Quite frankly, I'll find pity for people who don't want their tax dollars going toward abortion when mine stop going toward war and enforcing the death penalty, things that, you know, actually kill people. Women still end up not being able to afford abortions. Happens all the time. Now, whether that's an issue with the aid itself (amount, conditions, availability, etc.), or with women simply not being aware of it, I don't know, but it is an issue. Women who are forced to continue a pregnancy they don't want due to their economic position are still having their rights violated, just as much as those who cannot obtain an abortion because of the law.

@MollyJean
Whether there is good reason or not for keeping the amendment in place, will to a large degree come down to how one interprets the health care reform and furthermore what one was expecting to come from it. Now I myself am of the viewpoint that holds the reforms purpose was to address the issue that there were so many Americans in a position where they were unable to afford private health care insurance. As the funding of abortions is an option in private insurance plans, this strikes me as an unusual path to tread down.

As for the video, I am not going to deny that he gets quite passionate in his video. Although I would highlight that he does not shy away from his bias. Indeed he readily identifies himself as "Maoist Rebel News", as such it is (or should be) expected that he is going to focus on issues which support the social stratification system in the US of A. On such a note, I absolutely agree with him and Philomel. As they both identified what the upholding of this amendment means is that there is economic pressure being added to females in financially tight situations who might be considering an abortion.

That's not necessarily true....no one is restricting them from getting the abortion if their economy is too low. They just need to be more resourceful themselves. As you and red both know of my current position in life...I will have you know I am at the lowest of the low in the economy...and you would be surprised how much more resourceful I have become due to my situation. Considering I was extremely frugal and careful with money before my current situation, I am aptly surprised how resourceful I have become since then. If a woman feels they need to abort their unwanted pregnancy and cannot afford it....there are other options....such as a homemade abortion kit...aka metal coat hanger.

On an unrelated note....On my search for a place to live...I have found many apartments do not include water with the base rent cost...yet they do include cable....kind of bass ackwards eh? Water helps people survive...cable helps people waste away their life....hrmmmm...Gotta love the U. S. of A.

Um, that's kind of what we're trying to prevent here: abortions that have to be performed by Dr. Coathanger at Back Alley General.

That's not the responsibility of the society or the government...that is the responsibility of the individual. Getting an abortion in a safe clinical environment is a privilege...not a right...the government and society in general could care less about a woman getting herself knocked up and then wanting to get rid of life form. It is up to the individual woman to find the proper avenues they prefer in order to get an abortion...but it is not the woman's right to get other people's money to pay for her problem. Sure, that would be nice....it would also be nice if society and the government were required to provide a place to live to all human beings...but that is not the case either as I can personally attest to that being homeless right now.

I was hoping that would pick up the pace a little.

No, I don't think the government should be funding abortions. Just like I don't think my tax dollars should be paying for other people's children for 18 years and I don't think I sould be funding abstinence only education. I think once a person gets pregnant, it's her responsibility to deal with it, one way or the other. I never expected anyone else to foot the bill for me, not with my abortions and not with my children and I really have no intention of footing the bill for total strangers.

It's kind of a double standard, isn't it? We call it taking responsibility for our actions when we get an abortion, but we still want someone else to pay for it?

The new federal law means nothing and simply reinforces the Hyde amendment. States are still free to provide public funding for abortion if they so choose.

Personally, I'd rather like to see more abortion clinics open first. We hardly have any as it stands right now. That limits choice to women much more than funding.

That's right, I hadn't even considered that. It simply doesn't force states to provide abortion coverage, it doesn't deny them the right. I'm all for states running themselves.

Tutela: It's true, they have no objective right, but as you've said many a time before, no one has any rights but to try and survive. Based on that belief, the "right" to a safe abortion is not a right, the right to bodily integrity is not a right. However, the pro-choice stance hinges on that belief. If you throw the idea that a woman has a right to do with her body what she chooses regardless of whether or not she personally has the power to defend that right out the window, there is absolutely no reason abortions should be allowed at all, as again, new life is a resource, and the smartest thing to do from a survival standpoint would be to not allow women (or men, for that matter) any say in things relating to reproduction. Please try to keep context in mind.

Molly: You're using the same arguments pro-lifers do, only in a different context. If abortion is a responsible way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, and a woman who wants an abortion cannot pay for it, then how does asking the government to pay for it make it irresponsible? Is a parent on government assistance an irresponsible parent because she's asking the government (and thus, taxpayers who may or may not want their money going toward someone they may view...unfavourably, to say the least) to pay for food and other things her children require? I suppose the responsible thing would have been for her to never have had kids in the first place, by the logic you're using. And that goes back to abortions -- if you cannot afford an abortion, you almost certainly will not be able to afford to take care of a child, yet you're also against the government paying for abortions. And, we've already agreed that putting an infant up for adoption (especially if they aren't white, pretty, and perfect) is not a responsible choice for a number of reasons. So, women who doubt they can afford an abortion and do not want a child are left with one "responsible", according to you, choice: never, ever have sex. Ever. Because if protection happens to fail, any choices left to them are either unavailable or wrong. Certainly sounds like the pro-life position to me.

Keyori: Yes, they're free to, and you know most of them won't, or risk being protested/bombed/assassinated/etc. And yes, I'd like to see that happen as well. However, unless some kind, caring, wealthy individual decides to foot the bill, new clinics would have to be built with taxpayer money. And if people should not be forced to pay for a procedure they don't support, then I don't see how you can justify forcing them to pay for the building it's performed in. Like the woman who cannot pay for an abortion, it is irresponsible for a woman who cannot get to a clinic to expect the government to go out of its way and spend time and money and effort to eliminate that barrier for her.

Before the pro-choicers freak out on me or the pro-lifers start celebrating, no, I am not supporting the pro-life position in any way. I'm merely being a sarcastic ass to prove a point.

Well, I wasn't suggesting that doctors ask for taxpayer money to open private clinics in which to perform abortions (that sounds like how you read my suggestion).

Rather, I'd like for communities to get rid of that "not in my backyard" mentality about the clinics so doctors don't get so much opposition when they decide to open a new clinic somewhere.

Just to clarify things...It is true that I believe that the only right is the right to try and survive. However, in the context of this argument I have placed that aside as that opinion does nothing much to serve the purpose of this thread. I would however argue that a newly born is not a positive resource, as you implied above, as you may also recall that I feel the Earth is much too overpopulated as it is, so any new life....is taking away even more of the precious space of Earth. The woman does not have the right, in any context, to be guaranteed safety while performing an abortion. Much like I have no right to be guaranteed safety when I drive to work in my vehicle. There is no right to guaranteed safety. So if women want to perform abortions, they should do it with their own resources, and not force others to pay for them. Do I go around and beg other people for gas money so that I may get to work in a timely and efficient manner? No, if I can't afford the gas and thus cannot drive my vehicle, I have to find an alternate way to get to work. If the woman cannot afford an abortion, she should not beg for the public to pay for it, she should find an alternate way...again...metal coat hangers cost less than a dollar. If the woman would rather have sex rather than get her life in order first...she must accept the consequences as a responsible sexual creature. If she gets her life in order with a good job, and prioritizes her life...she will most likely be able to afford a $400.00 abortion fee for that safe procedure. She has only herself to blame if she cannot afford the safe way to have an abortion. If sex is more important than quality of life...that is her choice...but it is not the responsibility of the public to take care of her problems.

Then allow me to correct myself: by all rights, reproduction should still not be in the hands of individuals, sex should be outlawed, and forced abortions and sterilizations should be the norm. The result is the same -- if you throw out human rights entirely, no one should have any right to their body, and again, the abortion debate is rendered pointless.

The world does not work as you suggest, Tutela. People do not get to pick and choose where their tax dollars go based on whether or not they care about the issue. It isn't my responsibility to hunt down nonviolent criminals, but my money still goes toward such nonsense. It isn't my responsibility to educate other people's brats -- I can't have kids, and if I could, I wouldn't, and if I did, I would only be responsible for my own, who would most likely be home-schooled -- but my money's currently going toward building one new school and repairing about five others. I sure as hell don't support abstinence-only education, and even if I did, it's not my concern whether or not little Jenny saves her hymen for her future husband, but I still have to pay for it. Because we live in groups, we are all responsible for every member of our group, whether we like it or not, and whether we like them or not, and whether we support their decisions or not. Yet when it comes to women, somehow, the whole system breaks down and we're suddenly back to the self-reliance approach, where everyone is only responsible for what they themselves directly cause.

Honestly, I see where Tutela is coming from, but the gross concept is, more than just the woman is involved in the situation.
Now, if you get stuck working on a project or proposal or what have you with someone you don't like and KNOW is a slacker... And you end up doing all of the work... Would you point them out and tell the teacher you did the entire project, and they didn't have anything to contribute to it? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what kind of person you are.

I know that's a shoddy example, but it shows this one point: sex, and the product thereafter, is a project for two (or occasionally more) people. If a woman can't afford an abortion, which will propel her away from the crappy lifestyle she has so far led, and towards achieving an existence she is beginning to see as ideal, who's to say the tax dollars aren't doing some good?

What pains me so much is that nobody knows what the situation ever is. Hell, I don't even half the time! Imagine being in such a shitty situation. Some of us may see ourselves as "never getting into such a situation," but... Imagine you don't know what you know, don't have the life and history you have. Put yourself literally into this woman's situation. Wouldn't you want more than just Door A and Door B at your disposal? Door C would surely help give clarity to the situation...

I'm not throwing rights out entirely for this argument, so please quit trying to play that card in this thread...I have explained m,y reasons on why it makes no sense already for this particular issue/thread. Women are not quarantined and forced to go through abortions. Like you, supporting the funding through tax dollars of abortions, is indeed your right to freedom of speech. Likewise, I do not believe such a thing should be implemented because it simply would not stop there. Like I said, no one, at any time is guaranteed SAFETY. I am not guaranteed to be able to keep my life when I wake up. I am not guaranteed safety when I eat my meals. I am not guaranteed safety when I drive my car or commute to work in different ways. The safest and most efficient way to work is by car. I am not guaranteed a car, not guaranteed the gas to drive the car, and not guaranteed money to pay for the car or the gas. If I cannot fulfill the requirements of driving to work, I am FORCED to choose another alternative, albeit a much less safe alternative. This could be by public transit where I could get mobbed, or biking (which takes a lot longer, and I could get hit easier and much more devastatingly), or even walking...which is usually the most dangerous of all. However, one way or another, if I want to get to work....I MUST choose an option, and it is NOT my right to have the most efficient one. With that being said....I will put that in context with abortions.

A woman wishes to get rid of their unborn life form. A woman has multiple options, clinical abortion, Assisted metal coat hanger, or self applied metal coat hanger, or even some other physical trauma to cause a miscarriage. Obviously, the clinical abortion is the safest and most efficient. However, it is the woman's responsibility to be able to afford it as it is the most costly. Just as I am not given free money to travel to work, neither should a woman be given free money for abortion. Granted, it is the safest...however, no one is restricting the woman from doing an abortion, they are just restricted from doing it in one specific safe way. Like I said before, metal coat hangers work fine. So the next option available is to pay at a lower cost, someone who is experienced with doing abortions with a metal coat hanger...less safe like the public transit, but cheaper and more easily accessed. The third option is to do it yourself with a metal coat hanger, much less safe than letting an experienced person do it, however, it can still get the job done, just like biking or walking will still eventually get me to work. I am not arguing the about the right of the woman to perform an abortion, I am arguing about the right of a woman to get free money to be safe while doing the abortion. If they get free money to guarantee a safe abortion, then all workers should get free money to guarantee safe transit to and from work.

NOTE: I am not against funding buildings as that is really a whole communities decision, and being part of that community I have to oblige....I am just against funding the $400.00 abortion itself. There is a difference.

@facade: You are correct that it takes two or more for sex...however, if you want the men involved that help create the child, then they should also have say in whether or not the baby should be born. Just as the woman should not be punished for having sex, as Kris so likes to put it, neither should the male. So if the male is going to be forced to be involved in helping with the abortion he should have equal say in whether the abortion should happen or not in the first place.

I'm kind of on the fence about this debate .-. I havn't paid attention enough to the science in having an abortion to know much about it. Their are people that say the mother is taking a life and another is saying that the baby is hardly alive and doesn't exactly 'feel' or 'experience' the pain in an abortion so it can't possibly be murder. I don't want to say I'm against it because I believe that in certain circumstrances a mother needs the baby taken from her in order to fuffil her life as planned. Such as if rape were to get in the way and she ended up pregnant. Other then that, I'm at a block. If I were in the situation though (if I was to actually be murdering my baby) I would much rather have it and put it up for adoption.

Just my opinion :)

I think that funding abortions with taxpayer dollars honestly makes more sense from a financial standpoint.
Seems to me that paying $400 for an abortion is far cheaper than paying god knows how much for this woman and her child(ren) to be on welfare. Because you know someone who can't come up with $400 is definitely going to need government assistance in raising that child. Or, if she elects to give the child up for adoption and it ends up in the care of the state... guess who STILL has to pay for it? ;)

Either way, it seems the cheaper option is abortion.

The women who can't afford abortions are usually the ones who should get them. A lot of women who are poor and don't have a steady job are the ones who are the most likely to have an unplanned pregnancy because in many cases they don't have education in regards to safe sex. These are women who generally are single, they don't have a steady job, and most likely they don't have enough money to be able to support themselves let alone a child. These kids end up being put into orphanages and foster care....and the child care system has way too many kids in it as it is. We don't need more children put into foster care and orphanages. We should be doing things to help lower the number of unwanted pregnancies...and not giving women who doesn't have the money to pay for the abortion shouldn't be denied the opportunity to have an abortion.

If a woman is denied being able to have an abortion because of finances, that just drives them to a helpless position and if they don't have information about alternate forms of abortion (like the herbs that kill the fetus and other medicines that do the same thing)...they will be driven to either using the coat hanger or one of the back alley abortions...and neither of those options are safe. If you give these women have easier access to safe forms of abortions, then the risk of them dying from infection is reduced.

What you're suggesting is that things go back to the 50s and 60s for women.

And using your logic, what about things like some other form of medical procedures (like open heart surgery, etc) but they can't afford it, should a person be denied the opportunity to have this procedure done if it's necessary for the person to have it?

Actually, most of that is pretty much a blatant lie.
Fetuses cannot feel pain until very late in the pregnancy; the time at which it actually manages to start feeling pain is debated, but it's about 35 weeks. And the fetus would probably be anesthetized if for some reason an abortion was performed at that time.
Something like 88% of abortions are performed prior to twelve weeks. So even if that WERE true, it only happens in something like 9% of abortions. And that is not how your average abortion is performed, at all; try basic suction aspiration.

Okay??? and why is that?

Maybe they should prioritize their life better...>.> Work before play is the responsible choice ^_^

Correction, younger generations are the welcome ones...it is the older people that should be removed from the world to make room in the world for the new. We put too much emphasis and value on life and forget that without death, life is not possible.

I am not advocating denying anyone. I am just denying guaranteed safety as that is not a right to anyone at any time. If safety is a guaranteed right, then I want in on it too for everything that relates to my life.

So what if they aren't safe? Who ever guaranteed safety to any of these people? Again, I want in on the guarantee ^_^

If they die, it leaves room for newer generations. It is a healthy thing for the species, I see no problem with it. They oughta prioritize their life more if they don't want to be unsafe. Work and Education before sex. If they choose not to do that, they can deal with their choices. Every choice has a consequence, that is theirs.

No I'm not. I am not denying abortion, simply denying specific expensive methods that I feel they have done nothing to allow themselves to be entitled to it.

Yep, unhealthy individuals dying off quicker and making room for newer generations is completely healthy for the species overall. I see nothing wrong with it. As far as I am concerned education and technology about how to prolong individual lives is one of the major contributing causes to overpopulation and will be the death of our entire species and possibly everything else. We value life way too much....it will backfire.

@Vomity: I don't even want to comment...>.>

My view on this that as long as the fetus is unable to live on its own without the mother, is therefore not a human but a parasite.

And nobody finds anything wrong with squishing a tick.

Now, I'm definately not saying we go around squishing babies and just aborting them left and right.

I'm pro-choice. Which means if the potential mother wants to have an abortion, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have one. yes, there is adoption, and I understand that, but I'm pretty sure most children don't like to find out their parents didn't want them and had to put them up for adoption.

That will just create more hate in the world, families not "wanting their own children."

Evolution is based on this idea that some chemicals came together and made life, even though this isn't provable and has not been recreated.

Yet when an egg cell from a woman and a sperm cell from a man, both far more advanced than just chemicals, and have been proven to create what we consider life, we don't consider it life.

It seems kind of contradictory.

The truth is we don't know when life happens in the womb. We don't have a little meter that defines a soul or a consciousness or a self-awareness. If you go by the self awareness thing, then you could probably kill "parasites" up until their two years old because it cannot be confirmed that they are or are not self aware. It's flawed logic.

But here's an idea. If you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant in the first place.

By parasite, I mean by feeding off the nutrients from its own mother. A baby taken from the womb too early while still in the "parasite" stage will most likely be unable to survive on its own, whereas one removed by birth should technically be able to survive on its own under the right circumstances.

Granted, it needs to be taken care of, but it does not need to feed off the nutrients of their parents. (Not counting breast feeding.)

No, that's part of the big bang theory. Evolution says that new species can (or have) develop(ed) from other species.

Also, chemicals CAN come together and make life. It's been done in several labs already. Here's one example.

Uhh... no, no one in this thread has asserted this. We have asserted that it is not a person, which means that it cannot be murder (which is the unlawful killing of a person). No one has said that it's not life, because it is, in the same way that my skin cells are life, that a mosquito is life, that the bacteria in my intestines are life, that the hamburger I had for lunch was once life, that the grass in my yard is life.

Wow. If only it were so simple. What am I supposed to do, take my uterus out?

That would be creationism, not evolution. They put the chemicals together to create a synthetic life that is quite simple. You'd also have to assume that these chemicals were present during the Big Bang Theory. Lots of assumptions.

So uh, how does evolution work without the Big Bang Theory? Not to mention the fallacies within the Big Bang Theory itself.

If it's alive, then you are killing it though. And if it's not a person, then it can't be human, right? Because I'm pretty sure they all have human DNA.

I'm going to skip the big bang stuff because you've obviously demonstrated that you have no comprehension of the subject, let alone basic chemistry and biology, and it's completely off-topic.

Yes, you are killing it. No one is saying that you're not killing something. And I'm not sure what you mean by a person not being human.

But again, we're looking at where you give that little cluster of cells its personhood, where it becomes murder instead of, well, destroying a clump of cells.

For example, it's not illegal to, say, clip your nails, even though each cell contains a whole and complete copy of your DNA. So, we're not denying that you're destroying life, and we're not denying that it is, genetically, human. The question is more, at which point does this embryo become a person, and why would you choose that point over any other? That's what we're debating.