• 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

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,907
Reaction score
60,363
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
House abortion bill redefines rape, incest exceptions - Yahoo! News

Federal funding is only allowed to pay for abortions in the case of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is endangered. But a new bill with 173 co-sponsors would further limit federally funded exceptions, only allowing Medicaid to pay for abortions in the case of "forcible rape."

Forcible rape has no formal definition under federal law, Baumann notes, but legal experts and abortion advocates told him that the new wording would most likely prevent Medicaid from paying for abortions for victims of statutory rapes not involving the use of force. Baumann's sources also told him that the revised wording might also disallow funding of abortions in cases where perpetrators used date-rape drugs on their victims, or targeted mentally incapacitated women.

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?
 
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 think Federal funds should be used to pay for abortions. Period. It's just plain silly not to use Federal funds for that purpose. We use Federal funds to terminate thousands of lives. Telling women that they must have been forcibly raped in order to get the procedure done at Medicaid's expense? Who's going to enforce that? How will it be enforced? Will the woman have had to file charges against her alleged rapist? Guys, look out. Will the abortion remains be tested for the DNA of the father and run through the system? What will "due process" for this determination involve? Ridiculous.

As long as abortion is legal, for God's sake, let everyone who wants one have one.
 
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 agree completely with what MaggieD said, federal funds should be used for abortions, it's a legal medical procedure, period.

Now as for this, I do think this is going too far, for the law now, all cases of rape should be able to receive federal funding for an abortion. This just seems like they are putting an extra burden where one shouldn't be placed. Rape victims shouldn't have to prove that the way they were raped is up to par to receive funding.
 
I think Federal funds should be used to pay for abortions. Period. It's just plain silly not to use Federal funds for that purpose. We use Federal funds to terminate thousands of lives. Telling women that they must have been forcibly raped in order to get the procedure done at Medicaid's expense? Who's going to enforce that? How will it be enforced? Will the woman have had to file charges against her alleged rapist? Guys, look out. Will the abortion remains be tested for the DNA of the father and run through the system? What will "due process" for this determination involve? Ridiculous.

As long as abortion is legal, for God's sake, let everyone who wants one have one.

"Federal Funds" means "taxpayers". So why should I have to pay for someone's abortion, of any kind under any circumstance? I can sympathize with someone who was forcibly raped and the rapist gets away, and possibly ... POSSIBLY, that is the only scenario where taxpayer money could be used, and even then - use should be very circumspect. Otherwise, the people who are responsible, or if they are not of age, their parents who are their guardians should pay for an abortion. Sure, abortions are legal - that does not mean taxpayers pick up the tab for irresponsible behavior, mistakes, etc. Apparently there are two people involved - payment should come from those two people, their estates, tacked onto their future earnings, or from their family/parents/guardians, liens put on their property, added to their taxes, or if tax money must be used, as a loan provided to both individuals who are then required to pay it off over a period of time with interest.

Yes, forcible rape where the guilty party is not caught is the one area tax payer money can be used. If the bastard is caught, in jail he goes and he can pay it off in jail doing whatever job he has, and when he gets out of jail, no federal help, welfare, workmans comp, foodstamps, etc... until he pays off his debt for the abortion, and if he goes back to jail, he can finish up paying for it again, at his jail job.
 
Federal Funding meaning Tax Money meaning my money should not be use for abortions. Why should my money be use to condemn an innocent child to death?
 
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?

Am personally torn on the whole abortion issue. The life of the child does seem to get minimal weight in too many of the discussions. Am comfortable with the current compromise of federal funds only being eligible for limited circumstances.

With regard to the new legislation being proposed. Not clear what genuine problem they are trying to solve? Suspect the bill will likely get shot down in the Senate or chopped up and relegated meaningless.

But the GOP will have captured some headlines. Given their base a warm and fuzzy that they are fighting the fight. And move on to the next whatever. Nothing too partisan about it. It's SOP for both parties.

Is fascinating that our congresspricks tend to hold themselves in such high esteem, while we tend to view them as not so much. ;)


.
 
I'm kind of torn on this. While abortion is legal, for the most part it is still a voluntary procedure and not done out of medical necessity. I'm very much against federal funding paying for elective medical procedures.

In some cases though, abortion is done out of medical necessity, and I'm fine with federal funding paying for that.

When it comes to things like rape and incest though, the 'medical necessity' line is kind of blurred. If a woman was raped and became pregnant and is clinically depressed about it, would her abortion be medically necessary? I don't know.

I guess I'm somewhat against this bill, because I think it should be up to medical professionals whether or not an abortion is medically necessary or not, and if it is, I'm fine with it being paid for out of federal funds. If it's an elective procedure, pay for it yourself.
 
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 see this as unreasonable. There is no need to punish the mother twice.
 
"Federal Funds" means "taxpayers". So why should I have to pay for someone's abortion, of any kind under any circumstance? I can sympathize with someone who was forcibly raped and the rapist gets away, and possibly ... POSSIBLY, that is the only scenario where taxpayer money could be used, and even then - use should be very circumspect. Otherwise, the people who are responsible, or if they are not of age, their parents who are their guardians should pay for an abortion. Sure, abortions are legal - that does not mean taxpayers pick up the tab for irresponsible behavior, mistakes, etc. Apparently there are two people involved - payment should come from those two people, their estates, tacked onto their future earnings, or from their family/parents/guardians, liens put on their property, added to their taxes, or if tax money must be used, as a loan provided to both individuals who are then required to pay it off over a period of time with interest.

Yes, forcible rape where the guilty party is not caught is the one area tax payer money can be used. If the bastard is caught, in jail he goes and he can pay it off in jail doing whatever job he has, and when he gets out of jail, no federal help, welfare, workmans comp, foodstamps, etc... until he pays off his debt for the abortion, and if he goes back to jail, he can finish up paying for it again, at his jail job.

Bolded part: If you are going to reduce this to freakin' dollars and cents, pay for an abortion or support a child through aged 18. Along with his mother. The idea that there will be abortion police is just another black hole to pour money into. That, in and of itself, will cost more than the abortion would times ten -- or more.
 
I think Federal funds should be used to pay for abortions. Period. It's just plain silly not to use Federal funds for that purpose. We use Federal funds to terminate thousands of lives. Telling women that they must have been forcibly raped in order to get the procedure done at Medicaid's expense? Who's going to enforce that? How will it be enforced? Will the woman have had to file charges against her alleged rapist? Guys, look out. Will the abortion remains be tested for the DNA of the father and run through the system? What will "due process" for this determination involve? Ridiculous.

As long as abortion is legal, for God's sake, let everyone who wants one have one.
Maggie, I am really confused on your position on abortion. Sometimes you seem you're opposed, other times you come off as a near rabid choicer. Which is it?
 
Federal Funding meaning Tax Money meaning my money should not be use for abortions. Why should my money be use to condemn an innocent child to death?

Because when you pay your taxes, it's not YOUR money anymore. OUR money can be spent as WE decide.
 
Maggie, I am really confused on your position on abortion. Sometimes you seem you're opposed, other times you come off as a near rabid choicer. Which is it?

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.
 
Bolded part: If you are going to reduce this to freakin' dollars and cents, pay for an abortion or support a child through aged 18. Along with his mother. The idea that there will be abortion police is just another black hole to pour money into. That, in and of itself, will cost more than the abortion would times ten -- or more.
That's what this post and poll is about "FUNDING", so yes it's about dollars and cents. :roll: No one's claiming abortion police and you've got no data it would be a black hole of any kind. That's a Red Herring as you're arguing how something would be, which doesn't yet exist. It comes down to personal responsibility and the concept that the general tax payer is not and should not be responsible to pay for two individuals mistakes or misdeeds.

What about that concept is confusing you?
 
Because when you pay your taxes, it's not YOUR money anymore. OUR money can be spent as WE decide.

And since I and part of WE, I say the money isn't spent for abortions... :lol:
 
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.
 
That's what this post and poll is about "FUNDING", so yes it's about dollars and cents. :roll: No one's claiming abortion police and you've got no data it would be a black hole of any kind. That's a Red Herring as you're arguing how something would be, which doesn't yet exist. It comes down to personal responsibility and the concept that the general tax payer is not and should not be responsible to pay for two individuals mistakes or misdeeds.

What about that concept is confusing you?

What about the concept of supporting a child and mother 'til the child is 18 is confusing to you? Cost analysis: Pay for the abortion. Period.
 
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.
When you say something like, "let everyone who wants one, have one", like it's a cell phone or something, you sound like you support it with no restrictions.
 
Because when you pay your taxes, it's not YOUR money anymore. OUR money can be spent as WE decide.

Your right it's our money and as part of "our" I say no federal spending on the murder of innocent children.
 
What about the concept of supporting a child and mother 'til the child is 18 is confusing to you? Cost analysis: Pay for the abortion. Period.

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?
 
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.
Normally I just call you guys pro aborts, but you all get upset at that. "Choicer" (like truther or birther) is my compromise.

BTW, your analysis is completely wrong anyway. Just because a legal right is created, doesn't make it morally right.
 
Last edited:
When you say something like, "let everyone who wants one, have one", like it's a cell phone or something, you sound like you support it with no restrictions.

You're right, X Factor. I should have put a footnote there. ;-)
 
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?

Yeah, I get it. It's called "being short-sighted."
 
Yeah, I get it. It's called "being short-sighted."

So how is not using Federal Spening on Abortions being short sighted?
 
Back
Top Bottom