• 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!

Is This Going Too Far?

Are These Additional Restrictions on Abortion Funding Going Too Far?

  • Total voters
    24
Redress said:
I stated what I think it should be called for both sides.



I would not be opposed to no limits. However, I think in today's society that is unreasonable and compromise is possible.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking that in today's society compromise just might no longer be possible.
 
samsmart said:
I voted Other.

While I have no problem with federal funds not paying for abortions except for in extreme cases, I would prefer it if federal funds were spent on education for contraceptives and for the purchase of contraceptives. After all, it would be cheaper for the government to pay for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies instead of paying for the abortion of unwanted pregnancies.
Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood offers free or low cost contraceptives. I believe the lower socio-economic crowd tend to be careless about contraception. Is this a generalization? Probably not. It's fact.

I believe abortion should be paid for by the govt. It's cost effective. Better than paying for another welfare kid. That goes for anybody who mooches off society. Some of these welfare mother's have ****-loads of kids. It's embarrassing to watch these people. Or.....let's say they should be embarrassed. Trouble is they aren't. They also don't take great care of their children in many circumstances.
 
X Factor said:
While we're hovering around the subject, in exactly what areas do you consider yourself conservative? I have yet to run across one, that's why I ask.
Click to expand...

I am a Paleocon, and here are the areas I consider myself to be Conservative:

1) Totally in favor of second amendment rights.

2) Feel that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, as this is a states' rights issue.

3) Although I bashed Bush, I feel that his choices for judges were excellent.

4) I believe that we should get out of the UN, and get the UN out of New York.

5) My favorite president of all time? Ronald Reagan.

6) I believe that the government should not spend more than it takes in.

7) I was in favor of the Bush v. Gore decision.

8) Am a huge proponent of the 10th Amendment.

9) I do not believe that the Fed should be in charge of the money supply, but Congress, as per the Constitution.

10) I believe in shrinking the Federal government to a size that it is no longer able to meddle in the affairs of it's citizens.

11) Am against illegal immigration, and believed in the border fence long before it became popular, and was called a Nazi by many because of that stance.

12) My favorite political author? William F. Buckley Jr.

13) My second favorite political author? Pat Buchanan.

14) BTW, I voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000.

15) I strongly believe in welfare reform.

16) I am a huge Obama basher - I am not a birther, though.

17) Only voted for a Democrat once in my entire life. The rest of my votes have been for either Republicans or Libertarians.

18) Met Barry Goldwater, and shook his hand, when I was a kid. He was my ideological hero, and still is.

19) Although I am pro choice, I do NOT believe Federal funds should be used to pay for them, which is a Conservative stance, which you probably didn't read before you posted that you have never seen a Conservative stance from me.

20) I strongly support the troops.

That is just for starters. You have not seen them because you choose not to, but I have posted extensively on ALL these issues. That you do not choose to read them is your problem, not mine. It is easy to call someone names, such as a fake Conservative, when you choose not to participate in an honest debate, but feel that namecalling is somehow going to make you right. Those who have that frame of mind belong, not in a debate, but in the peanut gallery, watching instead of thinking critically and participating.

Just my 2 cents worth here. If you still feel like calling me a fake Conservative, have at it. You are not hurting my feelings at all.
 
Last edited:
Could we please kinda steer ourselves back to the topic? The issue is this particular bill.
 
Dutch said:
Ironically you and I disagree in just about everything from gay marriage to abortion. That should tell you something. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

It says that you are two diverse individuals. Diversity is a strength in this country, not a weakness.

Geez, even I can't handle my request...
 
Dutch said:
Ironically you and I disagree in just about everything from gay marriage to abortion. That should tell you something. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that we are divided, it just means we disagree. But that is all I am going to say about this in this thread, since it is off-topic, if you want to discuss this start a new thread.
 
Redress said:
It says that you are two diverse individuals. Diversity is a strength in this country, not a weakness.

Geez, even I can't handle my request...
Click to expand...

OK, let me help you out here. :mrgreen:

I strongly feel that, whether one is for or against abortion itself, this is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the Federal government is going to take a political side, and force those who disagree with abortion to pay for something that it strongly believes is wrong. That is why I am against ANY Federal funding for abortion of ANY kind. This issue is one for the states to decide.
 
Redress said:
House abortion bill redefines rape, incest exceptions - Yahoo! News





Oddly, despite being pro-abortion rights, I do not have a problem with the concept of federal funds not being allowed to pay for abortions except under limited circumstances, which is the case now. This though seems to be taking things to a new level.

So what do you think? Is this taking things too far, or are these proposed new restrictions reasonable?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with excluding statutory rape from the definition. Kind of on the fence with the date-rape thing.
 
Your Star said:
That doesn't mean that we are divided, it just means we disagree. But that is all I am going to say about this in this thread, since it is off-topic, if you want to discuss this start a new thread.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with this thread. I have no problem with people paying their own monies for abortion for the health of the mother, incest, or rape. However, I don't want my tax monies being used to pay for killing the unborn. Abortion, taxes, and the proper role of government are just a few of the issues that truly "divide" the peoples of this country. We've gone far beyond simple disagreement.
 
Dutch said:
It has everything to do with this thread. I have no problem with people paying their own monies for abortion for the health of the mother, incest, or rape. However, I don't want my tax monies being used to pay for killing the unborn. Abortion, taxes, and the proper role of government are just a few of the issues that truly "divide" the peoples of this country. We've gone far beyond simple disagreement.
Click to expand...

No it's not, this thread is about this specific bill. If you wish to discuss this broader topic, start a new thread.
 
Redress said:
It says that you are two diverse individuals. Diversity is a strength in this country, not a weakness.

Geez, even I can't handle my request...
Click to expand...

We are less diverse individuals and more representatives of our differing cultures. I do not support abortions funded by the federal government. That's not how I want my tax monies spent.
 
Your Star said:
No it's not, this thread is about this specific bill. If you wish to discuss this broader topic, start a new thread.
Click to expand...

They are intertwined. I oppose the federal government spending tax monies on abortions for any reason because of my cultural norms.
 
Your Star said:
No it's not, this thread is about this specific bill. If you wish to discuss this broader topic, start a new thread.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have to agree with Dutch here. Although I am pro choice, I am strongly against forcing Dutch, and others who believe that abortion is murder, to pay for something that they hold such strong beliefs against. Once again, my position on this is that this is an issue that belongs to the states, and not the Federal government.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I have no problem with excluding statutory rape from the definition. Kind of on the fence with the date-rape thing.
Click to expand...

Why? In the date rape case a woman is raped, just like a non date rape victim is raped. Plain and simple. And in the statutory rape case a young girl is manipulated by an older man to have sex with her, and isn't in her right mind.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, I have to agree with Dutch here. Although I am pro choice, I am strongly against forcing Dutch, and others who believe that abortion is murder, to pay for something that they hold such strong beliefs against. Once again, my position on this is that this is an issue that belongs to the states, and not the Federal government.
Click to expand...

The simple fact is, whether we like it or not, the very nature of being in a society means the society we are a part of is going to do things we do not like. We have to be mature enough to take the good for good though.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, I have to agree with Dutch here. Although I am pro choice, I am strongly against forcing Dutch, and others who believe that abortion is murder, to pay for something that they hold such strong beliefs against. Once again, my position on this is that this is an issue that belongs to the states, and not the Federal government.
Click to expand...

He was talking about how this country is divided, and how compromise will never be an expected outcome in America anymore, and using this as an example of how we are from different cultures, and how our lifestyles can't be compatible. Which is a much broader topic than what this thread is about.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, I have to agree with Dutch here. Although I am pro choice, I am strongly against forcing Dutch, and others who believe that abortion is murder, to pay for something that they hold such strong beliefs against. Once again, my position on this is that this is an issue that belongs to the states, and not the Federal government.
Click to expand...

I appreciate both your support and stance here. It's very considerate. However, I need to go on record about abortion. I don't consider it murder. I consider it state sanctioned killing. It's a small but important difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom