[Barstool Prophet]

Me too. It's just socially irresponsible to do anything else really.

[sunnykerr]

Me, three. That's the health care system I have and, honestly, I find myself pretty lucky to have this one. The notion of paying for health services, no matter what one's budget is to start off with, is what I find repugnant.

Picking back up on something that was discussed earlier today, I would be in favour of extending the right to a legal abortion beyond the first trimester simply to open up the door to a case-by-case analysis.

As I've mentioned before, I do believe that abortion can occasionally be the humane thing to do for the wouldbe baby when they develop an illness that essentially guarantees them a torturous and short life. I'm talking severe cardiac malformations or trisomy 28 and the like. And those aren't necessarily conditions that can be diagnosed within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.

[Barstool Prophet]

That's a good point. If a condition can't be diagnosed for a certain amount of time then a woman should have the option to abort.

[Gray Ghost]

Mandates are bad. Sorry but that's how I roll on that. I don't think tax payers should be forced to pay for something that they don't support. I'm not budging on this. Like I said in an earlier post, make this crap private. Let these arrogant holier than thou liberal celebrities foot the bill for baby killing. Don't make working class and middle class tax payers pay for this crap. I'm sorry but you're not gonna get sympathy for wanting tax payers to pay for abortions. Asking them to support abortion is one thing but that's not good, you still want to be a sore winner and still be greedy on the issue. It's completely rude, disrespectful, and the founding fathers would be severely disappointed with this government expansion.

[Avatar]

If you can't afford to pay for an abortion, is it really available? If there's one thing I'm happy for my tax going to, it's providing health services to those who otherwise wouldn't be able to pay for it. That's the only way it's going to work for me.

[Barstool Prophet]

The founding fathers where about rights, I don't think that we would necessarily know where they stood on this issue.

[Gray Ghost]

It should be optional mainly because not everyone supports it. It's the same thing with making people pay a fee to opt out of government mandated insurance.

Why should the government be responsible for this anyways? Why does the burden of free abortions rest on government? Why depend on government for that? What about donations and charity? If there are so many pro-choice supporters who staunchly support a woman's decision to kill her unborn baby, then why don't they put their money where their mouth is and give their money to a cause they support? Why should it be placed on people who don't support the cause?


The founding fathers would not make the federal government decide on laws, regulations, and restrictions on abortion. They would let local and state governments make the call on the issue. The founding fathers weren't about force either. They left England to get away from that crap so they could start fresh and do things the way they wanted to and be free.

[Cristofle]

We are not frozen in the century of the Constitution- it can be amended for a reason. We live in a completely different world that needs different rules. We live in a world those men could not have fathomed.

[sunnykerr]

Treating the Constitution as though it were set in stone makes no sense, particularly if you're going to argue that it protects state rights from any federal intervention. For one thing, the history of the United States is rife with exceptions to that statement.

For another, the Constitution was all about setting it up a system of checks and balances to prevent both federal supremacy over the states AND from the states to run roughshod over the citizenry unchecked.

I also don't understand questioning that health services belong to the governments. How else would you profer health care?

[Cristofle]

All I know is that right now? Our healthcare system is an utter disaster. And completely leaving it to the private market absolutely won't help, because the lobbyists and the pharmacy companies and the insurance companies have far too much power as it is, and they're a huge part of why the system is so broken. This isn't exclusive to abortion and reproductive rights, but that certainly factors into it. You don't even want to know what my birth control pills have cost throughout the years, lol. Even with insurance, actually. And the places that haven't filled them because of "religious reasons". It's absolutely infuriating- I take the pills for MEDICAL reasons, it costs me a fortune, I can't get them re-filled half the time, and it's because the private market doesn't give a crap about my rights as a woman.

[Gray Ghost]

I just don't get it. The pro-choice movement is suppose to be about choice yet they don't want people to have the choice and free will to either have government funded healthcare or private healthcare. Why can't we have a choice on the issue? Competition is good. You realize that right? Why can't you opt out of government funded things like Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare?
You say that you want to champion for a woman's right to choose yet you want people to have government mandate health insurance and if they don't have it, they have to pay for others to have it. How is that constitutional and legal? You're making someone pay for something that they don't have.

[Avatar]

The problem as far as I can see, though, is that the government option isn't really an option in many cases, either it's too difficult or too expensive for most women to obtain.

[TheAngel]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost (View Post) I just don't get it. The pro-choice movement is suppose to be about choice yet they don't want people to have the choice and free will to either have government funded healthcare or private healthcare. Why can't we have a choice on the issue? Competition is good. You realize that right? Why can't you opt out of government funded things like Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare? You say that you want to champion for a woman's right to choose yet you want people to have government mandate health insurance and if they don't have it, they have to pay for others to have it. How is that constitutional and legal? You're making someone pay for something that they don't have.

I pay for a ton of things I don't want. I pay for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I pay for people's health care anyway because I pay higher insurance premiums and higher prices because people go to the emergency room when they don't have insurance and then they don't pay. So I get to absorb those costs when I do pay my bill. And I don't have insurance. I'm 24, college educated, but my job doesn't provide me with health insurance and I now have thousands of dollars in medical bills because of a car accident that wasn't my fault and that the insurance company doesn't have to pre-pay because of Indiana state law You have to do things and pay for things you don't want to every single day. It's called life and being an adult. I'd rather pay for a woman's abortion than take care of the kid she didn't want for the next 18 years.

[Cristofle]

Competition is good. You realize that right?

This thought process has failed in the health care system as it is now. It has not helped people in the slightest, except for those who are in charge of doling out health care. It's only made those people more greedy, and the so-called government option is so barely feasible that most people can't get it. I really don't know what the solution is, but I know it's nothing approaching what we have now.

And on topic for this thread, our current system allows insurance companies and pharmacies to discriminate against women and their reproductive rights. Not only is it often very difficult to find a clinic nearby that will perform an abortion unless you live in a major city, and not only will many insurance companies refuse to cover this (and then there's working-class women who can't afford health insurance in the first place), but many insurance companies won't even pay for birth control pills that women use so they don't HAVE to get an abortion and many pharmacies refuse to fill the prescription. If anti-abortion conservatives want less abortion, they need to help make birth control more readily available, but they don't want to do that either. It's like they think they can force people to wait until marriage and then have all the babies they can possibly have after that, which isn't a feasible plan.

[sunnykerr]

I just don't get it. The pro-choice movement is suppose to be about choice yet they don't want people to have the choice and free will to either have government funded healthcare or private healthcare. Why can't we have a choice on the issue?

In terms of abortion, which is the topic of this thread, you can't have a choice if there is no equal opportunities for all sides.

Thus, if abortion is legal in name only, that is not a choice. That's the government telling you what to do.

If abortion is legal and free, than that's a choice. You can choose to have one or you can choose not to have one. Either way, you have a choice.

Competition is good. You realize that right?

In sports, yes. In business, probably. In health, are you kidding me? Everyone's entitled to health. There should be no competition there. And, as everyone is entitled to health, they shouldn't have to pay for it, so there should be no one profiteering from illness.

Why can't you opt out of government funded things like Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare?

And how is this related to abortion?

You say that you want to champion for a woman's right to choose yet you want people to have government mandate health insurance and if they don't have it, they have to pay for others to have it. How is that constitutional and legal? You're making someone pay for something that they don't have.

If you're alive, you should have free health insurance. If you have an unwanted pregnancy, you shouldn't have to get an abortion, since it's legal.