Abortion. #2.

Xsoteria:

^Interesting. So he's arrested because he had sex with his wife.

Well, obviously he didn't have sex with her as her wife as she went into birth on the wedding day.
And she's not the world's youngest mother.
The world's youngest mother is nine. Well, was nine at the time of the birth.

druscilla headline.:

Well, obviously he didn't have sex with her as her wife as she went into birth on the wedding day.

Well yeah but you would think it was obvious before that. It's weird that they waited for him to actually marry her.

Xsoteria:

Well yeah but you would think it was obvious before that. It's weird that they waited for him to actually marry her.

Had she been hiding the pregnancy?
Maybe the authorities didn't know until she went into labor.

druscilla headline.:

Well, obviously he didn't have sex with her as her wife as she went into birth on the wedding day.
And she's not the world's youngest mother.
The world's youngest mother is nine. Well, was nine at the time of the birth.

Lina Medina was allegedly five years old.

elizabeth gaskell:

Lina Medina was allegedly five years old.

That was who I was referring to, actually.
I got the ages confused.
Thanks for correcting me.

I'm pro-choice.
I couldn't really ever see myself doing it, but who am I to say that somebody else shouldn't have that option? It's their possible child, their life, and therefore, their decision to make.

Okay. Definitely goes with abortion discussion, but in a different way. I had this discussion with a girl at work a few years ago.

Do you think American tax dollars should go to fund abortions?

I am extremely pro-choice. But my answers is no. I don't think it's fair to people who are extremely pro-life to have their tax dollars go to fund abortions. Abortion clinics that only perform late term abortions are the exception in my opinion, because those can only legally be performed to save the mother's life.

I don't think that places who offer other services along with abortion (Planned Parenthood, for example) should stop receiving government funding, but I don't think it should be used to help fund abortions.

Donors and private organizations should help fund it, in my opinion.

Thoughts?

scream druscilla.:

Okay. Definitely goes with abortion discussion, but in a different way. I had this discussion with a girl at work a few years ago.

Do you think American tax dollars should go to fund abortions?

I am extremely pro-choice. But my answers is no. I don't think it's fair to people who are extremely pro-life to have their tax dollars go to fund abortions. Abortion clinics that only perform late term abortions are the exception in my opinion, because those can only legally be performed to save the mother's life.

I don't think that places who offer other services along with abortion (Planned Parenthood, for example) should stop receiving government funding, but I don't think it should be used to help fund abortions.

Donors and private organizations should help fund it, in my opinion.

Thoughts?

No, I don't think the citizens should have to pay for them. Abortion is controversial, and not everyone is going to have the same opinion. You can't force someone to pay taxes they're voiced against.

It's kind of like gay marriage and the church. If the government is going to legalize gay marriage, then they can't force churches to marry gay couples. It's just the way the church is.

I'm pro-choice myself, but no, I don't think citizens should have to pay for abortions.

scream druscilla.:

Do you think American tax dollars should go to fund abortions?

Nope. I'm extremely pro-choice. But like you guys said already, I don't think forcing a pro-lifer to fund abortions is right. People have their own opinion. We shouldn't force them to fund what they're against. That's the way I see it. I mean, I wouldn't like to pay for something that I'm totally against and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either.

Where do you draw the line though? There are other medical procedures that people are against that the government does pay for.

Blood transfusions for example.

I do believe that having abortions paid by the taxpayer is a good thing - they're free under the NHS.

If taxpayers don't like it them too bad. I'm funding an unwinnable war that I think is wrong but I have little sway in what happens. Even the Queen has practically no say.

^
I think maybe it's because of the reason that it's the mother choice, and unless it's going to kill her, then there's always the option to keep the baby. Granted that I think abortion should be legal, that choice is still open.

While I'd like to have taxpayers willing to fund abortions, I just couldn't see myself voting for that. I respect pro-lifers opinion, though I do disagree, but I'm not going to make them pay for it.

Maybe if we did it randomly, so they didn't know if they were paying for abortions or not. That way they wouldn't intentionally be funding abortions or know they are paying for them, so they'd have no reason not pay there taxes.

Kurtni:

Where do you draw the line though? There are other medical procedures that people are against that the government does pay for.

Hmm, that's true.

^
But the nation isn't to obviously split nearly in half on the subject.
It's not nearly 50/50 on blood transfusions...

Are adoption services government funded or aided?

druscilla dorian.:

^
But the nation isn't to obviously split nearly in half on the subject.
It's not nearly 50/50 on blood transfusions...

I would say that abortion is not a fifty fifty split.

The Doctor.:

I would say that abortion is not a fifty fifty split.

I said nearly.
Sources indicate that slightly more people are pro-choice than pro-life, but it's still a very close debate.
Not such a close debate on blood transfusions.

morayah.:

Are adoption services government funded or aided?

In the United States, it depends. Some are, some aren't. All adoptions have to be accepted by the government and authorized, but there are private companies that can orchestrate them.

Kurtni:

In the United States, it depends. Some are, some aren't. All adoptions have to be accepted by the government and authorized, but there are private companies that can orchestrate them.

And the private companies are actual companies, not not for profit organisations?

morayah.:

And the private companies are actual companies, not not for profit organisations?

There is a mix of both, but there are definitely some companies that make profits. This is especially true of couples who want to adopt a new born as soon as it's born, a lot of times they go through private companies to arrange something like that or a lawyer who specialized in adoptions.

http://costs.adoption.com/articles/the-costs-of-adopting-a-factsheet-for-families.html
That's a good site that addresses the costs of adoption. That's something I don't think a lot of pro-life people don't realize when they argue that adoption is the alternative to abortion; it can be incredibly expensive.