Pro Choice MyLotters...

@ParaTed2k (22980)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
September 13, 2009 7:16am CST
What do you think about Prs. Obama stating that abortion won't be covered by the "public option" if enacted?
3 people like this
16 responses
• United States
14 Sep 09
I think its totally fine. I'm pro-choice but no I have no problem that it won't be covered by the public option. Thankfully, there are many resources and options out there for women right now already, in my opinion, and having it under the public option will not only cause more ridicule on it, it will definitely increase the number of abortions which would be horrible. The one thing that I would like to see under the public option is the Morning After Pill, not the abortion pill, the morning after pill is just a high dose of birth control so it prevents conception, its quite expensive to get at the pharmacy, long and stressful process to get from Planned Parenthood, so I would like to see that under it though, because that will reduce the number of abortions. And before someone attacks me and calls me names, I just know about the morning after pill process and how expensive it is through research and friends.
5 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Sep 09
I have to admit, I'm surprised that so many pro choicers are against public funding for them.
4 people like this
@spalladino (17922)
• United States
14 Sep 09
I don't believe that abortions should be publicly funded so I have no problem with this. While abortions should remain legal they are, after all, elective procedures in the majority of cases.
@JodiLynn (1417)
• United States
13 Sep 09
I'd rather pay for an abortion ONCE than pay for 22 years of the unwanted kids life on welfare/juvi hall/foster care (graduate classes in prison). Guess that makes it pretty clear where I stand.
3 people like this
@JodiLynn (1417)
• United States
13 Sep 09
also I forgot to say that 9 months of prenatal care is paid for with medicaid, which is as ELECTIVE as an abortion.
3 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Sep 09
So what's the difference between you and a eugenist or even Susan Smith? She killed he kids to save them from a world of pain.
2 people like this
• United States
14 Sep 09
Susan Smith killed her kids because her "lover" didn't want them, she killed them because they were getting in her way.
5 people like this
• United States
13 Sep 09
I say GOOD. If people want abortions they can pay for it themselves. Why should folks who feel abortion is immoral have to pay for someone to get one? Yes, I am pro-choice saying this. You also have the right to CHOOSE not to pay for somebody's abortion. (But you know the government ALREADY pays for them through medicaid - they won't cover anything that keeps you from getting pregnant, but they'll pay for your abortion).
3 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Sep 09
It's surprising to see how many pro choicers feel that way.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Sep 09
Why should the Republican Party start accepting the biggest holocaust of our society simply for political expediency. If you ask me, the reason I no longer consider myself a Republican is it has sold its soul to "inclusiveness". I do agree that most of us aren't on the extremes though.
1 person likes this
• United States
15 Sep 09
They can do whatever they want, but if they want my support they will pay a little more attention to the economy and our national security rather than trying to change the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage. I'm not what you would call "strongly" pro-choice, it isn't the top issue for me, if a candidate represents positions I agree with on other issues that mean a lot to me then I will vote for them regardless of their position on the abortion issue (so long as it isn't some nut like the czars who advocate FORCED abortion, because I am violently against that). I DO NOT want to live through another September 11, 2001 and I fear that is where we are headed or WORSE due to the idiots running things right now. THAT is what is MOST important to me - along with giving our troops the proper support to do the job they were sent to do or letting them get the hell out of there. I see stories where our soldiers aren't even provided with proper body armor, that they have to have their families scrape and save and buy them to send! That ain't right. I see no point in fighting in wars if the intention isn't to fight to WIN and you can't do that if you don't give the troops what they need to be successful. The idiots in power have just decided to tie the hands of NYC's top notch terrorism task force which has kept our rails free for many planned attacks on our transit system. I find that pretty stupid considering we are STILL a target. I'm sorry if it is offensive to some, but THOSE issues are more important to me than Roe v Wade. I have kids and they have to grow up in this country, I want them to be safe from jihadists and free from communist control. Those issues are more important to me than whether or not someone can get an abortion. Is it selfish? Hell yes, but I think we all try to look after our own interests, my interest is in keeping the kids I have safe from harm and not having to see any more of my friends and family members slaughtered or forced to live with the loss of the people they love the most do to jihadist scumbags. My interest is also in being able to feed my existing children which makes the economy an important issue for me. I'd also rather NOT see them saddled with trillions of dollars in debt too. Those things take precedence for me over where the candidate stands on the abortion issue. If that makes me a bad person. so be it.
1 person likes this
@maximax8 (30099)
• United Kingdom
14 Sep 09
I am pro-life and I wouldn't ever have an abortion. I can't see why tax payers money should go to pay for some ladies abortions. I wish that abortions were so very expensive that far less ladies decided to have one. I think few ladies would it the cost was $25,000.
2 people like this
@JodiLynn (1417)
• United States
14 Sep 09
They would do it themselves, whether with herbs (parsley is best), or with coat hangers, or falling down long flights of steps. women will continue to abort when necessary.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Sep 09
They kill fetuses because they don't consider fetuses "really human" anyway. The same justification that allowed for legalized slavery.
1 person likes this
@JodiLynn (1417)
• United States
15 Sep 09
no, I think it's about self preservation in most cases, not convenience.
1 person likes this
• United States
14 Sep 09
I don't think abortion should be covered. As a matter of fact, I think it's morally repugnant to expect people of conscience to pay through their taxes for anything that they feel is contrary to God's laws.
2 people like this
@JodiLynn (1417)
• United States
14 Sep 09
war is repugnant,to people of conscience, but we are forced to finance it. whats the difference?
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Sep 09
Yeah, we really don't get to decide what our tax money is used for, regardless of what we feel is repugnant.
1 person likes this
@JodiLynn (1417)
• United States
15 Sep 09
exactly! One wonders if all of our "bills" would be paid as a nation if we could select what goes where on our tax filings?????
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Sep 09
I think that anything that drives a woman into using risky alternatives to seek abortion is counterproductive. There is no question that a great many women will continue to seek abortions. The only question is weather they will pursue safe means or unsafe ones. Especially during the first trimester and in cases of a woman's health, the choice for abortion ought to be available through insurance programs of all types.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Sep 09
Yes, when killing their babies, women should know that they are in no danger at all.
2 people like this
• United States
14 Sep 09
Ah, yes, just the type of rhetoric that keeps the conversation civil. Whatever happened to disagreeing without being disagreeable? Congratulations for lowering the bar yet again.
2 people like this
• United States
13 Sep 09
I think the government will just find a way around the abortion prohibition. If a government doctor declares that the abortion is necessary to protect the mother's life then it will be done with taxpayer's money. I fear that government doctors will be pressured to declare almost all abortions to be medically necessary.
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
13 Sep 09
Or abortion extremists like Tiller will lie and make up excuses to commit late term abortions while paying their own employees to verify the reason.
2 people like this
@Maggiepie (7816)
• United States
14 Sep 09
[b]Oh there's no pressure...none at all! Whatever was that poster thinking? How silly! No...everything is coming up roses. All is peachy keen, & no-one is twisting anyone's arm. Haven't you heard...Obama is a uniter? Just go baaaack to sleeep.... There's a tame little sheep.... Maggiepie "WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?"[/b]
2 people like this
@anniepa (27280)
• United States
13 Sep 09
Even before the subject came up I pretty much figured it wouldn't be and I'm fine with it, as long as there are exception for when a woman's life or health are seriously at stake. I'm pro-choice - as at least one other poster said, as opposed to "pro-abortion" - but I'm certainly aware there are many, many Americans who are very passionately against abortion and I DO respect that. I feel if a private insurance company chooses to offer coverage that should be up to them and anyone who disagrees is certainly free to take their business elsewhere, right? I definitely believe birth control should be covered by all plans, public or private. It simply makes no sense NOT to cover it! Wouldn't an insurance company save tons of money in the long run by paying for birth control pills, patches, shots or devices and not having as many claims for prenatal care and child birth? Annie
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Sep 09
Scary, but as long as abortion on demand is still legal.. I agree with what you said here.
3 people like this
@patms1 (522)
• United States
14 Sep 09
I would not believe him if he told my hair was on fire. Baby murdering is to big a business in this country to let go. What he probably means is that it will not be in public option but will be snuck in someplace else. The same way he said illegals will not be taken care of.
2 people like this
@andy77e (5161)
• United States
14 Sep 09
Um... good? Should tax money fund something that isn't even an illness?
2 people like this
@Maggiepie (7816)
• United States
14 Sep 09
[b]Need you even ask? The man lies all the time. That was just another one. You needn't believe me; just wait. You'll see. The guy's a total weasel. He says whatever a crowd wants to hear. The next crowd gets what they want, too, even if it completely contradicts whatever other crowds heard. Maggiepie "WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?"[/b]
@Koriana (302)
• United States
13 Sep 09
as long as help those who truly need the help for real medical reasons....it's fine with me.... it would be nice if they would include the various birth control options, including sterilization. it they did, maybe there wouldn't be so many abortions... but, well, doesn't matter what the polywogs are saying about the bill now, they are going to do whatever they want..... their words don't mean much, rather, watch their actions.
2 people like this
@aerous (13461)
• Philippines
15 Sep 09
I think President Obama, option for abortion is a good option. Since I didn't read or heard about the statement of the good President, that's only my views in here... have a nice day!
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Sep 09
But he said that there wouldn't be a paid option for abortion.
@aerous (13461)
• Philippines
15 Sep 09
I think people misinterpret those words, my friend. In my opinion as laws being inclined to those particular arguments. Paid is not an actual kind of payment. Law is very much unclear words unless interpreted by the court...That what my views in that particular words, my friend...don't get it serious as payments for aborting because as far as we know Obama, is really a family man and let that happen...
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Sep 09
One thing we know is, we can't expect Obama to live up to his words.
@ZephyrSun (7382)
• United States
13 Sep 09
I'm cool with it, shyt most insurances (private) won't pay for it.
1 person likes this
@quinnkl (1667)
• United States
21 Sep 09
I am a Pro Choicer and always have been. My stance is that it is NOBODY'S business. It is between the person and their doctor. Not Politicians, Lawyers, Cops, Priests, etc etc etc. Having said that, I don't think it is something that insurance should be required to pay for. Especially public insurance. I don't want people who don't exercise birth control options to use abortion AS a birth control option - and can see that happening if it is covered under public option health insurance. I am FOR public option insurance, by the way - if it isn't there, then the people who NEED it and CAN'T afford it with still go without... BUT I agree with the President (if he really said this - I haven't checked it out), that abortion shouldn't be required to be covered by this. Not for or against abortion issue, just a common sense issue in my opinion.
@ParaTed2k (22980)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
21 Sep 09
More and more I'm learnign that his is a common attitude among pro choice.