Jump to content

Federal Funding Of Abortions Is Against The Law..............Or Not


3rdnlng

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

And to think I can't say "fag" without getting banned. What kind of juice you got here?

 

Had I posted "...talking about fags who I probably wouldn't want to see procreating anyway," I'd probably be banned.

 

Hey, I don't like people, on general principle. I think a good number of people shouldn't be having kids or passing their genetic heritage on to future generations. Why would that even be surprising? And I'm not even elitist about it - I think I'm one of that group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does everyone feel about their tax money funding abortions?

 

I'm completely in favor of it. What's an abortion cost, a thousand bucks? Two? Now, what % of those unwanted children will be raised in horrible environments and turn out to be welfare cases, criminals and other expensive and/or harmful drains on society? I bet the total taxpayer cost of those people is many times higher than the total cost of the one-time, out-patient medical procedures for all the abortions performed.

 

Free condoms and morning after pills make even more sense but we have way too many standing in the way of that.

 

 

Now of course I wish we lived in a world where every pregnancy was a welcomed event and every baby was cherished and loved. Sadly, that world is not the one we're living in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had I posted "...talking about fags who I probably wouldn't want to see procreating anyway," I'd probably be banned.

 

Hey, I don't like people, on general principle. I think a good number of people shouldn't be having kids or passing their genetic heritage on to future generations. Why would that even be surprising? And I'm not even elitist about it - I think I'm one of that group.

Is that why you never had kids? :lol: Come on man talk about a softball :D :D :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that why you never had kids? :lol: Come on man talk about a softball :D :D :D

 

That's not even a softball.

 

I never had kids because I don't think I'm suitable to be a parent and don't want to pass my genetic heritage down to another generation. Period. It was a conscious decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does everyone feel about their tax money funding abortions?

 

I look at it two ways. I'm against abortions for reasons that are my own. However if I had a choice I'd prefer my tax dollars funded a one time proceedure than a lifetime of government cheese.

 

But he's another issue I have that I don't hear too much. Why is the choice 100% that of the mother? If I remember my biology class well I think there is another person involved in this. Why does the father have zero say in this? That embryo, fetus, child, thing was half his doing. Even if he want the child and will raise that child the mother has the final say. I know it's a complicated situation because you can't flip a coin and I really wouldn't want lawyers involved in this but thought I'd throw that out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I look at it two ways. I'm against abortions for reasons that are my own. However if I had a choice I'd prefer my tax dollars funded a one time proceedure than a lifetime of government cheese.

 

But he's another issue I have that I don't hear too much. Why is the choice 100% that of the mother? If I remember my biology class well I think there is another person involved in this. Why does the father have zero say in this? That embryo, fetus, child, thing was half his doing. Even if he want the child and will raise that child the mother has the final say. I know it's a complicated situation because you can't flip a coin and I really wouldn't want lawyers involved in this but thought I'd throw that out there.

Simple. The mother has to bear the child.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I brought this up earlier, given the unequal standing creates under the law (the father having no say in if his child will be born or not), fathers should be able to legally decline financial involvement in the child's life.

 

Fair enough. Unfortunately that gets the lawyers involved. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I brought this up earlier, given the unequal standing creates under the law (the father having no say in if his child will be born or not), fathers should be able to legally decline financial involvement in the child's life.

That would be impossible unless the father had a sworn statement that he demanded a abortion and the mother refused.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if I remember correctly Sen Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the deciding vote in the Senate on the ACA. He was convinced by Obama that there would be absolutely no federal funding of abortions (Executive Order 13535). Check the link below. Doesn't Obama's promise just become another lie to get the ACA through?

 

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/01/28/tax-funded-ban-holds-obama-accountable-for-funding-abortions-in-obamacare/

"We have learned that every single Obamacare plan in Connecticut and Rhode Island includes abortion on demand.

In my own state of New Jersey, my staff and I have learned after a great deal of work that of the 31 plans offered in the state, at least 14 plans subsidize abortion on demand. Yet none of the plans make this information available to the consumer shopping online. This is the case in state after state.

To further understand how the ACA expands public funding for abortion, my colleagues don’t have to look any further than the DC Health Link—our own portal for health insurance. Of the 112 health insurance plans available to members of congress and staff only nine exclude elective abortion. 103 plans—over 90%–subsidize abortion on demand. About 75% of our insurance premiums are subsidized by the taxpayer so the taxpayer is clearly being compelled to subsidize elective abortions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if I remember correctly Sen Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the deciding vote in the Senate on the ACA. He was convinced by Obama that there would be absolutely no federal funding of abortions (Executive Order 13535). Check the link below. Doesn't Obama's promise just become another lie to get the ACA through?

 

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/01/28/tax-funded-ban-holds-obama-accountable-for-funding-abortions-in-obamacare/

"We have learned that every single Obamacare plan in Connecticut and Rhode Island includes abortion on demand.

In my own state of New Jersey, my staff and I have learned after a great deal of work that of the 31 plans offered in the state, at least 14 plans subsidize abortion on demand. Yet none of the plans make this information available to the consumer shopping online. This is the case in state after state.

To further understand how the ACA expands public funding for abortion, my colleagues don’t have to look any further than the DC Health Link—our own portal for health insurance. Of the 112 health insurance plans available to members of congress and staff only nine exclude elective abortion. 103 plans—over 90%–subsidize abortion on demand. About 75% of our insurance premiums are subsidized by the taxpayer so the taxpayer is clearly being compelled to subsidize elective abortions."

I admire your efforts to keep this thread on track but I think we need a pure pro/anti abortion thread. Hey! I just noticed I am between bans! I will start one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...