I don't want to have to pay for lazy slobs to sit around on their arses all day drinking beer and claiming benefits but unfortunately, we can't pick and choose where our tax money goes

Eh, don't worry, the GOP isn't going to win the pres in 08. This is Guiliani's attempt at looking less like a traditional conservative so he can rope in the folks who are disturbed with the current administration and want a change. If he looks like a liberal leaning republican, he might have a chance.

So he thinks...

Edit: If finances are your concern, it's cheaper to pay for abortion than long term welfare benefits.

I mean really!

300-400$ IS AN ABORTION, 20,000 is prenatal care and delivery...

IF cost is really your concern, then abortion is more cost effective.

I have a feeling that cost is not the concern though, but 'morality' is instead.

Sorry, MY morals sat that it is wrong to expect the government to pay for women to have babies, they should either pay for their own care, or go without. Like many millions of uninsured americans.

The title of your thread is misleading.

We are all "forced" to pay for abortions regardless of our stance on the issue. We are "forced" to pay for a very, very small minority of abortions through medicaid/medicare when the health and life of the woman are threatened by the pregnancy. Surely you are not advocating that these women be denied life-saving care simply because they are too poor to afford it independently? No one is that heartless.

As to other, so-called "social", abortions, the hyde amendment garauntees that public funds are not spent on "unnecessary" abortions. So, really the only public money spent on abortion are those abortions that .a.r.e necessary. Contrary to what you believe, many .women each year .n.e.e.d an abortion. They shouldn't be denied or put at further risk simply because they don't make very much money.

so we should also pay for every depressed infertile woman to have ivf treatment should we?
I mean after all depresion is a medical condition right you don't want the baby you claim your depressed they abort for you under medical grounds so therefor you want a baby and can't have one become depressed then they should get free ivf on medical grounds i'm sure you wil agree after all medical grounds are medical grounds .

IVF is like plastic surgery, it is a lifestyle medical expense, and could(should) be covered under certain circumstances I am sure...

You see, medicaid covers cosmetic surgery under certain circumstances, much like health insurance does.

Many health ins companies cover an abortion.

No, because there are other ways of becomming a parent without resorting solely to ivf (and fyi, there are public funds available to people who want to adopt in most cases so that it will not be too expensive for them). And, the childless woman is not going to .d.i.e if she does not become a parent. Some pregnant .women .w.i.l.l .d.i.e if they do not receive a timely abortion. Abortions can and .a.r.e necessary for thousands of .women every year. You're trying to compare two situations that are very different from one another.

However, there are no other ways to treat an ectopic pregnancy than to remove it. If it is not removed, the woman will die. There has only been one woman, ever, who survived an ectopic pregnancy and that was because it implanted in her abdominal cavity and not her fallopian tubes. Implantations in the fallopian tubes .a.r.e fatal. These .women who experience them should not have to die because you disagree with abortion. An abortion is necessary for them and .w.i.l.l save their life. And there are many, many other life threatening defects, diseases, and illnesses that can put a .woman's life in jeopardy.

Are you seriously advocating that poor .women die instead of receive the medical care that will save their lives?

Of course you'd think that, you're anti-rights. If it's not funding of something you approve of, especially if it pertains to women's rights, you're not going to like it. You're against anything that would allow a young woman to save herself from a life of living off welfare and raising an unwanted child. You pay for welfare in case you forgot. Less women would be on welfare if more women could afford an abortion. Think about that.



Too bad that your "comparisons" are completely different.
Right now, there isn't public health care at all, and there needs to be. We need health care like th euk or canada. I grew up as an army brat and I can tell you, public health care is wonderful.

Oh and by the way... I don't like some people's choice of religion, but I would pay for them to have the right to worship.



Someone brighter than you.



Canada and the UK don't seem to be falling apart at the seams because of it.



I guess we shouldn't support any public funding of anything at all, since someone might dissagree with what one of those public organiztions are doing.

jenn we all agree that abortion is necessary when there is ectopic pregnancy. The majority of the abortions are not ectopic pregnancies, they are social abortions.

Diamond splinter, why should only rich women be allowed to have abortions?

If you don't allow equal opportunity for all to receive medical care, you create fissures between socioeconomic classes.

Do you think that you should be able to decide if poor women (on medicaid) get certain medical procedures? Do you want to review each case and determine if a poor woman needs a mole removed, a heart transplant, or psychiatric care?

Many prolife people accuse prochoice people of discrimination, yet here is an example of class discrimination by a prolife person.

Think about the implications of what you say.



I think what jenn is getting at (not that she needs me to explain, sorry if I step on toes) is that diamond splinter doesn't think society needs to pay for abortions period; she did not delineate between reasons for abortions. So it is apparent that she thinks poor women with etopic pregnanies or other life threatening conditions who cannot afford abortions should die rather than have the public pay for her abortion.

.and those pregnancies are .n.o.t the ones that are paid for by medicaid/medicare and thus, .they are not the ones we are discussing.

Please attempt to stay with the current conversation.

Many people are under the false belief that those who seek abortion are "destitute, uneducated women who are not motherly, are unwed, and have no recourse". many assume that women who become unintentionally pregnant did so due to a lack of self control or ethics. I think that this is the reason that people do not want abortion to be publicly funded. As stated above by others, Medicaid has no problem covering prenatal, maternity and postnatal care for uninsured mothers. Furthermore, insurance and medicaid covers gastric bypass surgery for obesity caused by the inability to curb one's appetite over time. It covers cardiac surgery for those who are not able to make the dietary choices necessary to avoid high cholesterol problems leading to clogged arteries. There are many other examples.

The reason this is a hot button is because it involves sex, which for whatever reason people like to try to dictate moral solutions about. All I can tell you is that I paid OUT OF POCKET to have a tubal ligation after the birth of my second child because my insurance would not pay for it. The reason I did this is because my post partum was so horrible, I knew i had no business having another child.

If I should happen to be the .01 percent or whatever who get pregnant despite sterilization surgery, i can pretty much guarantee that I would seriously consider an abortion for the sake of my own sanity. If abortion were made illegal, or if i had to prove medical grounds for insurance to pay, I would then have to fight for my right and prove in a court of law that it was for "health reasons" even though my physical health would not be directly in jeopardy. Do you see how dictating the conditions under which a woman should be granted "access" to a life-saving procedure becomes dangerous? Think of Andrea Yates.