Reproductive Health Equity Act

[Fleshy]

I'm honestly not 100% decided. I can't imagine being a woman of low income, of whom has found herself in such a situation and requires an abortion, only to be denied and thus be forced to bring a child into her situation (which I imagine isn't a good one at all).

I think Sex Ed. is something that needs to be improved, because a lot of abortions are simply due to carelessness / unsafe sex, however, a lot of them aren't and could not have been prevented. I don't find it fair to deny abortions, because there's so much more that goes along with it, it's so complex.

A massive number of undocumented immigrants don't lead a live that a child should be brought into, in the way of poverty, abuse, drug use, etc. Abortions are preventing women in these situations suffering further and also preventing bringing children into such situations.

I can also see how this would anger American tax payers, and I understand that. I am not an American taxpayer, but I'm trying to see it from the eyes of people who appose and I can understand the opposition. However, the taxpayers money has been going towards paying for such things, and even corrupt practices (imo) for a long time, this isn't going to make much difference, and instead will help people?

/snip/
Well if they had control over becoming pregnant or not, then it's their fault that "their life is ruined". Even if it's a fetus, even if it's not born it, its still a human being. You're still killing a person.
/snip/
.

human being
ˌhjuːmən ˈbiːɪŋ/Submit
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

person
ˈpəːs(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a human being (see above) regarded as an individual.

- Hence, A fetus / embryo is neither a human being nor a person.

 

[-Apples-]

I can also see how this would anger America tax payers, and I understand that. I am not an American taxpayer, but I'm trying to see it from the eyes of people who appose and I can understand the opposition. However, the taxpayers money has been going towards paying for such things, and even corrupt practices (imo) for a long time, this isn't going to make much difference, and instead will help people?

Just to clarify the problem with taxpayer funded abortions, the United States' first amendment grants us a freedom of religion. That means, the government cannot interfere with religion. This includes using law or taxes to force people to violate their own religious beliefs. Some belief systems out there, more specifically Christians, believe that abortion is murder, and collecting their tax dollars to fund others' abortions is technically using law to force them to violate their beliefs. Opposition towards taxpayer funded abortions is more about religion, not ethics.

 

[Damniel]

Pro-choice all the way. Oregon is making a controversial, but progressive step

 

[Fleshy]

Just to clarify the problem with taxpayer funded abortions, the United States' first amendment grants us a freedom of religion. That means, the government cannot interfere with religion. This includes using law or taxes to force people to violate their own religious beliefs. Some belief systems out there, more specifically Christians, believe that abortion is murder, and collecting their tax dollars to fund others' abortions is technically using law to force them to violate their beliefs. Opposition towards taxpayer funded abortions is more about religion, not ethics.

I understand. I don't want to talk ill of anyone's religious beliefs, but abortion isn't murder, quite literally if you follow the definition of murder, it isn't that. Also being pro-choice / pro-life goes further than religion, many religious people are pro-choice and vise versa, it's not related.

In my opinion, religion should be separate from the government / the law. We had to wait long enough for same-sex marriage in the name of "religion", someone's religion shouldn't rule another persons life. If an individual wants it to rule their life, that's OK, but thy don't have the right to force it to rule other's lives.

If you're anti abortion, for religious reasons or not, don't have an abortion, but it's not right to deny other's the rights over their own body.

 

[Damniel]

Abortions are never an easy choice for anyone, or resinantes with the woman for a long time. But if she can't support a baby, she shouldnt be forced to. More likely than not, the child wouldn't live a good childhood for economic/domestic reasons. It should be a choice. It's not up to me nor you to decide what a woman chooses, it affects her life in the end. Can't enforce your religious/personal beliefs on someone else.

Then again abortion wouldn't be as big an issue if people were more gay

 

[Shu]

Not American, but I'm pro choice and support this 100%.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Abortions are never an easy choice for anyone, or resinantes with the woman for a long time. But if she can't support a baby, she shouldnt be forced to. More likely than not, the child wouldn't live a good childhood for economic/domestic reasons. It should be a choice. It's not up to me nor you to decide what a woman chooses, it affects her life in the end. Can't enforce your religious/personal beliefs on someone else.

Then again abortion wouldn't be as big an issue if people were more gay

This ^ many people assume the woman is heartless etc for choosing abortion. It is always hard on the woman, abortion is a difficult choice for many and there are even cases when a woman does not want to abort but has to. Putting blame on the woman is something that is, from my perspective, ignorant and disregarding her role (the carrier of the child) and the complications that come with it.

yup get gay all the way yo

- - - Post Merge - - -

I understand. I don't want to talk ill of anyone's religious beliefs, but abortion isn't murder, quite literally if you follow the definition of murder, it isn't that. Also being pro-choice / pro-life goes further than religion, many religious people are pro-choice and vise versa, it's not related.

In my opinion, religion should be separate from the government / the law. We had to wait long enough for same-sex marriage in the name of "religion", someone's religion shouldn't rule another persons life. If an individual wants it to rule their life, that's OK, but thy don't have the right to force it to rule other's lives.

If you're anti abortion, for religious reasons or not, don't have an abortion, but it's not right to deny other's the rights over their own body.

My religion does not like abortion, but I am still pro choice. I agree here, religious logic and logic of the law should be thought about differently. If one does not like abortion due to their religion, that is fine. But preventing others from getting an abortion by law based on religious beliefs isn't fair to all of those who do want one.

 

[Mega_Cabbage]

I don't think free abortions is a good solution. Free and easy access to contraceptives/condoms would be a lot better in my opinion. People who want to have sex can still have sex while not getting pregnant and pro-life people won't see it as murder because a baby wouldn't be in the process of forming.

 

[~Unicorn~]

I'm becoming clueless on this cause both people who agree and disagree have good and bad points, so idk anymore

I think the solution to all of this is to make abortion not free. There, now everyone gets what they want!

 

[Damniel]

I think the solution to all of this is to make abortion not free. There, now everyone gets what they want!

Except the women who can't afford abortions and furthermore the cost of raising a child

 

[pizzapie44]

today on bell tree forums: abortion

 

[Miii]

I'm pro choice up to a point. Past the first trimester, the baby can feel pain so I absolutely disagree with abortion past that point. It's one thing when it's the size of a jelly bean and still looks like a dinosaur, but another entirely when it starts to be able to feel and perceive things.

 

[Katelyn]

I'm definitely pro-choice, but practically giving abortions away is pretty ridiculous imo. I mean, it's definitely not something that should be taken lightly. And granted most people put a ton of thought into it before actually going through with it, there will also definitely be people who will abuse this and not care whether or not they get pregnant anymore because hey, they can get rid of it for free. Healthcare is not a right, nobody and I mean nobody is entitled to it. And abortion definitely falls under that.

And don't get me started on the whole undocumented/illegal immigrant thing. Because I truly believe they shouldn't even be able to get healthcare in general until they're documented, let alone free s***

A better solution to all of this would be to make contraceptives and other forms of protection more accessible. We need to find ways to prevent the problem before it arises.

 

[rbell2915]

I don't think free abortions is a good solution. Free and easy access to contraceptives/condoms would be a lot better in my opinion. People who want to have sex can still have sex while not getting pregnant and pro-life people won't see it as murder because a baby wouldn't be in the process of forming.

Explain how condoms are not easy to access? I literally just Google'd it, and you can walk down to Walmart and buy a 36 pack for about $18. That works out to 50? per condom. Typically, the financially not-as-well-off already shop at Walmart so they're already in the same store. I'd say that's pretty cheap and easily accessible.

 

[~Unicorn~]

Except the women who can't afford abortions and furthermore the cost of raising a child

Then they shouldn't of gotten pregnant? And I said that if it's an emergency case then it could be free, otherwise it's their fault.
Listen, the point of wanting it to be not free is so that unwanted pregnancies are prevented, while out-of-control situations can still be able to abort. But no, everyone just wants to kill fetuses, don't they?

- - - Post Merge - - -

I'm definitely pro-choice, but practically giving abortions away is pretty ridiculous imo. I mean, it's definitely not something that should be taken lightly. And granted most people put a ton of thought into it before actually going through with it, there will also definitely be people who will abuse this and not care whether or not they get pregnant anymore because hey, they can get rid of it for free. Healthcare is not a right, nobody and I mean nobody is entitled to it. And abortion definitely falls under that.

And don't get me started on the whole undocumented/illegal immigrant thing. Because I truly believe they shouldn't even be able to get healthcare in general until they're documented, let alone free s***

A better solution to all of this would be to make contraceptives and other forms of protection more accessible. We need to find ways to prevent the problem before it arises.

THANK YOU
(Only for some of this though, some stuff you said there was a little harsh...)
- - - Post Merge - - -

I'm pro choice up to a point. Past the first trimester, the baby can feel pain so I absolutely disagree with abortion past that point. It's one thing when it's the size of a jelly bean and still looks like a dinosaur, but another entirely when it starts to be able to feel and perceive things.

Ikr some woman think fetuses are just a piece of trash sitting in their body, they have feelings! And they might not be born yet, but they count as an unborn human. People can be so evil....

 

[Mega_Cabbage]

Explain how condoms are not easy to access? I literally just Google'd it, and you can walk down to Walmart and buy a 36 pack for about $18. That works out to 50? per condom. Typically, the financially not-as-well-off already shop at Walmart so they're already in the same store. I'd say that's pretty cheap and easily accessible.

Yes they are cheap, but some people still can't afford it. The people who want to have an abortion are often those who cannot handle the financial burden of having a child. They are probably scrambling for money and want to focus on buying more necessities. It's not only condoms either. If a person is being raped by a man, they are not just gonna ask "hey can you put this condom on first?" Birth control pills, IUDs, and etc. can prevent a person from getting pregnant in these unexpected situations.

 

[Fleshy]

Then they shouldn't of gotten pregnant? And I said that if it's an emergency case then it could be free, otherwise it's their fault.
Listen, the point of wanting it to be not free is so that unwanted pregnancies are prevented, while out-of-control situations can still be able to abort. But no, everyone just wants to kill fetuses, don't they?

"It's their fault"? So they need to bring a child into the world to suffer? As that child would either be unwanted, or raised by a mother of whom is incapable of caring for the child? That child likely born into poverty, carehomes, around drug use, etc, etc.

An unwanted child is better than preventing said child's possible suffering? For the sake of an "It's your fault" to the mother?

I'm pretty sure nobody "wants to kill fetuses", they want to prevent actual future suffering, and allow women to have control over their own bodies.

 

[Keldi]

My view on this is just:
If both gave consent, shouldn't be free
If one did not give consent(ie grape), should be free
I don't want to argue with anybody, I just wanna put my thoughts out there.

 

[Damniel]

there will also definitely be people who will abuse this and not care whether or not they get pregnant anymore because hey, they can get rid of it for free.

Who ever thinks this? There might be a few people, but not enough to make this a common idea.

Healthcare is not a right, nobody and I mean nobody is entitled to it.

Are you for real? Every law abiding and tax paying citizen is entitled to healthcare. It's imperative we're healthy and can afford to keep our good health.

And don't get me started on the whole undocumented/illegal immigrant thing. Because I truly believe they shouldn't even be able to get healthcare in general until they're documented, let alone free s***

Not even gonna go into how messed up this is.

Explain how condoms are not easy to access? I literally just Google'd it, and you can walk down to Walmart and buy a 36 pack for about $18. That works out to 50? per condom. Typically, the financially not-as-well-off already shop at Walmart so they're already in the same store. I'd say that's pretty cheap and easily accessible.

If you cannot afford to be safe during sex, then you shouldn't be having it at all. Contraceptives aren't 100% sure to prevent pregnancy. In fact, many accidental pregnancies involved condoms being used, but not working.

 

[~Unicorn~]

My view on this is just:
If both gave consent, shouldn't be free
If one did not give consent(ie grape), should be free
I don't want to argue with anybody, I just wanna put my thoughts out there.

100% agreed

- - - Post Merge - - -

Not even gonna go into how messed up this is.

Okay uhh i forgot about that part lol, but if it's healthcare that is really an emergency (like something life-threatening) then they should. But something small like this, nah.

 

[Damniel]

Then they shouldn't of gotten pregnant? And I said that if it's an emergency case then it could be free, otherwise it's their fault.

Your opinion that abortions should not be free is fair enough. But do you think women just decide whether or not they'll get pregnant? If they practice safe sex it's not their fault, it's just nature