[Masthead] Fair ~ 34°F  
High: 48°F ~ Low: 33°F
Saturday, Dec. 20, 2014

Government Funded Abortions--Will You Allow Your Tax Dollars to Be Used to "Terminate Life"?

Posted Thursday, September 3, 2009, at 1:22 AM

Congressman Chris Smith, a senior member of the House of Representatives and long-time opponent of abortion announced during a July press conference "Despite the fact that large majorities of Americans don't want to fund abortion, the Obama-Kennedy-Dingle bill will nevertheless force every taxpayer and every premium payer in the United States to pay for and facilitate every abortion in the country."

Smith bodly added, "Despite President Obama's statement to the pope just last week that he wants to reduce abortion, the ugly truth is that the so-called health care reform bill, if enacted and if not amended, will lead to millions of additional dead children and wounded mothers."

These are strong words spoken with the intent to rally Americans against supporting a bill, which if left unamended and in its current state, will clearly fund mass-abortions.

Regardless of where one stands on abortion [pro-choice vs. pro-life], the greater whole must agree that financial responsibility for legalized abortions should remain with the "aborter(s)." We cannot justly demand that citizens who are morally and ethically opposed to abortion be forced to fund its act.

My own views/beliefs are "pro-life," although I would term myself to be both pro-life and pro-choice*, as I will attempt to illustrate. I am of the opinion that abortion may be justified in cases threatening the life of the pregnant woman, and for medical reasons with defective embryos. Yet, even the last case can be justified only when one is absolutely sure of the defect, and not only because the embryo/fetus has a defective gene. This is where the issue gets "murky."

I also have mixed emotions in cases of rape and/or incest. While I understand the arguments given by "pro-lifers" that the child should be carried to term and then placed for adoption after birth if the mother is emotionally not capable of caring for the child, rather than terminate the pregnancy and end the child's existence. I personally believe that some exception should be made in extreme cases of psychosis where the trauma of carrying the rapist's child to term will "clearly" be damaging to the woman's emotional well-being (such as a fear of the embryo/fetus, or the belief that the fetus is "evil" and was implanted by the rapist to harm her). Again, it gets "murky."

I DO NOT support late-term abortions unless it is medically deemed a matter of "life or death" for the mother and she will not survive otherwise, or in cases where the infant will suffer a fate worse than death by being born (ie., excrutiating pain & suffering with no chance of survival). And again, I make exception only in "extreme" circumstance as outlined above. Thus, I deem myself to be "pro-life" *with exception.

As for cases of social hardship, I do not agree with aborting simply to eliminate a perceived future debt. Society should develop alternative mechanisms for taking care of new born children--there are numerous men/women/couples who are childless and unable to conceive.

Lastly, I am steadfastly OPPOSED to abortion as a means of birth control. A woman's choice becomes a living organism's death sentence. The embryonic heart starts beating 22 days after conception, or about five weeks after the last menstrual period. By the time most women learn they are pregnant, their "child" already has a beating heart. No matter how you spin it, abortion is the termination of life...I refuse to allow my tax dollars to be used to end a life.

SOURCE:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/5102...

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES:

I believe rather than focus so much attention and resources on aborting an unwanted pregnancy, we should spend that same time and money on preventing the unwanted pregnancy in the first place...then abortion becomes a mute point.

If nothing else, I believe society should organize a "contraception awareness & pregnancy prevention" course--much like attending driver's school after receiving a traffic violation--that women would be required to attend after having had at least one abortion. I'm sure this idea will offend and/or upset many of you reading this blog, but you should be aware that 47% of women having an abortion have had at least one previous abortion already...47%. Obiously, they are not "getting it."

Studies further indicated that of the women having abortions, 46% did not use contraception during the month they became pregnant and 8% NEVER used a method of birth control. Clearly, inffective contraceptive methods is a problem.

Here are a few more facts about abortion:

The overall abortion rate [in the U.S. alone] is 21 aborted babies for every 1,000 U.S. women.

Most people have the misconception that abortion rates are higher among unwed teenage females, but statistics indicate that more than half of U.S. women having abortions are in their 20s. Six in ten U.S. women having abortions are already mothers, and more than half intend to have [more] children in the future.

Abortion as a means of birth control is costly, dangerous, and extinguishes the life of a developing human. Something MUST change.

SOURCES:

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/ch...

http://www.contracept.org/abortifacient....


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

Since no one responded to my question about our tax dollars going to fund abortions in Mexico. I Googled it myself.

Here is the first link that came up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City....

By this you can see that this does exist. Our tax dollars are going for the purpose of performing abortions. Already done by executive order.

The democratic platform is and has been pro-abortion so why would anyone think they would not fund it. After all, they now control the government.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Sep 10, 2009, at 3:13 PM

Where do you keep getting that you are paying for them or that you would have to with the reform plan?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 10:26 PM

The reform plan includes a mandate that everyone must have basic health insurance. Low income individuals will be eligible to receive tax credits to help them afford to buy insurance.

It's possible that someone who receives this tax credit could use it to buy private insurance that covers abortion, and this is what they are calling "government funded abortion". I think it is a bit of a stretch to call it that.

Especially when every year many people receive income tax refunds over the amount they paid with the earned income tax credit and spend it any way they wish. What if they used this money to pay for an abortion? Technically speaking, you could call that government funded abortion as well.

Also, 90% of employer-based healthcare plans cover elective abortion. So, if you have one of those plans, your premiums could be used to pay for someone else's abortion. It's no different.

I don't think there is any way to be sure your money isn't used for abortion as long as abortion is a legal medical procedure, and this issue shouldn't stop healthcare reform because it's not about abortion.

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Sep 10, 2009, at 1:43 PM

"I wonder why I spend time on these blogs at all, when I have so much work that needs to be done. Then I realize that maybe, just maybe, one person somewhere will read and decide not to have an abortion and avail themselves one of the greatest blessings that God can bestow. Then it is all worth it."

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Sep 10, 2009, at 12:24 PM

WELL SAID!

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Thu, Sep 10, 2009, at 1:19 PM

No I am not so naive to believe everything ANYBODY says but neither am I so closed minded I try to stop something that does not exist either.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Sep 10, 2009, at 10:36 AM

So your are saying the Mexico City policy funds do not go to pay for abortion?

I did not say ANYBODY I said THEY meaning Obama and company.

__________________________________________________

I did not say the doctor should be able to choose. The doctor should tell the patient about the possibility of loosing their own life while trying to have a problem pregnancy. The patient should choose. Much as you said your choice would be to let your life end, if you so choose.

Doctors do work for cash that is true. They also work under the supply and demand laws. The more popular doctors are, the more expensive. Therefore, if the demand for abortion goes down and the supply of taxpayer dollars goes down, then it should follow that healthcare costs will go down. Isn't that what we really want?

I am not on the fence. I have made my choice and try to convey that as clearly as possible. You seem to be twisting what I have said in an effort to defend your own position. Calling me conceited when my view differs from yours. This is just an opinion blog I have no control over anyone on here nor do I desire it.

I don't believe you are on the fence either. You are clearly pro-choice (pro-abortion). I am pro-life (anti-abortion) I guess I will have to leave it at that.

I wonder why I spend time on these blogs at all, when I have so much work that needs to be done. Then I realize that maybe, just maybe, one person somewhere will read and decide not to have an abortion and avail themselves one of the greatest blessings that God can bestow. Then it is all worth it.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Sep 10, 2009, at 12:24 PM

No I am not so naive to believe everything ANYBODY says but neither am I so closed minded I try to stop something that does not exist either.

Everything a doctor does is for cold hard cash, my friend. If you don't think so go to the doctor with a friend with the same symptoms as you, one with insurance one without...see who has the most test run.

As I said before it is your right to be anti-abortion if that is what you choose. It doesn't have to be everybody's choice because it is yours.

And if anyone is riding a fence here it is you because you believe a doctor should be able to pick and choose who should have an abortion and who shouldn't.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Sep 10, 2009, at 10:36 AM

Many people who have reviewed the healthcare policy say it opens the door for payments for abortions. Can you prove it does not? Are you that naive to believe everything they tell you?

Look at what has already been done.

Obama issued an executive order overturning the Mexico City policy thereby freeing up OUR tax dollars for use in performing abortions in Mexico.

Abortions are performed for pay. There are many doctors who had performed abortions in the past that have come forward against abortion now and acknowledge their primary purpose for performing, and advising in favor of abortions, was cold hard cash.

I believe abortion is a legitimate medical procedure and can be valuable for saving the life of the mother when both mother and child might otherwise be lost. That is the ONLY case in which I would be in favor.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Sep 10, 2009, at 5:26 AM

Wasn't that one of the times they called him a liar?

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 10:34 PM

You keep saying your tax dollars are funding abortions.. but they are not. Just tonight President Obama said on National TV tax payer funded abortions is not a part of the health care reform plan. Where do you keep getting that you are paying for them or that you would have to with the reform plan?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 10:26 PM

I am not saying that abortion should be illegal. I am not saying what people should do with their lives. That is their choice. As a christian it IS a concern of mine. Furthermore, I do not want the government forcing the use of my tax dollars to encourage and enable something that I believe to be morally wrong.

Everyone has choices to make in life and should be ready to accept the consequences of their choices. A teenager having sex is more than likely very aware of the possibility of becoming or making someone pregnant. They choose to do it anyway. If it is out of wedlock then they have also chosen to disobey God's law.

Now if someone doesn't believe in God or accepting responsibility for their actions, why should the government force the believing taxpayers to accept the responsibility for the actions of another?

If you do believe in God, how do you justify the killing of a baby? Unless you willingly disobey his commandments.

I DO think that if you want to die because of your own health conditions YOU should have the right to make that choice. Thus the Do Not Resesitate (DNR) orders at the hospitals.

The point is; should I, or anyone else,have the right to choose to end YOUR life simply because your are not wanted and no one wants to have to care for you or pay for your expenses?

The process for a woman to have and raise her child needs to be helped in some situations. Who is really responsible for that?

There is help available. Even giving the child up for adoption to someone who does want it would be help for the child. There should also be the love and support of family, friends, and church community.

I suppose some are so embarrassed by the incident that they would just want to quitely remove the unwanted life growing within them without anyone ever knowing.

Regardless of which choice they make, they will still be forever changed. God is not mocked we will reap what we sow. That does not have to be a bad thing. A little humility and asking for help to deal with mistakes can go a long way.

Our constitution recognizes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There will be no liberty or pursuit of happiness without the life to begin with.

The mother need not deny life to the child to be able to have liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I am very sorry your loss and can relate to that as I have some experience with that in my own life.

I would be much more inclined to provide my tax dollars to help the life of the child than to end it before it even begins.

Of course, that is just my opinion.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 9:52 PM

It's exactly the same. If someone gives money to the KKK but tells them they only want it to go towards administration and not lynching, would that make the donor less racist?

Ah, the mental gymnastics of liberalism.

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 9:30 PM

They fund Planned Parenthood not the abortions themselves. Planned Parenthood does many other things besides arrange abortions!! They are funding things you think are important, training, contraception, birthing classes.

The question I ignored about the KKK was ignored because it has Nothing to do with the subject we were discussing nor is it factual because the government does not fund the KKK.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 8:56 PM

It is about responsibility. I personally don't believe in abortion because simple precautions make it unnecessary, but the libertarian in me thinks it should be between you and your maker.

BUT, if you make the "choice", YOU should pay for it!

The question I posed to you about the KKK (the one you ignored)makes it nice and easy to understand how government funds them, as there is NO difference between the two.

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 8:19 PM

You say this but want us to pay for their "choice".

How nice.

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 7:15 PM

Heck Mike you pay for one way or the other. You have yet to prove to me that your taxes are paying for abortions. You thinking it is true doesn't make it so.

Make up your mind is it about the cost or Life?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 7:22 PM

You are not responsible for what others do in their lives and have NO rights what so ever to try and control them. It doesn't matter if they are gay or a pregnant woman wanting an abortion it is their life not yours that is affected.

-- Posted by Dianatn

You say this but want us to pay for their "choice".

How nice.

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 7:15 PM

Ok first off I do not HAVE to be Pro abortion or Anti abortion I myself am not so conceited that I feel that I have any right to tell anyone what to do with their lives especially when it is no concern of mine. You are not responsible for what others do in their lives and have NO rights what so ever to try and control them. It doesn't matter if they are gay or a pregnant woman wanting an abortion it is their life not yours that is affected. I am for the right to choose PRO CHOICE.

It blows my mind how you think you can set in judgement of someone when you are not the one who will be sitting with the child when it is sick or worrying how to feed the child or even how you plan on finishing your college and raise a child. You have NOTHING to do with the child once it becomes a living human so what gives you the right to say what happens to the fetus before it is born. IN fact you are the very ones who thinks welfare should be abolished. So you think the young teenagers should just go ahead and have the baby and worry about how to support it later. Of course then they will be called lazy worthless bums who should be sterilized by these same people who scream NO Abortions..

No one and I mean No one has ever said you MUST have an abortion it is the CHOICE of the parents if the father wants to play the it's not my baby game then he too should have no choice in the life of the child.

I had a miscarriage at 10 weeks I know what a fetus looks like at that point believe me it does not resemble a human life. There was no funeral for my miscarried baby it and wasn't even ask if I wanted one: Do you know why? Because it was not ever alive. I do not agree with late term abortions unless it is for the mother's safety or the fetus best interest.

Abortion is not for everyone I have never had an abortion because I have never had the need for one but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be the choice for someone else.

I just for the life of me can not figure out why you think you have the right to tell anyone what is right for them. Abortions are legal and are hard for anyone and all you people do is make the process harder for these women.

I have never once said you do not have the right to be anti abortion nor has anyone else. You just do not have the right to try and make other's think your way is the only way.

And I have already told you I believe in the Right to Die so yea I am all for self appointed death. I do not want to suffer for years with no quality of life nor do I want to be a burden on my family.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 7:08 PM

A person has to be for (pro) abortion (choice) or against it. Just as most things, there is really no fence to ride. If there is, then the fence is thin and razor sharp. The person who sits astride of it will be sheared (divided) in two with the great part falling on one side or the other.

A double minded person is unstable in all their ways.

God formed each of us in the womb and knew us before we were born according to the scriptures. Of course without the faith and works to follow Gods' instruction, THINGS FALL APART. Either you believe that or you don't.

Again, you must choose to be on one side or the other. Same scenario. Almost believing and acting has the same result as opposing. DIVISION

So what of killing unwanted adults trapped inside the caregiver (hospital, government system, etc.)? Is that OK too? Or is it only the unwanted babies trapped inside their caregiver (mother)that can be killed by choice?

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 2:31 PM

The government has shown us time and time again how poorly run its current programs are--adoption and welfare are just two examples where the governments has "mucked things up." Why, then, would ANYONE trust the government to oversee their healthcare???

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 1:44 PM

Thank you kindly for the assist quietmike, although I was under the impression that this new generation loved YOUTUBE. Folks, it was just a reference point. There is countless bits of information to be found on Planned Parenthood.

Now since everyone here seems to have an opinion thats BASED ON FACTS, and their opinions are more relevant than the last person to post I'll tell you all mine....

In an age and era of industrial know how, scientific expediance and great leaps in modern medicine I have to ask why. Why is abortion even an option. I would much rather this gov. spend the money on mental health care for the pregnant women who find themselves in an unwanted position. Have the child and suck it up. I don't say so, God says so!

And since when does what a women want out weigh the power of God?

I do not care about the rape issues or incest issues....nor do I take them lightly...but to kill an innocent life to start down the road to personal recovery just doesn't make sense.

-- Posted by big daddy rabbit on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 1:39 PM

You didn't answer the question.

Government is funding abortions through Planned Parenthood, they just using trickery to get it done.

For the pro-choice folks: I always hear that you think abortion should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE.

If there is truly nothing wrong with it, and it's "just tissue" why should they be rare?

Your argument is like telling someone they should "rarely" clip their toenails.

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 1:23 PM

Mike I understand you are against abortions. I get that!! That is your choice to be against them although it is not everyone's choice it is not your job or the governments to decide which women should be allowed to have an abortion.

Abortions are legal and should be treated as such.

And to you LiveforLight I do not know ANYBODY who is pro abortion.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 1:18 PM

Dianatn,

Even if we accept the contention that the money is kept in separate accounts, what difference does that make?

Government money that is used for contraceptives frees up more planned parenthood money for abortions.

Would you defend someone who gave money to the KKK if they stipulated it was only to be used for rent on their meeting hall and not for uniforms or ropes?

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 12:54 PM

Here is food for thought for pro abortion advocates. Why does the vast majority of abortions occur? Is it not because the baby is unwanted?

So, if an unwanted, helpless, baby can be killed using tax payer dollars, why not an unwanted helpless adult?

So, we should round up the invalids in the public nursing homes, injuried quadrapoligics, etc. who have no visitors, property, or usefulness to society and euthinize them as well right?

Doesn't the end justify the means on both cases? Are we ready for that kind of genocide?

I believe that babies and everyone else has a right to live. Healthcare is not a right it is a responsibility. For an infant, it is the responsibility of the parents. For an adult, it is the responsibility of that adult.

Widows, orphans, and the helpless need intercession. God has a plan for that called the Church. Our plan seems to be headed towards the graveyard or incenerator.

We have been systematically throwing God out of everything so what does that leave?

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 12:28 PM

Mike that funding does not supply abortions it pays for low income contraceptives.. the morning after pill.. family counseling. Teaching low income young mothers how to care for a newborn.

Planned Parenthood does other things besides abortions and that is what the Government Funding is for..

Planned Parenthood funding is kept in separate accounts one for the Government Money they receive and one for the money they receive for abortions from their patients. They are watched very closely by those Pro-lifers so let me ease your mind in knowing your taxes are not going to abortions.. Although they are probably going to somebody in the form of birth control (are you against that also)?

shawna

I only know you in passing but I think I am a very good judge of people from just listening to them speak.

And regardless of your views on this blog or any other blog I still like you. I have many close friends who are die-heart Republicans I rarely agree with them on any issue but they are still my close friends and wouldn't try to change them in any way. Of course they would love to change my views and they do try often but it's all in good humor.

As far as adoption goes I could not put my child in a foster home period. Sorry I have seen to much for that. Many people who were raised in foster care will tell you that it is an experience that would never put any child of theirs in and would choose abortion over foster homes any day of the week.

Some foster homes today are better but there are still too many out there just looking for the checks that go with the child.

Adoption inside the United States is a joke. State Foster Homes and government agencies are making to much money from the Federal Government to try to actually place these children in real homes. When a child is adopted out the state looses it's funding for that child. This is why you can go to China or any other country and get a child much quicker and a lot less money than you can right here in the USA. It isn't that there is no children to be adopted they just don't want to forfeit the money they are making each month per child.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 12:14 PM

ORIGINAL COMMENT:

"This is me and my wifes issue. We feel strongly about adopting at some point (we do not have any fertility problems we are aware of, just feel we could help a child) in our lives, but its to expensive and to much red tape."

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 8:52 AM

RESPONSE:

This is exactly why we need the government to focus on fixing--"reforming" as it were--the current programs that are in place instead of forcing new ones on us.

There are many children in this world who need a home, and there are many homes--like yours--who want a child. Seriously, we have children deprived of parents and potential parents seeking children...what could be simpler?

I agree that candidates should be screened and evaluated prior to being allowed to adopt, but that does not have to require a lot of time, and the expense of which is far less than the costs of housing those orphaned children. It should not require years (as in many cases), and thousands upon thousands of dollars to attempt adoption.

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 12:02 PM

What did you expect? These are real a$$holes with real agendas to kill unborne children...and WE elected them! Gotta think it through when you pull that lever.

-- Posted by Cornelia.Marie on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 11:23 AM

they ultimately had to adopt a baby from Guatemala because of all the "red tape" and expense involved with a US adoption-- Posted by shawna.jones on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 12:56 AM

This is me and my wifes issue. We feel strongly about adopting at some point (we do not have any fertility problems we are aware of, just feel we could help a child) in our lives, but its to expensive and to much red tape.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 8:52 AM

Please tell us all which government program you think is paying for abortions I am sure we would all be interested in knowing this info unless your using Youtube for that info also!

-- Posted by Dianatn

Most government funding for Planned Parenthood comes via Health and Human Services Title X program and through Medicaid. Somewhere around $335 million last year alone.

Google "planned parenthood, federal funding" and you'll get all the links you want.

Here's one of several.

http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/071808/f...

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 3:34 AM

Dianatn--

Your friend would have been in the system sometime during the 1970's-early 1980s. I believe a lot of changes have been made over the years to protect children in foster care, and in home life, from the abuse you've described, but the system is still flawed. I wouldn't wish that type of pain on anyone...unfortunately even under the best of circumstances and in the best of homes--preachers, doctors, lawyers, police men, etc.--we find abuse...sexual, mental, and/or physical. I have been on both sides of the fence where DCS is concerned...they are another example of a poorly run government program. Just think, those same DCS workers may someday oversee our healthcare.

My husband Jimmy and his brother were born into a loving home in the early 1950s. He was just six years old when his mother's unforeseen death forced his father to place them both in an "orphanage" (the Baptist Children's Home in Franklin, TN). Jimmy can recount tramatizing events of abuse and fear from his boyhood, and although he and his brother were housed within the same facility, they were kept apart throughout his childhood, until he ran away at age 15.

It took my husband decades to reach a point where he could sleep soundly at night. Nonetheless, if asked would he have preferred never to have been born he will answer every time with a resounding "no." His life has begotten the lives of five others, each of whom has, or will have, children. Someday one of his children's children may cure cancer, eradicate disease, or eliminate poverty. But regardless of what they may or may not do for the good of society, what they have done for Jimmy is repair the damage caused by abuse...and he now considers himself blessed. I believe Henry Travers said it best in the film 'It's a Wonderful Life' when he said "one man's life touches so many others, when he's not there it leaves an awfully big hole."

I pray that your friend can find peace someday and begin to heal. If she finds her sister it will aid in the process. Many of us have suffered abuse in all forms throughout our childhood and even into our adult years, but I would venture that most of us if asked would choose life over non-existence.

ORIGINAL STATEMENT:

"Approximately 10,000+ Tennessee children are in state custody foster care and that is just Tennessee. Where are these childless couples who wish to adopt?"

RESPONSE:

I know of three different woman who couldn't conceive and wanted to adopt (actually one could conceive but her husband coudn't contribute). One of which was a former attorney here in Shelbyville. You would think an attorney would have a lot of pull, but they ultimately had to adopt a baby from Guatemala because of all the "red tape" and expense involved with a US adoption. The baby was 6 weeks old when they started the adoption process in Guatemala and he had turned 1 by the time they were able to bring him home.

There are MANY loving families looking to adopt a child. Unfortunately, I have heard the phrase "it would take an act of Congress" when parents speak about the adoption process in our country. Again, what we need in this country is some serious reform of our current programs that are in place, rather than enact new programs that still do not "get at the root of the matter."

ORIGINAL STATEMENT:

"shawna I do agree with most things you have to say also not to mention I like you..."

Now I'm truly racking my brain to figure out who you are (do we know one another?). I know a couple of Dianes and Dianas and I like them all so I'm sure if I know you we're friends...at least until I put my foot in my mouth with this blog, LOL!

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Wed, Sep 9, 2009, at 12:56 AM

No one talks anybody into abortions. Give me a break anybody who uses YouTube as a reference needs to wake up.

Please tell us all which government program you think is paying for abortions I am sure we would all be interested in knowing this info unless your using Youtube for that info also!

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 11:16 PM

Has anyone here ever hears of Planned Parenthood?

Theres an enormous amount of material on YOUTUBE that shows you whats been done behind closed doors and how young women are talked into having abortions. And YES! Your TAX DOLLARS are involved in paying for abortions whether you want them to be or not.

Government Funded Abortions--Will You Allow Your Tax Dollars to Be Used to "Terminate Life"?

I wish the premise of the question was still relevant.

-- Posted by big daddy rabbit on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 9:57 PM

shawna I do agree with most things you have to say also not to mention I like you and I also agree that a lot of abortions are from women who are educated and make above 60,000 a year but I also believe that is because the low income women can not afford them.

Approximately 10,000+ Tennessee children are in state custody foster care and that is just Tennessee. Where are these childless couples who wish to adopt?

I use to work with a girl who lived in 22 Foster Homes in 11 years across the state of Tennessee. She said she was abused, raped and treated like she was nothing. Every time she talked to her case worker about mistreatment they moved her but they left every other child in the foster home. She ran away from her last Foster home at age 16 and they didn't even report her missing for 2 months when it was time for her case worker to come by.. guess they needed to get that check those extra months?

Do I think every Foster Home is like these, No I don't but I do know for a fact, far too many are..

The last time I spoke with her she was still searching for her sister. They were separated when DCS took them from the home when she was 5 and her sister was 3.

She is 42 years old now and still has to go to counseling because of the abuse she endured for years.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 9:34 PM

ORIGINAL STATEMENT--

shawna you keep speaking about the cost of abortions if they are state funded by the tax payer but do you realize how much it cost the taxpayers every month in welfare, food stamps, child care, wic, AFDC government grants for these women to have children they can not afford. This continues until the child is 18 years old and 9 times out of ten the child is having children of their own by then and the cycle continues again. So if you are speaking of cost, abortion would be cheaper for the taxpayer.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Sep 7, 2009, at 10:32 AM

RESPONSE--

There is a mis-conception that tax payers will have to pay for welfare programs to support an un-aborted pregnancy into adulthood. However, research indicates nearly half as many abortions are performed on women well above the poverty line as on women well below (women whose annual income exceeds $60,000). And of the women on welfare at the time of a "live" birth, many use grant funding and educational programs to further their education and ultimately get off of welfare before the child reaches 18. I can't imagine that anyone willingly chooses to live on the $160-$300 monthly income that welfare provides them with(that estimate does not include foodstamps and TNCare). Low welfare payments is an incentive to motivate someone off of welfare and back into the workforce.

"A survey of 10,000 women undertaken in 1995 by the Alan Guttmacher Institute shows that abortion occurs widely among all races and classes. In 1995 almost as many white women from households with annual incomes above $60,000 had about as many of that year's 1.4 million abortions as white women from households with incomes below $15,000. "Highly educated people are less likely to have unintended pregnancies," says Stanley K. Henshaw of the New York-based Alan Guttmacher Institute, "but they are also less tolerant of them."

SOURCE:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/1018/6...

Additionally, in 2005, research anylisis based on data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute [considered by both sides on abortion to be the most accurate abortion statistics] reported that more than 47 MILLION abortions had been performed in the US alone in the [32] years since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion throughout pregnancy and for virtually any reason.

47 MILLION lives had been extinguished by year 2005...those numbers are staggering, to say the least..unless one's goal is to control America's population!?! The saying goes "if it ain't broke don't fix it"...well it's broke, and we should be worrying about fixing it. I beleive rather than force tax payers to pay for government funded abortions, we should consider funding programs to assist in preventing the unwanted pregnancy in the first place...as nathan.evans might say, let's take preventative measures to avoid the issue. At least then our tax dollars would be used to fund "death-prevention" rather than funding "death" itself.

SOURCE:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat2023.html

ORGINAL STATEMENT--

I never said that, you are presuming that a child would choose to live in an unwanted family or in a foster home full of abuse over the choice of being aborted and never having to deal with the pain. When in fact you have no idea what the child may or may not choose.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 2:12 PM

RESPONSE--

There also are many wonderul foster families and adoptive parents in the world who would love a child regardless of biology, and most of these "childless couples" looking to adopt have incomes well above the poverty line. I believe most humans instinctively choose "life" when presented with a choice...those 47 million aborted children [since 1973] where given no voice.

Dianatn, I just wanted to say that I am not trying to pick on you, or even force feed you my views...you have the freedom to think and speak anyway you choose, these are responses that I would present to anyone (you and I actually do agree on many other issues, and you seem like a very thoughtful and caring person).

I just think our current system is flawed, and instead of perpetuating the problem by making abortion even more common place and easily accessable, we should address the issue with proposed resolutions--let's choose, rather, to be "pro-prevention"...and quit putting band-aids on a severed artery, but instead "perform much needed surgery" on our current system.

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 7:57 PM

You are right, I do not know what the child would choose, nor does anyone else. Until we can know for sure should we not err on the side of life? I would venture to say that the vast majority of children killed would not have had to live a life of pain or abuse, of course we can not know for sure. I wonder how many that have been killed would have went on to become world leaders or cure cancer or be someones mother or father?

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 2:51 PM

So the child should be killed for the parents lack of responsibility?

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 1:34 PM

I never said that, you are presuming that a child would choose to live in an unwanted family or in a foster home full of abuse over the choice of being aborted and never having to deal with the pain. When in fact you have no idea what the child may or may not choose.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 2:12 PM

So the child should be killed for the parents lack of responsibility?

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 1:34 PM

The only one who doesnt get a choice is the innocent child who is killed.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 11:43 AM

Neither does the child have the choice to be born to unwanted parents who can not provide for it..

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 12:09 PM

that's why it is called choice. A choice for the people it affects.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Sep 7, 2009, at 10:32 AM

The only one who doesnt get a choice is the innocent child who is killed.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 11:43 AM

shawna.. thank you. I could not have carried a child born out of rape. It is a horrible experiance to go through.

-- Posted by 4fabfelines on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 11:20 AM

Special circumstance, sexually assaulted, mentally incapable of carrying the child to term, childhood pregnancy. You can not say it is ok terminate in these cases and then proceed to tell the next woman her case is not a special circumstance.

shawna you keep speaking about the cost of abortions if they are state funded by the tax payer but do you realize how much it cost the taxpayers every month in welfare, food stamps, child care, wic, AFDC government grants for these women to have children they can not afford. This continues until the child is 18 years old and 9 times out of ten the child is having children of their own by then and the cycle continues again. So if you are speaking of cost, abortion would be cheaper for the taxpayer. If you are against the cost to the taxpayer then having the child is much more expensive than having an abortion to the taxpayer.. if you are against the termination of a life then there is no special circumstances a life is a life regardless of how the life began.

This is the reason we are pro-choice, I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. It's all about choice. The choice of the mother not the choice of you or I or the government none of us know what her circumstances are nor is that any of our business.

Private Insurance should have to cover abortion, period, regardless of the reason. Taxpayer insurance should be limited to a one time procedure so it is not used as a form of birth control. We all make mistakes, birth control fails, things happen in life that we can not control, these things are just as special circumstances as anything else.

Abortion is not for everyone and nobody forces abortion on anyone... that's why it is called choice. A choice for the people it affects.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Sep 7, 2009, at 10:32 AM

4fabfelines--

"What doesn't break us makes us stronger." You are an amazing woman yourself, and I hope the degenerate who raped you was punished. I am thankful you survived, and no doubt it HAS made you stronger.

I will again share another personal experience...something before now known only to my husband, my parents, and the police department/DA in the county where it occured...and now all of you.

When I was 21 I was kidnapped, sexually assaulted at knife point, and nearly raped...by a family friend. He died three months after being released from jail (karma). Although I was spared being raped, it would be horrible to think of carrying a child conceived out such a horrific act, forcing you to relive it day after day.

nathan.evans--

"The child is still an innocent victim of circumstance."

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Sun, Sep 6, 2009, at 8:18 PM

Yes, the child is an innocent victim of circumstance...I agree. And this is where the issue gets "murky" again.

It comes back to accountability for ones actions...rape or molest are not acts for which the victim has any control over. It is easy for someone to say they would carry the child to term and either keep it or give it up for adoption, but until they've experienced something so violent and fear inflicting, one cannot know how he/she would react. It is why I term myself pro-life with exception.

I believe if the victim is mentally capable of carrying the child to term--and she alone can judge her capability in that regard--then she should consider adoption or even raising the child as an alternative to abortion. But if the woman cannot handle having her rapist's baby growing inside her for nine months, forcing her to relive her terror over and over, then she should have the right to terminate and it be considered medically necessary...necessary for her own well-being and her piece of mind. What good would it do to force a rape victim to carry her rapist's baby only to have her commit suicide? You then have the loss of two lives.

I personally could not terminate an innocent life--especially after nearly having an abortion and living the experience--and I hate convinience abortion and what it stands for--but I am open-minded enough to know that what is right for me may not be right for someone else. None of us have the right to pass judgement on another..."He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

I am still opposed to government-funded abortion, because the number of annual abortions performed now is staggering and in all likelihood those numbers will double or even triple if financial accountability is no longer an issue. But I do agree with "tamb" in that we need provisions in place to assist parents with medically necessary terminations.

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Mon, Sep 7, 2009, at 12:15 AM

tamb--

You are truly an amazing woman with great courage. I want to thank you personally for sharing your experience and for inspiring me to share my own. I agree that this issue cannot be black & white...there are often extenuating circumstances to be considered. Insurance companies--private and non-private--should have special allowences/provisions which allow coverage for medically neccessary terminations.

I wish you all the best in your educational endeavours. I am actually hoping to return to school myself to work on my Masters degree in Psychology, with an emphasis on domestic abuse. I am a survivor of domestic abuse myself, after leaving behind a 12 year marriage [11 years ago] and a violent husband who abused drugs and alchohol...and me.

In numbers we gain strength...I hope to someday counsel others with similar situations.

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Sun, Sep 6, 2009, at 10:58 PM

Shawna, I also wanted to say your experience is a lot like I experienced at the clinic in Atlanta. Even though I'm not willing to post a link to my blog, I will post what we went through. When I called to make the appointment, I had to get my doctor to fax them my file which was full of our test results and the specialists finding. They assured me we would be separated from the rest of the women who were terminating for reasons other than a fetal anomoly.

We had to leave on a Friday night. I felt like I was sneaking away to do something illegal. I felt guilty for making a decision that was best for my unborn child and best for my family. No one should be made to feel that way.

We were told I would qualify for a one day procedure. I am sure the procedure you would have had to go through at over 12 weeks is probably close to the same one we would be going through at 19 weeks. When we got there, the waiting room was filling up with women. Some of them were very obviously pregnant. Others not so much. This clinic will do them up to 24 weeks.

They didn't separate us. We sat out there with women who were laughing and joking. We sat out there with one women who was hyperventilating due to the fact she was going to have to be put under; not because of what she was about to do. We were called back three times, and each time, I thought I would be separated from those women, but I wasn't.

The last person I dealt with was the ultrasound tech. She called me back and did the ultrasound to date the pregnancy so that she could give me an exact price. Before she got started, she informed me they had made a mistake. I didn't qualify for the one day procedure; I had to have the two day. She went ahead and did the ultrasound anyway. She informed us that she had never seen a baby with so little brain matter before and didn't know how the baby was even living, except for me.

She told me I would have to come back the next week to have the procedure done. We had both already taken time off from work. My daughter was starting kindergarten in a little over a week. It had taken all the strength I had to make the trip in the first place. I knew I couldn't go through it again. Besides, I knew I couldn't trust that clinic again. After my experience, our doctor and our specialist are no longer recommending them to people.

When I called the clinic the next week to complain, the lady who is the manager informed me that abortion is a hard decision on any women, and I was just being overly sensitive. I will never forget that. It was the worst day of my life. I don't think I was being overly sensitive at all.

If the laws were different in this state and the political climate were different, I would never have had to experience this. I didn't want to go to the clinic in the first place. I wouldn't have been able to have her remains, footprints, pictures anything. If people in this area weren't so conservative about this issue, I could have done it in a hospital through labor and delivery and gotten to hold her, take pictures, foot prints, remains. I did get those things since we attempted to carry to term, but I often think about other women who are traveling out of state who don't get that kind of closure.

I am going back to school now so that I can become a counselor for women who are going through or have gone through what I did that day. In this situation, I support a woman making whatever decision she and her partner feel is best for their family. I have also come as close to terminating as you can without actually having gone through it. I know what it's like to go to that clinic and know what it's like to carry to term, so I feel like I can offer a lot to women going through it.

-- Posted by tamb on Sun, Sep 6, 2009, at 9:45 PM

nathan.evans

Your comment: I don't see how one child has a right to life anymore than a child that was a product of rape. Isn't taking the life of an innocent what the argument against abortion about?

You sir have never been raped. You have no idea what you are talking. I have, and if it had resulted in pregnancy I would have no been able to have that baby. No way, No how. I understand it is a baby, but I would still not be able to have that child no out of violence.

-- Posted by 4fabfelines on Sat, Sep 5, 2009, at 9:07 PM

The child is still an innocent victim of circumstance.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Sun, Sep 6, 2009, at 8:18 PM

shawna: thank you for your story. You are a amazing woman.

-- Posted by 4fabfelines on Sun, Sep 6, 2009, at 7:52 PM

Thank you for sharing your story, Shawna. In March of this year, I addressed the health and human services committee of our state legislature with a speech about what we had gone through. I would post a link here to it, but it is my private blog and not knowing who lurks here, I'd rather not.

What I went through has truly opened my eyes that we can never know what someone else is going through, that we can not judge what someone else is doing. The reason that I'm pro-choice is that I can never tell someone their reason for wanting an abortion is wrong while my reason was right and worthy.

-- Posted by tamb on Sun, Sep 6, 2009, at 7:30 PM

nathan.evans

Your comment: I don't see how one child has a right to life anymore than a child that was a product of rape. Isn't taking the life of an innocent what the argument against abortion about?

You sir have never been raped. You have no idea what you are talking. I have, and if it had resulted in pregnancy I would have no been able to have that baby. No way, No how. I understand it is a baby, but I would still not be able to have that child no out of violence.

-- Posted by 4fabfelines on Sat, Sep 5, 2009, at 9:07 PM

tamb--

Your case was one of *special circumstance. The figures I provided were for abortions as a matter of convenience with no medical issues. I support terminations for medical reasons, either health issues relating to the mother and/or with the unborn child.

I have never shared my personal story with anyone but my parents and current husband, but I'm touched by yours and will draw courage from it. When I was 24, I left my abusive husband to raise three young children on my own. I worked part-time and attended college full time. Just two weeks after my seperation and restraining order, I discovered that I was pregnant.

I cannot tell you how alone I felt...and how confused. I had been taking birth control pills every day for over two years and NEVER missed a day. I couldn't understand how I could be pregnant, until the health department explained that the antibiotics I had recently taken for an infection made my BC pills less effective.

My mother and father are pro-choice and very Liberal minded. I allowed my father to talk me into having an abortion. I have never supported abortion, regardless of my parent's views, but I let my father convince me that this pregancy would be the "ticket" my estranged husband needed to work his way back into the home...and that was a fear greater at the time than any.

My father drove me to the local clinic over an hour away. The clinic had been moved to a secluded area after a recent bombing, and I was told to be very cautious when approaching the building. Can you imagine my fear? I was also afraid that God would not forgive me and that I would not forgive myself, and the sadest part of all was that I wanted the baby.

I cried in the waiting room, yet it amazed me that not one other girl/woman in there was crying. The staff looked at me like I was an alien. To this day I cannot understand how everything could be so clinical and with such a causual manner, as though it were nothing more than a routine check-up. Even with my tears, NO ONE every asked me if I was sure I wanted to do this. I'd been pressured into the decision and I was praying for any way out.

Because my menstraul cycle had never stopped (I was taking the pill every day), the clinic had to preform an ultrasound to determine how far along I was. If I was more than 12 weeks I would have to reschedule for a different type of procedure. After the ultrasound had been performed, the technician handed me a folder to take back to the waiting room. I opened the folder and saw a picture of my baby. I knew I could never abort after that.

It turned out that I was 12 weeks and 3 days. I would have had to reschedule for a more "intensive" procedure (the details of which I will not describe here, only to say that it was in no way "humane" to the unborn fetus).

I left the clinic with a great weight removed from my shoulders. I told my father--who had been waiting in the car with my three children--that I was too far along for the procedure. I did not explain that there were other options. I came as close to having an abortion as one can, without actually having the procedure done.

I gave birth to my daughter 3 weeks before final exams. I finished the year and returned to school in the fall using audio courses. It took an extra year to complete school because of the new baby, but I eventually graduated with an A.A. and dual major B.A.

I thank God every day for my daughter. She has touched not only my life, but the lives of all those around her. Much to my fears, my estranged husband and I were eventually drawn back together because of issues that arose later in the pregnancy, and I suffered three more years of beatings before breaking free for good (11 years ago), but that was not the fault of my child...that was my poor judgement. I do not regret her birth, and like you [tamb], my experience has made abortion one of my "hot button issues" as well. I know that if I had gone through with the abortion I would never have recovered from it. I cannot in good conscience support the extenguishing of a life because it is a "nuisance."

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Sat, Sep 5, 2009, at 2:51 PM

I actually belong to a support board for women who have encountered a poor prenatal diagnosis. Some of them have terminated, others have carried to term. I would say more than 2/3 of the ones who terminated had to pay out of pocket for all their costs.

No clinic in Tennessee will do an abortion after 16 weeks. I know. I called all of them and 99 percent of them won't do it after 14 weeks. Let me give you a run down of the time line most women encounter when they receive a poor prenatal diagnosis.

At 16 weeks, the AFP test is performed. Those results come back in about a week. However, mine were so bad for Trisomy 18 that we got them back in two days. I went the next day for an ultrasound, which showed enough physical abnormalities that an amniocentesis was warranted. However, the amniotic sac was not yet fused to the uterine wall, so I had to wait a week. This isn't unusual, and most women can't have an amnio until after 16 weeks.

We paid for the fast results out of pocket, so we would know sooner. They came back as positive for Trisomy 18. However, our doctor would make no recommendations or help us with our options until the full results came back, which takes two weeks. I was 19 weeks when we got those. There was no clinic in Tennessee that would help me. Also, none of the hospitals in the Middle Tennessee area would do it either. The closest hospitals I found that would do a labor and delivery termination were in Knoxville and Memphis, and I had to be a patient of their doctors before they would do so. One hospital even required the parents to go before the ethics board to get approval for it. How is that right?

So, we had to go to Atlanta. The cost there depends on how far along you are. I was 19 weeks, but the baby was measuring 16. The cost was $1500. Plus, we had to pay for a hotel near the clinic that was approved by the clinic in case of an emergency. The cost for those rooms were $100 a night, and because of how far we had to travel, we had to stay two nights.

The clinic in Atlanta did not accept insurance of any kind, not even Medicaid. They did give a discount if you were on it or had a student ID from a college.

The cost of a labor and delivery termination in a hospital is the same cost for a labor and delivery of a healthy baby. Can you imagine what you would have to pay out of pocket for that?

I have never said I support tax-payer funded abortions for convenience reasons. I don't. I do support it for those who need them for medical reasons. The last thing a parent needs during that stressful time is to worry about money. As for those organizations that will help those who can't afford an abortion to pay for it, it takes time to get approved, time that women carrying a child with a poor prenatal diagnosis just doesn't have.

-- Posted by tamb on Sat, Sep 5, 2009, at 10:39 AM

Shawna.jones, I know you said that your private insurance should be expected to cover it. I have private insurance and had it at the time. It would not pay for a termination in a clinic at all. There was no chance of that whatsoever. A termination done through a labor and delivery would also not have been covered. I called to check. Honestly, I think any kind of insurance, whether it be government funded or privately funded, should be required to pay for a termination done for medical reasons.

-- Posted by tamb on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 9:48 PM

First of all, I agree that private insurance should have allowences for medically necessary terminations. Most private insurance, and even TNCare, does pay for some of the associated costs included in the fee for an abortion even now.

The costs for a first trimester abortion range from $300-$600, varying from state to state, region to region, how far advanced the pregnancy is, whether or not insurance is used, and if so, if there is a co-payment or partial payment. A second trimester abortion--which is more complicated, dangerous, and costly--averages $850 in the state of Tennessee. All of these figures are far less than the cost of my co-pays to see my obstetrician during pregnancy...and far, far less than the balance left for me to pay after my C-section was performed.

There are also MANY non-profit organiztions, such as CAIR (Community Abortion Information & Resource) Project, NNAF (National Network of Abortion Funds), and the Equal Access Fund of East Tennessee, which help raise money to fund abortions for those women who cannot afford one on their own.

I'm originally from California--a very Liberal Pro-Choice state. The state of California's medical welfare program, known as Medi-cal, pays for abortions. Here is a little California "welfare abortion" fact that I find startling:

"In 2004, Medi-cal funded approximately 39% of all abortions in California, an estimated 90,946i induced abortions out of the total 236,000 performed.ii"

In the state of California alone, 236,000 lives were extinguished by abortion--nearly 91,000 of which were paid for by the state's hard-working tax payers. Now imagine the total number when you add in the other 49 states in our nation. And if we pass a bill which uses our tax dollars to pay for the expense...imagine how those numbers will grow.

SOURCES:

http://www.whrc-access.org/pdf/Access-Me...

http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/index.htm

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Sat, Sep 5, 2009, at 3:02 AM

Wars are temporary, government programs aren't.

-- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Sep 5, 2009, at 1:20 AM

Thank you CFRich for that. It was the hardest thing I've ever gone through, but I am stronger for it. It has made abortion one of my hot button issues now, though, when before I would probably never have said a word about it.

Shawna.jones, I know you said that your private insurance should be expected to cover it. I have private insurance and had it at the time. It would not pay for a termination in a clinic at all. There was no chance of that whatsoever. A termination done through a labor and delivery would also not have been covered. I called to check. Honestly, I think any kind of insurance, whether it be government funded or privately funded, should be required to pay for a termination done for medical reasons.

And, I've been supporting a war I didn't believe in with my taxes since 2001. Why is that any different than you supporting a health care plan you don't agree with? I'm sure we all have programs we don't like that we have to support through our tax dollars.

-- Posted by tamb on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 9:48 PM

What you are saying is that you currently pay $1,190.48 in insurance premiums every month?

A. If you are paying that much, then trust me you need to shop around.

B. If your company requires you to pay that much and you can't decline the insurance, then you need to voice your objection to your employer and try to negotiate a better plan, or apply with a company that has a better benefits package.

C. Regardless of whether you went to the doctor or my daughter went to the hospital, you were paying the money into the plan anyway. I never asked you to pay your premiums, and you had a choice to change insurance companies and/or jobs.

If we are forced to take on the high tax increases anticipated in support of the proposed health care bill, then our choices for avoiding the "excess pay-out" become (1) tax evasion, (2) quit working and go on welfare to avoid the high income tax, (3) move to Mexico (kidding, lol).

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 4:07 PM

No more than I would ask tax payers to pay for my three year old daughter's many hospitalizations....that is what our private insurance is for (our deductibles and co-pays were very costly, but it is OUR child, OUR debt, and therefore OUR responsibility).

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM

But if both you and I are covered by the same insurance company, and I have paid over $100,000 in insurance premiums in seven years and during that same period I only spent a total of 50 minutes at the doctor's office, am I not paying also?

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 3:24 PM

Just to clarify, as mentioned I would classify myself to be "pro-life with exception." In the case "tamb" describes in her post, I fully agree and support her decision to try to terminate because the child would have no chance at a pain-free or viable life beyond the womb. Do I feel tax payers should fund it...no. No more than I would ask tax payers to pay for my three year old daughter's many hospitalizations....that is what our private insurance is for (our deductibles and co-pays were very costly, but it is OUR child, OUR debt, and therefore OUR responsibility).

I NEVER mention the word "sin" in my blog, nor do I make reference to God. It is not my place to pass judgement. I value life and believe it to be a precious and cherishable gift, but I will not call someone who chooses to have an abortion as a means of birth control sinful, but instead "foolish." And to those who choose [or are forced by moral conscience] to terminate for medically necessary reasons (as in the case described by tamb) I call "brave."

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 2:15 PM

Very true, Nathan, but it also becomes a matter of accountability. Rape victims did not become pregnant because of a lack of judgement regarding contraception. And as I mention, the waters in this territory get very "murky." I do not agree with the "extinguishing" of any "life," but in a situation where it becomes medically necessary for the well-being of either the mother or the child, then there should be some possibility of exception.

My stance is that abortion should not be considered a means of birth control. Women--and men--should take preventative measures before sex...as they say, "it takes two to tango." One should be held accountable for one's actions. I knew a woman in Arkansas who, when I last spoke to her in 1989, had already undergone 4 abortions--she was 27 at that time. I have to wonder how many more innocent lives she's terminated over the years.

I feel at some point measures should be taken to stop the cycle. If we cannot irradicate abortion entirely, then we should put control meaures in place limiting the number of allowable abortions, rather than make it an "acceptable", and even "encouraged" means of birth control. There are numerous very effective long-term birth control methods available to women...get a clue.

What I find ironic with Roe vs. Wade is that the rights of the father, or the unborn child, are non-existent. Yet, society screams for "child support" from the father if the child is born. I find the matter to be a one-sided paradox. There is NO voice for the unborn...or his/her father.

And to get back to the original issue...I do not agree with using our tax dollars to fund abortions, as currently indicated in the unamended version of the proposed health care reform bill. But unlike the unborn, I WILL raise a voice against it.

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 1:41 PM

Seeing as how Shawna and I will probably never agree on this issue, really, I just wanted to post to tamb to say thank you for sharing her story. It must have been a really awful time for you.

-- Posted by cfrich on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 1:31 PM

I don't see how one child has a right to life anymore than a child that was a product of rape. Isn't taking the life of an innocent what the argument against abortion about?

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 8:11 AM

Oh I understand Michael Moore's films are garbage but The Silent Scream isn't...LOL

A bit closed minded there are we?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 12:15 AM

I will agree that most early abortions are done for convenience reasons, but when we try to outlaw abortion for those reasons, you also outlaw it for those who need it for health reasons. I can never say I am pro-life, because how can I tell someone their abortion is a sin when the one I tried to get (because of a fatal fetal anomoly) is not?

Until you've walked a mile in the shoes of parents who have had made the decision to terminate a much wanted pregnancy due to a fatal fetal anomoly, I don't believe you can ever say you are anti-abortion no matter what. When you hear the words incompatible with life and painful death when it comes to your child, who you already love very much, you will do anything in your power to stop it.

I heard those words and tried to terminate but wasn't able to do so in this state because of the timeline. I traveled out of state where I also wasn't able to do so because of a mix-up at the clinic. So, we attempted to carry to term, and she was stillborn. I don't even want to contemplate how painful birth would have been to her if she had been alive for it because the birthing process wasn't very kind to her body.

I do not feel guilty for trying to spare a much wanted baby of pain. What do I feel guilty about is that I wasn't able to do more.

I support tax-payer funded abortion in a situation like this. When facing having to make the worst decision a parent will ever have to make, the last thing they need to worry about is how they are going to pay for it. Many insurance companies won't cover a termination procedure for a fatal fetal anomoly because they see it as an elective procedure, and that's just wrong.

-- Posted by tamb on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 11:48 PM

I wouldn't waste five minutes of my time watching anything by Michael Moore, the producer of some of the most anti-American, liberal garbage ever made.

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 11:47 PM

Tattoos & Scars

It is your right to be anti-abortion nobody is trying to make you have an abortion but it is not your right to try to tell anyone else what is right for them.

As far as your video "The Silent Scream" I have seen it.. and I could recommend to you "Sicko" by Michael Moore and say the same thing to you "and if you can honestly not support Health care reform afterwards, you possess niether a heart or soul."

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 10:16 PM

I'm anti abortion for ANY reason. When I stand before my maker, if I am wrong, then all I'm guilty of, according to you liberals, is being overly protective over what you describe as a little piece of tissue. However if I'm right, you all will stand before God one day, guilty of supporting and even encouraging the wholesale slaughter of millions of unborn children since the enactment of Roe V Wade. And NO, I will NEVER support the idea of my tax dollars paying for the murders of children.

How anyone could be anti death penalty for hienous murderers, yet support the murders of innocent, unborn children is a concept I hope I never attempt to understand.

Watch the video, "The Silent Scream" and if you can honestly support abortion afterwards, you possess niether a heart or soul.

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 9:23 PM

I am pro choice. The cost of an abortion... and the cost of raising a child... are two different things. I don't think the taxpayers should SUPPORT either one of them... BUT WE DO. Most welfare mothers wind up having the child and the taxpayers support it. From a taxpayers point of view, we loose either way... just like the child!

-- Posted by Union on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 7:03 PM

So, if a 12 year old girl gets raped by her uncle and has a baby she should be accountable for her actions?

-- Posted by GoTitans on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 12:08 PM

GoTitans -

You are trying to use the rarity in an effort to invalidate the common issue.

But since you mentioned it, the uncle should be held accountable.

Not hard working Joe who is already accountable for his accepted responsibilities he took on in life. Why should Joe have to work more to pay for someones else's heathern vice.

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 5:34 PM

jaxspike

This is probably where you and I would really bump heads because I am a firm believer of the right to die also.. I would not want to be a burden on my family and if I couldn't make that decision for myself then I would have no problem with them terminating my life. Quality of life has to stand for something whether I am an infant with no one who cares about my will being or if I am elderly and do not wish to be a burden.

So again I am not going to argue with you on this subject as is just my opinion, it doesn't have to be yours.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 2:01 PM

Dianatn . . . it is easy to make excuses when we don't want to do the right thing. If you engage in sex then you know the risks and accept them and thus assume responsibility for the consequences that come from it but unfortunately some people don't want to be held accountable for their actions even though they knew that could be a possible outcome. How would you feel if your children were able to decide when you get older that since you are too old to take care of yourself, it would be ok to end your life just because they didn't want the responsibility of taking care of an elderly person?

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 1:32 PM

I think most people just want others to be accountable for their actions which may include the production of a child.

That sounds really good on paper but there is no fool proof birth control except abstinence and that my friend is not a reality whether we are speaking about working adults or non working adults..

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 1:21 PM

"I think most people just want others to be accountable for their actions which may include the production of a child."

So, if a 12 year old girl gets raped by her uncle and has a baby she should be accountable for her actions?

-- Posted by GoTitans on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 12:08 PM

Dianatn -

I think most people just want others to be accountable for their actions which may include the production of a child.

The real problem lies in the fact that a lot of the producing parents do little to no serious thinking about the oncoming responsibilies that will come after the production.

If they do any serious thinking they usually have few children.

The more government takes care of, the less the serious thinking occurs. Why worry about responsibilities if you are relying on the government to take care of your needs and wants.

Ever wonder why intelligent hard working people have fewer children than non-working government provided for people??

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 11:46 AM

I am not even going to argue your point in this discussion because I am Pro-choice. I do agree however if someone wishes to have an abortion they should figure out how to pay for it..

It still ceases to amaze me that the people who are against abortions are the same people who are against welfare, it seems they do not worry how the baby will survive once it actually becomes a living breathing human being they just want the world to be filled with unwanted children.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 11:13 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


A once self-proclaimed entrepreneur with a strong background in photography, computer assembly, and digital arts/graphic design, Shawna is a dual-major graduate who was forced to leave a middle-management position after a serious accident and illness left her unable to work. As a mother of six and former teacher, she is now homeschooling her two youngest children and volunteers her time as an educator for the Bedford County Enrichment Homeschool Program.