I often hammer the Left. And for good reason.
However, I don’t work hard enough to hammer the Right when they are wrong or praise the Left when they are right. [hee hee].
I wanna work on that, and so, to this end, I support the pro-choice legislation introduced by the 2 NY senators.
I’ve long argued that there is a rational position in the abortion debate.
At some point, the collection of cells become a human being. At that point, that human being is entitled to inalienable rights. Including life.
However, this should not prevent a mother from having to choose in certain circumstances. And I think two of them are:
- Victim of a crime
- Health of mother/baby are in question
Further, I think most Americans agree with that position. Whatever that means.
Because of that stance, I think this proposition is entirely appropriate:
Two Democratic lawmakers are calling on Congress to pass legislation that would make it legal for federal funds to be used to pay for abortions for service women who are victims of rape or incest or whose lives would be endangered by a pregnancy.
This is easy. Politics should be set aside and this bill should make it to law.
I think this is a terrible idea. If I get mugged, the government doesn’t pay for my hospital bill. Why should taxpayers fund an abortion for my wife if having the baby will kill her? That’s my responsibility, not the government’s.
Then there is the slippery slope argument. Once government starts funding abortions under certain conditions, there will be a whole slew of doctors who help patients whose lives are not threatened by their pregnancies get abortions anyway.
Remember the “legalization” of pot for medicinal purposes only in California? Guess what? People can get this stuff for a “headache.” It is a joke.
This law will turn out the same way, only innocent children will die.
Oops. I missed the word “service.”
I still maintain the slipperly slope argument, but think this would be OK if a women were raped “on the battlefield.” Otherwise, this is a NO GO, even if the servicewomen’s life were threatened by the pregnancy.
If I get mugged, the government doesn’t pay for my hospital bill. Why should taxpayers fund an abortion for my wife if having the baby will kill her? That’s my responsibility, not the government’s.
I think it’s because the government “insures” the service woman.
If I had an insurance policy that covered abortion, I should be able to claim abortion if I have one. In short, the woman works for the government and is only asking that a valid abortion be paid for through that “insurance policy”.
The problem is that the government does not “insure” its military personnel for every procedure. For instance, plastic surgery is a no-go. The government should not be covering anyone’s abortion unless they were literally rapped in combat like Jessica Lynch.
I guarantee you that privates would abuse this “privilege.” You’d have enlisted females crying “rape” every time they got pregnant.
Trust me. This policy would be a disaster.
This is great new. I am pro-choice and don’t think that government should not be in my doctor’s office. It seems that the Republicans who claim to be for small government are actually a party of very big government when it comes to women (amongst other things). There have been at least 64 new anti-abortion laws that have passed since GOP’s big wins in 2010 (forget about jobs, jobs, jobs because they have yet to propose one substantial jobs bill). A lot of their legislation forces women to have medically unnecessary procedures before getting an abortion.
In the most extreme cases, some Republican controlled states want to actually force rape victims/incest victims to carry the pregnancy to term.
I am glad to see some comment sense legislation being offered up.
This is great new.
I am pro-choice and don’t think that government should not be in my doctor’s office.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a hybrid pro-choice pro-life.
My take is that there are three critical points of time in this debate.
1. The moment the swimmer breaks down the egg wall and inception occurs.
2. The moment of literal birth – that is the child leaves the mother’s body.
3. The moment life begins.
I’m pretty sure we can all agree on the timing of 1 and 2; pretty straight forward and scientific. And I’m willing to debate item #3. But that, to me, is the critical time.
The moment a collection of cells becomes a human life, that child-that person, is entitled to the same inalienable rights given to him by Deity. That is, the mother no longer has the Liberty to take that child’s life.
However, that Liberty of that child is not all encompassing. Which is where the hybrid comes in. I DO believe that choice should be extended to the mother in cases where lives are endangered OR where the mother is the victim of a crime.
And even then, the procedure should take place as soon as possible.