GOP's 10 Most Extreme Attacks On a Woman's Right to Choose..

_

pandora wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

pandora wrote:

How are abortions funded in our country?

Only by the private sector then?

people pay for them???

not the clinic I had experience with in the past decade

the women could not afford them they were on aid

As with federal funds, the state of Georgia doesn't pay for abortion except in cases of rape/incest or when the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. So even if they were on aid (and only 1/3 of abortion patients are nationwide), it didn't pay for their abortions.

But perhaps this clinic for which you have personal knowledge of all patients' billing statuses was in a different state.

pandora

_ wrote:

pandora wrote:

How are abortions funded in our country?

Only by the private sector then?

They're funded out of pocket, by private insurance, or - in a few states - by state Medicaid funds.

thanks looked up to see where Georgia sits on this

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion ... nding.html

Funding under Hyde Amendment Only: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.
Hyde Amendment and Additional Health Circumstances: Indiana (physical health), Iowa (fetal abnormality), Mississippi (fetal abnormality), Utah (physical health and fetal abnormality), Virginia (fetal abnormality), and Wisconsin (physical health).
All or Most Health Circumstances: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.
Noncompliant with the Hyde Amendment: South Dakota (life endangerment only).


and medicaid


About Medicaid
Authorized in 1965, Medicaid is a joint federal-state program that provides the nation's low-income population with basic health and long-term care coverage. Medicaid is the largest health care program in the United States, and covers more than 50 million people.1 Under Medicaid states receive federal matching funds to provide health care for low-income individuals.

Medicaid coverage is critical to the health care of millions of women. More than 16 million women receive their basic health and long-term coverage through Medicaid.2 In 2003, Medicaid covered one in ten women and one in five low-income women.3 In 2003, 11.5% of women of reproductive age were covered by Medicaid.4

Currently, all state Medicaid programs must cover pregnant women who meet the federal income requirements. Many states have elected to cover women with incomes that are higher than the federal requirements. However, this coverage is not without limits, and abortion services are among the provisions that are most stringently regulated.


So it is matching federal funds to the states funding and here in Georgia a women must
fall into the category of life endangering

monies from Planned Parenthood though included abortion funding because they provided
abortions amongst the services... this why funding is trying to be cut entirely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

I think the social issues will be the downfall of the GOP as we approach a society where more people get involved and more people see government for what it was intended to be and what it actual has become.

The attacks on abortion rights are the same thing. I understand the crusade to want to save babies...even the ugly ones are cute...

as far as publically funded abortions...they certainly take a side route to get there...but if the federal government gives money to a clinic program, even if it is specifically designed for other areas of spending, it frees up capital for those clinics to provide services like abortion to women, possibly on a sliding fee scale...

I don't know for sure, but just like in all politics, I am sure there is some measure of truth among the over-generalized hyperbole about government funded baby killing, no matter how small the sliver may be..

That's not true. They have to keep VERY strict track to make sure the funds/services are not related. And it's the patients who will have to make up the cost for their contraceptive & cancer screening services if the government stops funding them; the clinic's not going to pull money from the (minuscule) abortion revenue to subsidize contraceptive & cancer screening care.

pandora

_ wrote:

pandora wrote:

what is selfish is....

Just not, lest ye be judged, Pandora.

yes, I had an abortion at age 16 ... I would be the harshest judge of myself and hope to be
forgiven ... if only by myself

I would change my choice and have been less selfish ...
given 9 months of my life to give another a life

_

I think some of you don't have an understanding of how this process works or the realities for some families. Things are MUCH more complicated than you want them to be. It's fortunate for you that you can shut your eyes to that, but unfortunate for everyone else that we have blind people making policy.

ETA: It's not even so much about the sacrifice to the mother as it is about sacrificing the child by bringing it into a bad situation. Adoption is not as simple as you think. Women choosing adoption can't just ensure that the child gets paced in a loving home; they MUST hand the child over to the father & relinquish their ability to protect them. I know all you men want to identify with the fathers & see them as great guys, but do you have any idea how many of them are pieces of shit & how bad it would be for the child to be raised by them? We couldn't even count a fraction of them if we tried, because so many women have had the good sense to have abortions rather than place their children into such a harmful situation.

We recently had a man rape his one-month old daughter to death. Just think about that before you say that every single woman should necessarily give her child to the father (i.e. choose adoption) instead of aborting it as an embryo.

_

pandora wrote:

_ wrote:

pandora wrote:

what is selfish is....

Just not, lest ye be judged, Pandora.

yes, I had an abortion at age 16 ... I would be the harshest judge of myself and hope to be
forgiven ... if only by myself

I would change my choice and have been less selfish ...
given 9 months of my life to give another a life

I don't care if you want to judge your decision in your circumstance as selfish, but it's not your place to judge everyone else, all of whom have unique circumstances.

BinauralJam

Blockhead wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Every problem in the world boils down to over population, instead of banning abortion we should be limiting how many children you can legally produce.

woah buddy, post your source...
If you can tell people how many kids they can have, do you also support deciding WHO should be having the kids that populate this earth

Not who, just how many, 3 or 4 tops. anything more than that is ridiculous to me. I'm not quoting a source, but i've read many articules about how we are going to have 10 billion people by like 2030, we already over fish the oceans, cut down too many forest and not to mention all the man made products, like every peice of plastic in the world that's never going to biodegrade. i believe in having a good world to come into, we are already in crisis mode and some people walk around like everything is just fine, keep pumping them out. I say enough. You can be as Green as possible and do everything you can to erase your carbon footprint in this life, but if you have just two kids, the damage to this planet grows exponentially.


Sorry to off topic in this thread.

Blockhead

_ wrote:

I think some of you don't have an understanding of how this process works or the realities for some families. Things are MUCH more complicated than you want them to be. It's fortunate for you that you can shut your eyes to that, but unfortunate for everyone else that we have blind people making policy.

I would ask the baby/child/kid about this, but we can't...
I have a friend who lost his job recently who aslo is a single parent of two children. I guess your advice would be " go ahead and murder your kids, times are much more complicated than what I want them to be"

gimmesometruth27

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

I think some of you don't have an understanding of how this process works or the realities for some families. Things are MUCH more complicated than you want them to be. It's fortunate for you that you can shut your eyes to that, but unfortunate for everyone else that we have blind people making policy.

I would ask the baby/child/kid about this, but we can't...
I have a friend who lost his job recently who aslo is a single parent of two children. I guess your advice would be " go ahead and murder your kids, times are much more complicated than what I want them to be"

this extreme circumstance is completely irrelevent to the discussion.

who the hell would ever condone murdering their own kids because they lost a job?

this example is just making up arguments that nobody has ever advocated...

you are talking about kids who are out of the womb, not unborn zygotes or fetuses...

we are talking about the right wing assault on women's reproductive health.

_

Blockhead wrote:

_ wrote:

I think some of you don't have an understanding of how this process works or the realities for some families. Things are MUCH more complicated than you want them to be. It's fortunate for you that you can shut your eyes to that, but unfortunate for everyone else that we have blind people making policy.

I would ask the baby/child/kid about this, but we can't...
I have a friend who lost his job recently who aslo is a single parent of two children. I guess your advice would be " go ahead and murder your kids, times are much more complicated than what I want them to be"

Please see my edited post above.

mikepegg44

_ wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I think the social issues will be the downfall of the GOP as we approach a society where more people get involved and more people see government for what it was intended to be and what it actual has become.

The attacks on abortion rights are the same thing. I understand the crusade to want to save babies...even the ugly ones are cute...

as far as publically funded abortions...they certainly take a side route to get there...but if the federal government gives money to a clinic program, even if it is specifically designed for other areas of spending, it frees up capital for those clinics to provide services like abortion to women, possibly on a sliding fee scale...

I don't know for sure, but just like in all politics, I am sure there is some measure of truth among the over-generalized hyperbole about government funded baby killing, no matter how small the sliver may be..

That's not true. They have to keep VERY strict track to make sure the funds/services are not related. And it's the patients who will have to make up the cost for their contraceptive & cancer screening services if the government stops funding them; the clinic's not going to pull money from the (minuscule) abortion revenue to subsidize contraceptive & cancer screening care.

are planned parenthood providers paid on salary or by productivity?

I don't know a lot about their specific operation

I did just read this though...makes a lot of sense to me

Will it cost taxpayers money to fund abortions?

No. Because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs of abortion, public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources from other services.

interesting way to look at it. I still don't understand why someone would want to take away a personal choice of someone else

cincybearcat

_ wrote:

We recently had a man rape his one-month old daughter to death. Just think about that before you say that every single woman should necessarily give her child to the father (i.e. choose adoption) instead of aborting it as an embryo.

That is disgusting.

cincybearcat

mikepegg44 wrote:

interesting way to look at it. I still don't understand why someone would want to take away a personal choice of someone else

Since you asked, for me, it's not about taking anyone's personal choice away, it's about respecting the life of the unborn child and not taking away their right to life.

pandora

_ wrote:

pandora wrote:

_ wrote:

Just not, lest ye be judged, Pandora.

yes, I had an abortion at age 16 ... I would be the harshest judge of myself and hope to be
forgiven ... if only by myself

I would change my choice and have been less selfish ...
given 9 months of my life to give another a life

I don't care if you want to judge your decision in your circumstance as selfish, but it's not your place to judge everyone else, all of whom have unique circumstances.

I wasn't judging others, I am saying it is a selfish act abortion in general,
in my opinion

less selfish to give time and life

no judgement on another ...
there are many living selfish lives ... yes?

and many may not think selfish is a bad thing either
they may live a me first or have a me first view on life.... that is all.
To each their own but my hope is that the choice is really understood and owned.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this extreme circumstance is completely irrelevent to the discussion.

As is mentioning a father raping his 1 month old to death, but I see you let that slide.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this extreme circumstance is completely irrelevent to the discussion.

As is mentioning a father raping his 1 month old to death, but I see you let that slide.

My example is relevant to the discussion because people are talking about ALL women - including the women with partners like this. Our discussion about what all women should do directly affects the women whose children would be placed in similar situations. Since NO ONE is advocating killing born children whenever the father loses his job, blockhead's even more extreme example is not relevant.

ETA: Given that horrible child abuse is not uncommon, I don't think considering it is really that extreme.

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

_ wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I think the social issues will be the downfall of the GOP as we approach a society where more people get involved and more people see government for what it was intended to be and what it actual has become.

The attacks on abortion rights are the same thing. I understand the crusade to want to save babies...even the ugly ones are cute...

as far as publically funded abortions...they certainly take a side route to get there...but if the federal government gives money to a clinic program, even if it is specifically designed for other areas of spending, it frees up capital for those clinics to provide services like abortion to women, possibly on a sliding fee scale...

I don't know for sure, but just like in all politics, I am sure there is some measure of truth among the over-generalized hyperbole about government funded baby killing, no matter how small the sliver may be..

That's not true. They have to keep VERY strict track to make sure the funds/services are not related. And it's the patients who will have to make up the cost for their contraceptive & cancer screening services if the government stops funding them; the clinic's not going to pull money from the (minuscule) abortion revenue to subsidize contraceptive & cancer screening care.

are planned parenthood providers paid on salary or by productivity?

I don't know a lot about their specific operation

I did just read this though...makes a lot of sense to me

Will it cost taxpayers money to fund abortions?

No. Because the costs associated with childbirth, neonatal and pediatric care greatly exceed the costs of abortion, public funding for abortion neither costs the taxpayer money nor drains resources from other services.

interesting way to look at it. I still don't understand why someone would want to take away a personal choice of someone else

I'm not ignoring you, but I have to get going.

mikepegg44

cincybearcat wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

interesting way to look at it. I still don't understand why someone would want to take away a personal choice of someone else

Since you asked, for me, it's not about taking anyone's personal choice away, it's about respecting the life of the unborn child and not taking away their right to life.

interesting...

this is just to play a bit of devil's advocate, but take this situation for example...

I force you for nine months into many physiological changes...all of which can have lasting impact on your life...I force you to gain weight against your will, in come cases I force you to stay in a room for months unable to do anything but go to the bathroom...I force you to care for me even though you may not be able to...the only way to change that is to kill me...would that be justified?
The reason I ask is because the debate over whether or not it is ok to kill an unborn baby usually centers around when it is a human life. if it is a human life immediately wouldn't it then be ok to kill that human being that does those things I explained above (not in great detail I realize but I think you are intelligent enough to see my point) ...
I suppose it would be different if there was someway to pull the child out of the mother without killing it...i don't believe we are there yet technologically...

cincybearcat

mikepegg44 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

interesting way to look at it. I still don't understand why someone would want to take away a personal choice of someone else

Since you asked, for me, it's not about taking anyone's personal choice away, it's about respecting the life of the unborn child and not taking away their right to life.

interesting...

this is just to play a bit of devil's advocate, but take this situation for example...

I force you for nine months into many physiological changes...all of which can have lasting impact on your life...I force you to gain weight against your will, in come cases I force you to stay in a room for months unable to do anything but go to the bathroom...I force you to care for me even though you may not be able to...the only way to change that is to kill me...would that be justified?
The reason I ask is because the debate over whether or not it is ok to kill an unborn baby usually centers around when it is a human life. if it is a human life immediately wouldn't it then be ok to kill that human being that does those things I explained above (not in great detail I realize but I think you are intelligent enough to see my point) ...
I suppose it would be different if there was someway to pull the child out of the mother without killing it...i don't believe we are there yet technologically...

No offense, but comparing having a child to being kidnapped/held captive is pretty ridiculous.

If what you say is justified, then people should be able to kill their children at any point.

Blockhead

mikepegg44 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

interesting way to look at it. I still don't understand why someone would want to take away a personal choice of someone else

Since you asked, for me, it's not about taking anyone's personal choice away, it's about respecting the life of the unborn child and not taking away their right to life.

interesting...

this is just to play a bit of devil's advocate, but take this situation for example...

I force you for nine months into many physiological changes...all of which can have lasting impact on your life...I force you to gain weight against your will, in come cases I force you to stay in a room for months unable to do anything but go to the bathroom...I force you to care for me even though you may not be able to...the only way to change that is to kill me...would that be justified?
The reason I ask is because the debate over whether or not it is ok to kill an unborn baby usually centers around when it is a human life. if it is a human life immediately wouldn't it then be ok to kill that human being that does those things I explained above (not in great detail I realize but I think you are intelligent enough to see my point) ...
I suppose it would be different if there was someway to pull the child out of the mother without killing it...i don't believe we are there yet technologically...

just to play a bit of devils advocate,
Who is forcing you to create this child. 99% are willing participents...
You chose to partake in the act of creating a child only to hope you won't (In most cases)
No one is FORCING that action...