• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think the government should cover abortions?

Do you think the government should cover abortions?

  • Total voters
    39
soylentgreen said:
You will have to do better than that.
50% ? Does that mean the fetus occasionally nips out for a cigarette?
Click to expand...
No I dont. That is the standard under roe.


Do you deny this?
 
vegas giants said:
Abortion is an argument everywhere on earth

You deny this?
Click to expand...
There are people who will argue it all over earth. As a political football used by politicians to score points then no. Some countries have settled that question and is no longer brought up for politics.
 
soylentgreen said:
There are people who will argue it all over earth. As a political football used by politicians to score points then no. Some countries have settled that question and is no longer brought up for politics.
Click to expand...
Name those countries
 
Gordy327 said:
Strawman argument. Financial issues might affect a woman being able to get an abortion. It doesn't affect her right or choice to get one.
Click to expand...
It certainly does. Do you think wealthy women in Texas are not able to get an abortion? I see no cognition of what the 24th says in your response...
 
soylentgreen said:
New zealand will do for a start.
No doubt you will find a google search where some idiot national voter will argue against abortion but what you will not find is anyone who cares.
Click to expand...
That's it?
 
Not the worst idea - in a country that that has unfettered access to abortions and a public health system. Seems like a boon for reproductive rights.

America ticks neither box.

Has any country implemented this?
 
Unbeknownst said:
If abortion is the woman's right, as some believe, shouldn't it be the right of all women, not just all women with money? Or maybe you disagree.
Click to expand...

It depends on the reason. I wish the poll had that option.

If a woman has enough money to buy abortion pills and does not live in Texas, she is able to terminate her pregnancy without any health insurance. So we are really just talking about teenagers and women below the poverty line.
 
Unbeknownst said:
If abortion is the woman's right, as some believe, shouldn't it be the right of all women, not just all women with money? Or maybe you disagree.
Click to expand...


I agree.

The government should cover abortions. Same with insurance companies.

My state voted in 1981 to use our medicaid tax dollars to pay for abortions under any condition according to Roe V. Wade. It was a ballot initiative. It passed with a good margin. I voted in the majority.

The fact is that there are something like 17 states that use medicaid dollars to pay for abortions under any condition according to Roe V. Wade.
 
mrjurrs said:
It certainly does. Do you think wealthy women in Texas are not able to get an abortion? I see no cognition of what the 24th says in your response...
Click to expand...
Being allowed to get one and being able to afford one are 2 different things.
 
Voted no, if we want the government out of the equation then they need to be entirely out of the equation.

I am all for choice but be responsible for your choice.
 
soylentgreen said:
You will have to do better than that.
50% ? Does that mean the fetus occasionally nips out for a cigarette?
Click to expand...
Viability is simply the point at which a fetus can possibly survive outside the womb, at about 23 weeks. There is a 50% chance of continued survivability with full medical intervention at that point.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Because that human baby can't make the decision and needs to be protected.
Click to expand...
Sanctimonious nonsense. There is no baby in an abortion and it does not have rights. Who are you or anyone else to determine if "protection" is needed or not over the woman's determination or rights?
 
Integrityrespec said:
So the taxpayers who are paying the taxes have the right to choose not to pay for it.
Click to expand...
Tax money does not go towards elective abortions, per the Hyde Amendment. Neither do we always have say as to where tax money goes. Besides, abortions are far cheaper than child bearing & rearing.
 
Gordy327 said:
Tax money does not go towards elective abortions, per the Hyde Amendment. Neither do we always have say as to where tax money goes. Besides, abortions are far cheaper than child bearing & rearing.
Click to expand...


That is only for federal tax dollars.

States can do anything they want with state tax dollars.
 
Integrityrespec said:
So the taxpayers who are paying the taxes have the right to choose not to pay for it.
Click to expand...


The tax payers of my state were asked if they wanted to use their tax dollars to pay for abortions according to Roe V. Wade.

We voted on it in the 80s.

By a good margin the taxpayers of my state said they want their tax dollars to pay for abortions according to Roe V. Wade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom