As for funding abortions through any organization/government programs....why at all? That's a lot of money spent to fund lifestyle choices ( and poor ones at that). Would be far simpler to fund at 100% the morning after pill... Really, you slipped up, and you want to make sure you don't have a baby? Take the pill.

Look at your options if you don't want to have a baby...
1) don't have sex (99.99999% effective.)
2) use birth control (many methods available)
3) Morning after pill.
4) abortion (early relatively easy, moderately expensive)
5) late term abortion(significantly more invasive, morally questionable and expensive)

So why would we want taxpayers to fund #4 and and especially #5?

Con_Alma;1849023 wrote:Glad you think it's accurate.

My solution??? Are you assuming again?

Yes I take articles that you post as your opinion and provide commentary on that opinion. If your opinion differs from the article, why just post the article and not provide commentary?

QuakerOats;1849036 wrote:Free markets allow people to buy affordable insurance, if they so desire.

For truly indigent people, they will have care.

People die every day; some of it is because of their bad decisions.

Decisions have consequences.

Personal responsibility, not government, is the answer.

Your first statement is a pretty big assumption given that affordable insurance doesn't have to exist in a free market. This still leaves people who cannot afford insurance with diminished healthcare outcomes.

Please do tell me about the lack of personal responsibility of a cancer diagnosis. I guess if they can't afford insurance, they should just die from their lack of personal responsibility. You're really quite sick.

My personal belief is that life begins at conception, and a women's unfettered right to her control her own body( and take another's life) ends when she willingly chooses to engage in behavior that she knowingly has a high probability of occurring.

This line stuck out to me. What is considered a high probability of occurrence? I mean modern birth control methods have an extremely low chance of pregnancy; condoms are 91% effective and pills/IUD hover around 99.9% effective.

It would be really quite bizarre to let probability of an event occurring dictate public policy. This would be like saying you if you chose to walk on the sidewalk and a car hits you, that because there is a probability that it could happen its your fault.

Oh and BTW, I'm glad you dropped this 'natural law' argument.

HitsRus;1849174 wrote:As for funding abortions through any organization/government programs....why at all? That's a lot of money spent to fund lifestyle choices ( and poor ones at that). Would be far simpler to fund at 100% the morning after pill... Really, you slipped up, and you want to make sure you don't have a baby? Take the pill.

Look at your options if you don't want to have a baby...
1) don't have sex (99.99999% effective.)
2) use birth control (many methods available)
3) Morning after pill.
4) abortion (early relatively easy, moderately expensive)
5) late term abortion(significantly more invasive, morally questionable and expensive)

So why would we want taxpayers to fund #4 and and especially #5?

So essentially you are advocating for anyone engaging in sex, even those on birth control already, take the morning after pill just in case?

What I really don't understand about pro-lifers is instead of wasting time restricting the rights of a private individuals healthcare choices, why not advocate for better social programs to assist people with unintended pregnancies? Why not expand programs that provide maternity leave, increase daycare services, increase SNAP/TANF programs, etc. This would reduce abortions because mothers would have more options financially to take care of the child and finances are about half the reasons people have abortions.

Don't believe in an increasing social welfare programs? Okay, then why not advocate for increased access to contraception and sexual health education in schools? This is what PP does and its correlated very highly with reduced abortion procedures globally.

It's highly ironic that current conservative policy ideas would actually INCREASE abortions and current liberal policy ideas DECREASE abortions. Now who's the real "pro-life" party?

Sonofanump;1849079 wrote:I really don't understand why someone wants to kill their own child. But I also don't understand the cavalier attitude of murderers who take other's life. I don't see how morally this is even and issue, 200 years from now, they will look back at abortion the same way we look at slavery, "how can the people of the 21st & 20th century think this is ok?". I foresee that a state mandated universal birth control will be developed long before this matter will be settled politically, and there is no sense to fight this as an issue politically.

Economically not having the state pay for a child that the mother refuses to raise with any sort of monetary contribution helps society.
Society is also better off statically not having these children grow up to be criminals.
I end up agreeing with a lot of libertarian views more than any other political theory, perhaps if someone wants to take the moral step to kill their own child, that should be allow by law.

It's simple. It's a fetus, not a child. There's a difference.

sleeper;1849186 wrote:It's simple. It's a fetus, not a child. There's a difference.

Why, how convenient.

QuakerOats;1849193 wrote:Why, how convenient.

You mean convenient like labeling a fetus a child? I'm sure doctors agree with your definition.

sleeper;1849186 wrote:It's simple. It's a fetus, not a child. There's a difference.

Herein lies our fundamental difference of opinion.

wkfan;1849199 wrote:Herein lies our fundamental difference of opinion.

I guess we should just let women decide what is inside their own bodies instead of big government. Some think it's a child, they can have the baby; others think its just a fetus and they can have it removed.

sleeper;1849200 wrote:I guess we should just let women decide what is inside their own bodies instead of big government.

I believe that has already been decided.

wkfan;1849203 wrote:I believe that has already been decided.

For now it is.

sleeper;1849204 wrote:For now it is.

I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Sacred cow.

wkfan;1849205 wrote:I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Sacred cow.

They are still trying. Google "TRAP laws"; these are specific laws designed to make abortions clinics impossible to operate therefore circumvent the rights establish by Roe v. Wade for safe abortions. Of course, these laws are ultimately deemed unconstitutional and struck down but conservatives waste billions per year jamming these laws through the court system and harming women's health in the meantime.

It's really quite sickening the lengths conservatives will go through to attack women's healthcare services.

sleeper;1849180 wrote:This line stuck out to me. What is considered a high probability of occurrence? I mean modern birth control methods have an extremely low chance of pregnancy; condoms are 91% effective and pills/IUD hover around 99.9% effective.

It would be really quite bizarre to let probability of an event occurring dictate public policy. This would be like saying you if you chose to walk on the sidewalk and a car hits you, that because there is a probability that it could happen its your fault.

Oh and BTW, I'm glad you dropped this 'natural law' argument.

Of course you are glad I dropped the 'natural law' argument, because it is so much easier for you to argue for a 'right' narrowly created by a small body of men when you don't have to consider timeless, nearly universal across humanity, views on life and murder.

Probability has nothing to do with taking responsibility for your actions and accepting the risks.
For example, you have the absolute right to your money( after taxes of course ). ... but if you choose to invest your money, then you accept all possible outcomes of your action, including loss of principle. There is no do-overs because you had an unfavorable outcome. In the same way, having sex may lead to unfavorable outcomes. If you are not willing to accept that, you should not engage in the activity.
Further, I've suggested other alternatives, in giving the irresponsible a window of choice that would be more acceptable to the 50% of the population that finds destruction of human life morally reprehensible.

Is there any other argument that you have other than "you won't pay for social programs"?
What if I agree to increase support for poor families in exchange for tighter restrictions on abortions?

HitsRus;1849238 wrote:Of course you are glad I dropped the 'natural law' argument, because it is so much easier for you to argue for a 'right' narrowly created by a small body of men when you don't have to consider timeless, nearly universal across humanity, views on life and murder.

Probability has nothing to do with taking responsibility for your actions and accepting the risks.
For example, you have the absolute right to your money( after taxes of course ). ... but if you choose to invest your money, then you accept all possible outcomes of your action, including loss of principle. There is no do-overs because you had an unfavorable outcome. In the same way, having sex may lead to unfavorable outcomes. If you are not willing to accept that, you should not engage in the activity.
Further, I've suggested other alternatives, in giving the irresponsible a window of choice that would be more acceptable to the 50% of the population that finds destruction of human life morally reprehensible.

Is there any other argument that you have other than "you won't pay for social programs"?
What if I agree to increase support for poor families in exchange for tighter restrictions on abortions?

No you're missing the point on the "natural law" discussion. It's a philosophical concept. It's like saying "Well according to my opinion, my opinion is this".

So using your logic, if I am hit by a car and I break my leg then I should just live with a broken leg. I shouldn't be able to go to the hospital and correct the broken leg because I agreed to walk outside and accept the risk of getting hit by a car. I mean your logic honestly does not follow and even using your example if you are defrauded out of your money by an investment adviser, you absolutely have the right to a 'do-over' via the legal system.

Also, it's not a negotiation BETWEEN social support systems and reproductive rights. It's using social support systems to increase your favored outcome of women choosing to carry a baby to term.

sleeper;1849240 wrote:No you're missing the point on the "natural law" discussion. It's a philosophical concept. It's like saying "Well according to my opinion, my opinion is this".

So using your logic, if I am hit by a car and I break my leg then I should just live with a broken leg. I shouldn't be able to go to the hospital and correct the broken leg because I agreed to walk outside and accept the risk of getting hit by a car. I mean your logic honestly does not follow and even using your example if you are defrauded out of your money by an investment adviser, you absolutely have the right to a 'do-over' via the legal system.

Also, it's not a negotiation BETWEEN social support systems and reproductive rights. It's using social support systems to increase your favored outcome of women choosing to carry a baby to term.

No, your position is "opinion", rather than natural law which speaks to a morality consensus that cuts across time and culture.
Sorry, ...ending a life is not equivalent to fixing a broken leg, so please don't claim "logic" ... LOL.
Sorry, ... there is no fraud involved to qualify for a legal " do- over" in sex... even if you are stupid enough to believe your boyfriend who told you that "you won't get pregnant!"

As for the "negotiation" between support programs and abortion rights... you started that by claiming pro- lifers won't support taxpayers paying for poor people's babies. If you don't think it makes
any difference in the argument, why did you bring it up?

HitsRus;1849253 wrote:No, your position is "opinion", rather than natural law which speaks to a morality consensus that cuts across time and culture.
Sorry, ...ending a life is not equivalent to fixing a broken leg, so please don't claim "logic" ... LOL.
Sorry, ... there is no fraud involved to qualify for a legal " do- over" in sex... even if you are stupid enough to believe your boyfriend who told you that "you won't get pregnant!"

As for the "negotiation" between support programs and abortion rights... you started that by claiming pro- lifers won't support taxpayers paying for poor people's babies. If you don't think it makes
any difference in the argument, why did you bring it up?

Natural law is a human philosophical concept. It's not a fact; it's an opinion. It doesn't change the reality that what you said is equivalent to saying "Based on my opinion, my opinion is...". How many more times are you going to double down on this?

The purpose wasn't to equate abortion with a broken leg. It was using an analogy following the same logical progression you are using to defend your opinion. According to your logic, if I engage in an activity such as walking outside I accept all risks that are involved in that activity. If a car hits me and breaks my leg, this is my fault and I should have no ability to remedy the situation by going to a hospital and getting a cast. That is using your logic. Except we both know if that happens, I have the ability to remedy a broken leg just like a woman has the ability to remedy an unwanted pregnancy.

Engaging in sex does not mean engaging in procreation.

I'm merely pointing out social programs and their factor into a decision to have an abortion or not. If conservatives really cared about reducing abortions, they would support policies that make it easier to chose to have the baby, such as social welfare programs. They would also support accessible contraception and sexual education programs. Both of these ideas would REDUCE abortions drastically but conservatives would rather waste their political capital on restricting reproductive rights for women.

Natural law is a human philosophical concept. It's not a fact; it's an opinion. It doesn't change the reality that what you said is equivalent to saying "Based on my opinion, my opinion is...". How many more times are you going to double down on this?

Please show me another civilized culture in the world that allows taking another human life for convenience. Good luck.
It is not an opinion but universal truth. What is "opinion" is when life begins.

And No, ...your "profession of logic" using the analogy of fixing a broken leg is invalid because it omits one of the conditions that the taking of life indiscriminately is wrong.

sleeper;1849186 wrote:It's simple. It's a fetus, not a child. There's a difference.

Pathetic. Go troll someone else.

HitsRus;1849264 wrote:Please show me another civilized culture in the world that allows taking another human life for convenience. Good luck.
It is not an opinion but universal truth. What is "opinion" is when life begins.

And No, ...your "profession of logic" using the analogy of fixing a broken leg is invalid because it omits one of the conditions that the taking of life indiscriminately is wrong.

I don't think there is a culture that agrees with taking a human life for convenience but as with anything in moral psychology its very difficult to get moral consensus across all cultures. Natural law is an attempt at this but it's still not fact. I agree there is no consensus on when life begins, so why are you advocating to remove the choice of individuals to make that decision for themselves?

And your changing the subject on your analogy of risks and their remedies. Now it's all of a sudden about "taking a life", which has nothing to do with what you originally said. When are you going to admit that engaging in an activity does not mean you are subject to all the risks with no ability to remedy? Do you not understand the analogy? I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

Sonofanump;1849265 wrote:Pathetic. Go troll someone else.

Thank you for your meaningful contribution to healthy debate. I really enjoyed reading your opinion on the matter and look forward to future correspondence.

Going into another direction...

What about men's rights concerning their offspring. After all - women cannot get pregnant without a male somewhere along the line. Men are needed for a pregnancy to happen, wanted or unwanted.

So if a pregnancy is wanted, men are held financially responsible and their opinions matter.

If a pregnancy is unwanted, how much say-so does a man have then? What are their rights?

What if the man wants the child and is capable in every way (financially and time/effort) to raise the child that the woman doesn't want?

Personally, I think they should have a place in either instance. Because again, there isn't a pregnancy without them.

CenterBHSFan;1849273 wrote:Going into another direction...

What about men's rights concerning their offspring. After all - women cannot get pregnant without a male somewhere along the line. Men are needed for a pregnancy to happen, wanted or unwanted.

So if a pregnancy is wanted, men are held financially responsible and their opinions matter.

If a pregnancy is unwanted, how much say-so does a man have then? What are their rights?

What if the man wants the child and is capable in every way (financially and time/effort) to raise the child that the woman doesn't want?

Personally, I think they should have a place in either instance. Because again, there isn't a pregnancy without them.

Only the pregnant woman has any choice over carrying the fetus to term. You can't have anyone else, even the father, have control over someone else's bodily autonomy.

I do think we need some reform on if she does decide to keep the baby that the father does not want. It would involve the father signing off on any parental rights in exchange for not having to provide financial support. I would only be open to this if the social safety was gold plated so that the baby would have a better life outcome without the financial support of the father.

Pro-Choice...

...and my mother was 15 (14 when impregnated) when I was born and given up for adoption.