Justify women without health insurance staying pregnant

[SPF]

My whole point was the government needs to help reduce the number of abortions because I don't want a single fetus to die for financial reasons. That should have been obvious to everyone else.

I can’t help but wonder what a better country this would be if people didn’t shift the burden of helping people into the government and actually took responsibility to help people themselves. Are you doing anything, or do you just want the government to do everything?

 

[GodLovesCats]

SPF, I have repeated many times the government needs to help people who can't help themselves and an individual's ability to take responsibility is sometimes very limited. If you think everyone is able to just be responsible for everything, you are betraying millions of women and children.

 

[SPF]

SPF, I have repeated many times the government needs to help people who can't help themselves and an individual's ability to take responsibility is sometimes very limited. If you think everyone is able to just be responsible for everything, you are betraying millions of women and children.

My point was that it’s not the responsibility of the government to pay for all your healthcare and needs, it’s just not. Maybe you should actually do something to help other people if this matters to you.

And your overall premise and what the OP is saying is that financial hardships is a justifiable reason to have an abortion. And that’s just not true. You can’t defend that position.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I did not say ALL of your health care. Never did. If you still don't understand it by now, you never will.

I vote for Democrats because they understand the problems people have with their lives and try to solve them.

 

[SPF]

I did not say ALL of your health care. Never did. If you still don't understand it by now, you never will.

I vote for Democrats because they understand the problems people have with their lives and try to solve them.

And if you still don’t understand after the dozens of responses that financial reasons are absolutely NEVER an acceptable reason to abort an innocent unborn child, then you never will.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I don't like it any more than you do SPF. It is just a sad reality in politics.

 

[SPF]

I don't like it any more than you do SPF. It is just a sad reality in politics.

Im not talking about politics. I’m talking about your horrible opening post that suggests financial hardships are a morally permissible reason to kill another human being.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The only reason for my question was politics.

 

[SPF]

The only reason for my question was politics.

Well perhaps as a Christian, you should consider thinking less politically, and more morally, like your Heavenly Father.

Abortion is the killing of God’s most innocent and defenseless children. You should always be against it. To suggest that abortion could ever be acceptable because of financial reasons is about as unchristian as you can get.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Politics and morals often go together. It is immoral to treat pregnant women like they are not as valuable as the babies they are carrying. When a woman is pregnant and in need, she needs dignity and respect. I would never just tell her, "Sorry, you have to suffer nine months because you did not use contraception." That is what you are saying when you claim they just need to be responsible for everything and there are no reasons for the government to step in.

 

[SPF]

Politics and morals often go together. It is immoral to treat pregnant women like they are not as valuable as the babies they are carrying. When a woman is pregnant and in need, she needs dignity and respect. I would never just tell her, "Sorry, you have to suffer nine months because you did not use contraception." That is what you are saying when you claim they just need to be responsible for everything and there are no reasons for the government to step in.

Again, nobody is suggesting that we kill the mother, yet you are suggesting that due to financial hardships that literally and intentionally killing an innocent person is acceptable.

You’re the one who isn’t treating the two on equal moral grounds. You’re the one suggesting that killing someone might be an acceptable decision.

 

[GodLovesCats]

More like an understandable decision, not really acceptable.

 

[Nige55]

My whole point was the government needs to help reduce the number of abortions

Not sure my message sank in previously, - financial aid is no guarantee to reduce numbers of abortions, as I said before people in the UK have either option, and yet still opt for abortions, in vast numbers. It's not important if the 2 systems are different, we're discussing the same outcome (aid to birth and support a child).
If you really want the government to help reduce abortions, - support policies that allow the message of the Gospel to be spread and shared rather than curtailed and banned. Allow people to hear the message that every life is sacred, and that we were all formed by God in the womb, that sex before marriage is sinful, and that a man should financially, physically and emotionally support his family and children he has done his part in conceiving. Allow the biblical message of our bodies being temples to God to be shared, in contrast to 'my body my choice'.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The Gospel is irrelevant to countries that Constitutionally ban having a state religion. No legislation in the United States can be based on the Bible. That is an undeniable fact.

 

[Nige55]

The Gospel is irrelevant to countries that Constitutionally ban having a state religion. No legislation in the United States can be based on the Bible. That is an undeniable fact.

"The Gospel is irrelevant to countries that Constitutionally ban having a state religion" - Might as well give up then hey ? When Jesus said - “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation" (Mark 16:15), I guess he meant only countries with a state religion ? (Assuming that's even the Christian faith !).
What a bizarre statement.
We see Christianity fighting through in severely oppressive, war torn extremist countries, in countries with highly oppressive and dangerous communist control over religion (making it illegal in part), and yet people are still coming to faith.
I'll make one vital correction to your post, - the Gospel is irrelevant to NO COUNTRY.
It's relevant to every single country, town, city and village. Everywhere.

I'm fully aware that legislation won't be based on the bible, what I was talking about was fighting for religious freedom ! Opposing those groups and voices who are self appointing their rights to promote whatever new sin they dream up and yet quash our age old freedom to share the ONLY thing that will save anyone, and in the case of abortion - save young lives.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I can’t help but wonder what a better country this would be if people didn’t shift the burden of helping people into the government and actually took responsibility to help people themselves. Are you doing anything, or do you just want the government to do everything?

Hallelujah. Good thing there are plenty of places with governements who take no responsibility and people can help themselves.

Failed state - Wikipedia

 

[SPF]

Hallelujah. Good thing there are plenty of places with governements who take no responsibility and people can help themselves.

Failed state - Wikipedia

Thank you for demonstrating what a false dilemma is. Thank you also for demonstrating what a red herring is. Feel free to chime in next time with something on topic about abortion.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

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.

the entire premise of this post is false. There is free

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.

In my state there are multiple programs where people of modest income can access completely free medical insurance. In addition, there are special programs for just pregnant women where everything is paid for with higher income limits. In fact, there is even a program for moderate to middle class income levels where the cost of all the prenatal care and birth is covered by the state except for an 800$ total copay.

It’s easy to get free health insurance to have a baby if you can read and have access to the internet.

we don’t kill babies for financial reasons in the United States but they definitely do this in places like North Korea and China.

 

[GodLovesCats]

China has a two-child law that used to be only one kid so many women are required to get aborions. Sad.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

God CAN intervene.
Remember Moses? He was supposed to be killed (as an infant)......

God had (and accomplished) other things for and thru him, great things !