Pro-choice or pro-life?

[Simpletool]

That would be a losing argument. War is a federal matter. Funding of personal matters is not. There is no correlation between the two. I personally do not want abortion however it is the law that says it is a woman's right to have one. I have no real say in that since Roe vs Way will not be overturned any time soon if ever. The fact that I am against abortion is only me stating my view and not me saying the law needs to be revoked. However me opposing federal funding is a legitimate gripe. The federal government has no right to use my money to pay for private citizens business. If it happened to be the state government doing this, my argument would be as lame as the "it's not the place of the federal government to fund war" arrangement.

Again I ask you where the idea originated that the government's only role is in federal matters like defense, and not those of personal matters that effect its citizens. Unless you live in a vacuum separate from society the role of government in personal lives is easily verifiable, to claim otherwise goes against the reality of our country. Did you not bother to read my previous posts, or am I to repeat myself again?

[Terr]

With all the chaos nowadays you need bill numbers. Like perhaps HR 3200, looking at Section 156...

[MayheM]

The laws in place for the past 3 decades prohibits federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape. If that is not to change why is abortion even in the language of the bill. Further more, why are there Senators who want to put an amendment in the bill stopping it? The House bill had the Stupak amendment which limited government funding of abortion when it came to the government run health care plan "public option". I sat and tried to read the language in question and to be honest without reading the entire bill through I can not make heads or tails of it. However, my best friend works for a Senator and has read the bill. This is someone that I would trust with my life not to blow smoke up my ass. He told me all the pitfalls of the bill and specifically stated the language surrounding abortion would allow doors to be opened to government funding. referring to abortion and "preventative care". My friends word means more to me then any left or right winged news article...

The fact is the current law allows women to have an abortion and like I said there is nothing I can do about that shy of voicing my disapproval. But my money should not go towards paying for women to have them. They are free to have one if they want one, that is between themselves, their wallets, and God.

In other words I am not arguing the government restricts a bodily decision. Actually quite the contrary. They should stay the fuck out of the decision.

As for me why it is a personal matter. How is it in any way the Governments job to regulate population? How is it any way the Governments job to pay for other peoples mistakes?

[coder0xff]

I think the government should pay people to have abortions. And I didn't come up with that idea.

Seriously. Overpopulation FTL.

(pro-abortion). I wonder how many times I can say it. lol

[Dionysos]

I think the government should pay people to have abortions. And I didn't come up with that idea.

Seriously. Overpopulation FTL.

(pro-abortion). I wonder how many times I can say it. lol

Hehe yea. Also, it becomes the governments job to to regulate population when overpopulation in general or among lower classes (especially harmful) becomes a serious threat to society, which is already the case. It's a simple case of survival on a national scale. Some countries already have huge problems with over population and try to regulate it as best as they can. You are right that it isn't the governments job to pay for "other" peoples mistakes, but that isn't the point or motivation; it's damage control, to limit harm to society. It's simple really, and it's about the big picture. How a government should regulate overpopulation is of course debatable as no one likes to be forced, but if people are actually willing to undo their mistakes and thus prevent further suffering (personal as well as a burden on society) they should be allowed, it's the economical thing to do.

My point is: if one group in a society is particularly bad off and grows, the whole society suffers, everyone is affected. That cannot be overlooked.

[MayheM]

Simply put it is unconstitutional to force things like that upon the citizens of America. Communists are the ones who take the rights of its people and try to force population limits. Look at China, would you want to live there? If we do not abide by the laws that founded this land we are no longer a nation of free people. If they ever tried to do something like that, the Supreme Court would be involved shortly there after and it would be quickly repealed.

[Dionysos]

I'm not advocating force, as in regulating having children for instance. I'm saying that if people are willing to contribute to undo their mistakes and thereby prevent further harm, that's a good thing and falls under social services (as in, helping society by "passive action"). Not to mention that the problems society faces today, especially concerning the poor and poorly educated, are partly caused by the government and it's their responsibility, which again by extension means ours.

You ignore that you force other things on the people which can be compared to funding voluntary abortion, like funding war, research and other social services which benefit society. Voluntary abortion among the poor and poorly prepared benefits society, and therefor you, an argument which is stoically ignored. Instead you focus on the fact that these taxes are forced on everyone, which can equally well be applied to innumerable other accepted taxes. Not to mention the US would have no problem affording this considering how much could be cut back on less beneficial things.

Regarding the constitution, not only is it ignored that it's very very old, I also can't see a logical argument which would support the fact that funding a social service like abortion is unconstitutional. I would love to see the supreme court decide on the matter though, that would be extremely interesting. The constitution is important because it's a buffer for radical change, it is not, however, holy.

On an unrelated note, China may be a dictatorship, but I wonder how they can own big parts of the US and the western world if they aren't capitalist as well. Their regulating the population isn't specific for communism (catch phrase) and it sucks (you're right, I'm glad I wasn't born there) for those involved, but it IS a necessity. That's just a fact, there's only so much resources and space. Seriously... phrases are given meaning by people. I'm going off on a tangent, but for instance laws are made by people, laws in general have always changed and have to change (again something that is ignored) and the idea that just because you adapt your laws to new circumstances you are no longer free is simply asinine, an empty catch phrase.

[MayheM]

Why should the government pay people for what they are going to do anyway? They have no reason to become involved at all.

As for China being able to own big parts of the US. Well lets see, because they take the money from the people and no not have freedom in their country. That and the Dumb-asses in Washington keep spending money we do not have and are forced to borrow from other nations to fund their stupid. But as far as it being necessary, I do not see that. But hey I believe in limited government... so...

[Dionysos]

The whole point of funding abortion for the poor is because they can't afford it... as in, they wouldn't abort other wise. But let's ignore the rest.

This deserves another thread, but China as well as Japan etc don't own big parts of the US because they somehow buy it by stealing from their people. The US has huge loans, and China has the benefit of cheap labour, giving it power in the trade relations, buying stock and companies in the US. They also have one-sided (as in unfair) trade agreements when letting foreign companies setup in their country, leading to the seizure of foreign modern fabrication plants and technologies, again giving them an edge. They're uber-capitalistic and due to the comparatively poor and large population have cheap labour. Not because people there lack freedom...(which they do, but it's not related (or communist)) if your services are cheap and readily available you as a worker for instance have little power (over population). Blaming it on the dictatorship is just one-dimensional. The dumb-asses in Washington sure contribute though.

[MayheM]

If we are going to go there, then why not just mandate that poor people who can not afford to have kids get a birth control shots that stop them from ever becoming pregnant?

[Dionysos]

Because mandating, forcing, people to not have kids is taking away their freedom over their bodies? You cannot seriously compare mandatory sterilization to the funding of voluntary abortion. That's becoming silly.

[MayheM]

No, that's my point. I am opposed to any money from the government or any government involovement in things like that.

[Dionysos]

Again there's strictly speaking no logical difference between voluntary abortion and other social (health) services or other services which benefit society and which are tax-funded. The only other basis on which to differentiate between them is based in faith/mentality/ideology, in which case logic ceases to be the grounds for decision making in favor of emotion anyways.

I guess we've reached the point where we're repeating ourselves too much.

Loved the discussion though.

[MayheM]

I was just discussing this with the guy I work with who is pro-choice and we both agreed that there would be people who would purposely get pregnant to get the money from the government. I am sure it would not be a lot of people, but even having the possibility of that is insane.

[Dionysos]

True, but then again I would arrange it so that individual people don't get the money, but that the government simply pays the bill after the procedure. Then there is no way to make money off of it, and that's how it works with most social services here me thinks.