|
Nothing wrong with abortion, it is a personal decision and ultimately up to the potential mother to make that choice, who are we to argue what God wanted?
A poor young adult female gets raped and she shouldn't have the right to abortion? You simply cannot place laws to prevent abortion, it is unethical and against religion.
|
On March 05 2012 17:23 meatbox wrote:
Nothing wrong with abortion, it is a personal decision and ultimately up to the potential mother to make that choice, who are we to argue what God wanted?
A poor young adult female gets raped and she shouldn't have the right to abortion? You simply cannot place laws to prevent abortion, it is unethical and against religion.
I disagree. Yes a woman should have the right to choose, but you have to be a pretty flawed human being to not be affected by that decision - either way. So there is no perfect solution here, is what I am trying to say.
|
Nobody is saying that we should be throwing abortion parties. Of ourse it isn't a fun thing, nobody thinks that.
Even the notion that there are women who use abortion as the contraception of choice is ridiculous.
But even more abhorent is the idea of forcing women to have a child that they don't want. What are you going to do? Tie them up like cattle?
Abortion is essential for women to be able to control their own bodies and their own lives.
|
On March 05 2012 17:42 zalz wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should be throwing abortion parties. Of ourse it isn't a fun thing, nobody thinks that.
Even the notion that there are women who use abortion as the contraception of choice is ridiculous.
But even more abhorent is the idea of forcing women to have a child that they don't want. What are you going to do? Tie them up like cattle?
Abortion is essential for women to be able to control their own bodies and their own lives.
Don´t want to spoil your party, but wasn´t that exactly what I wrote? Also, not mentioning that abortion is far from an easy procedure, just plays into the hands of overzealous religious people calling such women "immoral whores" or whatever is in their book of doom they like to misinterpret.
|
On March 05 2012 17:31 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 17:23 meatbox wrote:
Nothing wrong with abortion, it is a personal decision and ultimately up to the potential mother to make that choice, who are we to argue what God wanted?
A poor young adult female gets raped and she shouldn't have the right to abortion? You simply cannot place laws to prevent abortion, it is unethical and against religion. I disagree. Yes a woman should have the right to choose, but you have to be a pretty flawed human being to not be affected by that decision - either way. So there is no perfect solution here, is what I am trying to say.
There is a perfectly simple solution. Make contraception readily available, and allow abortions if a woman chooses.
To the anti-abortion people in this thread:
The fetus in early stages does not have a brain, and does not have a nervous system. Therefore, the fetus is not a conscious being, nor can it experience pain. As a result, the freedom for a woman to choose what happens in her body is of higher priority, since a woman is a conscious being, unlike the fetus.
|
On March 05 2012 17:53 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 17:42 zalz wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should be throwing abortion parties. Of ourse it isn't a fun thing, nobody thinks that.
Even the notion that there are women who use abortion as the contraception of choice is ridiculous.
But even more abhorent is the idea of forcing women to have a child that they don't want. What are you going to do? Tie them up like cattle?
Abortion is essential for women to be able to control their own bodies and their own lives. Don´t want to spoil your party, but wasn´t that exactly what I wrote? Also, not mentioning that abortion is far from an easy procedure, just plays into the hands of overzealous religious people calling such women "immoral whores" or whatever is in their book of doom they like to misinterpret.
I feel like we are talking past one another.
|
One thing that I think is important is that refusing a woman who wants to have an abortion from having an abortion is pretty bad for everyone involved. Because, the woman doesn't want a child, the man most likely doesn't want the child, and so if the kid is born there will be resent for them from the very start. Can't be healthy for him or her.
To the anti-abortion people in this thread:
The fetus in early stages does not have a brain, and does not have a nervous system. Therefore, the fetus is not a conscious being, nor can it experience pain. As a result, the freedom for a woman to choose what happens in her body is of higher priority, since a woman is a conscious being, unlike the fetus.
I really like this. What a great way to put it. I usually bring up the same point when someone compares cutting down a tree to murdering an animal or human being. They are different, and cannot be compared the same way.
The kid isn't even really 'alive' yet (I don't use that term literally), and still people are putting them above the people who are already established in the society. Seems it should be the other way round.
|
On March 05 2012 21:17 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 17:53 Doublemint wrote:On March 05 2012 17:42 zalz wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should be throwing abortion parties. Of ourse it isn't a fun thing, nobody thinks that.
Even the notion that there are women who use abortion as the contraception of choice is ridiculous.
But even more abhorent is the idea of forcing women to have a child that they don't want. What are you going to do? Tie them up like cattle?
Abortion is essential for women to be able to control their own bodies and their own lives. Don´t want to spoil your party, but wasn´t that exactly what I wrote? Also, not mentioning that abortion is far from an easy procedure, just plays into the hands of overzealous religious people calling such women "immoral whores" or whatever is in their book of doom they like to misinterpret. I feel like we are talking past one another.
You are not the only one.
Again to clarifiy: YES - Women should have the right to choose whether to abort or not, it is their body - control their own life etc.etc, NO - it is not a simple procedure(meaning how it can affect the psyche, after all it is potential life you deny for whatever reason.) Maybe the second point stems from my catholic inspired education, but I think it´s agreeable nonetheless. And this is just a sidepoint of the contraception debate... It just really irked me when I read the sentence "there is nothing wrong with abortion". To prevent this problem in the first place, I am for prescription of the pill for women, if they wish for it. I hope I made myself clear now.
|
On March 05 2012 21:11 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 17:31 Doublemint wrote:On March 05 2012 17:23 meatbox wrote:
Nothing wrong with abortion, it is a personal decision and ultimately up to the potential mother to make that choice, who are we to argue what God wanted?
A poor young adult female gets raped and she shouldn't have the right to abortion? You simply cannot place laws to prevent abortion, it is unethical and against religion. I disagree. Yes a woman should have the right to choose, but you have to be a pretty flawed human being to not be affected by that decision - either way. So there is no perfect solution here, is what I am trying to say. There is a perfectly simple solution. Make contraception readily available, and allow abortions if a woman chooses. To the anti-abortion people in this thread: The fetus in early stages does not have a brain, and does not have a nervous system. Therefore, the fetus is not a conscious being, nor can it experience pain. As a result, the freedom for a woman to choose what happens in her body is of higher priority, since a woman is a conscious being, unlike the fetus.
As true as your post is, you won´t be able to convince practicing fundamentalist Christians with your point. Their church says otherwise --> your argument is invalid. Sad, but true as well.
//edit: sry doublepost...
|
On March 05 2012 21:36 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 21:17 zalz wrote:On March 05 2012 17:53 Doublemint wrote:On March 05 2012 17:42 zalz wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should be throwing abortion parties. Of ourse it isn't a fun thing, nobody thinks that.
Even the notion that there are women who use abortion as the contraception of choice is ridiculous.
But even more abhorent is the idea of forcing women to have a child that they don't want. What are you going to do? Tie them up like cattle?
Abortion is essential for women to be able to control their own bodies and their own lives. Don´t want to spoil your party, but wasn´t that exactly what I wrote? Also, not mentioning that abortion is far from an easy procedure, just plays into the hands of overzealous religious people calling such women "immoral whores" or whatever is in their book of doom they like to misinterpret. I feel like we are talking past one another. You are not the only one. Again to clarifiy: YES - Women should have the right to choose whether to abort or not, it is their body - control their own life etc.etc, NO - it is not a simple procedure(meaning how it can affect the psyche, after all it is potential life you deny for whatever reason.) Maybe the second point stems from my catholic inspired education, but I think it´s agreeable nonetheless. And this is just a sidepoint of the contraception debate... It just really irked me when I read the sentence "there is nothing wrong with abortion". To prevent this problem in the first place, I am for prescription of the pill for women, if they wish for it. I hope I made myself clear now.
Well I guess we agree completly then.
|
On March 05 2012 17:18 Gingerninja wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 14:13 cLutZ wrote:On March 05 2012 07:07 Gingerninja wrote:On March 04 2012 07:44 Zerksys wrote:
There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap
While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this.
Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex
This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
Best post in the whole thread, and it gets ignored because people prefer to argue over issues rather than solve them. Contraceptive is expensive? yes .. because your insurance companies make it expensive, just like most american healthcare products. If your health system wasn't run for profit, then this wouldn't even be an issue. There are many reasons for woman to take contraception, even if they are not sexually active. Zerksys there ^^ writes it better than I could, but I suggest everyone saying "it's just so woman can screw around" how about go ask your wives or girlfriends, sisters, mums any female.. and actually get a real answer. The american health system is rotten to core, and every time someone tries to be change something about it, for better or worse, it causes a huge issue. Edit to say, the pills are cheap, so why can't getting the prescription off the doctor for something that everyone should be allowed access to be cheaper. Lots of things aren't cheap. Why should we make them free? Most healthcare plans have a deductible on nearly every prescription, what makes birth control so special that it (over basically every other prescription) deserves this special mandate that there should be no copays? What other medication does half the population take monthly? Why should you make them free?... because. Why does everyone have to be so selfish. Half the population benefit (health wise) for something that has negligible cost. Hire some new nurses (jobs.. helps economy) let them dish out the pills... saves money on doctors, woman can have contraception.. problem solved.
So...car insurance should pay for gasoline? Homeowners insurance should pay for heating bills?
On March 05 2012 14:20 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 14:13 cLutZ wrote:On March 05 2012 07:07 Gingerninja wrote:On March 04 2012 07:44 Zerksys wrote:
There are a lot of people who are saying things that are not true about birth control and this act that are not true. Let me dispell them now.
1. Birth control is cheap
While you are right in saying that the actual pill itself is relatively inexpensive, a quick google search will tell you that birth control is not over the counter. This means that it requires a doctor's prescription in order for you to purchase it. If this bill were to have passed, women would have to find an alternative way to pay for the doctor's prescription other than their health insurance. This is where the money comes from - the prescription, not the pill.
2. The public (taxpayers) would be paying too much for this.
Have you ever taken a look at the associated costs of providing women with contraceptives vs. providing women with prenatal care and delivery? As a taxpayer in this public health system, I'd be looking far more to provide women with contraceptives because every time a woman gets pregnant, the costs of delivering a baby far outweigh the amount that the public sector would have to pay to get her on birth control. The delivery room itself costs over 10000 dollars and that's with vaginal birth with no C section or epidurals. The average birth these days costs around 15000 without insurance these days. 15000 dollars is enough to provide 2 women birth control for the entire length of the professional career (30 years give or take).
3. The public is paying for women to have sex
This really bugs me because it's obvious that good ol' Mr. Rush does not understand anything about the way oral contraceptives work. They are not JUST for sex. It is not a pill that you take in order to be able to have free sex with anyone that you want - for this we already have condoms which are cheaper than birth control. Birth control serves a lot of good functions other than preventing a woman from accidentally having kids. Birth control promotes healthy hormone levels in women who are otherwise hormonally impaired (producing too much or too little). It also helps a woman to regulate her period, and in addition makes the pain during menstruation much more bearable. So no we're not simply paying for women to have sex. We are paying for women's overall reproductive health, so that they don't come in with massive ovarian cysts which we then have to pay for to have removed. Also notice how the government doesn't subsidize condoms - just saying.
Best post in the whole thread, and it gets ignored because people prefer to argue over issues rather than solve them. Contraceptive is expensive? yes .. because your insurance companies make it expensive, just like most american healthcare products. If your health system wasn't run for profit, then this wouldn't even be an issue. There are many reasons for woman to take contraception, even if they are not sexually active. Zerksys there ^^ writes it better than I could, but I suggest everyone saying "it's just so woman can screw around" how about go ask your wives or girlfriends, sisters, mums any female.. and actually get a real answer. The american health system is rotten to core, and every time someone tries to be change something about it, for better or worse, it causes a huge issue. Edit to say, the pills are cheap, so why can't getting the prescription off the doctor for something that everyone should be allowed access to be cheaper. Lots of things aren't cheap. Why should we make them free? Most healthcare plans have a deductible on nearly every prescription, what makes birth control so special that it (over basically every other prescription) deserves this special mandate that there should be no copays? Ok for the last time, the insurance companies would LOVE to offer the birth control for free. The opposition to this are a bunch of priests and near death males in the republican party. This is not a case of the insurance companies even being pissed off, this is purely motivated by religous "morality".
No, they wouldn't. Some would and some already do. An insurance company responds to the people purchasing the insurance (usually large companies). Does Coke have a moral opposition to contraception? No. Does their health insurance cover it without co-pays? Unlikely. Why? Because mandated free contraception is not a "good business decision" it is a purely political one and a straight wealth-redistribution program (from non-users to users). Lots of people compare this to things like Viagra, but Viagra doesn't have a mandated $0 co-pay, so your analogy falls through at even the lowest levels.
Edited to respond to a 2nd post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
