The "Frog Boiling" Strategy of the "pro-life" movement...

Why can't you answer these simple questions?
Can you be forced to give blood
Can you be forced to give an organ
Can you be forced to give up your nutrients
Can you be forced to grow an organ inside your body


?

 

All of those things have nothing to do with abortion or pregancny.

 

That's racist!

What's your position on this issue, James? I have come in late.

 

If a woman wants an abortion, it should not ever be state sponsored, My position is personal responsibility. I stand with accepting the consequence with personal activities. If a woman is raped and the result is pregnancy, it is acceptable that abortion can be used. Incest as well or life-threatening conditions These things I can accept.
Everything has consequence, but the taxpayer should not be responsible for all of these unwanted pregnancies.
Abortion is a private issue. As such, the cost should be borne alone by the couple. Can't find the father? Then someone has made a very poor choice, and again, the taxpayer should not bear the cost for poor private and personal choices.

 

There's the whole sequence of posts showing the point that Fugazi was trying to make and you not being able to address it.


Being forced to use your body to sustain the life of another is being forced to use your body to sustain the life of another....and that is wrong whether you're being forced to donate blood or body parts or forced to grow another organ inside your body or give up your nutrients so someone else may live...


You can dance around it and try to avoid it but forced pregnancy is the same as being forced to do those other things....the same.

 

Taxpayers don't pay for abortions so your whining is meaningless.

"Abortion is a private issue" ??? LOL! Tell that to the Republican lawmakers !!!!!!!!

 

http://aclj.org/obamacare/how-obamacare-uses-taxpayer-money-pay-abortions

 

Table 1: Summary of Abortion Provisions in the Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act (P.L. 111-14
Benefit Design • Abortion coverage is prohibited from being required as part of the federally-established essential benefits package;
• States can prohibit coverage for any abortions by all plans in their state Marketplace;
• At least one plan within a state Marketplace must not cover abortions beyond those permitted by federal law (to save the life of the woman and in cases of rape and incest);
• Private insurance carriers may offer a plan in the state Marketplace that includes coverage of abortions beyond those permitted by federal law as long as they comply with the requirement to segregate federal funds.

Financing • Federal law only permits federal funds to be used to pay for abortions when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest or is a medical threat to the woman’s life. States can use state-only funds to pay for “medically necessary” abortions beyond federal requirements under Medicaid or to pay for abortion coverage in plans offered in a state Marketplace;
• Federal subsidies (for premiums or cost sharing) are prohibited from being used for coverage for abortions beyond those permitted by federal law;
• In order to segregate funds, plans that choose to offer coverage for abortions beyond Hyde limitations must estimate the actuarial value of covering abortions by taking into account the cost of the abortion benefit (valued at least $1 per enrollee per month) and cannot take into account any savings that might be gained as a result of the abortions. Any state Marketplace plan that covers abortions and includes enrollees that receive federal subsidies must collect two separate premium payments from all enrollees – one payment for the value of abortion benefit and one payment for the value of all other covered services.""""






"Abortion is a private issue" ??? LOL! Tell that to the Republican lawmakers !!!!!!!!

 

so, you agree that it is a private issue. So why drag it out into the public. I still say, abortions other than as I listed, should be paid for IN FULL by the woman getting it. Not the taxpayer. It makes it so much easier than accepting the consequences for living a free-wheeling livestyle, eh?
All the action and none of the responsibility is the creed of the Progressive Liberal. gotcha............

Expanded taxpayer funding for abortions through ObamaCare

Right, gotcha............absolutely no taxpayer money is used for abortions. Where do you think the money comes from for Planned Parenthood?

 

The Hyde amendment prevents PP from getting money for abortions.

You:"""""""I still say, abortions other than as I listed, should be paid for IN FULL by the woman getting it. Not the taxpayer. It makes it so much easier than accepting the consequences for living a free-wheeling livestyle, eh?"""""


But NO one else should pay for their "freewheeling lifestyle" ?

Getting pregnant is not a "freewheeling lifestyle". Should every "lifestyle" be examined to se if it meets with your approval? No.


We come at this from different perspectives.

I am financially comfortable, and a few cents going towards a GOOD thing like keeping the number of unwanted kids down is fine with me. I also realize that abortion is cheaper than welfare.

I see where you're coming from because I hated the idea that Billionaires and millionaires got Welfare from my taxes.....I also realize that there's some things ya just can't control.

 

This is a point where I break with many fearful pro-choice folks....as well as throw cold water of reality in the face of "pro-lifers" who are utterly loyal Republican voters....

the truth is...the GOP REALLY DOESN'T want to ban abortion....no matter what they say.

Sure, they'll push some restrictions....but raise no real objections when those restrictions are overturned by the courts.

But a REAL move to ban abortion? Would be politically disasterous for the GOP. Moderates and Independents, even a few honest libertarians, would break from the GOP.

I even think guys like John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy know that...and even many "pro-life" advocacy groups know that.....it's why they won't just take Roe directly back to the 5-4 Republican US Supreme Court and try to have it overturned....

it would prove that the GOP has been pulling a conjob on the "pro-lifers" for 30+ years, when a Republican majority USSC ....kept Roe intact.

 

more improvable bragging. Yu set the example. Give your last dime un contribution, and then you can brag about how sensitive you are to the poorer person's plight.........
.Progressive Liberal = arrogance

 

Good thing you're never arrogant, huh?

 

ya betcha

 

This is still as irrelevant as the first time you mentioned it, but please do keep using you wash, lather & rinse routine.

 

If it is a private issue as you state then please do tell all those pro-life people to stop trying to make it a government or state one, as far as funding is concerned it should be covered just as any other medical procedure is .. unless of course you are going to start calling for no funding for smoking related issues, obesity issues and drug related issues .. in fact stop funding any medical issue that results from people taking risks, as that is all pregnancy is - a risk taken by having sex .. would love to see you show any other injury incurred through taking a risk that cannot be treated due to the law.

Typical bumper sticker response that doesn't really have much reality attached.

Funding for PP does come from various sources including federal funding, however no money from the federal funding can be used for abortion except in certain circumstances, those being life threats to the female, rape and incest, some states do fund beyond that. Seventeen states and, until recently, the District of Columbia pay for "medically necessary" abortions.

Summary of Provisions in The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Sec. 1303. Special rules.

Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services. Abortion cannot be a mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package. A qualified health plan would determine whether it will cover: no abortions, only those abortions allowed under Hyde (rape, incest and life endangerment), or abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde.

No Federal Funds for Abortion Coverage in the Community Health Insurance Option. The Secretary may not determine that the public plan provide coverage for abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde unless the Secretary: 1) is in compliance with the provision prohibiting the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions (beyond those allowed by Hyde); 2) guarantees that, according to three different accounting standards, no Federal funds will be used; and (3) takes all necessary steps to ensure that the United States does not bear the insurance risk for abortions that do not meet the Hyde exceptions in the public plan.

 

goodnight Gracie..............

 

so no real relevant response then . .as expected.

 

1-Treatment for that is paid for by healthcare-not tax dollars.
2-its not just the fact that risk is taken thats the reason people dont want taxpayers to pay for abortion-its that and along with the fact that abortion is viewed as morally wrong by most taxpayers and they dont want their well earned money put into that garbage. Name one medical procedure resulting from a risk taken-that is SIMILAR to abortion.

 

and what funds the healthcare for The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)?

Makes no difference, the state has a duty under the Equal Protection Clause to protect people who are being injured without their consent, the state cannot pick and choose who it will protect and who it won't, if it protects one group of people from unconsented injury it MUST protect all people and yours or anyone else's moral objections to abortion have no relevance in that matter. An abortion is nothing more than a medical or surgical procedure, that you wish to make it more than that is up to you, the reality is some-what different.

It is little different from separating Chimera twins where in the majority of cases the non-sentient submissive twin is killed.

 

I really dont care. Thats irrelevant with regards to my beliefs.

 

A lot of people view having children out of wedlock or having them when you can't afford them ie. you are on welfare, to be morally wrong, yet taxpayers still pay for prenatal care and labour and delivery.

 

Just as your beliefs are irrelevant to anyone else.

 

By that logic, how are your beliefs relevant?

 

My beliefs are based on the constitution, science and logic.

Your beliefs are based on ignoring the constitution, pseudo-science, and emotion.

Which has more worth?

My moral beliefs certainly have no relevance, which is what your original comment was about and was what I was responding to.