re tieing abortion to health reform is clinton nuts exuptr exu ericsson se patrick taylor the sounding board writes in article c te cm news cso uiuc edu parker ehsn cen uiuc edu robert s parker writes read the whole thing there s some pretty hot stuff in here apparently you didn t read the whole thing you continue to miss the point skinner sp csrd uiuc edu gregg skinner writes parker ehsn cen uiuc edu robert s parker writes deletions soapbox on if it s ok to pay for legal procedures with gov t money then let s get the government to pay for counselling that provides abortion alternatives let s get the government to pay for adoption fees let s get the government to pay for all the things that make abortion necessary why not they are certainly legal procedures counselling that only provides alternatives to abortion would be just as biased as counselling that only provides abortion information how about providing counselling that will give a woman help in finding what she is comfortable with your adoption funding idea may be a good one any idea if it is feasable the only way hell is involved is that it is going to be a good skiing resort before i give in to paying for abortions i believe it is wrong and i won t pay for it without a gripe i m not for making them unlawful i d rather spend money on saving lives than a bunch of investigations and court hearings and all this other crap we are spending our time on you know who s really cleaning up on all this abortion stuff lawyers i say let s pass laws to make adoption cheaper easier and infinitely more supportive of the birth mother let s eradicate the stigma reduce the cost pay the price for life making adoption easier on the birth mother may help reduce abortion but it will not eliminate the need for it abortion is not done just because the mother can t care for the child and doesn t feel good about giving it to strangers abortion is done because the mother can not afford the pregnancy soapbox off a person has a right to do anything that does not interfere with the rights of another person cool enough you ll have more trouble defining the terms in that statement than getting people to agree to it for example i perceive i have a right not to participate in what i feel is murder i don t think the government should either on the other hand since we are having trouble proving that it is murder there is no right to stop someone from doing it if they so choose either by legal means or harassment of course persuasion is allowed but watch that line between persuasive and harassing the second part is a definition of a person a simplistic explanation is that a person is a member of society most normal adult human beings are good examples of people most children over two years old are people as well the simple way of determining this is that you can have a conversation with them it is actually more complicated than that but i have no desire to spend the time it would take to explain it to you read the thread why is bodily autonomy so important for more explanation and justification but why is your definition authoritative enough for the whoe us surely you can understand there are other definitions with equal right of consideration then please justify why being human automatically makes something valuable and why that includes the unborn if the government refused to fun abortions due to the qualms of a minority of the population then it would then have to pay far more in the delivery of babies whose mothers wanted an abortion but could not afford one and now that baby will also require care for years true that needs to be fixed it is part of the problem if clinton has a medical program to get underway let him address this too it is cheaper in the long run to save lives later they will be productive members of society at least if his plan works no they are not guaranteed to become productive members of society even if they do that is many years in the future until which they are a burden on someone or society there is also the matter of the mother forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term at a critical time in her life could prevent her from being a productive member of society actually i was refering to the minority that objects to abortion not those who object to federal funding i admit i did not say it very clearly and apologize for that to refuse to fund abortions is to remove that choice from some women and add the additional burden to society for no reason no this is really flawed logic it would be like me saying i was born with a disfigured face and i want cosmetic repair it is discriminatory that i cannot make that choice and so you must pay for it that a person has a right to make a choice does not imply legally or otherwise that someone else should foot the bill sic for that choice ok look it s like this we are footing the bill maybe they will take choice a maybe they will take choice b maybe they will take choice c they can t afford any one of them if they take choice a we d have to pay them say if they take choice b it would cost us if they take choice c it will cost us now and a hell of a lot more for the next years which one sounds the most realistic for us to be willing to pay for now some people happen not to like choice a other people happen not to like choice c paying for it that is c has been around and paid for for years even though it means we spend a lot of money we can t in conscience refuse to pay for it now a has been around and is perfectly legal but it hasn t been funded in the past now a is going to be funded but some people object they don t like the idea of their tax money going to pay for choice a so we could refuse to fund a at all then those women who can t afford any of those choices will be forced to take choice b or c which will cost all of us more money most of us don t see any reason at all why more money should be spent to the effect of removing personal choice from some women the alternative is to fund a if that is what the mother chooses we will also still fund b and even c if that is what the mother chooses however some women will certainly choose a and that will then save us we otherwise would have had to spend your taxes are not being raised to fund a choice you object they are being lowered because we will fund a choice that is legal despite your objections to it actually your taxes are not really going to go down as i m sure you would point out but the amount that is saved in that area can help out in another like our massive debt if you disagree then give us some reasons given that abortion is legal and the right to abortion is supported by the majority of the population it is not justifiable to refuse abortions to women who can not afford them who will simply require even greater funds for the delivery you would force upon them i refuse to pay more taxes to remove choice from those women just because you object to a legal medical procedure what i say objection to the procedure is irrelevant uncle bill doesn t pay for breast augmentation facelifts etc why abortions it s elective surgery those other procedures you mention only cost money there is no savings in other procedures that would be required down the road without them in fact there could be additional costs down the road because of them this is quite different from the case of abortion as for your argument you are enticing a young girl to kill a baby by making it affordable and refusing to make the alternative affordable too so you are just as guilty of removing a choice by withholding funds think about it a poor girl is pregnant and abortions are federally funded what s she gonna do what choice have your plans given her your kind of double talk really makes me ill this is bullshit we are not refusing to make the alternative affordable too if we refused to pay for the more expensive choice of birth then your statement would make sense but that is not the case so it doesn t if clinton tried to block funding for pre natal care and delivery or left it out of his health care plan i would certainly object i would also be quite surprised pro choice ha pro abortion really fits in your case yes but probably not your definition of it or for the reasons you think if you re gonna fund one choice you have to fund them all at the very least you stupid fuck we do want to fund all the choices you are the one who wants to not fund all the choices imho if we fund the adoption choice right meaning not just throwing money at it but cutting costs esp legal costs we won t need abortion anymore your humble opinion is still wrong even with easy adoption there is still the fact that pregnancy takes several months months in which a young woman could need to be getting an education like finishing high school entering college finishing college getting a job things that are much harder to do if you have to take a break for a few months things that have a massive impact on her future productivity have a right to life a fetus is not a person you can not have a conversation with them ah let s kill the mentally incompetant as well or how about people we just don t like since we can t have a conversation with them you can have a conversation with the mentally incompetant and even though you personally may refuse to have a conversation with people you just don t like it is still possible for others to have a conversation with them it is not possible for anyone to have a conversation with a fetus they are not biologically independent nor was my son at the age of weeks he was breastfed and would not take a bottle just what does biologically independent mean i ll be happy to punch any definition full of loopholes he was still biologically independent at least to the same extent you are now he consumed nutrients and digested them in the normal manner he breathed his own air a fetus on the other hand gets it s nutrients already digested by the mother it gets its oxygen from the mother as well that is not biologically independent their awareness is questionable aha you admit it is questionable yet you are willing to kill it even if it may be very aware i suggest you re think your viewpoint awareness is only part of what makes a member of society it is the minimal conceivable requirement yet many people seem to think that something without awareness could still be important enough to justify the suffereing of a true member of society i keep asking but i still haven t seen a real justification for why the life of a non sentient creature should be worth the suffering of a sentient being i haven t read every response on the threads i ve been asking on yet so we ll see if i see one later they have no experiences in the real world to make up a personality this is also true of quite a few unix programmers so what d anyone who can program in unix has a lot of experiences in the real world rob
