Abortion Fight Erupts in Health Care Debate

Why is there a debate on this issue? Abortion is a legal medical procedure and should be covered. Birth control should also be covered.

Do I like the idea of abortion - no. However, privacy and choice in medicine are very important and should be respected.

If new laws are made regarding abortion, then and only then should this issue be addressed regarding health insurance.

Well getting the right wing whipped into a frenzy by telling them that the health care bill would mean thousands more abortions a day would be a good way to get it defeated.

Margaret wrote:

Well getting the right wing whipped into a frenzy by telling them that the health care bill would mean thousands more abortions a day would be a good way to get it defeated.

There are already 3700 abortions done a day in the US. What's a few more thousand?

Tizzy wrote:

Why is there a debate on this issue? Abortion is a legal medical procedure and should be covered. Birth control should also be covered.
Do I like the idea of abortion - no. However, privacy and choice in medicine are very important and should be respected.
If new laws are made regarding abortion, then and only then should this issue be addressed regarding health insurance.

Oh really? I chose not to allow my money to be used this way. Do I have a say in this matter? Or should the Karma of the womans womb of the future be on everyones heads for present day practices of abortion?

I think the pro Chioic folks should pool their own funds for this.
Then they will get the Karma.

I'm pro choice in that if a woman chooses to have sex,chooses not to use effective birth control, and chooses not to have the child her own choices have created, fine thats her choice. She can also choose the doctor and cash, credit or debit. I choose not to have my taxmoney pay for it.

Every woman except in the cases of rape and incest, has the choice not to get pregnant if she chooses not to. In the case of life of the mother, its a legal medical procedure. While a hard and heart breaking decision to ever have to make, but again it should be a choice.

Rocketlamb wrote:

I'm pro choice in that if a woman chooses to have sex,chooses not to use effective birth control, and chooses not to have the child her own choices have created, fine thats her choice. She can also choose the doctor and cash, credit or debit. I choose not to have my taxmoney pay for it.
Every woman except in the cases of rape and incest, has the choice not to get pregnant if she chooses not to. In the case of life of the mother, its a legal medical procedure. While a hard and heart breaking decision to ever have to make, but again it should be a choice.

Perfect example why it is not fair in choice . Lets take the example of a man and a woman , and the woman becoming pregnant. The man who conceived the child with the woman has no say in the process. The woman however does, full say.

If the woman chooses to have an abortion, the Man has no say in it. ANd because of that, he should not be held to child support payments if the woman chooses to not have an abortion, simply because he has no choice and no say.

Totally unfair use of choice, no?

Tooth4U wrote:

<quoted text>
Perfect example why it is not fair in choice . Lets take the example of a man and a woman , and the woman becoming pregnant. The man who conceived the child with the woman has no say in the process. The woman however does, full say.
If the woman chooses to have an abortion, the Man has no say in it. ANd because of that, he should not be held to child support payments if the woman chooses to not have an abortion, simply because he has no choice and no say.
Totally unfair use of choice, no?

With all due respect, both made the choice to have unprotected sex. Effective birth control is available for both men and women so the excuse "she said she was obn the pill" won't cut it. Both knew full well that the possible out come of this choice would be a child that would require care and upkeep. Both have the responsibility of either taking charge of their own personal reproduction or paying for the care and upkeep of a child. They decided together to "roll the dice" and they are unhappy with the outcome. Their responsibility, not mine. Here in lies the crux of the issue. It's about personal responsibility. Perhaps couples should have this discussion before they make that first choice to have unprotected sex, maybe even try being married.

Rocketlamb wrote:

<quoted text>
With all due respect, both made the choice to have unprotected sex. Effective birth control is available for both men and women so the excuse "she said she was obn the pill" won't cut it. Both knew full well that the possible out come of this choice would be a child that would require care and upkeep. Both have the responsibility of either taking charge of their own personal reproduction or paying for the care and upkeep of a child. They decided together to "roll the dice" and they are unhappy with the outcome. Their responsibility, not mine. Here in lies the crux of the issue. It's about personal responsibility. Perhaps couples should have this discussion before they make that first choice to have unprotected sex, maybe even try being married.

you cited the preface 'both' at least four times.

BOTH do not have CHOICE. Got it? NO matter how the dance was danced , it is who pays the fiddler for that dance.

IF a MAN has no say in whether the woman does or does NOT have an abortion, then he is not to be leveled to having to pay child support. With all due respect to the childs need for support. It is the goverment who allows this inequality, protected under the 14th amendment, who should pay support.

For example. If I were to with you engage in the procreative process 'for fun', or for whatever it is those engagements are conducted. And forthwith soon you became pregnant? No joy can I have to see a life coming to me. None. I have no say in the matter. Rather, the inequality of this is evidenced in outcome! I have to lament, and suffer pains of concience, some debilitating that I lost the life of my child to your decision.

I think men suffering such fate should be able to sue!

*that inequality is protected 'against' being violated under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Gender discrimination.

On the other hand, if your a raving maniac, gold digger who set me up to get pregnant.

And I have no say in the matter?

Conversely.

It's really simple, if you are a man and you want to have sex but don't want to have a child, wear a condom. They are readily accessable and a lot cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy.

On the other hand, if you are a man who wants to have a child, protect yourself until you find a partner, not the first girl to give it up and happen to get pregnant, but a true partner. Plan a child, be overjoyed together at the life you have created in love.
Doesn't that sound better than court orders, paternity tests, and child support?

Tooth4U wrote:

On the other hand, if your a raving maniac, gold digger who set me up to get pregnant.
And I have no say in the matter?
Conversely.

But you did have a say, you just waited too long to exercise it. When you need to speak up is before you have sex with the gold digger. Tell you rpartner you don't want a child and jimmy up. Believe me, a smart woman will appreciate it. The kind you might want to have a child with later.

Pelosi knows that Abortion keeps down the number of minorities who may turn on the Dems as the dem pols focus all of their energys on Illegal Alien invaders.

The impact of the Invasion has had devastating consequences for the minority communities. And, Pelosi's cabal couldn't care less. Remember, she is only a Calif. Democrat., not a proud American Democrat.

Rocketlamb wrote:

It's really simple, if you are a man and you want to have sex but don't want to have a child, wear a condom. They are readily accessable and a lot cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy.

lol ....uh okay. In the heat of the moment.

Its the other way around , now isnt it? People being able ( specifically women) to max out the pleasure principle with the advent of?(drum roll please) THE PILL!
No longer in the normal cycles of being who a woman is. Now, stuffed and circumvention in the natural processes of a womans body has science come. Back up those lunar cycle fluidic releases and all the accomponying of montly transitions. Why? So people can, specifically females, go have FUN!

Sex is for procreation, not recreation. This is the myth that has been sold, this recreation. After a woman goes through mentapause, then sex is for pleasure.

What happens when females take the pill? They create massive more amounts of female hormones which have to be backed up from being released during her normal natural monthly cycle. This in turn is secreted out their urine and into the water supply.

Ever notice how boys are becoming more and more effeminate? There is an expression. "There is something in the water."

this video .......not to miss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

When Goldman "Suck",Citibank,Bank Of America,AIG,Wells Fargo...

Ask 4 Socialism Money No Problem,When The American Peasant Ask 4 Some Money 4 Healthcare (4 The Last 50 Yr) Is A Crime.

Something Is Very Wrong With This Country.

With the advent of the birth control pill, there is a direct correlation with the increased incidence of breast cancer.

As I said. I dont want my money, caught up in the Karma of the womans womb of the future from present day practices of abortion. Nor, should anyone who finds abortion contraindicative.

Isnt it not enough , that as Man in this matter I am immediately denied my 14th amendment rights?

A woman is controlled by the Moon until Menapause.

There are alot of females in the world today. But very few women. A female can never call anything her own.

But a Woman? Can have the world!

Lets look at the Karma of the womans womb of the future.

Are not women already becoming more and more barren? Yes, they are.

I invite anyone to study from 1982 forward the increase development of aritificial incemination clinics springing up across America.

The first one of these was opened some 60 miles south of Los Angeles in 1982. Soon, would come a fierce vertical storm out of NOWHERE which pulverized the coast of California, and knocked down rail road tressles far inland into Nevada.