalking me and replying to my comments in order to get me to respond in such a way as to incur an infraction.

 

Here is my take on abortion. I think it is immoral and I want no part of it. I would be willing to keep it legal as long as it is 100% privately funded. I realize that the whole world doesn't share my set of moral values and will settle for not being included in the funding for murder as a means for birth control. It's also a state issue and not federal.

I also think the father should have rights. Any abortion must have the consent of both parents. Rapists have no say in "their" child's fate and minors must defer their consent to one of their parents.(grandparents) If a parent wants the baby to live and the other parent wants to kill the baby, the one parent will keep the baby and be the sole provider.

I know it's way different than any law now, but it prevents forcing people to participate in something they find immoral and it gives fathers the rights they deserve.

 

So if the woman finds having children immoral and wrong you would still force her to have the baby if the father disagreed or her parents/grandparents disagreed? What about her say? Does her say not matter at all? She is the one who must go though 9 months of pregnancy and painful labor and childbirth not to mention put her own physical and mental health at risk. They do not. So I think she should get the 100% say in it.

And remember not everyone shares the same moral values and some people live by the belief that there are enough or too many people in this world already and destroying it every day.

And the only taxes that go to abortions are those 1% due to rape/incest/medical complication due to the Hyde amendment.

 

If the woman finds it immoral to have a child, then she can choose abstinence. It's 100% effective in preventing having children. There are also many effective contraceptives. She can also be selective about who she sleeps with to men she shares common views about abortion with. Why do I have to pay for her abortions? I didn't have any part of making the baby.

 

Perhaps she does not share the position that abortion is immoral. Again, you must remember not everyone shares the same moral beliefs.

And I was not saying you should have to pay for her abortions. I was merely stating that the Hyde amendment only allows tax money to go to abortions for women who have been raped and who would otherwise die without an abortion. That's a very small 1% of people, and if you have a problem with that then I really do not know what to say. I personally have no qualms with my taxes going to pay for these types of abortions for women as it is helping them and I am sure most pro-choicers have no issue with this either.

But then again you'd have to think about just how much you pay in taxes every year, then look at how much the government spends on various things. Why would you assume your tiny amount is all going to pay for abortions? Perhaps it is going to pay for something you approve of instead. That's how I look at it.

 

Actually it is the "method" with the highest failure rate as 7 billion humans attest

Oh! When adhered to it has a high success rate but how successful do you honestly think you would be if you tried to force all women of child bearing age to be abstinent unless they wanted to become pregnant. Mind you how many men are willing to tie it in a knot until it is required for sperm donation??

I suppose we could always add Bromide to the tea again

Now having said that, since the same procedure is required for pregnancy gone terribly wrong and for other gynaecological reasons(partial miscarriage, hydatiform mole heavy "periods") are you going to ban them too?

Will you insist on banning funding of "medical" abortions that occur in the first eight weeks and involve the taking of ru486?

 

"""....but it prevents forcing people to participate in something...." Yet you find it OK to force women into giving birth

Fathers DO have rights to their children....

 

Why should I ignore abortion? I am forced to pay for it.

BB - I listed several options for a woman to avoid getting pregnant. A man has the same options. Why can a woman decide to get rid of a baby but a man has no choice but to pay child support for 18 years? The father's wishes are ignored and he pays the bill regardless. Does that sound fair?

 

You can list a million ways for women not to get pregnant however being human they do....and I have the history of the world to prove humans are not going to stop having sex whether wisely or unwisely.


A woman decides whether or not to have an abortion because SHE is the ONLY one who is pregnant.

Yes, a parent IS responsible to support a CHILD.....they , however, have the option of not supporting that child and often don't. Laws support fathers supporting their own CHILDREN so YOU(taxpayers) don't have to.....isn't THAT fair?



Here, you missed this issue:

Texan """....but it prevents forcing people to participate in something...." ""


Yet you find it OK to force women into giving birth

 

The Hyde Amendment prevents funding for abortions, except for a miniscule number of Medicaid recipients for rape and life of the woman.

On the other hand, I believe anti-abortion laws are immoral, yet tax dollars fund anti-abortion legislation/enforcement and so-called "Crisis Pregnancy Centers," and subsidize anti-abortion churches.

 

Good post ! And I quoted it because some people have such a hard time reading simple sentences like

...""""" The Hyde Amendment prevents funding for abortions, except for a miniscule number of Medicaid recipients for rape and life of the woman."""



that maybe, just maybe, if it's repeated often enough they will eventually understand it....




...

 

Sure.

I see an uncommon circumstance in each photograph. It is obvious to me that these people have done nothing that would have led them to or allowed them to avoid their specific circumstance.

Gleaning only what the pictures reveal to me;

See the adult girls as two people (identities) though what they share in common is everything.

The twin babies who died as two people (identities), obviously the one could not survive without the other's life processes.

See one child with with additional appendages most likely what would have been a twin sibling, if the (partially absorbed) twin had matured normally/survived.

 

Just passing through and saw your post. Do you belong to or support a pro abortion church? What faith does a pro abortion church subscribe too? Who runs the CPC's and how do they receive tax dollars?

 

They are in fact seen as two individuals

nope, the submissive twin was seen as a parasitic attachment.

Correct, the boy is seen as the only individual.

Now to move on to the purpose of the question - and here I am gong to make an assumption - I am assuming you fall into the camp of a 'person from conception' who should be covered by all the rights associated with being a person.

Now all of the above at some time from conception to birth/death etc were distinct and separate and as such under the 'person at conception' ideology should have all the rights associated with being a person, and yet only one of the three can in fact claim those rights.

Many pro-lifers claim that geography, development, brain waves etc doesn't have ANY bearing on the 'personhood' at all, so one must ask the question, why there was no outcry at the willful killing involved in picture 2 and picture 3.

Picture 2 could be covered under life threat to the dominant twin, but picture 3 did not have that, the submissive twin was removed purely for cosmetic reasons, or as pro-lifers like to put it for convenience. So anther question would be why the acceptance of removal for convenience in this case and not for abortion, and please remember under the 'person at conception' ideology at every conception there is a person, stages of development, geography, brain development are moot, under that thinking the appendages in picture 3 are in fact a person .. unless of course the 'person at conception' brigade don't actually adhere or believe what they state.

According to this ideology chimera twins are all individual persons (and it is far more common that most people think), so how can pro-lifers with this ideology claim that there is a person from conception when all of the above meet the criteria they stand by, and yet there is no outrage of killing these 'people'

I've actually done a topic on this - http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=307439&highlight=chimera if you desire to read it you will see that throughout the topic pro-lifers tried to derail it.

I'm just interested in your perspective.