Excuse me slate, if you believe in funding and accepting charitable donations for the aborting of black babies, this is not a value I share, it is intrusive that you want to force this on me.
You and others might want the government to be involved in this but it goes against my morals.
No, you are couching the argument convenient to yourself.
I assume you mean the fungible money provided to PP, even though it’s not meant to be fungible. As I see it, the root problem isn’t the money / availability of an abortion but rather the inability of individuals to view the abortion process as wrong.
Are you aware that Romney supported abortion on limited terms? A vote for any popular candidate is a vote for abortion under these guidelines.
Why are people opposed to votes supporting the closing of clinics in poor neighborhoods? I suspect it’s because impoverished people enjoy health care.
Me personally? No. I don’t care enough to help pay for someone else to have an abortion unless it may save that mother’s life.
As stated earlier, no one is forced into an abortion. Having an abortion is a choice one makes. Until individuals can recognize that abortion is not in their best interest, independent of government (maybe even religion), it will continue to happen.
No one turns a blind eye. That accusation is tossed around a lot, especially if one tries to find another solution, other than casting a vote and hoping a politician will legislate it for us.
It is forced. If people don’t want it in some state like Utah and it is there, then it’s forced.
Something is better than nothing.
Okay you are changing the topic from governmental support of abortion. The topic was the Government being independent of abortion but this can not be defended now. Thank you.
It’s forced abortion if the government is making it accessible. If the law has to be, let’s not have the Federal Government administering it and forcing it on states. If a woman wants it, at least make her seek a private doctor.
Be careful BroomWagon, you’re assuming my position before asking me what it may be. I agree that it is intrusive to force you to pay taxes which get directed to services you morally disagree with. This is the problem with a diverse society with varying needs and expectations. If it were up to me I wouldn’t have you pay it.
I’m not sure what you mean. Obama supports abortion and Romney supports abortion. Obama supports less restrictions on abortion and Romney supports more restrictions on abortion. I’m not stating anything people don’t already know. Most important of all, none of this pro or anti Romney, it is just Romney.
You’re assuming and making some bold claims as to PP’s SOP :compcoff:
I disagree :twocents:
We have some differing opinions on what it means to be forced to have an abortion. Under these guidelines you’re also forced to have liquor, guns, pornography and really anything that’s available in a given state. Maybe you should clarify future posts by saying you’re forced to tolerate abortions.
In most cases this is true.
As I understand it the Obama administration, and a majority of women, see access to abortion as a crucial element of women’s care. As such, why should the fed support anything less when they don’t have to?
Some states don’t want to support abortion, and if so they needn’t take any federal money, example of Texas not being forced. This relates back to my earlier comment about a diverse society with varying needs and expectations.
Oh, okay, so we agree that those who were talking about “independent of government” don’t really mean it. That it was okay in one argument but now doesn’t apply.
No. People still need to come to their own conclusions independent of government before any significant abortion cause is advanced.
What the Obama administration prerogative is and the moral epiphanies of individuals have nothing in common. Please clarify your argument.
From whom? Obama hasn’t changed his position. I haven’t changed my argument. Where is the lack of consistency and honesty?
Another diversionary comment to prevent reading between the lines…that is…Obama promises the poor to redistribute the wealth of others to them in exchange for their vote. (Loved the additional post from someone else who said, “Good for him!”) Too bad for those who through their own efforts, intelligence, hard work and initiative wish to keep what is rightfully theirs (and whom most, no doubt would be quite generous in charitable donations, enabling them to obey the gospel mandate to help the poor, let alone the jobs that could be created so that people might become self-sufficient.)
I thought you wanted abortion independent of the government, if you believed this, you would be against planned parenthood being funded by the Federal Government.
Obama is a big promoter of Planned Parenthood and their providing abortions. Thus, abortion is not independent of government. You said you thought it should be.
Why is it okay to Federally fund the largest abortion provider in the USA, Planned Parenthood but you turn around and then say abortion should be independent of government. This isn’t consistent. It also promotes abortion.
My thoughts exactly. If women really did vote for Obama because they were afraid to loose their benefits, they bought the lie that he was spewing at them 24/7. That a Romney Presidency would leave them hungry and on the street. A fact that couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Yes, because I can’t get a proper diagnosis, I no longer qualify for food stamps while going to school. I get the pell grant. That money is used for my living expenses, the department of rehab pays for my books, and the state pays for my tuition. It’s funny, I got into the department of rehab, but I lost my appeal for food stamps due to a lack of a proper diagnosis. The judge said while it was obvious something was going on with my health, he didn’t have enough to work with to allow me food stamps, and I haven’t bothered appealing social security. I barely have the energy to do what I do on a daily basis. As much as I want to work, and I do, I went to the mall and filled out an application and pushed for an interview. It wasn’t until I left that I realized how unrealist me working is at the moment in my condition. Sometimes I forget my limitations and still think I am healthy. …My whole point of saying this about myself is to show that there are those out there who do need assistance, assistance Mitt Romney was going to take away. That was why I voted for Obama. I don’t condone everything Obama does, and I do write to him about things that bother me sometimes, but I saw this country going down hill like the 1930s with Romney, I didn’t see living conditions improving under his leadership.
Thank you. I appreciate your words and quote. I do believe my experiences are to help others. I look forward to the day I am healthy again.
You voted for Obama because you thought Romney was going to take away your medical assistance or that of others? You voted for evil for no good reason at all, then, because it is, at best, unclear whether Obamacare is going to result in net healthcare benefits for anyone, and there is considerable reason to believe it is a net negative, particularly for the very poor and for the elderly. A shame, really, that someone implanted such ideas in your mind. But there were lots of politicos interested in doing that, I guess.
For the most part I am, but this has nothing to do with an individual coming to a personal epiphany about abortion. Whether or not abortion is supported or restricted by government does not change how people view it morally, it only changes access to an abortion. If you want significant change in abortions then you need to reach the mind of the people not the funding to the doctors.
I’m trying to convey that one’s own views on abortion must be independent of government (and maybe religion) before any significant causes on abortion can be advanced.
Insofar that a choice is the same as promotion this is true.