Stupak amendment won't cover miscarriagesFollow

I think we're missing the main point here.

Bumperstickers make ThiefX sad. :(

What a silly and womanly thing of you to say. Don't you realize that a baby born into terrible or even unwanted circumstances, one who is sure to be raised in impoverished conditions, one who is sure to be a drain on a couple, or even single mother, one who is likely to have little educational opportunity itself, and one who may even likely perpetuate a cycle of unplanned pregnancy at some point, should always, always be carried to term (except for that fatal birth thing of course! we aren't evil) not out of any compassion for the baby or the mother themselves, but to punish the ******* ***** for her irresponsible sex actions?

Really, that's what its about right? Making people take responsibility for their actions. You're the one who got pregnant! Now reap the consequences! As if a baby was a means of proving a goddamn point... as if a baby was a "consequence," a means of sending a message to women about sex, and not a potential end in itself.

Pro-life, my ***. Pro-vindication is more like it.

Ok, Pensive signed up for one. Anyone else?

I've always felt this was the reason many people are pro-life. What I find ironic is... wouldn't getting an abortion BE taking responsibility? I mean, if you know you'd be a bad parent or are unfit to raise a child, not having one seems to be the most responsible action...

There's these things called condoms. They're pretty easy to use.

Edited, Nov 10th 2009 1:52pm by zepoodle

For what it's worth, you did pretty good there, Pensive.

You know the fetus was already dead right?

Wouldn't this be a woman expecting her insurance to take care of her? Whether it is from the government or not, it's still insurance. And what about your rights as a guy... near as I can tell you're upset women can get abortions and you can't, thus they shouldn't be insured since you can't get the equivalent "problem" (ie, preggers)?



... that premise being that insurance is expensive because it involves saving lives? I guess that makes sense. How exactly is a miscarriage that could kill the mother taking responsibility?

Also, a question Varus. Would you agree with Pensive's (sarcastic) comment that women should be forced to have a baby if they get pregnant as a punishment? You certainly don't have the best interest of the women in mind, and you certainly don't want to offer help to any child once it is born.

It's not our fault no women want to procreate with you, Man-Seeking-Man.

Is the lady from the article a *****? Interesting take on it.




Well sure. One is you agreeing you don't care about children, the other is punishing a woman for being sexual. However, there isn't evidence to support your notion that outlawing abortion will make fewer women get pregnant. In fact, usually such a move comes with a reduction in appropriate sexual education, leading to more pregnancies. More pregnancies lead to unsafe abortions, resulting in more complications and more costs for a healthcare system.

There are definitely arguments against abortion, but you're defending your view on it not by justifying an unborn child's best interest, but by saying it is to punish a sexual woman. I don't think that's a good argument, but pretty par for the course for you.

Edited, Nov 10th 2009 10:28am by LockeColeMA

If this amendment passes, I want to add my own amendment.

E.D. drugs are no longer covered by government medical plans. Penile implants are no longer covered by government medical plans. Vasectomies and tubal litigation is no longer covered. Treatment for STD's that are not life threatening are no longer covered by any type of government health insurance plan.

It's my tax money, right? I don't want to spend it on these things. And there's no reason I should have to pay extra taxes so that people can live immoral lifestyles.