|
Post by Cassiopeia on Feb 22, 2002 10:18:07 GMT -5
>>That would not work. That way, only the richer people among us could have an abortion, and not the poor people who couldn't support a child because of the money. <<
Sorry, but I agree with pettyluv. Abortion is a choice, and you have a choice of whether or not you want to pay for it. Pro-choice people, like myself, claim that the government has no right to decide what a woman does with her body, and that they should stay out of people's personal business. Well, if you don't want them to make decisions based on morality for you, you'd better not expect them to pay for it. Also, if you have an abortion within the first three months of pregnancy, it's only about $300. If you can't make that tiny amount of money in surplus of your needs within three months, that's not my problem. My tax money should not have to go towards funding an unecessary medical procedure. If you want to have an abortion, that's fine. But don't expect other people to pay for it.
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on Feb 22, 2002 14:33:13 GMT -5
>>My tax money should not have to go towards funding an unecessary medical procedure. If you want to have an abortion, that's fine. But don't expect other people to pay for it.<<
Abortion is not always unecessary. What if keeping the baby would bring the woman's health/life in danger? And even if that's not the case, I guess it depends on what you call 'unnecessary'... If the parents would not be able to raise the baby, and they want to have an abortion, then I think it is necessary. Of course they could give it up for adoption, but as you know that would probably only cause more problems.
~*Esther*~
|
|
|
Post by KattyKatie on Feb 22, 2002 14:50:18 GMT -5
<<My tax money should not have to go towards funding an unecessary medical procedure. If you want to have an abortion, that's fine. But don't expect other people to pay for it.>>
Oh, but it should go towards foster homes and adoption agencies, which is where a child born to a mentally challenged mother is going to eventually end up. There are so many women who will DIE if they have another child! My own mother had to have an abortion because if she didn't, it would have killed her AND the baby. Some people's bodies are just not capable of bringing a child to term, and if they try it could affect both them and the child.
|
|
|
Post by girlpoet21 on Feb 23, 2002 3:39:04 GMT -5
I agree completely with Cassi, I mean except about abortion being okay thing. I do not want my money going towards abortions, they go against my beliefs, and I shouldn't have to put my money towards them. What is wrong with adoption agencies, and foster care? They may not be perfect (they're not), but what's wrong with taking care of kids? The majority of kids are not in foster care because they're born to mentally challenged parents, they're in there because their parents abused them, died, etc. I think we should take care of kids, not kill them. Most people don't have a moral or religious conviction against foster care or adoption agencies, a lot of people have something against abortion. cassi-nice post about why we shouldn't have to pay for it. You said it better than me.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Feb 23, 2002 12:54:30 GMT -5
^^^ Thanks, girlpoet.
I'm probably one of the only people on these boards who thinks that abortion should be legal AND that it should not be funded by the government.
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on Feb 23, 2002 14:23:15 GMT -5
>>I do not want my money going towards abortions, they go against my beliefs, and I shouldn't have to put my money towards them.<<
Yeah, well, unfortunately, you can't control where your tax money goes. If I would live in America, my tax would also partially be used to fund death penalty. That goes against my beliefs too. There are lots of things that go against people's beliefs, and they still have to pay tax to support those things. The point is that there are people who believe that abortion is right, or that death penalty is right.
>>Most people don't have a moral or religious conviction against foster care or adoption agencies, a lot of people have something against abortion.<<
The people who have something against abortion, should not have an abortion. But there are just as many people who don't have anything against abortion. So why would they have to live like someone else wants them to?
~*Esther*~
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Feb 23, 2002 15:07:33 GMT -5
^^Your argument reeks of hypocrisy. You say the government has no right to tell a woman how to deal with her body, and then you want the government to subsidize it??
Your analogy does not work. An act such as the death penalty is an action of the state, while a state funded abortion is an individuals choice that I would rather not pay for.
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on Feb 23, 2002 16:46:33 GMT -5
>>Your argument reeks of hypocrisy.<<
*ahem*... I'll just pretend I didn't hear that.
>>You say the government has no right to tell a woman how to deal with her body, and then you want the government to subsidize it??<<
Yes. I don't see what's wrong with that. The government doesn't have to tell the woman to have an abortion or not to have one, but when she decides to have one, yes, then I think the government should subsidize it.
>>An act such as the death penalty is an action of the state, while a state funded abortion is an individuals choice that I would rather not pay for.<<
It doesn't matter if it's an action of the state or an individual's choice. The point is that it's something you don't agree with, but that you have to pay for through taxes anyway.
~*Esther*~
|
|
|
Post by girlpoet21 on Feb 24, 2002 0:52:24 GMT -5
Cassi-lol, probably. I've never seen anyone else on here who believes like that, but I appreciate it. I mean the gov not paying for it. Pettyluv-I totally agree with you. Good job!!!! ;D Sunny- I don't agree with the death penalty either, and I wish my money didn't go towards it. That doesn't mean that I can't try to change that. It is hypocritical, and a bit lacking in logic to say that the gov has no right over a womans body, but that whatever she decides to do, they have to pay for. I guess I'm just saying I agree with pettyluv.
|
|
dizzyupthegirl
Full Member
definition of hot: look at that ^^^
Posts: 370
|
Post by dizzyupthegirl on Feb 24, 2002 5:34:49 GMT -5
i have a good idea... If u dont want the chance of getting a baby...then dont have sex. lol.. its simple... If u have a husband then yea.. i think sex is alrite. I still believe sex after marrige kind of thing. But if u want to have sex b4, then take precaution. Just keep in mind that u mite get pregnant. And i think that if u want to have abortion, pls do it on the first three months. Cuz after that i wud considered it as a living thing.
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on Feb 24, 2002 9:00:32 GMT -5
You think it's illogical and hypocritical, and I think it's not. We'll probably just never agree about this.
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on Feb 24, 2002 12:00:02 GMT -5
"If u dont want the chance of getting a baby...then dont have sex. lol.. its simple..." I'm glad some of us can live in a world where choices are that simple. But for the rest of us, it's not so simple. The fact is, sex is enjoyable, and people are not going to stop having it, regardless of the risks. People are also not going to stop having sex outside of marriage, because most don't believe in waiting till then. Sex is NOT just for procreation. It's to be enjoyed in a responsible way. Birth control can fail, regardless of how careful you are. If legal abortion didn't exist, women would still try to have abortions, only they'd do it in ways that could kill them. Isn't it better to have legal abortions that protect the lives of already-born women, then to have illegal ones that women will die of?
|
|
|
Post by KattyKatie on Feb 24, 2002 12:26:02 GMT -5
^^^ Exactly. If there weren't abortion clinics women would STILL be getting abortions, only they'd be doing it illegally and not by a professional. They might even be trying to cause themselves to miscarry! Needless to say neither one is the safest in the world and you'd end up losing 2 lives in the process instead of one.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Feb 24, 2002 14:08:48 GMT -5
>>i have a good idea... If u dont want the chance of getting a baby...then dont have sex. lol.. its simple... If u have a husband then yea.. i think sex is alrite. I still believe sex after marrige kind of thing. <<
Believe it or not, there are many married couples who do not want children. Do you expect them to not have sex (I have heard that argument before, actually)?
|
|
|
Post by girlpoet21 on Feb 24, 2002 17:44:53 GMT -5
Sarah-Dizzy never said sex was just for procreation, she just said that if someone has sex they ought to know there's a chance of and be prepared for pregnancy. I agree. I know not every married couple wants to have kids, but they can always get sterilized. Also women still die from abortion. Pro-lifers try to protect the lives of women and their babies. Many women don't know the chances of complications (including death) that can result from abortion. We refuse to settle for the saving of only one life, when we believe we can save two.
|
|