Justify women without health insurance staying pregnant

GaveMeJoy said:

we don’t kill babies for financial reasons in the United States

Click to expand...

Who told you this ?

The financial reasons have been first and foremost in the news for decades !

Justification: Thou shall not kill.

Justification provided.

What Americans need is to stop focusing on the government to fix the problem and adopt a family-centric approach. The extended family cannot help her? I doubt that. Otherwise it is just an expansion of the welfare state and a government incentive added to having an abortion.

Also the prolife issue will remain unfixed until society brings back a stigma around this barbaric practice of abortion. A change of attitudes is the most important step.

St_Worm2 said:

Hello RedLegHunter, that is true. We wanted to adopt a baby (a newborn, if possible), but that wasn't an easy thing to do back then. In fact, the adoption agency told us not to get our hopes up to high because, for every baby who was put up for adoption, there were slightly more than 100 qualified couples who wanted to adopt that baby (and I believe that it's even more difficult today, because back then it was married, heterosexual couples, almost without exception, which is hardly the case today).

There are no "unwanted" babies

--David

"A baby is cradled / carried in the womb of it's mother, to grow and be nurtured until birth. Each baby is a wholly separate person from it's mother: With different DNA, different fingerprints, with possibly a different blood type or the opposite sex. The baby is a person living within a person and not "the mother's body". The mom is appointed to care for the separate life she carries within her and once it's born, find a home for her baby, if she can't provide one." -- Melody Green
.​

Click to expand...

Yes, the whole “I don’t want my child to grow up poor” thing is a lie people tell themselves so they can kill their baby. Adoptive parents will line up around the corner to pay all medical bills of the mother and birth and adopt the baby in the hospital. That’s in every major city in this country. So many adoptive parents who want to love these children and so so many selfish biological parents who would rather remove the bodies of their children in pieces and throw them away. But God is greater, pray for those who consider abortion, no one can imagine the fear and pressure they feel

GaveMeJoy said:

Yes, the whole “I don’t want my child to grow up poor” thing is a lie people tell themselves so they can kill their baby. Adoptive parents will line up around the corner to pay all medical bills of the mother and birth and adopt the baby in the hospital. That’s in every major city in this country. So many adoptive parents who want to love these children and so so many selfish biological parents who would rather remove the bodies of their children in pieces and throw them away. But God is greater, pray for those who consider abortion, no one can imagine the fear and pressure they feel

Click to expand...

God protects the poor. This obsession with riches is an American mental illness.

Rusviking876 said:

God protects the poor. This obsession with riches is an American mental illness.

Click to expand...

But in fairness God uses Christians as the vessel to protect the poor and mistreated in the church, so if we don’t back all of this up by helping single moms in the church raise their kids we are hypocrites. Good reminder for myself to get more involved and help

For pregnant ladies in the US with no health insurance, as far as I know, all they need do is go to the nearest hospital and they will be taken care of. I have know several of these ones over the years.

We live in a Great Country.

Jeepers here in San Diego Mexican ladies cross the border legally and have babies leaving the bill behind.

M-Bob

What is the maximum income to qualify for pregnancy Medicaid?
Income requirements: Adults age 19 to 64 have income limits of $16,643 to $57,022; coverage for children ranges from $25,447 to $87,185; pregnant women have no maximum income limits if single but have a cap of up to $109,085 for a family of 8.Jan 26, 2018

https://www.policygenius.com › blog
A state-by-state guide to Medicaid: Do I qualify? | Policygenius

ChristianForCats said:

It is immoral to treat pregnant women like they are not as valuable as the babies they are carrying.

Click to expand...

Nobody is executing pregnant women. It's immoral to execute babies.

When a woman is pregnant and in need, she needs dignity and respect.

Click to expand...

Which in no way justifies killing another human, especially one that never disrespected her. If I disrespect you, the proper response is not to kill me, nor is the proper response to kill someone else.

I would never just tell her, "Sorry, you have to suffer nine months because you did not use contraception."

Click to expand...

So you would rather tell her that she can kill another human?

You refuse to see the other side of the argument. You refuse to see that many people believe that an unborn baby is a human life and that this belief is the driving factor in not supporting abortion. To characterize this in any other fashion is outright dishonest and irrational. I have yet to meet one pro-lifer who wants women to "suffer" or wants to limit their access to "health care." Though you won't extend this courtesy to other people, if they didn't extend that courtesy to you would undoubtedly cry foul if they ever assumed you wanted to kill babies.

At it's core this is a philosophical, theological, biological, and taxonomy question on whether or not the unborn is a human life. This is not a question about "health care," no matter what Orwellian language you choose to use. If you believe the unborn is a human life, you will probably think one thing; if you think it's not a human life, you will probably think another thing. At least, I would hope that if you think it's a human life you wouldn't be "pro-choice" anyway as that would look to be an inexcusable evil.

ChristianForCats said:

It seems to me every time pro-lifers say you can just adopt out your baby they always ignore the fact that during pregnancy there is a lot of expensive health care to pay for. Without health insurance, she cannot take care of herself and her baby. Why should having an abortion be a crime in America for economically challenged women without comprehensive health insurance, which is still a problem today? If you want to vote for someone because he is pro-life, your preferred candidate needs to be one who will fix the problem at all angles. It can't be just "The fetus is a human being, so don't kill it" without proaction.

Click to expand...

First, there is no one who will be refused medical care for herself OR her baby in the even they are uninsured; it's literally illegal to do so. Also, Medicaid would kick in anyway for a situation like that.

That said, answer me this without appealing to the 1% of abortion cases involving rape: Why are women with little or no medical care capabilities having unprotected premarital sex?

ChristianForCats said:

It seems to me every time pro-lifers say you can just adopt out your baby they always ignore the fact that during pregnancy there is a lot of expensive health care to pay for. Without health insurance, she cannot take care of herself and her baby. Why should having an abortion be a crime in America for economically challenged women without comprehensive health insurance, which is still a problem today? If you want to vote for someone because he is pro-life, your preferred candidate needs to be one who will fix the problem at all angles. It can't be just "The fetus is a human being, so don't kill it" without proaction.

Click to expand...

How does your logic not apply to allowing a parent to terminate their child at any age as long as there are economic consequences to allowing them to continue to exist? There is a lot of expense in raising children much more so after than before they are born. Unlike health insurance which is available to every person in the US whether they a can afford it or not, there is no food, shelter and clothing insurance that will pay for the child after birth has occurred with no allowance against it being a preexisting condition . If you want to vote for a pro choice candidate based upon economic hardship then you need to allow for a candidate willing to extend that choice to its logical conclusion and allow any parent to terminate at any time.

ChristianForCats said:

Pregnancies are often accidental.

What I am really getting at here is the government failing these women by not making sure they're able to keep their kids before and after birth.

Click to expand...

The government did not get the woman pregnant. It is not responsible for her decisions.

grasping the after wind said:

The government did not get the woman pregnant. It is not responsible for her decisions.

Click to expand...

It is responsible for protecting life, liberty, and property. So, if a baby is life, the government has an obligation, a legal one in accordance with its charter and Constitution, to protect that life.

DoI

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

Click to expand...

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Click to expand...

A baby, even an unborn one, should be covered underneath these protections, but is not.

98cwitr said:

It is responsible for protecting life, liberty, and property. So, if a baby is life, the government has an obligation, a legal one in accordance with it's charter and Constitution, to protect that life.

DoI



Amendment 5



A baby, even an unborn one, should be covered underneath these protections, but is not.

Click to expand...

Though I tend to agree with you, there are those that would tell you that an unborn baby is not a person therefore does not get the Constitutional rights that a person gets, as in " No person shall be..." .

grasping the after wind said:

Though I tend to agree with you, there are those that would tell you that an unborn baby is not a person therefore does not get the Constitutional rights that a person gets, as in " No person shall be..." .

Click to expand...

I certainly held that belief prior to 2018. Looking into the sonogram, with the audio loud, I saw and heard my son's heart beating at 8 weeks gestation. I did a complete 180 on my opinion in that moment. Seeing really is believing. He was as much a person then as he is now.

98cwitr said:

Looking into the sonogram, with the audio loud,
Seeing really is believing. He was as much a person then as he is now.

Click to expand...

My daughter just recently sent me the sonogram of their little girl in her belly. How precious what God has made. May their parents always love and protect them.
M-Bob

ChristianForCats said:

So under these normal rules all adopted children will get the health care they need and so will all of their parents?

Click to expand...

accidently logged out, posting below

grasping the after wind said:

Though I tend to agree with you, there are those that would tell you that an unborn baby is not a person therefore does not get the Constitutional rights that a person gets, as in " No person shall be..." .

Click to expand...

The US Constitution doesn't grant human rights, it simply recognizes and protects what already exists. Human rights are morally and logically prior to written documentation. If the Constitution doesn't explicitly protect an unborn life, it doesn't mean that the unborn human doesn't still have a natural right to life. The mistake is thinking that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly enumerate a right, then the right doesn't exist. All humans have a natural right to life, regardless of what any documentation says or doesn't say about it.

In the case that you still believe that rights are granted by the Constitution, then the Declaration of Independence cannot be correct as the Constitution did not come into existence until 1787, and the Declaration asserts that everyone is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." But if the rights don't exist until granted by the Constitution, then the signatories of the Declaration can't be correct and are asserting non-existent rights.

Alexander Hamilton furthers this point by rejecting the need for a Bill of Rights in the first place:


His words prove quite prescient in the current discussion since you imply the very thing he was concerned about; specifically that the Constitution claims a power of granting a right to life (or possibly a right to "personhood," whatever that's supposed to mean). It does no such thing; it recognizes and protects rights that already exist. All humans have a natural right to life.

Yekcidmij said:

The US Constitution doesn't grant human rights, it simply recognizes and protects what already exists. Human rights are morally and logically prior to written documentation. If the Constitution doesn't explicitly protect an unborn life, it doesn't mean that the unborn human doesn't still have a natural right to life. The mistake is thinking that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly enumerate a right, then the right doesn't exist. All humans have a natural right to life, regardless of what any documentation says or doesn't say about it.

In the case that you still believe that rights are granted by the Constitution, then the Declaration of Independence cannot be correct as the Constitution did not come into existence until 1787, and the Declaration asserts that everyone is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." But if the rights don't exist until granted by the Constitution, then the signatories of the Declaration can't be correct and are asserting non-existent rights.

Alexander Hamilton furthers this point by rejecting the need for a Bill of Rights in the first place:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted." - Hamilton, Federalist no. 84​

His words prove quite prescient in the current discussion since you imply the very thing he was concerned about; specifically that the Constitution claims a power of granting a right to life (or possibly a right to "personhood," whatever that's supposed to mean). It does no such thing; it recognizes and protects rights that already exist. All humans have a natural right to life.

Article IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

Click to expand...

I completely agree. However, there is no longer a general consensus on the political philosophy we seem to share that is the basis for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and many people will now insist that government grants rights rather than saying that government is acting incorrectly to infringe upon rights that are innate. That such things as requiring others to provide things for us should be considered a right granted by the government seems illogical, unethical and immoral to us but to them it seems reasonable. Why they think that way, I can not quite understand.

.