Kucinich on tax-payer funded abortion

[DropLogic]

My congressman Dennis Kucinich is trying to get legislation passed to ensure that tax-payer funded abortions stay legal.  There wasn't any verbiage in the healthcare reform bill that covered this area, and the GOP here in Ohio is trying to outlaw these types of abortion.

Now, if a woman cannot afford to get an abortion (roughly $250-$300), how do they expect her to have the child, and then raise it?  They would rather use tax payer money raising yet another child who is statistically going to end up getting gov assistance as an adult anyway.  The vicious cycle continues.

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

[tymygy]

I like what you said, If she can't afford an abortion, how is she going to raise a child? Well, theres really no winning. Either have an abortion, or raise the kid, neither are going to end up good.

Its a tough subject, and its hard to answer. But I think I'd prefer to have the tax payed abortion. Thats all I'm going to say because I really don't like talking much about abortion.

[Will]

On most things I find I agree with Kucinich and this case is no exception. A woman's right to choose can be debated, but it is a part of US law. Roe v. Wade is the law, and women have the right to choose based on our constitutional right to privacy. Outlawing abortion is unconstitutional and the Ohio GOP should be ashamed of themselves for trying to cheat our most important legal document.

[jduster]

On most things I find I agree with Kucinich and this case is no exception. A woman's right to choose can be debated, but it is a part of US law. Roe v. Wade is the law, and women have the right to choose based on our constitutional right to privacy. Outlawing abortion is unconstitutional and the Ohio GOP should be ashamed of themselves for trying to cheat our most important legal document.

By your logic, historic efforts trying to repeal the prohibition and "separate, but equal" were shameful because they tried to "cheat our most important legal document".

The law is not always moral imperative.  Whether abortion is right or wrong, it is best to explain how it is moral or immoral rather than to say it's the law.

[Ultima22689]

On most things I find I agree with Kucinich and this case is no exception. A woman's right to choose can be debated, but it is a part of US law. Roe v. Wade is the law, and women have the right to choose based on our constitutional right to privacy. Outlawing abortion is unconstitutional and the Ohio GOP should be ashamed of themselves for trying to cheat our most important legal document.

By your logic, historic efforts trying to repeal the prohibition and "separate, but equal" were shameful because they tried to "cheat our most important legal document".

The law is not always moral imperative.  Whether abortion is right or wrong, it is best to explain how it is moral or immoral rather than to say it's the law.

One massive hole in your argument there buddy, separate but equal was not constitutional and neither is prohibition.

[Will]

By your logic, historic efforts trying to repeal the prohibition and "separate, but equal" were shameful because they tried to "cheat our most important legal document".

They're trying to cheat the constitution. If the GOP wants abortion to be illegal, either the court has to rule on it or we'll need a new constitutional amendment. The alcohol prohibition, put in place with the 18th Amendment, was ended legally by the 21st Amendment. Plessy v. Ferguson established 'separate but equal' under the 14th Amendment, but was later reinterpreted in Brown v. Board of Education. Both of these followed the constitutional rule of law. What the GOP is doing is trying to sneak around the law because they don't have the judicial support to overturn Roe v. Wade and they don't have the votes for an amendment. They're working outside of the law, and thus should be ashamed of themselves for being unwilling to stick to the greatest of conservative principles: that the Constitution of the United States is sacrosanct.

The reason they can't get judicial or democratic support for ending Roe v. Wade is because the majority of Americans have spoken on the morality of abortion. Statistics have verified for decades that the majority of Americans agree that the Constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. On top of that, the courts have repeatedly verified this belief in their own expert reading of the Constitution.

The law is not always moral imperative.  Whether abortion is right or wrong, it is best to explain how it is moral or immoral rather than to say it's the law.

Right and wrong are relative, but I can explain my thoughts on the matter.

No one can demonstrate that human life begins at conception. While pro-life advocates argue that one should "err on the side of life", the fact is that their position is an unsupported guess. A woman's right to privacy and right to control her own body are not hypothetical or in question: they are very much real and verifiable.

We can, however, demonstrate conclusively when independent life begins. When a fetus passes through the birth canal, and is disconnected physically from the mother's nutrients by severing the umbilical cord, it becomes biologically independent for the very first time. Before birth, the regulation of embryonic and fetal health requires the direct biological assistance of a mother's body.

The worst part, though, is the pro-life argument is almost entirely theological. Secular discussions of human worth require objective quantification, but speaking of a divine creator or spirit obviously cannot be verified but must be taken on 'faith', a most dangerous legal precedent because it breaches the wall between church and state in a most egregious way.

[Thumpalumpacus]

While I'm sympathetic to the view that TPF abortions are sensible, I don't see that the Ohio GOP is trying to ban them.  They're simply trying to restrict them to private and not public financing. It's odd -- almost as if the Republicans still haven't learned that children who grow up poor are more likely to vote Democrat.

Also, I'd think tax-payer-funded IUDs and vasectomies would be the way to go on this issue.  No abortions, no unwanted or unpaid-for children.  The fact that religions would get up in arms and flatly reject this reveals the real purpose of all such reproductive restrictions: by controlling sex, they aim to control guilt. Without guilt, religion has no leverage points to exert control over us.  

It has the added "benefit" that most of these restrictions are aimed at women, which reduces them to a second-class status -- a status in accordance with most holy books.

[The Magic Pudding]

The fact that religions would get up in arms and flatly reject this reveals the real purpose of all such reproductive restrictions: by controlling sex, they aim to control guilt. Without guilt, religion has no leverage points to exert control over us.  

It has the added "benefit" that most of these restrictions are aimed at women, which reduces them to a second-class status -- a status in accordance with most holy books.

Honestly I don't know what's in the mind of our spiritual overlords when they decide these things.
I have put it down to the big flock good, bigger flock gooder principle.

Condoms are wrong.
The pill is wrong.
Early term abortifacients are wrong.
Abortion is wrong.

I've heard these types say a young rape victim should be denied a termination.
Why? because they wanted to maintain the consistency of their argument.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, it's all rather tawdry.  

It's a good thing that chastity belts are considered unacceptable, else we'd be debating their use as well.

[DJAkuma]

I'd happily donate the cost of an abortion every year to help reduce the strain on public services, the criminal justice system and the education system.

[Tom62]

I don't know. I have problems to feel any sympathy for people, who are (in my eyes) stupid enough to have unprotected sex, without facing the consequences. Should the taxpayers pay for the abortion? Somehow I'm not very happy with that. The couple took a certain risk and I believe they'll have to pay a certain price for their mistakes. Not a very high one, but one that clearly says "Hey stupid, grow up! You are responsible for your own shit".

[DJAkuma]

I don't know. I have problems to feel any sympathy for people, who are (in my eyes) stupid enough to have unprotected sex, without facing the consequences. Should the taxpayers pay for the abortion? Somehow I'm not very happy with that. The couple took a certain risk and I believe they'll have to pay a certain price for their mistakes. Not a very high one, but one that clearly says "Hey stupid, grow up! You are responsible for your own shit".

I see your point there but I think it would cost a lot less for taxpayers to cover the abortion than the cost of an unwanted child as well the costs involved in supporting the mother as well in many cases. Lesser of two evils.

Maybe the best way to go would be to have all children "fixed" at birth in a way that's reversible, if you can afford to get it undone you're more likely to be able to afford to take care of your spawnlings so the state won't have to.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't know. I have problems to feel any sympathy for people, who are (in my eyes) stupid enough to have unprotected sex, without facing the consequences. Should the taxpayers pay for the abortion? Somehow I'm not very happy with that. The couple took a certain risk and I believe they'll have to pay a certain price for their mistakes. Not a very high one, but one that clearly says "Hey stupid, grow up! You are responsible for your own shit".

Yeah, we all know that condoms never break.  The lack of nuance in this post undermines an otherwise good point.  Condoms break roughly 15% of the time.  Not even BC pills have a 100% success rate.

In this context, the three options are: fund all abortions; fund no abortions; fund only those abortions which happened through no fault of the sexual partners.  Given that one cannot legitimately determine the blame attaching to the adults involved (they can always say the condom broke although they didn't use one at all; or perhaps she took her daily pill but it came from a poor batch), we can pretty much take the last alternative off the table, leaving funding all, or no, abortions (bear in mind that there would obviously be means-testing and other criteria; I'm speaking only interms of responsible/irresponsible pregnancies), as the two options.

Philosophically, I'm all for no funding at all; it suits my penchant for small government, as well as my distaste for the procedure.  However this is grossly unrealistic, because it ignores the fact that unwanted children would not only inevitably be a much larger burden to society, the chances of a well-adjusted life, physically, mentally, and emotionally, would seem to be drastically reduced.

For this reason, I am in favor of funding abortions for the indigent who wish them, to a limit -- perhaps one every five years.

[DJAkuma]

Philosophically, I'm all for no funding at all; it suits my penchant for small government, as well as my distaste for the procedure.  However this is grossly unrealistic, because it ignores the fact that unwanted children would not only inevitably be a much larger burden to society, the chances of a well-adjusted life, physically, mentally, and emotionally, would seem to be drastically reduced.

For this reason, I am in favor of funding abortions for the indigent who wish them, to a limit -- perhaps one every five years.

What about state funded abortion with the stipulation that the woman must also get her tubes tied along with it?
(I also think the same should go for people with kids who stay on welfare for more than a year, but that's a different debate)

[Thumpalumpacus]

What about state funded abortion with the stipulation that the woman must also get her tubes tied along with it?
(I also think the same should go for people with kids who stay on welfare for more than a year, but that's a different debate)

I'm not really big on sterilization, even temporary, but I haven't given it enough thought to lay out a cogent case against it.  Purely a gut-level thing, and thus something I'm unqualified to opine over.