Originally posted by utherpendragon
yes it does. Its not phrased in so many words though.

Even if it does, from a LEGAL standpoint if the right is protected under the constitution (see Roe v. Wade) and the procedure actually saves money, what's the problem?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Even if it does, from a LEGAL standpoint if the right is protected under the constitution (see Roe v. Wade) and the procedure actually saves money, what's the problem?

In a legal sense their is nothing pro lifers can do about it.It is a moral issue people are upset about

Originally posted by utherpendragon
In a legal sense their is nothing pro lifers can do about it.It is a moral issue people are upset about

Welcome to America. I think it's immoral to intrude in a woman's personal life during one of the most personal times of her life. Different people have differing views of morality.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Welcome to America. I think it's immoral to intrude in a woman's personal life during one of the most personal times of her life. Different people have differing views of morality.

Well,their are differing views of morality but their are differing views of life as well. Is it just a "personal" time for a woman or is it a personal time for the baby as well? Two "people are involved here.not just the woman. Thats my stance of course. Many will say its not a baby or person.Just ooze or whatever. I do not agree with that. We can go round and round with this argument and we will not change each others minds about when life begins.

Originally posted by whodey
😲

Here are a few quotes from the site that stuck with me.

"Another war would be a happy occasion on the planet. If there were a button I could press, Iwould sacrifice myself without hesitation if it meant that millions would die"

"Feeding starving people just makes more starving people"

Of course, this group is not advocating killing people off ...[text shortened]... the cost will be the elderly....that is if they are around.

Mwwwhahahaha, mwwwhahahaha.

Less people are easier to manage too. But the Government loves us, so this is all just paranoid thinking.

Originally posted by bill718
If you bothered to read the proposed legislation (which you clearly have not) you'll find this universal coverage does NOT cover abortions. It would be nice if you got things right at least some of the time.😏

If you think these abortionists who are putting together this legislation would leave it out then you are daft. Sorry mate.

Originally posted by whodey
If you think these abortionists who are putting together this legislation would leave it out then you are daft. Sorry mate.

"Abortionists"? Haha.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Abortions reduce crime and thus save money for society as a whole.

You have absolutely no proof of this bogus claim.

Originally posted by Wajoma
You have absolutely no proof of this bogus claim.

That would be a pretty hard thing to prove, but it does make sense. Most abortions are from the poor and low income demographics that have less of a family oriented invironment. It stands to reason that forcing all of them to have kids would contribute to increased crime down the road with a huge increase in welfare.

That being said, I don't think the issue should be decided on these factors.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
That would be a pretty hard thing to prove, but it does make sense. Most abortions are from the poor and low income demographics that have less of a family oriented invironment. It stands to reason that forcing all of them to have kids would contribute to increased crime down the road with a huge increase in welfare.

That being said, I don't think the issue should be decided on these factors.

The issue is that some people vehemently oppose abortion therefore they should not be forced to be party to it.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
That would be a pretty hard thing to prove, but it does make sense. Most abortions are from the poor and low income demographics that have less of a family oriented invironment. It stands to reason that forcing all of them to have kids would contribute to increased crime down the road with a huge increase in welfare.

I agree.

But realize, if you made that exact same argument in virtually any other context, you'd be called a bigot, an elitist, and, quite possibly, a racist.

Originally posted by Wajoma
The issue is that some people vehemently oppose abortion therefore they should not be forced to be party to it.

Some people oppose medical care all together. Anarchists oppose laws and law enforcement based on their own moral values and ideals. If you avoided spending tax dollars on anything people don't agree we woudn't have a government.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Some people oppose medical care all together. Anarchists oppose laws and law enforcement based on their own moral values and ideals. If you avoided spending tax dollars on anything people don't agree we woudn't have a government.

but Wajoma doesn't want to have a government

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Some people oppose medical care all together. Anarchists oppose laws and law enforcement based on their own moral values and ideals. If you avoided spending tax dollars on anything people don't agree we woudn't have a government.

aww jeez, guess I didn't think of that eh, you be clever big time.

Originally posted by Wajoma
You have absolutely no proof of this bogus claim.

So you believe that children raised after an unplanned parenthood are raised equally well as other children?