Federal funding of abortion

[nclib]

Option 1 for me!

The right to possess one's body is a fundamental right, regardless of economic status.

[John Dibble]

Other - End funding, leave the abortion issue to the states.

[Brambila]

The right to possess one's body is a fundamental right, regardless of economic status.

The problem is, it's not one's body, it's a separate body. By your logic, in half of all pregnancies the mother would have a penis, four legs, four arms, two brains, et cetera. In addition, she'd have two blood types... which is quite impossible.

[Keystone Phil]

Abortion should be illegal. In my opinion it should be banned in every form except to save the life of a mother or rape. So of course I believe the federal government should NOT be funding abortions.

[KEmperor]

Option number 2.  I am pro-choice, but using tax dollars from pro-life people to pay for it is wrong.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Option number 2.  I am pro-choice, but using tax dollars from pro-life people to pay for it is wrong.

Option 2.  You can have an abortion, i will never oppose that, but the gov't better mot be paying for the killing of innocent people.  BTW, that's my most conservative position.  

[nclib]

Option number 2.  I am pro-choice, but using tax dollars from pro-life people to pay for it is wrong.

So should tax dollars not be used from death penalty opponents in order to pay for the electric chair?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Except for cases involving the life or health of the mother, it certainly shouldn't be funded through Medicaid as otherwise it isn't a health concern, but it should be funded in those cases.  Now as for whether the government should be paying for it on other cases as part of federal support  of family planning programs, while I wouldn't mind such funding in th e abstract, in the reality, I think there a lot more important things for the feds to be spending that money on, assuming that the feds are the ones who spend it.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I believe all health care should be federally funded, so of course, I think abortion should qualify for this funding so long as the procedure itself is legal.

[Keystone Phil]

Ya know what I love? The Dems that say a woman's right to an abortion is a "personal" decision BUT so many of them think this "personal" decision should be payed for by taxpayers. Interesting isn't it?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Ya know what I love? The Dems that say a woman's right to an abortion is a "personal" decision BUT so many of them think this "personal" decision should be payed for by taxpayers. Interesting isn't it?

Getting a blood transfusion when someone has suffered a massive injury is a personal decision too, and one than some religions oppose.  Should the government not allow Medicare to pay for this either, or allow Christian Scientists to be exempt from a portion of their taxes because they don't support this procedure?

[Keystone Phil]

Ya know what I love? The Dems that say a woman's right to an abortion is a "personal" decision BUT so many of them think this "personal" decision should be payed for by taxpayers. Interesting isn't it?

Getting a blood transfusion when someone has suffered a massive injury is a personal decision too, and one than some religions oppose.  

Difference: Person needs a blood transfusion to save a life. Person gets an abortion and ends a life. Unless an abortion is performed to save the life of the mother, but even that accounts for less than 1% of abortions.

[Vincent]

Option 1 for me!

The right to possess one's body is a fundamental right, regardless of economic status.

nclib,
Do you really believe that someone is denying another person of there "right to possess one's body" by refusing to pay for the decisions that they make with it.

If this is true then a person is being denied of this right whenever they are refused funds for ANYTHING they do with there body.
Thus they are entitled to funds for:
Plastic Surgery
Tattos
Drugs
and anything else they might want to do with there body.

I doubt you wish to give public funds for all of these purposes
Would the following statement more accurately reflcet your views?:


The right to control ones reproduction is essential regardless of economic standing


That being said taxpayer money is taken from just about everyone, thus it is essentialy everbodys bussiness what is done with it. So a simple solution would be to put it up for a vote and let the taxpayers decide.

[TeePee4Prez]

I voted yes.  I feel some parents can't take care of their babies and it may be best to have it aborted (in the early term of course).  People in messed up situations (i.e. welfare) having babies can be a drain on society and the kid can have a miserable life.  My mother is a public school teacher in Phila. and even said to me one of her students would not care if his mother aborted him.  She told me his life is messed up between houses, mom's boyfriends, and drugs.  And for you conservatives, don't say this kid should be in foster care.  Some of these situations can be worse.

[raggage]

This fundamental civil right must be protected and funded.

[cwelsch]

Yo soy un 'abolitionist.'  Abortion is murder, murder is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong.  Abortion should not be any more legal than dumping a newborn into the dumpster.

[cwelsch]

And PS, I hate positivists.  You people ruined classical liberalism and made it socialist and victim-y.

Additionally, we shou;dn't put it up to a vote.  Why not let each taxpayer check the box on their tax forms and if they object to their money going somewhere then it doesn't.  Otherwise we're saying that 50%+1 opinion matter, and the rest can go to hell.

I voted yes.  I feel some parents can't take care of their babies and it may be best to have it aborted (in the early term of course).  People in messed up situations (i.e. welfare) having babies can be a drain on society and the kid can have a miserable life.  My mother is a public school teacher in Phila. and even said to me one of her students would not care if his mother aborted him.  She told me his life is messed up between houses, mom's boyfriends, and drugs.  And for you conservatives, don't say this kid should be in foster care.  Some of these situations can be worse.

Come on, that's sick dude, that's like Eugenics.  You honestly think it'd be better to kill him than have him go through some hardship?  He's still richer than like 90% of the world's population.

[Ben.]

The right to possess one's body is a fundamental right, regardless of economic status.

The problem is, it's not one's body, it's a separate body.

What I was going to say exactly.  

[migrendel]

I endorse taxpayer funding of abortion wholeheartedly. Roe v. Wade was an affirmation of the self-evident birthright to liberty of all women. But for many women, the poorest and most vulnerable among them, abortion was as unreachable as it was before the Supreme Court ruled. The procedure was simply too expensive, condemning them to unwanted children.

When a woman is pregnant, it can indeed be a terrifying situation. The head is clouded by doubts and fears, and the future can indeed be grim. Many women turn to abortion as their last resort, the best alternative of some bad options. Some would prefer to have the child, but it would be financially impossible. When such a dehumanizing and difficult situation arises, I cannot in good faith stand by as the government makes itself the woman's adversary. Many women rely on Medicaid as their primary healthcare provider, I would imagine an even greater percentage among women carrying unwanted pregnancies. Fundamentally, when the government denies women the financial support to have an abortion, allowing them to be put in a position where because of the burden of children they do not have the same political, economic, and social rights as men, that can only be characterized as gender discrimination, and a particularly pernicious form of it at that.

[bejkuy]

Migrendel,

You are obviously committed to an America that is sexless.  An America that denies the obvious differences between the sexes.

It reminds me of an ad in a newspaper a while back.  The newspaper did not allow any sexism whatsoever.  Here was the result.

-Wanted man or woman to appear in advertisement for **** razors.  Must have heavy beard.

[Brambila]

Nclib still hasn't responded to my refutation...

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Yo soy un 'abolitionist.'  Abortion is murder, murder is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong.  Abortion should not be any more legal than dumping a newborn into the dumpster.

Isn't the Libertarian Party strongly pro-choice?  How can you support a candidate that is in favor of murdering babies?

[John Dibble]

Yo soy un 'abolitionist.'  Abortion is murder, murder is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong.  Abortion should not be any more legal than dumping a newborn into the dumpster.

Isn't the Libertarian Party strongly pro-choice?  How can you support a candidate that is in favor of murdering babies?

Actually, Badnarik is pro-life. Also, abortion is an issue of conflict within the party. The party is pro-choice officially, but not as strongly as the Democrats.

Edit - also, since when does your candidate and favored party have to agree with you on everything? If I wanted a candidate that was perfectly in tune with me politically, I'd copy myself and have the copy run for office.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Yo soy un 'abolitionist.'  Abortion is murder, murder is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong.  Abortion should not be any more legal than dumping a newborn into the dumpster.

Isn't the Libertarian Party strongly pro-choice?  How can you support a candidate that is in favor of murdering babies?

Actually, Badnarik is pro-life. Also, abortion is an issue of conflict within the party. The party is pro-choice officially, but not as strongly as the Democrats.

Edit - also, since when does your candidate and favored party have to agree with you on everything? If I wanted a candidate that was perfectly in tune with me politically, I'd copy myself and have the copy run for office.

I thought Libertarians were supposed to be strong liberals on social issues, including abortion.  I may be wrong, but if I am, I am confused about the whole purpose of the Libertarian party.

I don't think you have to agree with the party you support on every issue, but I don't see how anyone can support a party that endorses what they believe is mass murder.  If I believed that abortion amounted to the killing of babies, I sure as hell wouldn't be a Democrat.

[John Dibble]

Yo soy un 'abolitionist.'  Abortion is murder, murder is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong.  Abortion should not be any more legal than dumping a newborn into the dumpster.

Isn't the Libertarian Party strongly pro-choice?  How can you support a candidate that is in favor of murdering babies?

Actually, Badnarik is pro-life. Also, abortion is an issue of conflict within the party. The party is pro-choice officially, but not as strongly as the Democrats.

Edit - also, since when does your candidate and favored party have to agree with you on everything? If I wanted a candidate that was perfectly in tune with me politically, I'd copy myself and have the copy run for office.

I thought Libertarians were supposed to be strong liberals on social issues, including abortion.  I may be wrong, but if I am, I am confused about the whole purpose of the Libertarian party.

I don't think you have to agree with the party you support on every issue, but I don't see how anyone can support a party that endorses what they believe is mass murder.  If I believed that abortion amounted to the killing of babies, I sure as hell wouldn't be a Democrat.

The thing is, you sometimes have to make compromises. Abortion is a really gray area - both sides can make good arguments on this one. In general, we are socially liberal, though we do have alternative solutions to these problems sometimes(you should hear our solution to the gay marriage problem, it's a doozy ).