The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

No offense, but those are one and the same at this point in time.

To a degree, yes, though not as much as you're stretching it here. Which is why the pro-life crowd needs to stick with their moral message and not a financial one. You at least have a leg to stand on morally (abortion = murder), even if others disagree. Claiming this is a fiscal issue won't just lose the battle, but lose it badly.

You define it as basic health care. There are reasonable arguments that it isn't. And of course the baby certainly wouldn't consider it to be health care.

That whole line of reasoning is off-track, if you stop and think about it. So, really, the government should promote abortions, as then they would have to pay for less and less health care. I agree that the issue isn't primarily a fiscal one of course, but to argue that the government should fund abortions as some sort of fiscally wise step is odd and troubling in many ways.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

You define it as basic health care. There are reasonable arguments that it isn't. And of course the baby certainly wouldn't consider it to be health care.

That whole line of reasoning is off-track, if you stop and think about it. So, really, the government should promote abortions, as then they would have to pay for less and less health care. I agree that the issue isn't primarily a fiscal one of course, but to argue that the government should fund abortions as some sort of fiscally wise step is odd and troubling in many ways.

Can't speak for anyone eles in here but I thought they were trying to promote a bill as a cost saving measure. It would not be a cost saving measure. That has nothing to do with with then turning around to promote abortions.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

I think the point being made is they are considering the abortion part of health care that is accessible thru fed funding. This really isn't about $ as much as many people have difficulty with abortion period. They can't legislate absolute abolition of the right to access this option but they are trying to limit it to the point it is not really available for those not paying for their own health care. Unfortunately other insurance plans frequently use the fed guidelines as a basis for their own guidelines.

As a health care provider this is a very scary thing. While I don't like to see anyone need to consider an abortion and I would prefer they did not chose it, there are instances when it would be d amn scary if one was not available. I was not practicing when people went to back alleys but I was a teen when they needed to cross state lines. People did some scary, dangerous stuff to terminate pregnancy. I have had people who tell me if they aren't covered they will do it themselves. (very creepy to have this conversation!)

Beyond the medical/psych complcations of the proposal--My understanding of the definition of rape is all sexual activity that is unwilling, in any orifice. All rape is forced whether in violence, intimidation or coercion of a minor/mentally incompetent person. This law would redefine what was considered force. So what will that do to the definition of rape? The proposal is changing the interpretation of what rape is just when we have got to the point where people are starting to grasp what rape is without having someone say it wasn't really rape. I have a viceral response to this that just screams NO!

The federal government doesn't pay for lots of other things for lots of people. There is absolutely no reason the federal government has to pay for abortion, rather than having the person who wants the abortion to pay for it. That's a red herring argument.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Put your money where your mouth is. Start telling women the truth. If you're 16 and daddy rapes you, you're going to have to give birth. That's the bottom line. No two ways about it. That's what God wants.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Can't speak for anyone eles in here but I thought they were trying to promote a bill as a cost saving measure. It would not be a cost saving measure. That has nothing to do with with then turning around to promote abortions.

So, you believe everything Congress says about why and what they pass or propose to pass?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Put your money where your mouth is. Start telling women the truth. If you're 16 and daddy rapes you, you're going to have to give birth. That's the bottom line. No two ways about it. That's what God wants.

That's stupid on many levels. But, expected.

 

[leswp1]

The federal government doesn't pay for lots of other things for lots of people. There is absolutely no reason the federal government has to pay for abortion, rather than having the person who wants the abortion to pay for it. That's a red herring argument.

Darn. Posted a reply and deleted by mistake. Stupid phone.

I have a problem with redefining rape to exclude something already covered. Surprisingly I would have less problem if they cut all abs rather than trying to deny someone was raped.

I am also guilty of wanting everyone to have access to health care but the redefinition is way not ok.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

That's stupid on many levels. But, expected.

Yeah, telling the truth is stupid.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

You define it as basic health care.

And the reason you don't is that you will never have the need for such service.

I find notion that men should be deciding any context or requirements on abortion issues to be appalling.

I also find it funny that no one in that nostalgia thread point out that it was a blatantly sexist image I posted.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Meanwhile, another one can't walk the walk.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41498568/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

 

[walrus]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Meanwhile, another one can't walk the walk.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41498568/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Craigs list, this guy must have the IQ of dirt

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

And the reason you don't is that you will never have the need for such service.

I find notion that men should be deciding any context or requirements on abortion issues to be appalling.

Why? It all boils down to the more fundamental disagreement doesn't it? If the thing inside the mother is more than a ball of cells or whatver it's held to be these days, then why shouldn't everyone have a say in it?

 

[joecct]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Meanwhile, another one can't walk the walk.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41498568/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

It all depends what _________ is. Worked once. Why not again?

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Why? It all boils down to the more fundamental disagreement doesn't it? If the thing inside the mother is more than a ball of cells or whatver it's held to be these days, then why shouldn't everyone have a say in it?

Well a baby is basically a parasite up until it's able to survive outside the mother. Part of that time being spent as merely a collection of cells with a hole through it.

Probably because outside of a man being the father, what reason is there outside of some desire for control for a guy to dictate what women can or can't do with their body?

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

You define it as basic health care. There are reasonable arguments that it isn't. And of course the baby certainly wouldn't consider it to be health care.

That whole line of reasoning is off-track, if you stop and think about it. So, really, the government should promote abortions, as then they would have to pay for less and less health care. I agree that the issue isn't primarily a fiscal one of course, but to argue that the government should fund abortions as some sort of fiscally wise step is odd and troubling in many ways.

I'm not saying they should fund abortions as a fiscally wise move, I'm saying you can't claim they should NOT fund abortions for any fiscal reasons. The latter is simply not true, while the former is true, just irrelevant.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Well a baby is basically a parasite up until it's able to survive outside the mother. Part of that time being spent as merely a collection of cells with a hole through it.

Probably because outside of a man being the father, what reason is there outside of some desire for control for a guy to dictate what women can or can't do with their body?

That's what I'm talking about. We're clearly not going to agree on this, and I'm really not trying to convince you. Disagreements make the world go round or however the saying goes.

What I am saying though, and what you don't seem to understand, is that for people opposed to abortion it's not a woman's body. It's a real live person inside of her that's at issue.

Like I said, you won't agree with that and we can go back and forth forever and still not agree on it, just saying the debate is different from how you're framing it.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Well a baby is basically a parasite up until it's able to survive outside the mother.

Many of them are parasites until their mid 20s. Some are parasites for their entire existence.

Most would agree that what's in the womb in the first trimester doesn't resemble a baby at all and would overwhelmingly support legalized abortions in this time frame.
Most would agree that what's in the womb in the third trimester very much resembles a baby and that abortions shouldn't be allowed at this stage of the pregnancy.

So if the country were to vote on the legality of abortion, my guess is that:
a) it would be legal, and b) the line of legality would be drawn somewhere in the 2nd trimester.

As for men having a say in the procedure, I guess it comes down to whether or not they are willing to pay for the prenatal care / hospitalization of the mother and take legal custody of the kid if the mom doesn't want it. If they have shown themselves willing and able to do all that, then by all means they should have a say. If they aren't willing to do that, then they can just **** off.

 

[Tundra]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

That's what I'm talking about. We're clearly not going to agree on this, and I'm really not trying to convince you. Disagreements make the world go round or however the saying goes.

I think we can all agree on that.

I'm surprised abortion rate is still so high.

which had peaked at 1.61 million in 1990 and then declined almost every year since until 2005, when it hit 1.21 million - the lowest level since 1976.

So what's the solution to the abortion problem?
1. make it illegal again (life at conception)
2. decrease unwanted pregnancy (contraception, sex ed etc...)
3. reduce poverty?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011107331.html

At the same time, poor women are the most likely to seek abortions, and a 2008 Guttmacher survey found an increase in the proportion of poor women undergoing the procedure.

Previous recessions did not have a major impact on the trend in the abortion rate, but those economic downturns were not nearly as severe, Jones said.

Other observers agreed, saying women were making the painful economic calculus to skip a few routine bills to cover a $400 to $600 abortion rather than face supporting another child.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

The alternative to legalized abortion is people having kids they don't want and are likely to neglect (read: criminals).

Clearly the only solution is the one I proposed: means test parents and only allow them to carry children to term if they have a sufficiently high net worth.

 

[Tundra]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

The alternative to legalized abortion is people having kids they don't want and are likely to neglect (read: criminals).

Clearly the only solution is the one I proposed: means test parents and only allow them to carry children to term if they have a sufficiently high net worth.

Good idea. if gov restrict everyone to 1 or 2 kids ... I bet everyone will want more kids. So you should limit births by decree or tax per kid (like China).

From the world data it's clear making it illegal doesn't (didn't) reduce abortion rates in those countries.
If the numbers are correct then only solution is more/better contraceptive if you want to reduce abortion rates.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

Worldwide, about one-fourth of the approximately 180 million pregnancies known to occur each year are resolved by abortion. Abortions numbered an estimated 46 million in 1995, but given the uncertainty of the data, that number could be as low as 42 million or as high as 50 million. About 35 in every 1,000 women aged 15–44 have an abortion each year.

Even though abortion is restricted, abortion rates are estimated to be around 30 per 1,000 or higher in Latin America, in three of the five subregions of Africa and in the subregions of Asia where most countries have restrictive abortion laws

If effective contraceptive use is widespread, abortion rates can be very low even in countries where fertility is low and where the rate of sexual activity among unmarried women is high. The lowest documented abortion rates are in Belgium and the Netherlands, countries that rely on contraception to maintain low fertility. In both countries, abortion services are provided without charge to the woman, and abortion is legal under broad conditions.

One developing country, Tunisia, also has a low abortion rate even though abortion is legal under broad conditions during the first trimester and the TFR is low (2.9 lifetime births per woman44). The example of Tunisia suggests that in developing as well as developed countries, good family planning services and a high level of contraceptive use can lead to low abortion incidence. Earlier pill scares in England and Wales and the Netherlands were also reflected in higher abortion rates.