• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On Roe Anniversary, Let’s Remember the U.S. Women for Whom Abortion...

David_N

David_N

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
6,562
Reaction score
2,769
Location
The United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The solution is simple.
https://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2016/01/19/index.html
But forgotten in this debate is that, for many women in the United States, safe and legal abortion has long been out of reach. Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has severely restricted abortion coverage for low-income women enrolled in Medicaid, making real reproductive choice a privilege of those who can afford it.
To counter the harmful impact of this long-standing policy, supporters of abortion rights in Congress have coalesced behind a bill that would lift the Hyde Amendment. The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act would restore Medicaid abortion coverage so that our country’s poorest women no longer face a financial barrier to safe and legal abortion care.
Women who lack insurance coverage for abortion often struggle to pay for the procedure. Many women are forced to divert money meant for living expenses—such as rent, food or utilities and other bills—to pay for their procedure.
Because of the time and effort needed to scrape together the funds, many low-income women have to postpone their abortion—increasing both the cost and risk of the procedure. In 2010–2011, the median charge for an abortion was $495 at 10 weeks’ gestation, but jumped to $1,350 at 20 weeks. And the risk of complications from abortion—although exceedingly small at any point—increases exponentially with gestational age.
Thus, a low-income woman seeking an abortion is often caught in a vicious cycle: The longer it takes for her to obtain the procedure, the harder it is for her to afford it—even as the risk to her health increases.
It is especially perverse that many of the same lawmakers who most vigorously oppose the availability of later abortion also insist on policies like the Hyde Amendment that push women’s abortions later into pregnancy.
Although most low-income women who want an abortion manage to obtain one, many do not, and the result is an unplanned and often unwanted birth. One in four women with Medicaid coverage subject to the Hyde Amendment who seek an abortion are unable to obtain one due to the lack of coverage. And women who are denied abortion care and subsequently have a child (or another child) are statistically more likely than women who obtained an abortion to be unemployed, living below the poverty line and on public assistance.
Click to expand...
 
Abortion is a service that half of the population disagrees with. Don't you think it's a little wrong to force half of the population to pay for something they want no part in?
 
Henrin said:
Abortion is a service that nearly half of the population disagrees with. Don't you think it's a little wrong to force half of the population to pay for something they want no part in?
Click to expand...

It's tricky for me. Abortion is a right, but having it paid for by the gov? Sheesh, the government doesnt pay for our guns...

But at the same time, if children are born instead, the governmental costs far exceed the costs of paying for the unwanted baby to be aborted.

I wouldnt mind this, but there needs to be penalties (outside of rape) for those who got pregnant and used government money to pay for their abortion. Not prison per se, but I think there should be some sort of ramification.
 
Henrin said:
Abortion is a service that nearly half of the population disagrees with. Don't you think it's a little wrong to force half of the population to pay for something they want no part in?
Click to expand...

I wonder what % disagree with welfare payments? Since when are social programs determined by a majority vote?

A strong majority of Americans have a welfare opinion that work should be the centerpiece of welfare. 83% of Americans favor a work requirement as a condition for receiving welfare [Rasmussen]. 80% believe work is the best solution for poverty [Rasmussen] and 61% believe state governments should offer minimum wage jobs instead of welfare payments [Rasmussen]. 65% believe food stamps to adults without children should limited to three months to those not working or in job training. 71% of Americans back raising the minimum wage [Gallup].
Click to expand...

Welfare Opinion - Federal Safety Net
 
Henrin said:
Abortion is a service that half of the population disagrees with. Don't you think it's a little wrong to force half of the population to pay for something they want no part in?
Click to expand...

That very half has the very same CHOICE that the other half does, but actually it's not half. Even with pro-life advocates they have varying opinions.
 
iguanaman said:
I wonder what % disagree with welfare payments? Since when are social programs determined by a majority vote?



Welfare Opinion - Federal Safety Net
Click to expand...

They're not. Most if not all social programs were passed against the will of the people. Is it not however ironic that abortion supporters on one hand say women shouldn't be the servants of their bodily functions, but on the other, say people should be the servants of pregnant women? It's also ironic that they want the people to have no say in their abortion rights, but the want the people to pay for it.
 
Henrin said:
Abortion is a service that half of the population disagrees with. Don't you think it's a little wrong to force half of the population to pay for something they want no part in?
Click to expand...

Crude majoritarianism shouldn't determine whose and which rights are protected.
 
Traidse said:
Crude majoritarianism shouldn't determine whose and which rights are protected.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the protection of rights.
 
Henrin said:
Abortion is a service that half of the population disagrees with. Don't you think it's a little wrong to force half of the population to pay for something they want no part in?
Click to expand...
Actually in is less than half and no they are not paying for it.
 
Henrin said:
They're not. Most if not all social programs were passed against the will of the people.
Click to expand...
BS. It is the people through their representatives that pass laws.

It's also ironic that they want the people to have no say in their abortion rights
Click to expand...
Of course they do when it comes to their own abortions and they should stay out of other people's lives.

but the want the people to pay for it.
Click to expand...
BS again, reposting the same lie will not make it true.
 
prometeus said:
Actually in is less than half and no they are not paying for it.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, taxpayers pay for nothing the government does. :lamo
 
prometeus said:
BS. It is the people through their representatives that pass laws.
Click to expand...

The government takes actions the people are opposed to all the time.

Of course they do when it comes to their own abortions and they should stay out of other people's lives.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps people like yourself should stop demanding other people pay for them. Just a thought.

BS again, reposting the same lie will not make it true.
Click to expand...

Lol.
 
Luftwaffe said:
It's tricky for me. Abortion is a right...
Click to expand...

Abortion is not "a right".

The Roe v. Wade decision held that women have a right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

There is nothing in the law that says that anyone is required to provide one to them.

Much like the right to "keep and bear arms" doesn't implicitly require the government to provide the people with firearms.

If you want a gun, go buy one.

If you want an abortion, go buy one.

Can't afford either?

Not really my problem.
 
Henrin said:
They're not. Most if not all social programs were passed against the will of the people. Is it not however ironic that abortion supporters on one hand say women shouldn't be the servants of their bodily functions, but on the other, say people should be the servants of pregnant women? It's also ironic that they want the people to have no say in their abortion rights, but the want the people to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Should the people have a say in any other medical procedure that the public pays for?
 
soot said:
Abortion is not "a right".

The Roe v. Wade decision held that women have a right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

There is nothing in the law that says that anyone is required to provide one to them.

Much like the right to "keep and bear arms" doesn't implicitly require the government to provide the people with firearms.

If you want a gun, go buy one.

If you want an abortion, go buy one.

Can't afford either?

Not really my problem.
Click to expand...

Holy semantics...

And perhaps if you quoted my entire post, you would have realized that I was touching upon the issue of abortion and costs and such.

This is why I very much avoid talking to Trump supporters.
 
How about no.

And while we're at it, on a related note, eliminate Medicaid.
 
Henrin said:
They're not. Most if not all social programs were passed against the will of the people. Is it not however ironic that abortion supporters on one hand say women shouldn't be the servants of their bodily functions, but on the other, say people should be the servants of pregnant women? It's also ironic that they want the people to have no say in their abortion rights, but the want the people to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Sources please.
 
Traidse said:
Crude majoritarianism shouldn't determine whose and which rights are protected.
Click to expand...
What does a protected right have to do with forcing others to pay for the morally reprehensible practice? Do you wish to subsidize my right to keep and bear arms?
 
Henrin said:
Don't you want to save money? Well, why not pay for me killing my unborn kid even if you oppose me killing my unborn kid.
Click to expand...

Don't you love it when socialists use the expense of their socialist programs to make the government intervene and impose even more?

Yes, social programs are expensive - solution: end them. Our debt isn't just absurdly large, it is catastrophic.
 
Henrin said:
Don't you want to save money? Well, why not pay for me killing my unborn kid even if you oppose me killing my unborn kid.
Click to expand...

That is what the link demonstrated, that family planning, including abortion, save $$. That was the discussion.

If you have misunderstood the "choice" in the "pro-CHOICE" position, which is supported by current law, I can only offer you a dictionary.
 
JayDubya said:
Don't you love it when socialists use the expense of their socialist programs to make the government intervene and impose even more?

Yes, social programs are expensive - solution: end them. Our debt isn't just absurdly large, it is catastrophic.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm opposed to paying for the welfare state, so the obvious solution to that problem is to end the welfare state.
 
Lursa said:
That is what the link demonstrated, that family planning, including abortion, save $$. That was the discussion.

If you have misunderstood the "choice" in the "pro-CHOICE" position, which is supported by current law, I can only offer you a dictionary.
Click to expand...

Abortion is a personal service. How is that hard to understand? If you want your choice then pay for it yourself.
 
Henrin said:
Abortion is a personal service. How is that hard to understand? If you want your choice then pay for it yourself.
Click to expand...

I would have no problem with that, esp. since abortion currently IS NOT funded by the govt.

But then why should our health care dollars (subsidized by the govt) also go to maternity care and leave, prenatal care, etc? THose are personal choices, electives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom