Abortion and universal coverage

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
utherpendragon,

Your objection has NOTHING to do with your tax dollars going to pay for abortion. Don't believe me? Here, I'll prove it.

Take the cost of an abortion and subract that from all costs of prenatal care, the child birth, postnatal care and of course coverage on the child.

So you'd rather force all of us to pay significantly ...[text shortened]... under the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade.

Can you cast aside the smokescreen issue now?

God's view of morality.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
utherpendragon,

Your objection has NOTHING to do with your tax dollars going to pay for abortion. Don't believe me? Here, I'll prove it.

Take the cost of an abortion and subract that from all costs of prenatal care, the child birth, postnatal care and of course coverage on the child.

So you'd rather force all of us to pay significantly ...[text shortened]... under the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade.

Can you cast aside the smokescreen issue now?

How about this one.

People don't have to pay for the bad choices of others.

You don't have to spend much time on these boards to realise how some feel about abortion, 'making' them pay for abortions is just another indication of how sick your ideology is.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I had a dream too. I was playing a guitar down town on a public street corner trying to make a tax free living as I didn't wish to pay taxes for abortions anymore. I only had a couple of bucks in my can when whodey pulled up in a beat up chevy pickup with grass clippings and a lawn mower in the back. He hollered come mow lawns with me, there's more money ...[text shortened]... as putting my guitar in the case and then I woke up as FMF's last avatar was screaming at us.

I had a dream too. I was playing a guitar down town on a public street corner trying to make a tax free living as I didn't wish to pay taxes for abortions anymore. I only had a couple of bucks in my can when whodey pulled up in a beat up chevy pickup with grass clippings and a lawn mower in the back. He hollered come mow lawns with me, there's more money in it! I was putting my guitar in the case and then I woke up as FMF's last avatar was screaming at us. She was saying that we will have a cashless society because of people like us.

Originally posted by Wajoma
How about this one.

People don't have to pay for the bad choices of others.

You don't have to spend much time on these boards to realise how some feel about abortion, 'making' them pay for abortions is just another indication of how sick your ideology is.

Abortions reduce crime and thus save money for society as a whole.

I would prefer that anything relating to abortion be removed from the current healthcare proposals. The debate is complicated enough already without adding in wedge issues.

Once we've passed (or rejected) a final healthcare bill, we can go back and debate whether or not abortions should be part of any government healthcare plan or requirement. Undoubtedly, the debate will be made up entirely of arguments that everyone has heard a million times before, but at least it won't be distracting from anything else.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
In Iran the abortion rate is most certainly not zero percent.

And you infer that what "they are saying" from a right wing blog, I am sure. What are the plans exactly?

I said that it was zero percent in jest, I was merely trying to make a point which you either don't get or do not want to address.

Originally posted by rwingett
I had a dream last night where government health care paid for all abortions on demand. To fund the huge backlog the government raises Whodey's taxes to pay for them all. Not everybody's taxes, mind you, just Whodey's. He takes on two jobs to pay for the sprawling bureaucratic abortion industry, but still can't make ends meet. Beaten down and impoverished, ...[text shortened]... ar. And every 100 plates he stamps out pays for another abortion...

But then I woke up.

Nice dream their Barak....er...um.....Rwingett.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
utherpendragon,

Your objection has NOTHING to do with your tax dollars going to pay for abortion. Don't believe me? Here, I'll prove it.

Take the cost of an abortion and subract that from all costs of prenatal care, the child birth, postnatal care and of course coverage on the child.

So you'd rather force all of us to pay significantly ...[text shortened]... under the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade.

Can you cast aside the smokescreen issue now?

I see, so if you take the cost of an abortion and compare it to state costs covering the cost of taking care of children then the cost of abortion is smaller.

Well there you go, abortions are cost effective. I guess the left wins again. Not only that, they prevent yet another evil human being leaving their carbon foot print behind. In fact, they are not a burden on our food supply as well since we all know we have finite resources and need to conserve them.

Originally posted by whodey
I see, so if you take the cost of an abortion and compare it to state costs covering the cost of taking care of children then the cost of abortion is smaller.

Well there you go, abortions are cost effective. I guess the left wins again. Not only that, they prevent yet another evil human being leaving their carbon foot print behind. In fact, they are ...[text shortened]... on our food supply as well since we all know we have finite resources and need to conserve them.

Actually, your logic makes perfect sense if you don't regard the fetus as a "full human being", but it sounds awful if you do regard it as human.

If you believe the fetus is human, then we're murdering millions of innocent people, an outrage that must be stopped immediately, and definitely, taxpayers should never have to fund such a thing.

If you believe the fetus is not human, then women should have the right to do whatever they wish with their own bodies, and abortions are no different from any other kind of healthcare procedure.

If you believe the fetus is "sort of human but not quite", you will hold a position somewhere in between.

And all sides can go on and on and on, each with their own definition, but no matter how loud each side screams, no one will ever be able to "prove" that their definition is the correct one.

Originally posted by whodey
Not only that, they prevent yet another evil human being leaving their carbon foot print behind. In fact, they are not a burden on our food supply as well since we all know we have finite resources and need to conserve them.

And you think you're being facetious.

http://www.vhemt.org/

Originally posted by sh76
And you think you're being facetious.

http://www.vhemt.org/

😲

Here are a few quotes from the site that stuck with me.

"Another war would be a happy occasion on the planet. If there were a button I could press, Iwould sacrifice myself without hesitation if it meant that millions would die"

"Feeding starving people just makes more starving people"

Of course, this group is not advocating killing people off because they argue that famines, war, etc, tend to increase the birth rate overall. In fact, they say that shortening an existing persons life by a few decades does not aviod as many years of human impact as not creating a whole new life -- one with the potential of creating more of us.

Having said that, I just thought of something. If we spend our tax dollars to abort children rather than save the elderly, we will not only save money by not giving birth to these fetus devils, we will also save in tax dollars by caring for the elderly who's lives would be extended otherwise. After all, the brunt of the cost will be the elderly....that is if they are around.

Mwwwhahahaha, mwwwhahahaha.

Originally posted by Wajoma
How about this one.

People don't have to pay for the bad choices of others.

You don't have to spend much time on these boards to realise how some feel about abortion, 'making' them pay for abortions is just another indication of how sick your ideology is.

A woman has casual sex, get's pregnant and you pay for prenatal care, postnatal care and for the healthcare of the child.

Didn't you just pay for the bad choice of another?

Originally posted by whodey
I see, so if you take the cost of an abortion and compare it to state costs covering the cost of taking care of children then the cost of abortion is smaller.

Well there you go, abortions are cost effective. I guess the left wins again. Not only that, they prevent yet another evil human being leaving their carbon foot print behind. In fact, they are ...[text shortened]... on our food supply as well since we all know we have finite resources and need to conserve them.

To address the first point, I am NOT using cost effectiveness as an argument for having abortions covered. I'm simply pointing out how rediculous the "my tax dollars!" argument against it is. It costs many, many multiples more money if the woman decides not to have an abortion. And of course I fully support her choice if she decides to go through with it. It is her CHOICE afterall.

Originally posted by whodey
So what do all you Obamanatics think about the tax payers flipping the bill for any and ALL abortions, no matter the reason? No doubt, many of you are for it. However, what about how they propose to ration care for the elderly? For example, based upon age if a patient needs a transplant, or triple bypass etc, a patient may be denied treatment.

So how ab ...[text shortened]... ided them a few more years of life but to insure any and ALL abortions is perfectly acceptable?

If you bothered to read the proposed legislation (which you clearly have not) you'll find this universal coverage does NOT cover abortions. It would be nice if you got things right at least some of the time.😏

Originally posted by bill718
If you bothered to read the proposed legislation (which you clearly have not) you'll find this universal coverage does NOT cover abortions. It would be nice if you got things right at least some of the time.😏

yes it does. Its not phrased in so many words though.