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?
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.
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.
Quote from: "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.
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.
Quote from: "jduster"Quote from: "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.
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.
Quote from: "jduster"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.
Quote from: "jduster"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.
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.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.
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.
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.
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".
Quote from: "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".
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.
Quote from: "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".
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.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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)
Quote from: "DJAkuma"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.
Abortions are cheaper than people. Fund them all.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.
Yes, that is creepy. Here in Germany, forced sterilization (and euthanasia) will always be associated with the Third Reich.
Quote from: "elliebean"Abortions are cheaper than people. Fund them all.
That is the way "we" think in the Netherlands. All abortions are funded by the tax-payer and there are no questions asked.
Quote from: "Tom62"Quote from: "elliebean"Abortions are cheaper than people. Fund them all.
That is the way "we" think in the Netherlands. All abortions are funded by the tax-payer and there are no questions asked.
The obvious corollary to this is that sex education should be mandatory in schools.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Tom62"Quote from: "elliebean"Abortions are cheaper than people. Fund them all.
That is the way "we" think in the Netherlands. All abortions are funded by the tax-payer and there are no questions asked.
The obvious corollary to this is that sex education should be mandatory in schools.
Yes, this as well.
Only it should be much more detailed, honest and accurate than the way it has been taught so far in this country.
I definitely think it should be covered by tax payers and that we should make people more aware that chemical abortion (pill) is available for those that act quickly (early first trimester). I also think we should hand out boxes of condoms during sex ed classes and teach that while total abstinence is the only sure bet way to avoid STDs and pregnancy that it is also not very rational to assume that you'll never give into desire and should therefore be prepared.
Quote from: "elliebean"Only it should be much more detailed, honest and accurate than the way it has been taught so far in this country.
Yes, I didn't think I needed to qualify my point with the modifier, "but not abstinence-only sex-ed".
Quote from: "Whitney"I definitely think it should be covered by tax payers and that we should make people more aware that chemical abortion (pill) is available for those that act quickly (early first trimester). I also think we should hand out boxes of condoms during sex ed classes and teach that while total abstinence is the only sure bet way to avoid STDs and pregnancy that it is also not very rational to assume that you'll never give into desire and should therefore be prepared.
I agree that chemical abortion seems to be the obvious route if we're going to pay for abortions. It's cheaper, and (I assume) less dangerous than a D&C.
Quote from: "Whitney"I definitely think it should be covered by tax payers and that we should make people more aware that chemical abortion (pill) is available for those that act quickly (early first trimester). I also think we should hand out boxes of condoms during sex ed classes and teach that while total abstinence is the only sure bet way to avoid STDs and pregnancy that it is also not very rational to assume that you'll never give into desire and should therefore be prepared.
I fully agree with you.
A more liberal and non-dogmatic approach towards sex helps a lot to avoid he misery of child pregnancies and STD's. The Dutch Professor Brett van den Andrews, a medical research scientist who graduated from ISHSS (International School for Humanities and Social Sciences), has suggested that exposing children aged 4â€"7 to sex education will greatly reduce the risk of future pregnancies and health issues. He is wildly appreciated in the medical society and has been featured in many medical journals.
For a healthy sex-education it is essential that religion doesn't put it's mark on it. Mixing sex-eduction with religion "fucks" things up. Sex-education in the Netherlands is subsidized by the government and aims to give teenagers the skills to make their own decisions regarding health and sexuality. Nearly all secondary schools provide sex education as part of biology classes and over half of primary schools discuss sexuality and contraception. The curriculum focuses on biological aspects of reproduction as well as on values, attitudes, communication and negotiation skills. The media has encouraged open dialogue and the health-care system guarantees confidentiality and a non-judgmental approach. The Netherlands has one of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in the world, and the Dutch approach is often seen as a model for other countries.