Runes of Magic US / AU

unfortunately the act wich creates a child requires no intellegent thought process to happen, and usually even if intellegince is present, it is ignored. the process to support one on the other hand does require intelligence.

Abortion just might be the most incendiary issue to ever hit this forum. I'm kinda amazed that no one has really flamed much.

I belong to an organized religion that condemns abortion, and to a political party that supports it. That either makes me a hypocrite or a non-conformist. I prefer non-conformist... anyway, I digress. I don't think that the government should decide what a female can do with her body, and whether we like it or not, abortion mostly impacts women. Reproduction impacts women in personal ways that men can't really relate to. Yes, some of them have to pay for child support after the fact, but they have the option to walk away in a way that no pregnant woman can. You can't walk away from a foetus inside you, and "walking away" from it requires a medical procedure that is risky, invasive, expensive, painful and emotionally scarring.

No woman ever got pregnant just so she could go get an abortion. It's more like the impulse of an animal gnawing off a limb to escape a hunter's trap.

I have a sister who just gave birth to an unplanned child out of wedlock. She is college-educated, smart as hell, from a good family, and she was "raised right." I should also mention that she is white and from a family that lived in a comfy tax bracket. It can and does happen to women who should "know better." She knew more about reproductive health than the average woman, and she screwed up anyway, and she will be dealing with the consequences for the rest of her life, as will her (for lack of a better term) "baby daddy", who is also white, educated, and from a comfy tax bracket.

These problems don't just happen to "bad people." My sister could have chosen to avail herself of abortion services- she chose not to for her own reasons. Whether she made the right choice is a question only she can answer. Instead of getting a good job in the field she chose to study, she now works in a minimum wage job, so she can stay in the part of the country where her baby daddy lives, and she may end up stuck there forever. Birth has consequences, as does abortion.

Abortion is highly personal, and it's easy for people (and especially men) to make blanket statements about it's relative rightness or wrongness, and it's especially easy for men to say that women should just "keep their legs closed." They sometimes forget these things when they ask their own women to open their legs, and also forget that the procreative act requires the participation of both a woman and a man. Perhaps men need to learn to keep their legs closed also.

My personal opinion on abortion is that it should be legal, although from my religious perspective I believe the act to be wrong. In our country we separate religious beliefs from governance, and I think that this is the right way to do things. My religious convictions shouldn't dictate policy, any more than anyone else's religious beliefs. How I behave with my own body is my choice to make.

Whether the government should help women pay for abortions is a thornier question, and I suppose that has more to do with whether or not you believe the government should subsidize healthcare in general. Ideally, I believe that healthcare should be a service provided to all and paid for by all for all. Single-payer healthcare can work. I think it is better for the government to help women pay for abortions than for them to be faced with nothing but the option to give birth to unwanted children that they will be unable to raise. That is within the government's purview. It is up to churches and charities to find ways to help these women if they choose to bear their children, and to deal with the underlying social issues that can contribute to unwanted pregnancies. Social programs to prevent the need for and desirability of abortion should also be allowed to get government funding.

Contraception and abortion are a legitimate part of healthcare. Abortions are performed by doctors, contraceptives are prescribed by doctors, and they affect the health and wellness of women in profound ways. The issue is inflammatory because it only pertains to one sex- no man will ever need an abortion, so it makes the issue seem like a special-interest issue, when in fact the vast majority of women and men will be effected by some form of reproductive issue at some point in their lives. Most of us will face the choice to use a contraceptive at some point. Some of us will be forced to confront an unwanted pregnancy. If so, and if we are the one with the pregnancy, it will effect our health no matter what.

The bottom line is this: no one should force a woman to abort or bear a child against her will. If our government subsidizes healthcare for some citizens based on need, then abortion should be included under the same terms. No one should be forced to perform abortions against their will, and no one should be allowed to force their religious beliefs upon the populace except through constitutional channels, and only through majority vote/amending the constitution. If a majority of voters wish to amend the constitution to disallow abortion, so be it. Until then, as long as we choose to subsidize healthcare for some of our citizens in need, contraception and abortion should be covered the same way.

So under the mindset its performed by doctors so it should be covered, does that mean the $5000 boob job my wife had should be covered by the government too? Where does that argument end?

I think the government's hand in the pot should only extend to helping people cover medical costs of issues that are harmful for an individual, if the government is to be involved at all. Things people do voluntarily when there is no medicinal need for it should not be covered by government funded health care.

Quoted from "regentego;517861"

So under the mindset its performed by doctors so it should be covered, does that mean the $5000 boob job my wife had should be covered by the government too? Where does that argument end?

If her she had them removed first, because she had cancer, yes. If her boobs were diseased, and she needed to have them replaced, yes. If her boobs are magical, and can produce offspring, and she needed them to be replaced, sure.

Otherwise, it's a strawman. Well, strawboobie. Reminds me of the old "If you let gays marry, how are you going to keep people from marrying animals???" strawman argument.

Bigger boobiez =/= abortion. Elective procedure for vanity's sake =/= elective procedure to eliminate potential offspring. Carrying potential offspring is a legitimate health issue. Any woman who's given birth would be happy to explain that to you in excruciating detail. Heck, all I ever did was watch my best friend, and my sister, give birth- and I'd be happy to explain it to you. But you have 2.5 kiddos, so you know all about it already Ebil. Imagine a grapefruit and your left nostril....

So, as for your wife, as soon as her boobies start budding off baby Ebilone's, sure, she can get em fixed on the gov'ment dime.

Quoted from "KatalanOrk;517798"

You two are insane.

You only have sex to have children? -.- Areyou****ingserious?

And are you even old enough to have had the education that there is no 100% effective birth control? And if a girl is persuaded into having sex without protection then it is her responsibility? Everything is black and white?

Seriously I am going to have to stop posting in this thread as there is no way I can reasonable discuss this with people that the only things that are lower than their intellect is their ability to experience compassion and empathy.

Read betwen the lines much?? I never said that people have sex to make babies. I said that the proper use of protection is needed or there will be conquences. Where did you learn to read??? My words are straight forward and to the point IF YOU READ THEM. Reading between the lines and inserting what you want is a bad habit of a lot of people here and should STOP.

Payment for abortion shjould not be forced upon the taxpayers (which is what is happening). Convience is not a choice. You should not be able to kill an unborn human just beause you thik it was a mistake. I only condone abortion when it is to save the life of the mother and that is it. If the screwed up system and liberal scumbags would just get their noses out of other peples business and allow true sex education into schools then we wouldn't have the problem with teenaged pregnancies like we do. And unfortunately there are 10-20 times more black rteens getting pregnant than any other race out there. Does education work?? It cannot hurt, teens will do what they want unless they are taught right from wrong. In this world that is an impossible feat with the way the governments are sticking their unclean noses into everyone business instead of getting their own business straight. Politicians should only be thinking about bettering the country not attempting how to figure out how to screw over the taxpayer.

I've lived my whole life with tax payer funded health care. Health care which has included abortion since the 1960's.

I would much rather my taxes pay for countless abortions than have to pay for the damage to society caused by one unplanned, unwanted, unloved & neglected child that would have been aborted if that option had been available.

OK- I am going to head this one off at the pass.

Look. Offtopic means offtopic, and as such, this technically qualifies. However, this is a very hot topic, and by hot I mean potentially explosive. If you can talk to each other about this in a calm and respectful manner, please continue. However, I am telling you now: the second this thing starts breaking down into anything like a flamefest I will hit it so hard with the /closed hammer that the next topic in "Offtopic" will be something like "Kittens: are they cute and fuzzy?"

Get it? Got it? Good.

Quoted from "mnkmurphy885;517883"

If her she had them removed first, because she had cancer, yes. If her boobs were diseased, and she needed to have them replaced, yes. If her boobs are magical, and can produce offspring, and she needed them to be replaced, sure.

Otherwise, it's a strawman. Well, strawboobie. Reminds me of the old "If you let gays marry, how are you going to keep people from marrying animals???" strawman argument.

Bigger boobiez =/= abortion. Elective procedure for vanity's sake =/= elective procedure to eliminate potential offspring. Carrying potential offspring is a legitimate health issue. Any woman who's given birth would be happy to explain that to you in excruciating detail. Heck, all I ever did was watch my best friend, and my sister, give birth- and I'd be happy to explain it to you. But you have 2.5 kiddos, so you know all about it already Ebil. Imagine a grapefruit and your left nostril....

So, as for your wife, as soon as her boobies start budding off baby Ebilone's, sure, she can get em fixed on the gov'ment dime.

Not gonna flame you here but that was a non answer. Both are elective procedures, and no women who had cancer should not be getting government boob jobs. See this is why I asked "Where does this argument end?"

Its a never ending hole of justifications to have the government pay for elective procedures. Again im a fiscal conservative Republican, I see a potential for abuse, and opening the floodgates for women to attempt to get all sorts of government treatments. If you start allowing an elective such as this, you're only forcing millions to pay for something they don't morally agree with, that's how elections are lost. In short there is no good reason for this program, well other then the Democrats saying "come get an abortion on us, after that take some foodstamps" come election time they will say "The Republicans are going to take your abortions, and foodstamps away if you vote for them"

Quoted from "regentego;517924"

Not gonna flame you here but that was a non answer. Both are elective procedures, and no women who had cancer should not be getting government boob jobs. See this is why I asked "Where does this argument end?"

Its a never ending hole of justifications to have the government pay for elective procedures. Again im a fiscal conservative Republican, I see a potential for abuse, and opening the floodgates for women to attempt to get all sorts of government treatments. If you start allowing an elective such as this, you're only forcing millions to pay for something they don't morally agree with, that's how elections are lost. In short there is no good reason for this program, well other then the Democrats saying "come get an abortion on us, after that take some foodstamps" come election time they will say "The Republicans are going to take your abortions, and foodstamps away if you vote for them"

First I'm going to respond to mnk, I'm not sure I've ever heard of Mammilary Replacement surgery, I don't think that's even possible since it's fatty tissue... Ofcourse they could always use other tissue and such or how they perform breast enhancements but believe it or not Breasts are not required for life, and hardly required for quality of life.

And to both of you, the main problem is however you work the system, someone's going to abuse it. You go to the left and you get more gov't programs (which can also lead to an increased police force etc, the far left is police state) and then you look to the right and you get into corporate abuses, ie why most of the housing 'crisis' happened the lack of government restrictions on banks and loans. But it all comes down to people are idiots unfortunately, and no matter what kind of system you have, someone is going to abuse it, it's the nature of man.

I'm not personally in agreeance with all social programs, most of them are poorly put together, and don't get me started on how awful Non-Profit organizations actually are. If you want to see some awful social programs look at how Connecticut treats it's state employees, their retirement benefits are based on their 3 highest years of pay and they get free healthcare for life after they retire. It's something that's definetly bankrupting the state and it's highly abusable for any job that allows for overtime (yep the 3 highest years includes years where you worked overtime).

People will abuse this system too, I've volunteered in a soup kitchen or two and it's surprising how ungrateful the homeless are that receive the food, that and since it's free food for all, it's not just the homeless who show up.

What it comes down to is not whether you think abortion is right or not either way, it comes down from case to case, the most extreme example would be if a homeless woman got raped who was also very malnourished. I'd support the use of Plan B or an abortion if it were too late for the Plan B for that woman on the government's dime. Why? Well, there's a number of reasons but overall one of the biggest ones is that it'll cost the government more money in the long run if she's reliant on them anyways. I think this is one of the biggest arguments in general though, if someone who's already on welfare gets pregnant the cost of the abortion is going to cost less than the cost of keeping that child alive for probably the length of a year, maybe more time than that. (I'm not personally current on the costs of abortions myself)

Regardless though, there are a lot of people that the government shouldn't be footing the bill for, hell sometimes I think we might be more successful if we came up with a policy similar to China's in terms of children though base the number of children on income bracket, though if someone did happen to have a child we couldn't exactly do what China did and adopt them off to America.

Quoted from "grenville;517833"

With some conditions, I tend to feel the same way towards the vote.

I don't feel that abortion should be outlawed, but don't think it should be considered just another method of birth control, which is a position I have heard many times. Accidents do happen, but smart people take steps to prevent pregnancy beforehand.
Another issue which ties in with the gender issue, is that as it currently stands the choice to have an abortion is entirely up to the woman. If there's a pregnancy, no matter how much the man involved wants a child, the woman can have it aborted and he generally has no say at all.
However, even if the man has a hundred perfectly valid reasons for her getting an abortion, she can just say I'm having the baby, and your paying for it.

It just doesn't seem right that the decision to abort or to make someone else responsible for the next 18+ years can be made unilaterally.

I know it sounds bad to bring finances into it, but I have worked with many people, both men and women that have had 2-3 years of college, then had to quit and get full time jobs because of an accidental pregnancy. There have been some very promising careers that never got started because of it.

It's an important decision with the same consequences for either party, both should have a say in it.

agree 100%

Too bad it isnt as simple as canceling ur subscribtion to the gov. know what i mean? just like, ur fired, u arent doing the job i pay you to do, the service you provide to ME is not worth the value of what i pay you. its like trying to fire a union member, oh wait....

but i do agree that by paying for aborts saves money down the line, but chances are that female will make the same mistake again and true i am not a male, but i dont know how many times a female would have an abort before losing her mind. i think giving women an option to have their tubes tied at a younger age , the reversible way, without having to take a year of counseling might be wise. then they can just live their lives until they decide they want to increase the population. i would pay for the tying and reversal gladly before i support paying for even one abort, let alone multiples.

With all due respect for everyone, I gently close this one down. Off topic section or not, there are certain topics that have no room on this game forum and will only lead to hurting others and fights. This is one of these topics, as it combines religious beliefs, ethics, politics and sex. We have kids on this board and also we have no right to judge others as we have no insight into their life and these general assumptions and uncalled for judgements are hurting words for anyone who has been in a situation close to what is discussed here.

Thank you for your understanding.