Truly, it really is just how the books are kept that makes that absurd fiction seem real.
50
- Thread starter greenboy
- Start date
Truly, it really is just how the books are kept that makes that absurd fiction seem real.
Pretty small numbers compared to the billions of animals killed by humans each year. We choose life for ourselves an others, whether or not we should is open to debate.
Population of the Earth is over 7 BILLION people and growing daily. 
Yep. You really really want to help reduce abortions?
Make it a national priority to provide really good daycare on a sliding-scale-to-free basis for everybody who needs it.
At one point-when I was feeling...motherish a lot... I was crying frequently because I can't afford to adopt.
It's not the fees-they will actually waive those...it's the daycare.
I don't know how to pay for a good safe place to put the kiddo when the wife and I are both at work.
I wish I had a child to raise.
A horribly hard job to raise one well, but I think I'd be a much better, stronger individual for having launched a person.
While population may peak and decline due to demographics, for me, there is no getting around the fact we're really overpopulated right now.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
ok thanks, i think i have it straight now...planned parenthood gets my tax dollars and they perform abortions.
No dim-wit only 3% if their budget goes to abortions which is NOTHING. Most of their services is pre-natal and general woman's reproductive health care again for poor women.
The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions. It primarily affects Medicaid. How is it your tax dollars can pay for abortion if not through medicaid? Just open up your cranium and spit on the crown, maybe it will lubricate your thinking cap
"In September 1993, Congress rewrote the provision to include Medicaid funding for abortions in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. The present version of the Hyde Amendment requires coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment."
The majority of abortions in this country are self paid. If you took away that 3% the poor will continue to have babies all of which will be paid for long-term through your tax dollars in welfare programs such as medicaid and those with the means will continue to pay for abortions through private clinics. They should let people like you to opt out of abortion through your taxes and it wouldn't make a lick of difference...except to the poor but since people in the States don't seem to mind the dwindling middle-classes and the rise of poor working classes and all their off-spring, it will be interesting to see what will happen when the weight of that class becomes too heavy to bear. Nations that don't have good pre-natal care and no reproductive rights tend to be poorer with a large population of children they cannot educate nor care for. Good luck with that. Ever notice how countries without family planning programs seem to be a mess of uneducated low-income women who cannot drag themselves out of poverty? But who cares right as long as they are forced to have another snotty faced child pulling at their apron strings.
Impact of the Hyde Amendment
Unique barriers face low-income women accessing comprehensive reproductive health care. Barriers to abortion access such as the lack of providers, state laws delaying women from receiving timely care, and funding restrictions like the Hyde Amendment fall disproportionately on low-income women who have limited resources with which to overcome these obstacles. The Guttmacher Institute has found that 20-35% of Medicaid-eligible women who would choose abortion carry their pregnancies to term when public funds are not available.13 Additionally, lack of public funding results in women waiting while they raise funds, postponing their abortions until later in their pregnancies when the costs and health risks can be higher. For women who are struggling to make ends meet and who do not have insurance that covers abortion care, the legal right to have an abortion does not guarantee access.
The restrictions imposed by the Hyde Amendment unfairly jeopardize the health and well-being of low-income women and their families. Women who do not have the ability to pay for abortion services may resort to self-inducing an abortion or obtaining unsafe, illegal abortions from untrained practitioners. Also, the Hyde Amendment harms women's health by denying coverage for abortion services in cases where women have serious physical or mental health concerns.
Implementation of the Hyde Amendment
THE HYDE AMENDMENT AFFECTS ONLY FEDERAL SPENDING. States are free to use their own funds to cover additional abortion services. For example, Hawaii, New York, and Washington have enacted laws funding abortions for health reasons. Other states, such as Maryland, cover abortions for women whose pregnancies are affected by fetal abnormalities or present serious health risks. These expansions are important steps toward ensuring equal access to health care for all women.
Prior to the 1993 expansion of the Hyde Amendment, thirty states chose not to use their own Medicaid funds to cover abortions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.11 Initially, a number of states expressed resistance to comply with the expanded Hyde Amendment, and presently thirteen states are under court orders to comply and cover rape and incest in addition to life endangerment.12 Every court that has considered the Hyde Amendment's application to a state's Medicaid program since 1993 has held that states continuing to participate in the Medicaid program must cover abortions resulting from rape or incest in order to be compliant with the Hyde Amendment, regardless of state laws that may be more restrictive.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Overpopulation is now a straw man. The second derivative of population went negative in 1980, meaning that the first derivative (rate of growth) has been falling since then. The first derivative is expected to go negative at the end of this century, at which point population will begin to decrease, having reached a maximum of just about ten billion.
It turns out that the best contraceptive is prosperity.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
LOL! Yeah. Ironic isn't it?
IMO, that's going to do a lot of damage,and we're too overpopulated now. Which is what I said.
Just because it's it's going to decline in the future does not change the fact that there's too many right now.
Easter Island had a population peak and decline too, after everything was devastated.
so sad
Is so sad to destroy a baby based on he is wanted or not. Is also so sad to predict the future, so programs to help alcoholic, addict to drug people, and other social problems should not exist because we foresee they are going to fail anyways, fatalism and predestining the life of a human being is not enough to kill a baby. After all no one knows the future. My Uncle and my aunt are a perfect couple in any way, my older cousin is an alcoholic, no one predicted that, he had all opportunity available to a man. His parents are not alcoholics and have not other vices that I know. But he has this problem. My point is no one can predict the future.
Is so sad to destroy a baby based on he is wanted or not. Is also so sad to predict the future, so programs to help alcoholic, addict to drug people, and other social problems should not exist because we foresee they are going to fail anyways, fatalism and predestining the life of a human being is not enough to kill a baby. After all no one knows the future. My Uncle and my aunt are a perfect couple in any way, my older cousin is an alcoholic, no one predicted that, he had all opportunity available to a man. His parents are not alcoholics and have not other vices that I know. But he has this problem. My point is no one can predict the future.
is not amazing
Is not amazing how we accept as a fact everything what the so call "scientific world" tells us as a fact.
WHat about if what happened in Eastern Island was they inbred for generations an inbred race susceptible to a virus or bacteria this means all were susceptible to the same virus and or bacteria so just a single virus could deplet a population. Why Scientific people wants to blame "overpopulation" for everything and why abortion have to be the solution, I wonder why?
Is not amazing how we accept as a fact everything what the so call "scientific world" tells us as a fact.
WHat about if what happened in Eastern Island was they inbred for generations an inbred race susceptible to a virus or bacteria this means all were susceptible to the same virus and or bacteria so just a single virus could deplet a population. Why Scientific people wants to blame "overpopulation" for everything and why abortion have to be the solution, I wonder why?
superstring01
Moderator
Bingo!
No thoughts were going on in their head, they were--barring a very few--in their first trimester. The only thing "human" about them was their DNA. The neo-cortex wasn't even formed at that point in time.
~String
But you are wrong, today they have many statistics that can show that unwanted children do have many bad problems happen to them when they are born into a family which didn't want them to begin with. Many studies have also been done about the adults who abuse their unwanted children and why they do such terrible things to them even killing them as well. So don't say that the future can't be told about unwanted children when you haven't even looked at all about the information that has been accumulated over the past 100 years .
[/QUOTE]But Children are not animals.
QUOTE=cosmictraveler;2749330]Population of the Earth is over 7 BILLION people and growing daily.
Humans are all part of the animal kingdom.
We aren't discussing that at all, we are talking about the rights of women to decide what they want to do with their own bodies and that should be left up to them to decide not the government. Education would be a much better way to inform children about having babies that are not wanted and ways to prevent pregnancies as well.
It takes two to tango, greenboy.
I'm a woman who's contraception failed and being too young, poor and in a bad emotional state at the time, others made the choice of abortion on my behalf.
IMO, they did the best thing for that set of circumstances, and each case must be judged on it's own merits.
Why don't women keep their legs crossed?
It might have something to do with men, nature and the human condition that almost all seek a relationship of closeness by which to feel connected, and many still confuse sex and physical intimacy with the emotional intimacy, which IMO, is what we are actually in search of.
Rather an unfair argument to blame the circumstances of abortion on women and placing the burden of responsibility on them to keep their legs closed.
Some men resort to rape when confronted by 'No' as an option.
I give you credit for raising the question, but I question also if you have contemplated the full spectrum of circumstances which are interwoven into the issue of abortion.
With apologies if my observations offend you. Never my intention to offend, although I acknowledge that such outcome is one possibility.
There is nothing special about making life. The key issue is how to you raise that life so that they are functional and integrated into society without them being a burden on the government, which conservatives generally are in the mood to neglect. It's absurd that the pro-life people only care about the foetus, but when it's a child that requires social services (who couldn't predict that, right?), the pro-life people become anti-life.
I agree that education and prevention are the better route to take than blanket legislation. Nature aborts early pregnancies with considerable regularity, and while abortion should never be a substitute for the above, there will ever be cases for intervention arise from time to time.
For my part, I am a radical thinker in that if a man/woman has two or three cases of unplanned parenthood, perhaps the state should curtail their ability to reproduce, temporarily if we have the technologies, or permanently if such irresponsibility continues.
I consider the bringing of any life into the world to be a very serious responsibility and if persons are unprepared to undertake it, thye are not deserving of the privilege. Children are not a commodity, and as community, we have plenty of responsibility to step in and assist already when intervention by any means leaves a family in need of assistance.
Making babies is the easy and fun part. Providing a home......that's where the rubber meets the road, IMO.