Someone (on this site) who is supportive of the freedom to abortion asserts "abortion is none of the government's business". That SAME someone argues in support of taxpayer funding of abortion. Do these two opinions contradict each other?

by J.W. Howler Posted 2012/05/08 14:30:58

Related Topics: Abortion, Opinions, Freedom, Government, Taxpayer, Business, Funding

126 votes
Read all 289 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	YES - the two opinions are DEFINITELY CONTRADICTORY to each other	103 votes	82%
	The two opinions are PROBABLY CONTRADICTORY to each other	5 votes	4%
	The two opinions are PROBABLY NOT CONTRADICTORY to each other	3 votes	2%
	NO - the two opinions are DEFINITELY NOT CONTRADICTORY to each other	15 votes	12%

+23

Add a comment above

The Black Dagger 2012/05/08 14:46:11

YES - the two opinions are DEFINITELY CONTRADICTORY to each other

+23
It's definitely contradictory. If they don't want the government to tell them they can't have an abortion then they have no right to expect the government to force me to pay for the abortion.
>> See Replies

More polls by J.W. Howler

keeper 2012/05/08 15:00:45

YES - the two opinions are DEFINITELY CONTRADICTORY to each other

+13
I would say that they are diametrically opposed.

reply
SK-LIBERTY OVER EQUALITY 2012/05/08 14:56:47

YES - the two opinions are DEFINITELY CONTRADICTORY to each other

+10
Just more proof on how clueless and brain dead abortion supporters are.

reply
dominic garcia 2012/05/08 14:56:15

YES - the two opinions are DEFINITELY CONTRADICTORY to each other

+13
It's our government's responsibility and duty to protect all Americans including the unborn ones, "All men are created equal." If we were to start paying for abortions then it would become a source of birth control. People need to start being responsible for their own actions. PAY FOR YOUR OWN ABORTIONS!

reply
Christopher Kirchen 2012/05/08 14:55:58

YES - the two opinions are DEFINITELY CONTRADICTORY to each other

+9
Yes; if Government is expected to support it, they should have the ability for it to be their "business".

reply
seadog6608PWCM 2012/05/08 14:52:31
Kat ♪ 2012/05/08 14:48:16

YES - the two opinions are DEFINITELY CONTRADICTORY to each other

+11
It's none of their business but they have to ok it and then fund it. Somebodys confused.

reply
merlinskiss 2012/05/08 14:47:49

NO - the two opinions are DEFINITELY NOT CONTRADICTORY to each other

+7
One is about healthcare and the other about the rights of a woman.

The only reasons politics gets involved is because this is an issue that can be used to polarize sheeple.

reply
Christo... to merlins... 2012/05/08 14:57:41

+5
If you honestly think that you haven't thought it through.

reply
merlins... to Christo... 2012/05/08 15:02:41

+4
On the contrary, I have and abortion has no place in running a country.

reply
Christo... to merlins... 2012/05/08 15:24:23

+4
There's no "right" to kill a child.

reply
merlins... to Christo... 2012/05/08 16:09:39

I disagree. The woman has the basic right to determine what happens to her fetus and her body. Again, without your input, beliefs or comments.

reply
merlins... to Christo... 2012/05/08 16:13:04

+1
There is no right for you to tell a woman she isn't free to choose what she wants for her fetus or her own life and body. What you think is not for everyone.

reply
Christo... to merlins... 2012/05/08 15:28:24

+2
Then government has no place in funding it; if they are expected to pay for it, they should have a voice in it.

reply
merlins... to Christo... 2012/05/08 16:09:57

+1
So you think... I don't!

reply
J.W. Ho... to merlins... 2012/05/08 20:51:35 (edited)

+1
Should the woman have the right to CHOOSE TO HAVE a hip replacement? - if the government will have to pay for the consultation, the visit and the procedure? - as well as who the physician or group of physicians will be who determine whether or not that woman actually NEEDS a hip replacement? -- and which surgeon will perform the operation if such a procedure is granted?

But, but...IF the government decided that the woman DID NOT NEED a hip replacement, yet the woman CHOOSES to have it because her doctor said she needed it, what then?

reply
merlins... to J.W. Ho... 2012/05/08 22:19:17

And just what part of our screwed up government, healthcare and the corporate medical profession don't you understand?

reply
J.W. Ho... to merlins... 2012/05/08 22:38:48 (edited)

+1
What part do you think I don't understand?

I have spent my entire working life in the field and industry...Still in it, in a semi-retired capacity.

That doesn't mean I would necessarily understand all of it, but go ahead and give it a shot.

reply
merlins... to J.W. Ho... 2012/05/08 22:51:30

Apparently not much... You tell me? What do you understand? Greed? Avarice? Corporatism? Cronyism? Sheeple re-electing them year after year? Pick one?

reply
J.W. Ho... to merlins... 2012/05/08 22:55:32

+1
OK...I don't understand much of it at all...Consider I don't understand ANY of it.

Please explain it to me.

reply
merlins... to J.W. Ho... 2012/05/08 23:06:09

Nope. If you know how to use the internet, educate yourself. Then it will be meaningful. Material on those subjects is readily available. Let me suggest just two sources. Do with them what you want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

http://usa.goooh.com/2011/03/...

reply
J.W. Ho... to merlins... 2012/05/09 17:37:07

lol.

You give me links to "educate" me, yet you have not even yet answered a simple "yes" or "no" question that I have asked you several times now.

Oh you, gave a reply, but you did not give a direct answer.

As educated as you are in your knowledge of healthcare, government, and the corporate medical profession, a simple "yes" or a simple "no" should be relatively easy for you when presented with the question -

""Are you a supporter of the healthcare law currently waiting on its verdict of full, conditional, or UN- Constitutionality in the SCOTUS?"

Yet, the answer you give sounds more like that of a "politician" which you seem to give an impression that you do not like.

Here is your only answer so far to my question above for anyone to see who might surf through this thread -

"I support good health care for all Americans. It is one of the few things the government can do that makes some sense. Take a small part of defense funding, foreign aid and use it for health care and medical research on humans. There is more than enough to go around in those pots. And no, I am not a socialist, but I do recognize a basic human need that is mostly unaffordable for the average sheeple in the middle class ruined by corporatism and cronyism. It might just create a job or two in this country."

LOL......

lol.

You give me links to "educate" me, yet you have not even yet answered a simple "yes" or "no" question that I have asked you several times now.

Oh you, gave a reply, but you did not give a direct answer.

As educated as you are in your knowledge of healthcare, government, and the corporate medical profession, a simple "yes" or a simple "no" should be relatively easy for you when presented with the question -

""Are you a supporter of the healthcare law currently waiting on its verdict of full, conditional, or UN- Constitutionality in the SCOTUS?"

Yet, the answer you give sounds more like that of a "politician" which you seem to give an impression that you do not like.

Here is your only answer so far to my question above for anyone to see who might surf through this thread -

"I support good health care for all Americans. It is one of the few things the government can do that makes some sense. Take a small part of defense funding, foreign aid and use it for health care and medical research on humans. There is more than enough to go around in those pots. And no, I am not a socialist, but I do recognize a basic human need that is mostly unaffordable for the average sheeple in the middle class ruined by corporatism and cronyism. It might just create a job or two in this country."

LOL...If you are not a politician, maybe you missed your calling.

I won't ask again as I have asked you to answer it three or four times now.

But, you won't be back on one of my polls...Sorry.
(more)

reply
Sheila to merlins... 2012/05/08 15:12:36

+5
Which woman? The one killing the child or the child who is female and being killed in an abortion?

IF the gov pays for it then they are conducting "business".

reply
merlins... to Sheila 2012/05/08 15:17:02

+2
I rest my case, you are polarized... Unborn children have only the rights the mother grants them. And those are none of your business.

reply
Sheila to merlins... 2012/05/08 15:31:20

+4
Unfortunately you are mistaken. The right to LIFE is the first of the God given rights mentioned.

reply
merlins... to Sheila 2012/05/08 16:15:23

There are no gods, just figments of your imagination with little voices saying you must do this this way, it is the only right way and everyone else must agree with you. See, you are polarized...

reply
Sheila to merlins... 2012/05/08 16:43:51 (edited)

+2
And you are wrong. But that is ok too. Have a nice day. BTW i was referencing our founding docs, NOT the bible.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

reply
merlins... to Sheila 2012/05/08 17:33:13 (edited)

I do not interpret that to mean a fetus is a man nor that there is a creator no matter how good it sounds. Eliminate creator and the meaning is the same. After all, men wrote them just like the bible and their prejudices are forever present.

I think you are wrong and presumptuous, religiously fanatical and/or naive. I find it interesting that you would force your beliefs and interpretations on others or that you think you even have the right to do so passing laws to force them to your way of thinking and denying them healthcare or else.... You do not!

reply
Sheila to merlins... 2012/05/08 17:38:17 (edited)

+2
Like I said you are free to be wrong. Have a nice day. I am not sure if you caught my answer to the right wingers putting under God into the pledge or not, but if you didn't here was my answer-- We don't care what you want. I stand by that here and there. I did not call names, YOU did that. I did not denigrate you or your beliefs. YOU did that. I said have a nice day and meant it. Still do mean it. So, I am done here and have a nice day.

reply
merlins... to Sheila 2012/05/08 18:04:29 (edited)

+1
I did not call you names, Just described your answers as I (and others BTW) saw them and now know which one fits. Do have a good one and if you want the last word? IT is all yours

reply
Savior to merlins... 2012/05/08 19:14:00

+2
Well isn't getting government funding involved making it "the government's business"

reply
merlins... to Savior 2012/05/08 22:28:18

Nope. Funding for healthcare need not be tied to anyones freedom to choose and decide what is right for them nor should it be. Besides, think of all the money it will save if we don't have another child in the system to support. The abortion is the cheapest solution... Always follow the money!

reply
J.W. Ho... to merlins... 2012/05/08 22:52:34 (edited)

+1
Are you a supporter of the healthcare law currently waiting on its verdict of full or conditional Constitutionality in the SCOTUS?

reply
merlins... to J.W. Ho... 2012/05/08 22:59:50

I support good health care for all Americans. It is one of the few things the government can do that makes some sense. Take a small part of defense funding, foreign aid and use it for health care and medical research on humans. There is more than enough to go around in those pots. And no, I am not a socialist, but I do recognize a basic human need that is mostly unaffordable for the average sheeple in the middle class ruined by corporatism and cronyism. It might just create a job or two in this country.

reply
J.W. Ho... to merlins... 2012/05/08 23:09:37 (edited)

+1
You say - "I support good health care for all Americans.".

Is that a YES or a NO regarding -

"Are you a supporter of the healthcare law currently waiting on its verdict of full, conditional, or UN- Constitutionality in the SCOTUS?"

reply
J.W. Ho... to merlins... 2012/05/08 23:24:24 (edited)

+1
Again -- is your answer above, a YES or a NO to my inquiry to you -

"Are you a supporter of the healthcare law currently waiting on its verdict of full, conditional, or UN- Constitutionality in the SCOTUS?"

reply
J.W. Ho... to merlins... 2012/05/09 13:03:34

Again -- is your answer above, a YES or a NO to my inquiry to you -

"Are you a supporter of the healthcare law currently waiting on its verdict of full, conditional, or UN- Constitutionality in the SCOTUS?"

reply
J.W. Ho... to merlins... 2012/05/09 17:26:56

Again -- is your answer above, a YES or a NO to my inquiry to you -

"Are you a supporter of the healthcare law currently waiting on its verdict of full, conditional, or UN- Constitutionality in the SCOTUS?"

reply
Philo-OOO For 3 weeks! 2012/05/08 14:47:38

YES - the two opinions are DEFINITELY CONTRADICTORY to each other

+16
More liberal hypocrisy...

reply
The Black Dagger 2012/05/08 14:46:11

YES - the two opinions are DEFINITELY CONTRADICTORY to each other

+23
It's definitely contradictory. If they don't want the government to tell them they can't have an abortion then they have no right to expect the government to force me to pay for the abortion.

reply
Marvelo... to The Bla... 2012/05/08 15:37:57

+8
BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO!
WELL STATED!

reply