• 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
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.

I respect what you are saying, but this topic isn't just about unwanted pregnancies and babies... it's also about unwanted sex. I think the only time a rapist would use a condom is to protect themselves (not leave dna).
 
Because when you pay your taxes, it's not YOUR money anymore. OUR money can be spent as WE decide.

It sounds awful saying it, but it is true. According to US tax law, it's never your money... what you produce with your work, you're required to pay a certain portion to the government and that portion belongs to the government. It belongs to them as soon as you earn it and never to you. You earn it for them. You don't have a choice to hand it over to them... paying your taxes is not a gift you bestow on the government... lol :(
 
When I first joined DP, had you asked me, I would have said "I'm ProLife." After reading/absorbing/thinking, I realize that I'm ProChoice with limits. I don't support abortion laws as they are now -- late-term abortions are murder, in my opinion. But I fully support a woman's right to choose abortion up to the end of three months. (If I knew more medically/scientifically, I might support a little longer, but....)

Thank you for asking.

I feel the same way... I get hammered in the abortion forums and not given a fair chance, because everybody is so ironclad about what your feelings and opinions should be. Everybody has a stereotype of the other side, and you're up against a lot. I have tried to be reasonable, but their just aren't some reasonable people in those forums.

I have been called a sexist woman hater by two profile guys in that area of the forum.. lol. I also admit that I do the same semi flame stuff in that area of DP too, but what's the point... nobody is ever going to listen to what you really have to say or think anyway. Imma baby murdering, woman hatin, pro-genocide of the innocents supportin, nazi slut.. :shrug:
 
Just to throw out a comment: I hate the terms "pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice". It's like neither side in the debate wants to actually use the term "abortion". I much prefer what I see as the more accurate phrases "pro abortion rights" and "anti abortion rights", since what the debate boils down to is whether having an abortion is a right. Truth in advertising.

I prefer those labels too, because, I think, a lot of times people don't feel they have a real choice to make... it's just, I am against government force
 
You seem under a delusion that I'm arguing NOT to abort... that's not the case. I say ABORT because that's what the law of the lands states is a "right". My point is, this is not the taxpayers bill to pay, it is the individuals involved. Get it yet?

But we are talking about people on Medicare, and that's welfare right? If these people wanting abortions are on welfare, then the tax payers are probably going to be paying for them to raise the kid... it would save taxpayer money in that case
 
No - the whole debated issue is whether or not government is going to fund abortion.

And in the text they used the term 'forcible' which opened up a can of worms. . . not all rape is done so with physical force.

Of which I've already addressed in previous posts.
 
... and btw... all rape is forcible, expect in some cases statutory rape. However, it's an undeniable fact that some minors are too young to manage a relationship with an older person and can be forcibly raped and controlled with sex, and not even realize it...

WTF do they not understand?

Try to and come off like rape is not forcible.. it's just plain insulting
 
But we are talking about people on Medicare, and that's welfare right?
Are we? Ok.

If these people wanting abortions are on welfare, then the tax payers are probably going to be paying for them to raise the kid... it would save taxpayer money in that case
Well, I draw the line way before - once you start making a case that it's saving money to murder an unborn child, that opens up a whole other can of worms as to who should be killed for taxpayer savings and I'm not going there.

The answer is still no - it still goes back to personal responsibility. If every time a person on welfare makes a mistake only to have the taxpayers pay for that mistake, we as a society are sending the wrong message and rewarding the wrong behavior.
 
Back
Top Bottom