Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What does the Constitution have to do with any of this?

Manchu wrote:What does the Constitution have to do with any of this?

Its a federal law. It shouldn't be spent in the first place. It should be a state expenditure.

*shrugs*

But while we're talking about ideological interpretations: Having one large central government instead of fifty large central governments is still supporting smaller government.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Which is amusing for you to say, considering repugs couldn't care less about the constitution unless it suits their needs just like every other political party.

Please don't insult me by calling me a Republican.

And where did I do that? Oh wait, never? Good, I'm glad your misunderstanding is settled.

Dial back the hostility please! Thanks! ~Manchu

Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.

Agreed and there are enough doctors out there who will do Pro-Bono work for Rape Victims who cannot afford a abortion, also costs of the abortion can be recovered by the victim in a civil court.

Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.

Now, please don't take this the wrong way... I'm simply disagreeing with your logic here...

The average cost to raise a child to 18 is about $200k (think of how much social security this drains over the life of a child, assuming the child is put into govt sponsored child care)

The average cost of an abortion is about $500-$1000....

Now... if you're going to argue from a "why the hell am I paying for this" point of view... You should consider the differences in cost.

"why the hell am I paying for it" would make a great sound byte... but really it doesn't help the issue at all.

I want to be clear about this... PERSONALLY. I don't think cost should be discussed at all as it devalues human life. This is a much deeper issue then "why the hell am I paying for it"...

If a person can raise a child with out issue or harm to the child it should be raised. No one gives you the right to end someone else's life...

Manchu wrote:*shrugs*

But while we're talking about ideological interpretations: Having one large central government instead of fifty large central governments is still supporting smaller government.

Likes at the USSR ... er no it doesn't...at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.

Now, please don't take this the wrong way... I'm simply disagreeing with your logic here...

The average cost to raise a child to 18 is about $200k (think of how much social security this drains over the life of a child, assuming the child is put into govt sponsored child care)

The average cost of an abortion is about $500-$1000....

Now... if you're going to argue from a "why the hell am I paying for this" point of view... You should consider the differences in cost.

"why the hell am I paying for it" would make a great sound byte... but really it doesn't help the issue at all.

I want to be clear about this... PERSONALLY. I don't think cost should be discussed at all as it devalues human life. This is a much deeper issue then "why the hell am I paying for it"...

If a person can raise a child with out issue or harm to the child it should be raised. No one gives you the right to end someone else's life...

false dichotomy I am not paying for the kid. If I am, iot shouldn't be a federal issue.

So Frazz is the issue that you're paying for abortions period or that you're paying for ones that occur outside of the Lonestar State?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Which is amusing for you to say, considering repugs couldn't care less about the constitution unless it suits their needs just like every other political party.

Please don't insult me by calling me a Republican.

And where did I do that? Oh wait, never? Good, I'm glad your misunderstanding is settled.

Dial back the hostility please! Thanks! ~Manchu

bs:

Which is amusing for you to say, considering repugs couldn't care less about the constitution unless it suits their needs just like every other political party.

You inferred I was a 'repug' (I am assuming thats a term for Republican). I am not. remainder deleted by frazzled at moderator request.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:So Frazz is the issue that you're paying for abortions period or that you're paying for ones that occur outside of the Lonestar State?

My issue is only that its federal. If this is a state decision - aka lonestar state as you note-then my issue falls away.

Frazzled wrote:

Billinator wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
This issue is so emotionally charged that there's no way it will be discussed reasonably. Abortions aren't going anywhere, people. Let's all calm down whether you think that's good or bad. Dubyuh was president for 8 years with the "rubber stamp" congress and Roe V. Wade is still alive and kicking.

And speaking of rape, how about that latest GW price increase? Am I right fellows? Am I right?

Darn it, Raines... I'm trying to build up some rage here... Don't ruin it!


---


But seriously, how can a country call itself United, and yet, care so less?
- Saying "well, it ain't my problem" or "i don't wanna pay for this s**t" is just, well... It escapes my undestanding, that you're even capable of thinking like that.

Well.. Maybe it's just our free health care that screws my mind.

Its called the US Constitution.

That wasn't really my point. My point is, that it simply slips my understanding how anyone can care so less for other people. All i'm getting from what you've said so far, it that it doesn't/shouldn't concern you.
- There's an old saying that goes "it concerns you, when your neightbours house is on fire.".

Dispite Melissa's sarcastic way of expressing herself, i can only concur.

Frazzled wrote:My issue is only that its federal. If this is a state decision - aka lonestar state as you note-then my issue falls away.

On this particular aspect of the health care mess, I am in 100% agreement. (With Frazz, not with the sentiments expressed in the OP article.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Billinator wrote:That wasn't really my point. My point is, that it simply slips my understanding how anyone can care so less for other people. All i'm getting from what you've said so far, it that it doesn't/shouldn't concern you.

Frazzled's point isn't that people shouldn't be concerned with one another; rather, the competent level of authority is the state rather than the federal government. The general principle is known as subsidiarity but, in the language of the Constitution, we Americans call it federalism.

Billinator wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Billinator wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
This issue is so emotionally charged that there's no way it will be discussed reasonably. Abortions aren't going anywhere, people. Let's all calm down whether you think that's good or bad. Dubyuh was president for 8 years with the "rubber stamp" congress and Roe V. Wade is still alive and kicking.

And speaking of rape, how about that latest GW price increase? Am I right fellows? Am I right?

Darn it, Raines... I'm trying to build up some rage here... Don't ruin it!


---


But seriously, how can a country call itself United, and yet, care so less?
- Saying "well, it ain't my problem" or "i don't wanna pay for this s**t" is just, well... It escapes my undestanding, that you're even capable of thinking like that.

Well.. Maybe it's just our free health care that screws my mind.

Its called the US Constitution.

That wasn't really my point. My point is, that it simply slips my understanding how anyone can care so less for other people. All i'm getting from what you've said so far, it that it doesn't/shouldn't concern you.
- There's an old saying that goes "it concerns you, when your neightbours house is on fire.".

Dispite Melissa's sarcastic way of expressing herself, i can only concur.

Why are you assuming people "care less?" Are you assuming I "care less?" That would be wrong.
Indeed those who care about abortion view each of those abortions as murder. In their eyes you're a genocidal savage for even suggesting abortions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled's point isn't that people shouldn't be concerned with one another; rather, the competent level of authority is the state rather than the federal government. The general principle is known as subsidiarity but, in the language of the Constitution, we Americans call it federalism.

Manchu use big words more gooder!

Insisting that all budgetary debate be reduced to either having sympathy for the vulnerable or having contempt for them is exactly why (1) we're in such a fiscal mess and (2) we can't seem to do anything about getting out of it.

@Manchu
No?

Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.

I'm not trying to argue whether or not it shouldn't be a federal matter. I'm simply stating that the above quotation creeped me out.

I don't get it. He said it shouldn't be a federal issue? How is that creepy/imply he doesn't care about others?

Billinator wrote:@Manchu
No?

Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.

I'm not trying to argue whether or not it shouldn't be a federal matter. I'm simply stating that the above quotation creeped me out.

Why? Lets take the federal part out for argument sake only. Reminder this is argument sake only and not my position. I'm keeping my personal position out of this as its not relevant.

Why the hell should I pay for the murder of children? That seems Hitleresque.

Are you saying that abortion == murder?

Frazzled wrote:

Why? Lets take the federal part out for argument sake only. Reminder this is argument sake only and not my position. I'm keeping my personal position out of this as its not relevant.

Why the hell should I pay for the murder of children? That seems Hitleresque.

Hilarious!


Or, if we wanted the survey to go differently.

Why should Frazzled pay towards the medical support of a teenage girl who's been subjected to rape and psychological terror?

All about those naughty leading words...

(Personally, telling a girl who's been subjected to that ordeal that she must now carry the seed of the creature that did that to her to term and even perhaps raise it is a horrific idea and would almost certainly see the suicide rate and rate of accidental deaths caused by young women overdosing to cause DIY abortions rise steeply. The State has no business telling her she has no choice.)

Kilkrazy wrote:Are you saying that abortion == murder?

What's with the double equal sign?

/ignorance

Anyway, abortion being murder is a pretty commonly held belief.

Wait, I thought we were talking about what level of government should make decisions about funding abortions not whether it should be legal or not/is murder or not/etc.

Kilkrazy wrote:Are you saying that abortion == murder?

I am saying for purposes of this line of argument that, the reason government historically is steered away from making payments for abortions is that there is a fundamentally large portion of the population that views abortion = murder, and that they shouldn't have to pay for what they view as ethically and morally a capital crime.

Frazzled wrote:

Billinator wrote:@Manchu
No?

Frazzled wrote:Its designed to avoid limit govenrment payment for abortions. Abortions can still be had. Why the hell I am paying for it in the first place? This is not a federal issue.

I'm not trying to argue whether or not it shouldn't be a federal matter. I'm simply stating that the above quotation creeped me out.

Why? Lets take the federal part out for argument sake only. Reminder this is argument sake only and not my position. I'm keeping my personal position out of this as its not relevant.

Why the hell should I pay for the murder of children? That seems Hitleresque.

That's one way to look at it. But if the alternative is, that a child is born into circumstances, that didn't wish for the childs existence in the first place, the child is likely to pay the price... From being born..?

But, well, we live under completely different circumstances, with completely different cultural beliefs. My intention wasn't to frame you as a bad person. And you've made it clear, that there's a misunderstanding at hand. But stating that "why the hell am i paying for it in the first place?" gave the whole a different tone of light on my end - so to speak.

I think it came up organically.

Whether or not someone thinks the government should pay for Abortion is hard to separate from one's personal views on the subject.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Why? Lets take the federal part out for argument sake only. Reminder this is argument sake only and not my position. I'm keeping my personal position out of this as its not relevant.

Why the hell should I pay for the murder of children? That seems Hitleresque.

Hilarious!


Or, if we wanted the survey to go differently.

Why should Frazzled pay towards the medical support of a teenage girl who's been subjected to rape and psychological terror?

All about those naughty leading words...

(Personally, telling a girl who's been subjected to that ordeal that she must now carry the seed of the creature that did that to her to term and even perhaps raise it is a horrific idea and would almost certainly see the suicide rate and rate of accidental deaths caused by young women overdosing to cause DIY abortions rise steeply. The State has no business telling her she has no choice.)

Never mind. This is why anyone claiming to have a serious reasioned debate in the OT are fools and idiots. Forget it. Frankly forget the OT. Forget Dakka.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Are you saying that abortion == murder?

What's with the double equal sign?

/ignorance

Anyway, abortion being murder is a pretty commonly held belief.

C++ programming.

Monster Rain wrote:I think it came up organically.

Whether or not someone thinks the government should pay for Abortion is hard to separate from one's personal views on the subject.

Sure but the issue at hand (or so I thought) was whether the state or federal government should be responsible for funding it (if at all). So, regardless of whether you think it should be legal -- because it is and we have to deal with that fact no matter how we feel about it -- what is the next step?

- Is abortion legal? Yes, check, no more debate on this matter required, thanks!

- Should government consider fund abortions?

- If so, should this consideration be a matter for the states or for the federal government?

Okay, seriously, tone it down!!
- It's fine to argue, and get into heated debates, but come on! Don't pack-gank a guy with ironic slur.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
C++ programming.

Don't you dare C++'ing your arguments into our brains!

Frazzled wrote:
Why the hell should I pay for the murder of children? That seems Hitleresque.

Indeed. Next thing you know, you'll be paying to illegally invade countries or rounding up persons of a specific faith and putting them in camps and..e.rrmm..oohh .. hang on.

Frazzled wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Why? Lets take the federal part out for argument sake only. Reminder this is argument sake only and not my position. I'm keeping my personal position out of this as its not relevant.

Why the hell should I pay for the murder of children? That seems Hitleresque.

Hilarious!


Or, if we wanted the survey to go differently.

Why should Frazzled pay towards the medical support of a teenage girl who's been subjected to rape and psychological terror?

All about those naughty leading words...

(Personally, telling a girl who's been subjected to that ordeal that she must now carry the seed of the creature that did that to her to term and even perhaps raise it is a horrific idea and would almost certainly see the suicide rate and rate of accidental deaths caused by young women overdosing to cause DIY abortions rise steeply. The State has no business telling her she has no choice.)

Never mind. This is why anyone claiming to have a serious reasioned debate in the OT are fools and idiots. Forget it. Frankly forget the OT. Forget Dakka.

But my point was for argument's sake as well...?

The wording using phrases like murder and Hitler in asking a question are extremely leading. It's like the two surveys I once made for a sociology class, I made them about fox hunting. On the one, I posted a picture of an adorable fox cub and then a picture of a fox being ripped up by dogs and a box for people to indicate if they though fox hunting was a 'barbaric and horrific crime that must be stopped!' and on the other survey, I simply had the question 'do you believe in pest control for vermin?'

It's all in the wording, I'm sorry you reacted so strongly to my post, it was merely illustrating that point.

:p and here i was about to say Frazzled won be over with the idea that it should be a state issue.

But... rape should still not be redefined for the purposes of paying less money to victims