• 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 think Federal funds should be used to pay for abortions. …

… I would prefer it if federal funds were spent on education for contraceptives and for the purchase of contraceptives. …

I agree completely with what MaggieD said, federal funds should be used for abortions, it's a legal medical procedure, period. …

I agree that federal funds should be available to pay for abortions for women covered by federal health programs like Medicaid and under some constrained circumstances such as rape, incest and health of the mother, all of which the Hyde amendment prohibits today. That law punishes the victim.

And that the most cost effective and health-oriented approach in this area is contraceptive education and distribution. Abortion while it is a safe procedure when conducted in clean environments by trained professionals, it is in most cases an elective procedure which carries some small risk that can and should be avoided entirely.

This new law goes further than the Hyde amendment by effectively imposing a tax penalty for those people who have private health insurance policies covering abortion; the net result will be that no policies will cover those costs. It's a devious, round-about way to make abortion even more costly for those compelled to obtain one.

Cost for women with means, will be of no significant concern, but, for women with limited or no significant means, this law will have enormous impact on them and their families. It's unfair and wrong.

… So why should I have to pay for someone's abortion, of any kind under any circumstance? …

Why should I pay for wars I oppose?

The federal government does all sorts of things we disagree with; we don't get to opt out paying for them just because we disagree.
 
I'm guess I'm just a big meanie, or I have an inate distrust of brown nosers, or I'm guessing I'm just about to get banned by "you know who" "because I'm not a big brown noser" and I want to go out with a splash or......
Don't have much to say to this, except you're acting like a jerk.
 
I don't think so at all. I am pro-life, but that is not my reasoning for no federal funding of abortions. I just don't think government money should be spent towards unnecessary procedures like this. Only if the mother's life is literally in danger would I consider it, but even then I don't like the idea of the government funding medical procedures.
 
I don't think so at all. I am pro-life, but that is not my reasoning for no federal funding of abortions. I just don't think government money should be spent towards unnecessary procedures like this. Only if the mother's life is literally in danger would I consider it, but even then I don't like the idea of the government funding medical procedures.

only problem with that stance is that you are talking about countless procedures.
 
And your arguement would go over as well as a case of vodka at a tea-totallers convention...

If you mean my argument not going well with pro-abortionists then sure you are right. From a pro-abortionist stance they want abortion legal and safe because they do not place the same value on a unborn child as pro-lifer/anti-abortionist do. The abortionist argument of lets keep abortion legal so that mothers do not kill themselves having back ally abortions makes no sense to anyone calling themselves pro-life/anti-abortion. To a pro-lifer/anti-abortionist it is like saying murder should be legal for the sake of the murderer's safety and well being.
 
If you mean my argument not going well with pro-abortionists then sure you are right. From a pro-abortionist stance they want abortion legal and safe because they do not place the same value on a unborn child as pro-lifer/anti-abortionist do. The abortionist argument of lets keep abortion legal so that mothers do not kill themselves having back ally abortions makes no sense to anyone calling themselves pro-life/anti-abortion. To a pro-lifer/anti-abortionist it is like saying murder should be legal for the sake of the murderer's safety and well being.

I'm pro-choice but that is not a part of my view.
 
................and I'm pro-life and that's pretty much how I see it.

Well that's because you have this preconceived notion of what you want life to be - and everything you encounter you alter so it'll fit into your ideology.

Take your "no-gays" adoption view.
You don't deny that we have more children than are being adopted - but you don't want to expand the pool of families who can adopt yet you do want to add to the pool of children who won't have a home.

That's because you have a cookie-cutter view: everyone should be straight, everyone should be responsible, men do ABC, women do DEF.

But that's not reality.

No matter how much you might want for things to be *your way* - they aren't *your way*
 
I'm pro-choice but that is not a part of my view.

doesnt matter what your view is in reality, just what people want to PAINT it as,. For some people its easier to argue against what people want to than what actually is.
 
Well that's because you have this preconceived notion of what you want life to be - and everything you encounter you alter so it'll fit into your ideology.

Take your "no-gays" adoption view.
You don't deny that we have more children than are being adopted - but you don't want to expand the pool of families who can adopt yet you do want to add to the pool of children who won't have a home.

That's because you have a cookie-cutter view: everyone should be straight, everyone should be responsible, men do ABC, women do DEF.

But that's not reality.

No matter how much you might want for things to be *your way* - they aren't *your way*

I don't believe that at all. We have hetero couples trotting the globe looking for children to adopt. Just why would that be if we had an adequate number of children to adopt right here?
 
I don't believe that at all. We have hetero couples trotting the globe looking for children to adopt. Just why would that be if we had an adequate number of children to adopt right here?

Children in the US are overlooked all the time and grow up in the foster system.

People looking to adopt generally want two things: a healthy baby. The longer a child is in the adoption system the less likely it is that they'll be adopted. The more health or physical disorders the child has the more likely it is they will stay in the system.

People don't want to adopt interracially very often, either.

And some of the more *rich* people think it's a philanthropic measure to adopt from overseas (like Jolie) - nevermind that there are children close to home who deserve and need their love just as much.

The system is flawed and biased - and people are people, imperfect and particular. . . and it's sad because a lot of children suffer for it.
 
This based on.....what?

The uncourteous post of yours that I quoted.


So.....I'm guessing I'm not going to get the link you said was functioning. Uh-huh!

It's in the thread. You can either go and click it or not. Your choice.

..........says the not always courteous captain courtesy.

And you'd have a point when you can find where I said I am always courteous.

Gosh, my leg's all a'tingle now. Just call me olberman

If that's what you want to be called.
 
Gosh, my leg's all a'tingle now. Just call me olberman
Not to nitpick (well, ok, maybe a bit), but it's Chris Matthews with the thrill up his leg, not Olbermann.
 
I don't believe that at all. We have hetero couples trotting the globe looking for children to adopt. Just why would that be if we had an adequate number of children to adopt right here?

You dont have to believe it but it just goes to show how very little you know about the subject, there is an ABUNDANCE of kids here that never get adopted and those are the facts.
 
Last edited:
Bah, I just hate it when I don't see a thread topic about which I have strong opinions until it's 15 pages in. By that time, all valid points have been made, all invalid points have been shredded, everyone I want to argue with is already arguing with someone else and the thread is usually irreparably hijacked. :(

I'm still going shove my opinion into the mix. Yes, I think that adding "forcible" to "rape" is going much too far, for reasons I'm sure have already been covered, but I'm going to re-cover 'em! As already noted in the OP, the term "forcible" is a fluid one, which doesn't lend itself to a concrete oranges-or-apples definition. Statuatory rape is not considered to be "forcible", even if the "consenting" child is 12 and the person she had sex with is 20-30 years old. So potentially with this new, improved definition, a 12-yr-old girl from a poor family could be forced to give birth despite the fact that she was legally unable to give consent and was, under the law, raped.

Now we come to date rape. (No, it's not limited to promiscuous, bar-hoppers with morning-after remorse.) Most date rapes occur in high school and college. Most victims are vulnerable adolescents who do not yet have the experience to size up potentially dangerous situations... i.e. getting crazy drunk at a frat party, then trying to weakly fend off an equally drunken kid(s) who will not take "no" for an answer. Was she raped? Yeah. She said "no", and she was legally impaired, unable to give consent. These things never go well for the female, since both were drunk and it's he-said, she-said, so there's no chance of a prosecution. If she becomes pregnant, she has no way of proving she was forced.

High school kids end up in the same situation. Dewy-eyed girl accepts date with the school heartthrob, only to find herself pinned in the front seat and overpowered. Again, he-said she-said date rape, impossible to prosecute, impossible to prove.

The fact is that unless a woman has been visibly beaten, and badly so, she has almost no legal way of proving she was forced, since the male will insist she consented, and reasonable doubt is born. So by simply adding the word "forcible", all of these scenarios would be automatically exempted from abortion funding.

As for the "morning after" pill, most rape victims will use this if it's available. Thing is, it's only available through prescription, which means the cost of a doctor visit AND the cost of the medication. Many young victims simply cannot afford this. If they report the rape, the hospital will provide the pill for them... but this means the female will be subjected to embarrassing police questions, the accused will be questioned as well, everyone in the school/college will know what happened, the D.A. will eventually decline to prosecute, and the female will be left with the option of facing the wrath of the accused and his friends, or dropping out of school

I detailed all these scenarios to show why most rapes aren't even reported, and why "forcible" rape is an impossible standard to prove unless the woman has been beaten within an inch of her life. Rape is traumatizing to women. I don't think a lot of men get this. Being impregnated during a rape is enough to drive some women to despair. There should never, ever be a legal impediment to providing a raped woman with a federally-funded abortion.
 
Statuatory rape is not considered to be "forcible", even if the "consenting" child is 12 and the person she had sex with is 20-30 years old. So potentially with this new, improved definition, a 12-yr-old girl from a poor family could be forced to give birth despite the fact that she was legally unable to give consent and was, under the law, raped.
Who is forcing the 12 year old girl to give birth? And consent is not given in the legal sense at 12 - therefore the 20-30 year old (why only 20-30?) person who ejaculated into the 12 year old is still responsible and should pay for the abortion and pay for medical expenses if the "poor" (I assume economically poor here) girl cannot. There are multiple state resources in each state for such scenario's which would not require an economically poor family to pay.

Most date rapes occur in high school and college. Most victims are vulnerable adolescents who do not yet have the experience to size up potentially dangerous situations... i.e. getting crazy drunk at a frat party, then trying to weakly fend off an equally drunken kid(s) who will not take "no" for an answer. Was she raped? Yeah. She said "no", and she was legally impaired, unable to give consent. These things never go well for the female, since both were drunk and it's he-said, she-said, so there's no chance of a prosecution. If she becomes pregnant, she has no way of proving she was forced.
Since we're talking about abortion - a test a DNA test can be made to prove either he was or was not the person. However, this is a learning experience to avoid getting "crazy drunk at a frat party" in the future. If she wants the abortion and cannot prove rape legally, her mom and dad are there for a "vulnerable adolescent's" rescue.

High school kids end up in the same situation. Dewy-eyed girl accepts date with the school heartthrob, only to find herself pinned in the front seat and overpowered. Again, he-said she-said date rape, impossible to prosecute, impossible to prove.
Same as above.

The fact is that unless a woman has been visibly beaten, and badly so, she has almost no legal way of proving she was forced, since the male will insist she consented, and reasonable doubt is born. So by simply adding the word "forcible", all of these scenarios would be automatically exempted from abortion funding.
Proving rape is a whole different issue and thread. This is very focused and while you have good points on very specific situations, it doesn't change much in this thread. The law I think, proposed in the OP, is a good one and more individual responsibility needs to be taken by the perpetrators (assuming they are identified and caught). While adolecent rape, underage rape, date rape are all very concerning situations - I might also point out the other side of the coin which are "false rape" claims. That also, is another thread.
 
Who is forcing the 12 year old girl to give birth? And consent is not given in the legal sense at 12 - therefore the 20-30 year old (why only 20-30?) person who ejaculated into the 12 year old is still responsible and should pay for the abortion and pay for medical expenses if the "poor" (I assume economically poor here) girl cannot. There are multiple state resources in each state for such scenario's which would not require an economically poor family to pay.

Since we're talking about abortion - a test a DNA test can be made to prove either he was or was not the person. However, this is a learning experience to avoid getting "crazy drunk at a frat party" in the future. If she wants the abortion and cannot prove rape legally, her mom and dad are there for a "vulnerable adolescent's" rescue.

Same as above.

Proving rape is a whole different issue and thread. This is very focused and while you have good points on very specific situations, it doesn't change much in this thread. The law I think, proposed in the OP, is a good one and more individual responsibility needs to be taken by the perpetrators (assuming they are identified and caught). While adolecent rape, underage rape, date rape are all very concerning situations - I might also point out the other side of the coin which are "false rape" claims. That also, is another thread.

Her whole point is that the term 'forcible rape' points to litigation, and a legal factor that shouldn't be necessary in such a situation.
 
Her whole point is that the term 'forcible rape' points to litigation, and a legal factor that shouldn't be necessary in such a situation.

Ok, and the point of this thread wasn't litigation of forcible rape, but of abortions borne out of forcible rape.
 
Ok, and the point of this thread wasn't litigation of forcible rape, but of abortions borne out of forcible rape.

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.
 
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.

Exactly! Thanks. :)
 
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?

I agree with what you're saying. I don't think it benefits anybody when the government tries to get involved in medical decisions and deciding who can and can't have a medical procedure. I think it's equally stupid when a private insurance company doesn't cover birth control, but only covers abortion.

But the thing that really gets me about this stupid f***ing law is that rape is a personal issue and trying to define it and prove it as defined by the government is out of line. The government should get out of this. It almost looks like they are trying to minimize the less violent incidents of rape, and that is unacceptable. I basically see this as the government judging victims of a horrible crime, and judging the level of the victim's suffering set by their standards. This really ticks me off.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom