U.S. Military Must Pay for Abortion

ABC NEWS ^ | June 1 | Associated Press

[screed]

I don't recall making a judgment one way or the other your majesty. Look back a long time ago to a post I've written on the subject and you'll notice that I am of the "let those so inclined to exterminate their own young go right ahead" opinion. But since you know everything about me and my opinion, smart mouth, maybe you can tell me why a decision for the government to pay for an abortion DOES NOT set a precedent. Does correcting the spelling of others make you feel better about yourself? You wouldn't happen to drive a REALLY big truck would you?

[ClaireSolt]

Obviously not about the money. The lawsuit probably cost 1000X what the abortion cost.

[abolitionist]

THE .... BODY .... HAS ..... NO ...... B*R*A*I*N.

If only you were as willing to read as you are to shout. See the link in the post if you have any interest in replying meaningfully. Anencephaly is a condition where part of the brain is missing. In addition, there was NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE submitted in this case that the baby in question did not have a brain, nor does any medical technology currently exist to definitively determine what the child's prognosis will be.

[abolitionist]

Thank you for posting such an insightful and detailed analysis of this terrible and unconstitutional act of judicial excess.

[ppaul]

The baby has no hope and can only endanger the mother.

Says who?

[ppaul]

[EuroFrog]

Unfortunately I think of no child as a lost cause. If I were the woman in this situation I would have had the baby. I would certainly rather carry a child that was "doomed" and have he/she die in a few days, possibly more, than to carry the guilt that I aborted a child I had created out of love. Way I look at it, even if a baby is healthy in utero is no way to say he/she will live more than an hour. If you have never held your own newborn fresh from the womb this might be hard for you to understand.

[TBP]

It has nothing to do with making me feel good. Typical liberal reaction on your part. It has to do with principles. First, you shouldn't make those who object to this pay for it, and second, it's God's child. What rightdo we have to deprive it of even its few days of life here? Perhaps there is a lesson to be taught by its brief time here.

If we are going to decide who may be born, who lives and dies, we are not far from Dick Lamm's "Old people have a duty to die and get out of the way" or the eugenics of Hitler and Planned Parenthood. Who has the right to decide that this child or any other child shall live or not?

If it's a threat to the motehr's life, that's one thing -- self defense, if you will. But I still shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

[bannie]

"I think you are being disingenuous about your real viewpoint in this issue."

I don't believe I stated my opinion on the subject of abortion. Traditionally, I find it abhorent. I believed that this was more of an issue of who would pay. I also see that the Reg. states that abnormalities of the child are not grounds for a financed abortion. I believe that when we see a rule/law in which we do not agree, we are free to disagree with the same.

Regarding my viewpoint on THIS abortion: I am just happy that I never had to make their decision. I believe that one can not truly know what they would do until the tragedy becomes theirs.

I guess that, in this discussion, I am coming to see that I am not totally against all abortion. I don't know what I would do here, but I am seeing that I would like the option--in such a case as this.

I might just cherish the time, and love him/her all the more. I might not.

I believe that my arguement throughout this thread was directed by another aspect: The rights of soldier's dependents to medical care without a "big brother" interference. Since this family had a tramatic event upon which to make a terrible decision, I don't believe that they should have to do battle against a bureaucracy.

These people are not welfare recipients, and I am afraid that people often view them as such. I believe that they deserve the BEST medical care. For them, it is NOT free.

[Lord Z]

You display too much compassion for the defenseless, Z. Don't you know this blob of tissue has no worth?

So people keep telling me...but I place this strange value on my own soul, which in turn demands compassion for tiny, innocent humans. Call it a character quirk!

[Lord Z]

Good point...if the baby is doomed to die, 'tis no less cruel to kill her before her time, even if that time is short. Let her live as long as she can.

[jimkress]

a woman needs to carry a DEAD BABY

Nice try. Your statement is a complete fabrication. Anencephalic babies are alive in the womb. They do not die until delivery - if they die at all.

or one with NO chance of survival.

Another obvious fabrication. The examples posted previously show that anencephalic babies can survive.

In addition, from your statements it appears that you support the concept that all people with "no chance of survival" should be killed. So, according to your logic, if someone is diagnosed with terminal cancer, they should be killed. According to you, if people are old and infirm and are diagnosed with "no chance of survival" they should be killed.

Ultimately, we all have no chance of survival - death is inescapable. According to you, since we all have no chance of survival, we should all be killed.

Sick.

[jimkress]

If I delete the personal attacks and emotional outbursts made in your post, there is nothing left to answer.

Too bad you beleive that emotions trump logic. They don't.

Have a nice day.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Easy for you to make these kind of decisions when you have no womb.

Don't be too flattered by the silence to the bombastic hypotheticals you pose. Sadly, the discriminatory debate qualifications you set render your comments unworthy of response.

[Lord Z]

Easier to have compassion for the "tiny humans" than the ones who are living right now. Why choose? Compassion for both. It doesn't have to be a "one loses, now who?" scenario.

And yes, the baby may die on its own. The point is, that fact does not excuse murdering it.

[Lord Z]

Easy for you to make these kind of decisions when you have no womb.

The baby has a father and a mother, so your sexism is stupid...in 1853, would you chastise abolitionists by saying, "Easy for you to make these kind of decisions when you have no plantation?"

Clearly, there is no point in maintaining a mortal risk to the mother. Where such exists, truly, not one of these "emotional health" claims but a truly mortal risk, it is reasonable to induce delivery and care for the infant post-natally.