ALABAMA LEGISLATORS REFUSE TO FUND MOTHER AND CHILD HEALTH CARE AS THEY BAN NEARLY ALL ABORTIONS

[tulc]

Abortion is not health care because pregnancy is not a disease.

...so pregnant women don't need to go to a doctor?
tulc(suspects that's not accurate)

 

[bekkilyn]

...so pregnant women don't need to go to a doctor?
tulc(suspects that's not accurate)

All women have to do is get pregnant, go out into the forest and squat, and a fully grown baby pops right out, easy peasy! If only that stork hadn't retired.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Abortion is not health care because pregnancy is not a disease.

Pregnancy causes diseases and disorders to both the mother and fetus so in some cases it is health care.

 

[Sistrin]

Pregnancy causes diseases and disorders to both the mother and fetus so in some cases it is health care.

Women do not get pregnant because they stand around other women who are pregnant. Pregnancy is not an illness nor does pregnancy cause disease. Correct, complications can arise from and/or during a pregnancy, but those conditions are outliers to the issue of abortion. Abortion as the progressive left wants it implemented is an elective process they believe any women can embrace at any point of the pregnancy, and even after, for whatever reason cited. Or no reason at all. Because abortion.

 

[WherevertheWindblows]

The title of the thread says it all when it come to this sort of refusing this kind of health care (meaning the procedure of abortion). The kind of care performed for the mother against her own child. That kind of unfunded care (as it is falsely so called) would allow for the life of the child.

 

[tulc]

Women do not get pregnant because they stand around other women who are pregnant.

They are however the only people who have laws made about who has access/control of their own body.
tulc(just a thought)

 

[Sistrin]

They are however the only people who have laws made about who has access/control of their own body.

Ridiculous and patently false. Men also have laws which dictate who has access/control of their own bodies. Or do you actually believe murder, assault, and sexual assault laws do not apply to men?

 

[tulc]

Ridiculous and patently false. Men also have laws which dictate who has access/control of their own bodies. Or do you actually believe murder, assault, and sexual assault laws do not apply to men?

...being pregnant is like being murdered, assaulted and sexual assault?
tulc(thinks that sounds like someone comparing apples to oranges)

 

[GodLovesCats]

The title of the thread says it all when it come to this sort of refusing this kind of health care (meaning the procedure of abortion). The kind of care performed for the mother against her own child. That kind of unfunded care (as it is falsely so called) would allow for the life of the child.

Health care funding could help the mother pay all medical bills she accumulates during her pregnancy but once a baby is born, she is on her own paying for child care. That is where the real problem lies when she gets an abortion for financial reasons.

 

[GodLovesCats]

They are however the only people who have laws made about who has access/control of their own body.

Not exactly. A fetus is a separate body.

 

[grasping the after wind]

First, Could someone explain to me how not having the state provide free health care is equivalent to denying health care? Some here have suggested that is the case.

Second, why is it the government's business to assure that a mother and child are healthy? Isn't that the mother's and father's responsibility?

Third, didn't Obamacare require that birth control be provided to women free of charge? Am I misremembering that or is that correct?

 

[GodLovesCats]

First, Could someone explain to me how not having the state provide free health care is equivalent to denying health care? Some here have suggested that is the case

The problem is people can't afford to buy their own health insurance and depend on the state to get it. So if the state (in this case Alabama) refuses to pay single, unemployed or underemployed women for health care, they are stuck. Abortion can only be paid for by private insurance, thanks to Republicans refusing to include it in the ACA.

Second, why is it the government's business to assure that a mother and child are healthy? Isn't that the mother's and father's responsibility

You might want to research the FDA, NIH, CDC, and USDA. Parents are responsible for their own kids, but it starts with the government's federal health care recommendations and research.

Third, didn't Obamacare require that birth control be provided to women free of charge? Am I misremembering that or is that correct?

That is correct, but it does not include drugs which are prescribed for abortion or Plan B.

 

[WherevertheWindblows]

Health care funding could help the mother pay all medical bills she accumulates during her pregnancy but once a baby is born, she is on her own paying for child care. That is where the real problem lies when she gets an abortion for financial reasons.

The title equates the health care spoken of in it with the banning of abortion itself.
What I don't get is the decrying of anyones reproductive rights as if these are being infringed upon. Outside of rape (where there is an unwilling participant in the reproductive act which carries with it the possibility of an unwanted conception/ child conceived through an act of force). So unless they mean something else by a reproductive right, I don't see any choice or rights being denied to reproduce (or not to). Which would include the option (or right, or choice) to have sexual relations (even if they decide to do so outside of wedlock). Even the option for condoms (to help reduce the chances of reproducing a life) along with other forms of birth control (even surgical options for either men or women) which is more expensive (agreed) but there is even the option (if you never took any of those options or they failed you as they could) to give up ones unwanted children to other couples (who might not be able to have their own but desperately want a child). Sometimes I think, maybe some folks cannot have children (even when they desire them) so that they can adopt the children no one else wants and provide a good loving home to them.

Another thing, how are all these women on their own (as is mentioned above) when it took a man to get them all pregnant? (I wasn't really expecting an answer to the obvious). Why should the child pay with his/her life the way they are forced to ? Why wouldn't something like another type of deadbeat dad bill be enforced on the men (a garnishing of their wages) to get them to pay for their part in the conception of the child? Why should the child's life be destroyed in the way they destroy them while the rest of the nation is being made to fund the child's destruction?

Then as we watch the termination of the life in its beginnings (the taking of an inch of life) has expanded into taking more life in the mile stretch. It begins justifying the termination of life beyond unborn, then stands before the woman ready to devour her born and will most likely continue.

You know, even God sets before us life and death (a choice) and says, chose life. That choice exist for all of us anyway, there are just consequences for the wrong choice. Even when taking others lives (no matter how small and seemingly insignificant). I just do not agree with taking innocent lives, and so you cannot find any agreement with those who would chose to do so, its just that other people who do not agree with it shouldn't be forced to fund the destruction of another's offspring. If thats even called being hateful I don't even know what to say to that when I have heard it.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The deadbeat dad can't always be found. Do you know if a possible dad is willing to take a paternity test? Can he even be tracked down? It is not always possible to identify a child's biological father.

 

[tulc]

wrong thread so instead here's a rabbit with a pancake on it's head instead:

tulc(definitely needs more coffee)

 

[WherevertheWindblows]

The deadbeat dad can't always be found. Do you know if a possible dad is willing to take a paternity test? Can he even be tracked down? It is not always possible to identify a child's biological father.

I do agree not everything is 100% all options being on the table finding people with all of this technology has grown easier, making it much more difficult for people to hide, in cases of these children and the times we live in the typical guy who "knocks up" a woman is likely not too skilled in falling off the face of the earth (or grid) to avoid the radar.

But its just like folks who might use the 1% of all pregnancies which could threaten a womans life (due to some unknown medical condition that was discovered) to justify the nation funding this billion dollar abortion machine. Oftentimes the rarest of cases are often used to justify it. I think everyone would agree nothing is 100% but could likely come very close to it when all the options on the table are utilized to go the extra mile in saving and/or providing for this child's life.

I would think that since (in such a case) that the man cannot be found the conception of that child was unwanted (by both) and so adoption could be the alternative used here. Or not, if the woman decides to keep her child. She could be very lucky to have a close knit family who can help her provide a way for her to raise her child with their help and support. This is also a choice (one that allows for life).

The title of the thread speaks of the banning of "nearly all" abortions so not sure which abortions are allowed, I have to look.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The title of the thread speaks of the banning of "nearly all" abortions so not sure which abortions are allowed, I have to look.

The exceptions are ectopic pregnancies and when the mother's health is at risk.

 

[WherevertheWindblows]

The exceptions are ectopic pregnancies and when the mother's health is at risk.

Thank you, the CDC shows that there are 700 pregnancy related deaths per year in the U.S. But if only 4 to 10 percent of those deaths are ectopic related thats a very low number. For example, if we took the higher percentage of the two (taking the 10%) of these 700 pregnancy related deaths per year that would be (being at the higher end of those percentages) just 70 women a year who die in that particular exception. So it basically allows for 70 abortions according to those statistics. That is really a low figure considering the U.S has more then 320 million people. Are there even legitimate mortality rate charts that list a number of deaths in anything that are this few in number?

 

[Fantine]

It's so easy to pass laws like these if you never intend to use one dime of government funds to help those babies who will need help. Pro-lifers in Alabama: you need to be more demanding. Don't let your legislators throw these babies off the cliff...

 

[GodLovesCats]

It's so easy to pass laws like these if you never intend to use one dime of government funds to help those babies who will need help. Pro-lifers in Alabama: you need to be more demanding. Don't let your legislators throw these babies off the cliff...

Or their mothers.