Public Funding for Abortion

There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples. Every year there are about 1.3 million abortions. Only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies give their children up for adoption

http://www.pregnantpause.org/adopt/wanted.htm

And the rich are under no obligation to give up more money to make you feel good.

It's not about feeling good, it's about the moral and ethical duties people have.

I made no such claim.

 

Again, consent to one act is not consent to any other act and the law backs me up.


NOW produce a law that says, If a woman has sex and gets pregnant she must have that child"

SHOW ME THE LAW!

Only to yourself

You use ONE example to "prove" all women who have abortions are mentally incompetent!

Tell me when your peer reviewed article proving that comes out in a medical journal......and tell me you're not a misogynist ...

OKEY DOKEY just like all repubs you'll just ignore all the kids who are waiting for parents and sometimes wait so long they age out of the system....and your biased site "pregnant pause....gee, how credible ..NOT!

It's also known as abortable !!!
NOW produce a law that says, If a woman has sex and gets pregnant she must have that child"

SHOW ME THE LAW!

 

Yes, repubs want to just IGNORE the many children waiting for homes just to try to make a point....and you can't make a point with a site called pregnantpause...

which obviously tries to get women to sell their babies..

I never said they were and that is NO answer to my : ""AND, most importantly, women are under no obligation to give 9 months of their lives to make you feel good........""

..it doesn't change a word of it and you knew that so had to squirm and wriggle with your irrelevant comment.

.

So you're saying your ethics and morals don't make you feel good !?

Ya, I think it was you who got all excited because a woman had more abortions that you approved of ...

 

Dayton - this is getting painful. How long have you lived on this planet that you have yet to figure out that children born into impoverished and disfunctional environments have a higher probability of turning to crime ?

You claimed to have some knowledge of history. I do not believe you.

 

I'm a history instructor. And a "higher probability" hardly justifies as harsh a measure as abortion. That's a case of the cure being far, far worse than the disease.

 

The topic relates to funding Abortion. From a monetary perspective ... Abortion is a far more fiscally responsible option.

In this context the cost of not aborting is far greater than the cost of Abortion.

 

What percent entered as babies?

 

Not all abortion is self defense. Forced abortion is murder. Elective abortion is self defense because the mother has withdrawn consent from her unborn which makes her pregnancy a violation of her person.

 

Other sites give similar data,

That's far better than murdering them.

They don't do it to make me feel, good, they do it to make themselves feel good.

.

Laugh if you want, but it's true.

The woman on the abortion spree who admits to being addicted to abortions with 15 abortions in 17 years?

 

You're misinterpreting and misapplying the law.

A strong independent woman would not need an abortion. <<MOD EDIT - Rule 3 - Flamebaiting>>

Here's another site:

"Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 couples waiting for every one child who is placed for adoption."

http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families?cId=149

Benevolent societies don't abort unborn children.

 

Presently, I consider abortion to be 'nona my business.' I think its morally reprehensible, an abomination to humanity. But it doesnt cause a signifigant amount of social dissorder, and we dont have any business restricting it with law.

Subsidizing it with my taxes makes it *literally* my business, and I'll oppose it the same as I do the other morally reprehensible an abominable activites supported via our taxes and implied consent, such as drone strikes on civilians, regime change, blood for oil, and all manner of socially driven anti-human activities.

Abortion is *your* choice, and it should stay that way. If I have to pay for it, you make it my choice as well, and thats not OK.

Please dont make it my business. Just pay for it yourself (or find an alternative such as adoption that is often *all expenses paid* by the adopters and doesnt kill anyone or anything! Hell, Ill support subsidizing adoption!).

 

Killing an innocent human life is a "far more fiscally responsible option"?

You REALLY want to say that in public?

 

*Thats* how you defend drone strikes on civilians? Sheesh...

LMAO your disingenuousness is *rediculous!* This thread is called PUBLIC FUNDING FOR ABORTION. We're talking about it because some people want to make it happen, and if enough people agree, it CAN happen. I will 'whine' as LOUD as I can to prevent it.

Theres a lot more to abortion than 'suddenly ur not pregnant.'
Whats ur point?

I feel really sad for them, having been duped by the 'I love abortions' crowd into this mystical, magical 'and poof ur baby is gone' crap. The women I know who have had abortions strongly regret it. The psychological effects can be staggering and permanant. Its not something I would wish on anyone.

lmfao. I like some of them just fine. Keep tilting, Qixote!

How do you feel about public funding for Adoption?

 

Please show where I "defend" drone stikes....again, you have no facts so make some up and claim things that never happened.

It IS prevented.....

I made my point : ""As to adoption, their is much more to pregnancy than 9 months/expenses paid...""

but you had no answer so babbled something else....

Here we go with the "I have PERSONALLY known so many women who magically and illogically tell me all their medical problems so I know how ALL women feel " crap.

The women you know don't represent all women, most of whom feel only relief.

For some women who have given birth the psychological effects can be staggering and permanent. Its not something I would FORCE on anyone.

You LIKE people who are morally reprehensible, abominations on humanity?

C'mon, that's odd.....

I'm all for it.....now get a Republican to pay for it with taxes....

 

In case you were not aware...there is no federal funding of abortion

 

i am aware. I brought it up because there seems to be some support for it.

 

You know how most women who have abortions feel?

 

This is an entire thread dedicated to a fallacy

 

No, I read up on it and educated myself....it's easy, you can do it.

...and I never claim that because I know someone (or two) personally that that is how every one feels.

 

Quit repeating the same fallacy over and over and over and over.

Assumed premise - you are assuming a human exists in the early stages of pregnancy.

 

Its not a fallacy and not an assumption as I have documented and remains unrefuted. What do you have against science?

 

Your nonsense claim was refuted 6 ways to Sunday on numerous occasions. It is you that ignores the science.

You have yet to give proof of claim that is not fallacy = explains why the zygote is a living human rather than just repeating your claim over and over.

 

I said: Subsidizing it with my taxes makes it *literally* my business, and I'll oppose it the same as I do the other morally reprehensible an abominable activites supported via our taxes and implied consent, such as drone strikes on civilians, regime change, blood for oil, and all manner of socially driven anti-human activities.

You said: "In this country we all pay , through our taxes, for things we don't like or agree with. That's what grownups do."

Thats a blanket defense of "things we don't like or agree with" including "drone strikes on civilians."

Good. Should we keep it that way?

I'll restate my point then- Both Adoption and Abortion are complex processes that involve physical and psychological complications. My mention of *all expenses paid* was an attempt to curb the often used argument that 'adoption is expensive', not an attempt to insinuate that cost was the *only* dynamic in adoption.

My response (I feel sad for them) to your question ("what are your feelings about women who do what you consider morally reprehensible, abominations on humanity?") incorporating my opinions based on my anecdotal evidence is no more or less valid than your opinion based on your anecdotal evidence. We obviously dont know the same people.
And I never said nor inferred that I knew all women who had abortions. All I inferred was that based on the women I *do* know who feel regretful that they were duped by a biased industry that promotes abortion without full disclosure of physical and emotional side effects or the availability of alternatives, I feel sad for them.

I never said that women were abominations or reprehensible. I said abortion is.
I dont suppose you've ever heard the term- 'Love the sinner, Hate the Sin'?

I never said that women were abominations or reprehensible. I said abortion is.
I dont suppose you've ever heard the term- 'Love the sinner, Hate the Sin'?

Thats great! I knew we would agree on something eventually

I was sorta hoping for more 'Democrat' support on this one. Typically, the leftist position on abortion is not that its this great and wonderful thing that everyone likes, but that its an unfortunate necessity that needs to be available to those with no other option, and of course that it represents an important legal precedent for body autonomy. Subsidized Adoption opens wider the access to (what I hope is) a more attractive alternative to abortion without restricting anyones rights.
I do expect support from many republicans as well, but I dont expect you to understand why.

 

Please show where I "defend" drone strikes....again, you have no facts so make some up and claim things that never happened.

Yes, we all "support" some things we don't like through taxes.....we do not get to cherry pick what we approve of or what we don't approve of.

No, abortion should no more, or no less, be subsidized than any other medical procedure.

Yes, MANY things in LIFE cause physical and psychological complications....are you worried/concerned/involved in ALL of them?!!!

My opinion that pregnancy and child birth also may cause physical and psychological complications is true....and my opinion that not all women regret an abortion is based on what I read about women who have abortions.

Pregnancy is controlled by an biased industry that promotes child birth without full disclosure of physical and emotional side effects or the availability of alternatives


HEY! I just had a thought...if you're so concerned for these women why not suggest to them they might feel better if they ADOPT a few kids....

Wriggle, squirm, wriggle , squirm.........talk about excusing people from personal responsibility...women are the only people who have abortions.....surely you can't accept such women as NOT being an abomination or reprehensible...

Do you love rapists, murderers, terrorists, child molesters?

.

Why? Republicans are the ones in power......and they want defunding of social services that aid CHILDREN, like Welfare, WIC, SNAP, healthier meals in school, education( defunding Public TV(Sesame Street and Daniel Tiger,) educational shows for children)...now you want them to help create MORE of the ones they seem to not care about ?!
Anything a Democrat would try to do would be fought hard....

See above.

 

Actually it hasn't and niether has the science I posted to back it, your simple declarations without proof notwithstanding. But here again even though it has been posted repeatedly.

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M?ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ar...yoquotes2.html

"Recently, Dr. Robert George wrote an article outlining this whole topic in more detail. And if you want to really learn your stuff, pick up his excellent book entitled Embryo (I’m in the middle of reading it right now).

In his words:
“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George

“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert George
- See more at: http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/....n2q46hNU.dpuf

A New, Distinct Human Organism Comes into Being at Fertilization

It is undisputed that a new, distinct human organism comes into existence during the process of fertilization.[1] Scientific literature states the following:

• “The fusion of sperm and egg membranes initiates the life of a sexually reproducing organism.”[2]

• “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”[3]

• “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”[4]

• “The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.”[5]

• “Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”[6]

The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”[7] Thus, in the context of human life, a new individual human organism is initiated at the union of ovum and sperm. One textbook similarly explains: Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell – a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.[8]

Thus, a new human organism is created before the developing embryo implants in the uterus – i.e., before that time at which some people consider a woman “pregnant.”

[1] See, e.g., Condic, When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective (The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person Oct. 200, http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wpconten...ife_print.pdf; George & Tollefsen, EMBRYO 39 (200.

[2] Marsden et al., Model systems for membrane fusion, CHEM. SOC. REV. 40(3):1572 (Mar. 2011) (emphasis added).

[3] Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010) (emphasis added).

[4] Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012) (emphasis added).

[5] Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added).

[6] Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013) (emphasis added).

[7] National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/medlineplus/fertilization (emphasis added).

So if you continue to claim I have not supplied proof and you refuse to refute it will be called a lie.

So what do you have against science.