Abortion

[diannethegeek]

Well, considering now that with Obamacare, theoretically, we're supporting each other's healthcare, people against pro-choice are now financially supporting contraceptives and abortions. So they don't have a say in where that money is going. In that sense it's understandable to be upset.

The Affordable Care Act makes no changes to the rules regarding federal funding and abortion. Absolutely no tax payer money is ever used to pay for an abortion here in the US.

[Daydreamer09]

The Affordable Care Act makes no changes to the rules regarding federal funding and abortion. Absolutely no tax payer money is ever used to pay for an abortion here in the US.

Uh huh... Fair enough on abortions. But the contraceptives? Those are also mandatory as of now and the money for them has to be coming out of somewhere.

 

I'm not allowed to keep my tax dollars from paying for things I don't support, why should it be any different for them?

Well, say and feel how you wish. For me personally, I feel it crosses that line of impeding onto religion.

[Cecona]

You know birth control is used for a lot more than just preventing pregnancy, right? I myself take birth control and I'm not sexually active. Never have been and don't really plan to any time soon. Many others take it to regulate themselves, and help clear acne. I in all honesty don't see how it impedes on religion since no one is being forced to actually take bc. It's still a choice whether or not someone wants to be on it just like it's a choice to have an abortion or not. In my opinion freedom of choice is more important than a law making religious freaks crap their pants. People need to realize how much good this will do.

 

I say again, why should they get special treatment when I can't protect my own beliefs and keep my money from funding war and violence?

[Obscure_Trash]

Well, say and feel how you wish. For me personally, I feel it crosses that line of impeding onto religion.

Whiiiiiich I understand. However, many of the religious institutions trying to reject this are doing so purely to control people who can get pregnant not particularly because it goes against their religion but because they want that power of control to support misogyny (and cissexism), which I find not cool. =U So I'm kinda ehhhhh about the whole thing myself.

 

/butts back out

 

[i say again, why should they get special treatment when I can't protect my own beliefs and keep my money from funding war and violence?

 

Probably due to separation of religion and state.

 

Funny how some religious institutions (as with many other organizations) will twist separation of religion and state to suit their purposes. It's okay for them to meddle in the state but not okay for the state to meddle with them. Ah, humans.

Edited November 12, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Daydreamer09]

You know birth control is used for a lot more than just preventing pregnancy, right? I myself take birth control and I'm not sexually active. Never have been and don't really plan to any time soon. Many others take it to regulate themselves, and help clear acne. I in all honesty don't see how it impedes on religion since no one is being forced to actually take bc. It's still a choice whether or not someone wants to be on it just like it's a choice to have an abortion or not. In my opinion freedom of choice is more important than a law making religious freaks crap their pants. People need to realize how much good this will do.

 

I say again, why should they get special treatment when I can't protect my own beliefs and keep my money from funding war and violence?

Yes, I understand the health benefits of contraception and that they are used for medical reasons as well as their intended use. But when others are forced to financially support it despite their religious feelings, THAT is the part that crosses the line. Not whether or not you get your own choice to use bc.

 

It crosses the freedom of religion clause. Or at least how I view it. (You may argue me and I'll acknowledge that you're okay have an opposing view, but why do you insist that I view this the same way you do?)

 

And I kindly ask that you watch your phrasing. You throwing around 'religious freaks' is referring to myself included as I AM catholic and proud of my religious views. If that makes me a freak then fine, but keep THAT thought to yourself.

 

Whiiiiiich I understand. However, many of the religious institutions trying to reject this are doing so purely to control people who can get pregnant not particularly because it goes against their religion but because they want that power of control to support misogyny (and cissexism), which I find not cool. =U So I'm kinda ehhhhh about the whole thing myself.

Well, to be honest I don't believe in doing away completely of insurance funded contraceptives, but for religious institutes to HAVE the choice to say nope. (In some circumstances I think they can, but not all) That way people can still go elsewhere.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Daydreamer09

[Shienvien]

That way people can still go elsewhere.

Not everyone has the ability to go elsewhere, you know. Small rural place, no car, fairly poor household, odd and/or long working-hours, the religious institution is only medical provider in region? Those people are all going to suffer for it. Is it still right for an institution to deny service when it is the only option for a large number of the people in the area?

[Pokemonfan13]

As far as I'm concerned, as long as I can't stop my tax dollars from funding the military, everyone else who has something that gets government money that they don't want their money to go to can go jump in a lake. You don't get special treatment, and that's what you're demanding. [for those that do demand, obviously]

[Daydreamer09]

Jeez, give a pro-lifer a break. (Not likely to happen though). I always hate myself for arguing my view on these thread because I always feel ganged up on.

 

@Shienvien: If there's a will, there's a way. You always have a choice in the decisions you make for yourself (ok, since we're on the subject, I know taxes aren't one of them). There's also the fact that the US today is in the 21st century. Situations like you are describing are hard to buy because. 1. If you don't have access to a vehicle, you probably know someone who does. 2. You get to choose the are you live in. It's possible to move from region to region and even state to state.

 

@Pokemonfan13 Part of the funding for the military goes into national defense. Which is a necessity for the modern day we live in. Uh, that's beside the point though probably *ahem.

 

Separation of Church and State has definitely been crossed by both sides. But how is this any different than having the choice to not say the pledge of allegiance at school? Or to omit 'so help me god' when swearing on a bible before court? These are decisions everyone can make because of their religion. Sure, it's kind of the otherway around, but on religious right which the amendments support.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Daydreamer09

[Infinis]

@Shienvien: If there's a will, there's a way. You always have a choice in the decisions you make for yourself (ok, since we're on the subject, I know taxes aren't one of them). There's also the fact that the US today is in the 21st century. Situations like you are describing are hard to buy because. 1. If you don't have access to a vehicle, you probably know someone who does. 2. You get to choose the are you live in. It's possible to move from region to region and even state to state.

This is where many anti-choicers are mistaken. Contrary to popular belief, the "American dream" as it's commonly portrayed is somewhat untrue now. And come on...even in a 21st century age we're still arguing over whether women can have complete bodily autonomy or not. That shouldn't even be a question.

 

Yes, we may know people with vehicles. But being able to use those vehicles is dependent on whether the person who owns it is willing to let you borrow it, or is willing to drive you where you need to go. There might also be a monetary component (gas, paying for use of the vehicle to begin with).

 

You can't really choose where you live, not anymore. Now it largely depends on price and let me tell you, moving is neither cheap nor easy, although friends who can help can make it cheaper and easier. Storage isn't necessarily cheap. It's arduous and time consuming to move, which you have to either take off from work (if you're lucky enough to HAVE a job), or work around your work schedule. Jobs can fire you if you're out too much.

 

So yes, while these things are possible, they may not be valid options for many, especially the poor or otherwise disadvantaged.

 

----

 

I don't see how it impedes religion, given that no one is forcing anyone to actually GET contraception.

[LascielsShadow]

 

@Shienvien: If there's a will, there's a way. You always have a choice in the decisions you make for yourself (ok, since we're on the subject, I know taxes aren't one of them). There's also the fact that the US today is in the 21st century. Situations like you are describing are hard to buy because. 1. If you don't have access to a vehicle, you probably know someone who does. 2. You get to choose the are you live in. It's possible to move from region to region and even state to state.

 

Whether you "buy" them is entirely irrelevant to the fact that they exist.

1. No, not everyone who doesn't own a car knows someone who does (and if they do, there is a chance that said person would not have the time or ability to serve as chauffer for the person without a car, because gas costs money and taking time away from work does as well).

2. Do you seriously, honestly think that, say, a single person making minimum wage or just above can simply say "Nope, can't live here anymore, guess I'll just pack up and move?" Even people who may be slightly better off financially can't always do that. Things like employment and availability of affordable (for whatever budget) housing are concerns.

 

I really, truly do not see how making contraception available to people who may not otherwise be able to afford it (because it can be quite expensive, and having it covered by something one already pays for is cheaper than paying separately) is somehow infringing on anyone's religion.

Edited November 12, 2013 by LascielsShadow

[Fuzzbucket]

Well, considering now that with Obamacare, theoretically, we're supporting each other's healthcare, people against pro-choice are now financially supporting contraceptives and abortions. So they don't have a say in where that money is going. In that sense it's understandable to be upset.

My tax dollars support weapons, among other things, which I object to PROFOUNDLY. That's life.

 

If people want to opt out of taxes they also have to opt out of everything they provide. Roads, schools, airports... We have NEVER had a say in how our taxes were spent.

[HeatherMarie]

My tax dollars support weapons, among other things, which I object to PROFOUNDLY. That's life.

 

If people want to opt out of taxes they also have to opt out of everything they provide. Roads, schools, airports... We have NEVER had a say in how our taxes were spent.

This, basically.

(And seriously, between abortion and gay marriage and everything else, the separation of church and state is nearly non-existant anymore, so I don't see that as a valid argument.)

 

I've said it before in this thread, it's *very* frustrating when people's advice/opinion is "you can just move somewhere else". Uh, NO. I can't. I live on a Housing program, and have a special insurance that covers my meds *because* of my illness. Both of those things are non-existant in San Diego, where I used to live, and I know enough people throughout the US to know it's non-existant a lot of other places too.

 

If I needed some sort of medication and was denied it because of "religious freedom", I would suffer. I would stay here and suffer and hope that the absence of said medication didn't ruin my entire life, because I CANNOT "just move".

[Daydreamer09]

My tax dollars support weapons, among other things, which I object to PROFOUNDLY. That's life.

 

If people want to opt out of taxes they also have to opt out of everything they provide. Roads, schools, airports... We have NEVER had a say in how our taxes were spent.

Except you don't pay taxes into Obamacare (or so I've heard argued). It goes into the pot when you pay your premium or the company you work for pays for it.

[Fuzzbucket]

Except you don't pay taxes into Obamacare (or so I've heard argued). It goes into the pot when you pay your premium or the company you work for pays for it.

As UK/Canadian - no I don't. But call it what you like - in the UK TECHNICALLY it comes at least partly out of a specific contribution on our payslips; in Canada at least partly from the GST.

 

Whatever you call it, it is money the government pulls in and uses to provide a decent service. And doing it that way saves SO much over privately insured plans with no limits on the way they behave and over the way doctors and hospitals order way more tests etc because they know the insurance will pay and the tests etc are done by companies THEY own, and make THEM even more money...

 

It is a great way to make health care overpriced and unaffordable.

[ShinyTomato]

Here's my view:

 

Catholic hospitals can and do refuse to treat me and my children because I'm Romani. It's happened to me before, I'm used to it. They get that choice. They have every right to say that they won't treat me due to their faith and their religious belief that we're going to hell for being born Rom. If I admit that they have the right to do that, even if I'm dying from a heart attack, or because my daughter has a fever of 104, how can I say they don't have a choice in choosing to provide birth control?

 

Okay, yeah, people will likely die due to that decision, but people die because they can't get treated in Catholic hospitals when there are no other hospitals around too.

 

If I am going to be angry because a lack of legal gay marriage impedes my religious rights, I cannot be angry when others are angry for similar reasons. That does not mean I agree with them.

 

EDIT: But it should only count for affiliated groups. Not just because the "boss" of an industry feels that way. It should be those actively affiliated as a company with a church.

Edited November 12, 2013 by ShinyTomato

[Shienvien]

They have every right to say that they won't treat me due to their faith and their religious belief that we're going to hell for being born Rom.

I personally consider it outrageous that anyone would as much as dare think that they should have this kind of right, or that there is any justification to letting them have this kind of right. Refusing to treat a person because of their race/religion/beliefs should be considered completely illegal no matter which background the hospital has, period. In my eyes, it is just another example of how thoroughly wrong the system in the US is.

[Pokemonfan13]

@Pokemonfan13 Part of the funding for the military goes into national defense. Which is a necessity for the modern day we live in. Uh, that's beside the point though probably *ahem.

True. Some military is necessary. But our massively overblown military that sucks up more than half of our country's discretionary money is NOT necessary. If we cut down our military to be what we need to defend ourselves rather than starting idiotic wars with countries that pose no real threat we would have lots more money to support science and pay down our national debt.

 

http://www.sdvfp.org/us-military-spending/

 

So, as it stands I do NOT want my money going to the military. But I can't do anything about it. So why are so special?

Edited November 12, 2013 by Pokemonfan13

[HeatherMarie]

I personally consider it outrageous that anyone would as much as dare think that they should have this kind of right, or that there is any justification to letting them have this kind of right. Refusing to treat a person because of their race/religion/beliefs should be considered completely illegal no matter which background the hospital has, period. In my eyes, it is just another example of how thoroughly wrong the system in the US is.

I have to agree here.

 

Because, to me, it's a bit of a slippery slope. If it's "their right" to refuse to treat someone because of that person's faith, AND refuse to prescribe birth control because of the hospital's faith.... Where does it end? Am I going to be refused treatment because I'm gay? Because I'm obese? Because I'm mentally ill? WHERE is the line? ...... The answer is, THERE IS NONE. If it's legal for medical places to turn away people for this-and-that reason, there will ALWAYS be something else they are fighting to deny, as well.

 

I honestly don't see how this is very different then hospitals way-back-when refusing to treat black people. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Simple. You don't refuse medical treatment to someone based on "beliefs".

[Cecona]

Yes, I understand the health benefits of contraception and that they are used for medical reasons as well as their intended use. But when others are forced to financially support it despite their religious feelings, THAT is the part that crosses the line. Not whether or not you get your own choice to use bc.

 

It crosses the freedom of religion clause. Or at least how I view it. (You may argue me and I'll acknowledge that you're okay have an opposing view, but why do you insist that I view this the same way you do?)

 

And I kindly ask that you watch your phrasing. You throwing around 'religious freaks' is referring to myself included as I AM catholic and proud of my religious views. If that makes me a freak then fine, but keep THAT thought to yourself.

 

Whiiiiiich I understand. However, many of the religious institutions trying to reject this are doing so purely to control people who can get pregnant not particularly because it goes against their religion but because they want that power of control to support misogyny (and cissexism), which I find not cool. =U So I'm kinda ehhhhh about the whole thing myself.

Well, to be honest I don't believe in doing away completely of insurance funded contraceptives, but for religious institutes to HAVE the choice to say nope. (In some circumstances I think they can, but not all) That way people can still go elsewhere.

-late reply-

I probably should be more specific. When I say religious freaks I don't mean religious people in general. I'm totally fine with religious people (as long as they don't force anything on me or try to take away my rights as a human being simply because they don't view things the same way I do), but the extremists and the ones that go out of their way to try to control and force their views on others, which unfortunately tends to include many politicians and people in power.

 

 

Also I need to add something to the assumption that it's easy for someone to move or borrow a car or live where ever they want to. I'm 24 and have no license and no car. If I want to go anywhere it HAS to be on a weekend, and only if I give someone I live with enough warning and if they either remember or I remind them in time. And all too often even if the conditions were met it turns out that they "just have too much else to do than drive you around" I live in a more rural area than urban or suburban area. There is basically one or two main roads, and everything is at least 20 minutes away by car. We live paycheck to paycheck with barely anything left to save or spend after we're done with bills, rent, and food. We're lucky if there is 50 dollars left. We have no money to do anything extra, and this is with three paychecks coming in. We can't live in our own home, we can't live in a nice big house with a big backyard. We live in a small rented house, 1200 dollars a month on a two year lease. And we can be kicked out at any moment at the landlady's whim. Just like our last landlord did to us to save his ass from debt. If we can't even afford to do something fun like bowling or ordering pizza from an actual pizza place, how do you expect us to just up and move to a brand new place? Uprooting us once again and forcing us to leave the friends we've bonded with?

Edited November 12, 2013 by Cecona

[BlitzDrake]

I mean our taxes before paid for viagra (sp?) ....I forgot what else I was going to put here...so... ._. brb whenI get the rest of my thoughts.

 

[Cecona]

viagra isn't the same concept as birth control though. Viagra could be used to create pregnancy, not prevent it. So people wouldn't have such a problem with viagra unless they are against old people having sex too.

[Lila]

Honestly, my biggest problem with the conservative view of abortion is that a large majority of the representatives of the anti-choice movement are people who are also against BC being widely available. In Texas, you can't get on the pill yourself without an adult's consent, and the morning after pill is like 30$ for ONE. So you better hope to high heaven that your condom doesn't break. It's very, very stressful to have to worry about getting your period every month when you only have sex 1-3 times a month in a committed relationship (speaking for myself). It's like their trying to control what I do in the privacy of my own home.

 

If you want me to let you keep your guns, then you should let me keep my sex life.

 

ETA: To those of you who believe differently and feel like you're being targeted, it's not BECAUSE you believe that. Your arguments are being picked apart and refuted so you can understand the opposing side better. But if you're going to sit there and act defeated instead of accepting the truth in what people have to say, you're denying yourself the maturity to respect what people have to say and accept them even for believing differently than you.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Lila

[Brite]

Honestly, my biggest problem with the conservative view of abortion is that a large majority of the representatives of the anti-choice movement are people who are also against BC being widely available. In Texas, you can't get on the pill yourself without an adult's consent, and the morning after pill is like 30$ for ONE. So you better hope to high heaven that your condom doesn't break. It's very, very stressful to have to worry about getting your period every month when you only have sex 1-3 times a month in a committed relationship (speaking for myself). It's like their trying to control what I do in the privacy of my own home.

 

If you want me to let you keep your guns, then you should let me keep my sex life.

I've used a M.A.P once. I had to order it online and pay for overnight shipping. EVERY pharmacy near me was either out or told me they were out/didn't carry it(which I highly disbelieve considering my sister, who is a mother, was able to buy it at one of them, I guess I looked like an immature teen who deserved what I got to them.) So in total, the pill was over 60$ for me.

 

Right now I have an IUD, Mirena. Still shocked that I was able to get it, as my previous doc, said that I had a less than 10% chance of finding someone willing to do it. Condoms are still used and I STILL have paranoia of pregnancy, but sterilization is no option yet, though i won't quit trying. If I ever become pregnant, an abortion is what I'll seek. I try not to think about what will happen if I can find a place willing to perform...because I'm not letting something grow inside me..

Edited November 13, 2013 by GhostChilli

[Alice Rose]

I live in Brazil. Here, abortion is against the law, unless if a woman proves (with medical exams, public and private hospitals have this) that she was a victim of rape.

I'm against this. My thoughts at this are: if a woman gets pregnant, she knows about her life enough to know if she can have this baby or not, the government (or Church, but let's not talk about religion here) shouldn't take care of her body, the decision is hers.

One of the most classic examples: teenage pregnancy. I'm 16 and can't even imagine how drastically my life would change if I had a baby. Sometimes I think about girls who get pregnant and stay with the baby. They must be happy and sad about their lives, at least I would be. Miss parties, school and change their whole lives, putting the newborn on the center of it. By one side, you gain experience, but by the other, you sacrifice your teenage and young adult stereotype life, which many say that it's the best years of anyone's life.

Another example that I think the government should think of: women that cannot pay for her baby to have a good home, food and life at all. My country is very marked by people that hopefully can have a roof above their heads, can pay for food, clothes and school for their children, and by people that unfortunately don't have any of these. (Note: the government does public projects such as buildings of "popular houses" and distribution of food, however, these projects are precarious and there is lots of money robbery from the same guys that we vote for each year of elections. Oh, and there is a lot of taxes that we pay in everything we buy that it's imported, abusive taxes by the way) Going back to abortion, wouldn't you prefer to abort rather than provide to he or she an awful life?

To finish, some victims of rape just close themselves for the entire world. I doubt these people would go to a hospital, talk to people they had never see in life about being raped to do an abort.

I really think our government should change the laws.

[Cecona]

If only that were the case with every teenage pregnancy, but all too often, especially here in the states, the teenage mother will not actually take care of the baby and instead will keep on trying to live the life they had of parties and friends. They will pass the baby on to their mother and that baby is probably lucky to even see it's real mother from time to time. At first I'm sure they enjoy the attention they get from having the baby and they think it will be just like baby sitting or having a new toy. But then once they realize how much responsibility and work it actually is they won't want to do any of that stuff. They'll only want to do the fun stuff that comes with having a baby, and then let others care for it when they decide they are done and want to do something else.