• 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!

Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion - Yahoo! Asia News


WASHINGTON – Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.

Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.

Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama's health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs.

"We want to see people who have no health insurance get it, but this is a sticking point," said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "We don't want health care reform to be the vehicle for mandating abortion."




So in other words, we must pay for you to kill your child of inconvience.... I find this unnacceptable. Abortion is legal. I get it, however, expecting me to pay for it is abhorrent.
 
So in other words, we must pay for you to kill your child of inconvience.... I find this unnacceptable. Abortion is legal. I get it, however, expecting me to pay for it is abhorrent.

Expecting me to pay for the NEA to fund pornography and blasphemy is abhorrent. Expecting me to pay for abortions is going to save me money in the long run and quite possibly save the lives or livelihoods of me or my children.
 
So in other words, we must pay for you to kill your child of inconvience.... I find this unnacceptable. Abortion is legal. I get it, however, expecting me to pay for it is abhorrent.

Oh, you want approval on the use of your taxpayer funds in healthcare situations? How about the case of Joe Tippler, a longterm alcoholic who is in line for a liver transplant. Should he get it? Shall we notify you of our needs before or after we see a doctor?
 
Oh, you want approval on the use of your taxpayer funds in healthcare situations? How about the case of Joe Tippler, a longterm alcoholic who is in line for a liver transplant. Should he get it? Shall we notify you of our needs before or after we see a doctor?




For abortion? if it is elective and not in the danger of the life of the mother, it should not be covered. You want to kill your kid because it inconvieneces you, we should not pay for it.


I have no idea what you are rambling about with "joe Tippler" are you making things up again?
 
I have no idea what you are rambling about with "joe Tippler" are you making things up again?

He's asking if you'd support paying for a liver transplant for an alcoholic. The analogy presumably comes when you consider that both the abortion seeker and the transplant seeker have likely caused their own health problems.
 
He's asking if you'd support paying for a liver transplant for an alcoholic. The analogy presumably comes when you consider that both the abortion seeker and the transplant seeker have likely caused their own health problems.



Whats missing is the conideration of the living human inside the woman. It's a rather dumb question if that is the case.
 
Whats missing is the conideration of the living human inside the woman. It's a rather dumb question if that is the case.

If it was a living human inside of you, there'd be no argument; however, it's not a human, it's an embryo. Big difference.

While I certainly understand your concern with abortion and unwillingness to pay for it, it's important to keep things in perspective here. That product of conception growing inside a woman is unviable prior to 20 weeks, give or take a few days. I think there is a huge misconception among pro-lifers that an embryo constitutes an autonomous, rational entity with some sort of 'spiritual inhabitant' inside already capable of higher intellectual functioning beyond mere stimulus/response. It isn't, and I say this as someone who has seen plenty of embryos in the last 11 years due to my particular job in the genetics field.

Obviously I have no problem with pro-lifer's opting to keep their own child regardless of circumstance, but I have plenty when they force their reasoning on everyone else in an attempt to discourage abortions. I agree with you about the funding issue, good Rev. If you oppose personally funding it through your taxes, fine. But I disagree with your belief that an embryo constitutes a rational, autonomous entity, because it does not.
 
Last edited:
So in other words, we must pay for you to kill your child of inconvience.... I find this unnacceptable. Abortion is legal. I get it, however, expecting me to pay for it is abhorrent.

I find all sorts of government spending abhorrent. This would not even make my Top 50.
 
Whats missing is the conideration of the living human inside the woman. It's a rather dumb question if that is the case.

I understand your feelings on this issue, I really do. Abortion is morally repugnant to me.

What I now believe, however, is that if a woman has so little maternal instinct that killing her unborn child seems like a good decision to her, it's better (for the child, for society, for her) that she not be a mother.

YOu can't make people be proper parents. It's exceedingly difficult, and they'll likely end up producing extremely damaged and anti-social offspring.

I don't like killing stray animals in shelters, either, but sometimes, it's necessary.
 
Last edited:
If it was a living human inside of you, there'd be no argument; however, it's not a human, it's an embryo. Big difference.


You could call it a big mac, and it still won't change the fact its a human life.



While I certainly understand your concern with abortion and unwillingness to pay for it, it's important to keep things in perspective here. That product of conception growing inside a woman is unviable prior to 20 weeks, give or take a few days. I think there is a huge misconception among pro-lifers that an embryo constitutes an autonomous, rational entity with some sort of 'spiritual inhabitant' inside already capable of higher intellectual functioning beyond mere stimulus/response. It isn't, and I say this as someone who has seen plenty of embryos in the last 11 years due to my particular job in the genetics field.


Awesome, so you can prove there is not a human life there. Lets see the science....



:thumbs: convince me friend.


Obviously I have no problem with pro-lifer's opting to keep their own child regardless of circumstance, but I have plenty when they force their reasoning on everyone else in an attempt to discourage abortions. I agree with you about the funding issue, good Rev. If you oppose personally funding it through your taxes, fine. But I disagree with your belief that an embryo constitutes a rational, autonomous entity, because it does not.



Thank you for this understanding. It is most appreciated in this aspect.
 
I understand your feelings on this issue, I really do. Abortion is morally repugnant to me.

What I now believe, however, is that if a woman has so little maternal instinct that killing her unborn child seems like a good decision to her, it's better (for the child, for society, for her) that she not be a mother.

YOu can't make people be proper parents. It's exceedingly difficult, and they'll likely end up producing extremely damaged and anti-social offspring.

I don't like killing stray animals in shelters, either, but sometimes, it's necessary.




I think life is better than death... But hey, I am the Good Reverend, so maybe I am jaded to the greatness that surround me and my good life. ;)


I view human life as above that of a stray. Savagry is a choice. For both mother and then the born child....


If we are to say that its better to pay for thier abortions, and it will save money, why not "fix" these women, like we do strays. :mrgreen:
 
He's asking if you'd support paying for a liver transplant for an alcoholic. The analogy presumably comes when you consider that both the abortion seeker and the transplant seeker have likely caused their own health problems.

Thank you for your assistance. I continually overrate the ability of some people to understand logic.
 
I understand your feelings on this issue, I really do. Abortion is morally repugnant to me.

What I now believe, however, is that if a woman has so little maternal instinct that killing her unborn child seems like a good decision to her, it's better (for the child, for society, for her) that she not be a mother.

YOu can't make people be proper parents. It's exceedingly difficult, and they'll likely end up producing extremely damaged and anti-social offspring.

I don't like killing stray animals in shelters, either, but sometimes, it's necessary.
She can give the child up for adoption if it truly an issue of the mother not wanting any children. Either the state or a nice married couple(consisting of a man and woman) will take care of the child.
 
I too would have issue with tax dollars being spent on elective abortions(abortions where the mothers life is not at risk, or is the product of rape). I'd rather see money spent on adoption programs, and healthcare needs that assist in carrying the human life to full term.
 
I too would have issue with tax dollars being spent on elective abortions(abortions where the mothers life is not at risk, or is the product of rape). I'd rather see money spent on adoption programs, and healthcare needs that assist in carrying the human life to full term.




exactly.......
 
Thank you for your assistance. I continually overrate the ability of some people to understand logic.
You also continually overrate your ability to present an argument that qaulifies as same...
 
Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Nothing surprising about that.

I can understand why those who oppose Abortion would be against this but it is one of those things you just have to accept.
UHC gives people access to many things which does usually include Abortion.
Some of the most stupidiest things can occur on my taxmoney through the NHS.

And i'll be honest, i'd rather not be paying child support to those foetuses if they were born in the first place. Much cheaper to Abort than be funded by Govt. for 18 years.
 
She can give the child up for adoption if it truly an issue of the mother not wanting any children. Either the state or a nice married couple(consisting of a man and woman) will take care of the child.





There is a huge demand for adoptions of infants. This is a non issue.
 
Nothing surprising about that.

I can understand why those who oppose Abortion would be against this but it is one of those things you just have to accept.
UHC gives people access to many things which does usually include Abortion.
Some of the most stupidiest things can occur on my taxmoney through the NHS.

And i'll be honest, i'd rather not be paying child support to those foetuses if they were born in the first place. Much cheaper to Abort than be funded by Govt. for 18 years.




There is a demand for the adoption of infants.
 
Oh, you want approval on the use of your taxpayer funds in healthcare situations? How about the case of Joe Tippler, a longterm alcoholic who is in line for a liver transplant. Should he get it? Shall we notify you of our needs before or after we see a doctor?
Non-sequitur:
Liver transplants are not elective, abortion on-demand is.
 
There is a demand for the adoption of infants.

Then also spend money to try and encourage women to go through with the pregnancy.

There is also a huge demand for children over here hence why alot of them go on NHS money for IVF or something equally expensive.
 
Then also spend money to try and encourage women to go through with the pregnancy.

There is also a huge demand for children over here hence why alot of them go on NHS money for IVF or something equally expensive.



Make the adoptee parents pay for it.... There is a demand for infant childeren.
 
There is a huge demand for adoptions of infants. This is a non issue.

Not true. As someone who has gone through the process I can tell you it's the opposite. There are FAR more kids waiting to be adopted than there are people who want to adopt. And it's not even close. If you are someone who wants a child (and qualifies) you can get one no problem. If you are a child waiting to be adopted on the other hand, best of luck to you.
 
Make the adoptee parents pay for it.... There is a demand for infant childeren.

Wouldn't happen.

Under NHS rules i believe, if i was infertile right now (which i hope im not, touch wood) i'd be able to get IVF for free but if i want it to give it someone else? Forget about it
 
Last edited:
Not true. As someone who has gone through the process I can tell you it's the opposite. There are FAR more kids waiting to be adopted than there are people who want to adopt. And it's not even close. If you are someone who wants a child (and qualifies) you can get one no problem. If you are a child waiting to be adopted on the other hand, best of luck to you.




Kids, not infants. Just like Catz's strays, there are always a demand for puppies, not young dogs....
 
Back
Top Bottom