• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Free prenatal and medical care for mothers denied an abortion.

Would you support free prenatal and medical care for mothers and their children?

  • I am pro-life, so of course I would support this.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I came across this little addendum to the abortion issue that has been in the news recently. And I think illustrates a significant aspect of what is going on in the minds and hearts of the politicians who are passing these anti-abortion laws throughout the U,S.
Alabama legislators refuse to fund mother and child health care as they ban nearly all abortions
Alabama’s Senate approved legislation on Tuesday that would ban nearly all abortions in the state at every stage of pregancy, but refused to consider amendments that would take provide health care for the mothers who were denied abortions.

State Senator Linda Coleman-Madison proposed an amendment to the bill that would require the state to provide free prenatal and medical care for mothers who had been denied an abortion by the new law.
What do you think? Would you support such a measure? Does this seem fair to you?
Her amendment was struck down by a vote of 23-6.
What do you think it means that this amendment was struck down so throughly, by the very same men who voted for such a harsh abortion ban? Are these men really deeply concerned about the health and well being of the unborn?
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
State Senator Linda Coleman-Madison proposed an amendment to the bill that would require the state to provide free prenatal and medical care for mothers who had been denied an abortion by the new law.
Regarding the "free" medical care; does that mean the doctors and hospitals will not charge for their services, or they will charge but someone other than the one actually receiving the services will be forced to pay for it? Or perhaps Senator Coleman-Madison and her fellow senators will pay for it?
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Regarding the "free" medical care; does that mean the doctors and hospitals will not charge for their services, or they will charge but someone other than the one actually receiving the services will be forced to pay for it? Or perhaps Senator Coleman-Madison and her fellow senators will pay for it?
I am sure you understand it the proposal was that it should be paid for by the state government through taxes. With that understanding, what do you think?

(Although I do like the idea of taking the money directly from the men who voted for the abortion ban)
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
I didn’t include a “no” because I could not imagine anyone actually choosing that. Why would anyone say “no”?

Because there is no such thing as free.

Unless, the hospitals and doctors provide medical care without charging. If that's the case I'm fine with it.

But I think you will find that nobody cares enough to do anything for free. Despite how much they say otherwise.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
I am sure you understand it the proposal was that it should be paid for by the state government through taxes. With that understanding, what do you think?

(Although I do like the idea of taking the money directly from the men who voted for the abortion ban)
I was being facetious in my first reply. I do understand that it will be paid for by those not actually getting the service, i.e. tax payers. Calling it "free" is double speak to the nth degree.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I was being facetious in my first reply. I do understand that it will be paid for by those not actually getting the service, i.e. tax payers. Calling it "free" is double speak to the nth degree.
So, understanding it as you do, what do you think? Should taxpayers pay for prenatal and medical care for mothers and their children? Is this not a good use of tax dollars?
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
So, understanding it as you do, what do you think? Should taxpayers pay for prenatal and medical care for mothers and their children? Is this not a good use of tax dollars?
As it is a state law, the state is definitively forcing the woman to be a slave to their baby production whims. As such it is not only necessary that the state pick up the tab for a safe and healthy delivery of the baby that they have commanded to be born, but they are now responsible for that life.
I.e. - the state has adopted the fetus, and enslaved the mother.

The state of Arizona taxpayers are therefore fully, and undeniably responsible for covering every penny of.....
1. The mother’s prenatal wellbeing, and the delivery of the child/children.
2. Any long-term medical care that the mother may require as a consequence of going through the full pregnancy (pelvic floor suspension surgery, and breast cancer associated with pregnancy at early age both leap to mind for starters).
3. Seamless immediate, and effortless adoption of the child, if the mother so wishes.
4. If the mother decides to raise the child, then the state taxpayers (with zero federal assistance), are on the hook just as any dead-beat dad, for all financial aid that the mother requires to raise, clothe, feed, educate, college financings, etc.... for the entire life of the child, as well as paying for any and all disruptions of the mother’s education and/or career.

They want it. They gotta pay for it.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
As it is a state law, the state is definitively forcing the woman to be a slave to their baby production whims. As such it is not only necessary that the state pick up the tab for a safe and healthy delivery of the baby that they have commanded to be born, but they are now responsible for that life.
I.e. - the state has adopted the fetus, and enslaved the mother.

The state of Arizona taxpayers are therefore fully, and undeniably responsible for covering every penny of.....
1. The mother’s prenatal wellbeing, and the delivery of the child/children.
2. Any long-term medical care that the mother may require as a consequence of going through the full pregnancy (pelvic floor suspension surgery, and breast cancer associated with pregnancy at early age both leap to mind for starters).
3. Seamless immediate, and effortless adoption of the child, if the mother so wishes.
4. If the mother decides to raise the child, then the state taxpayers (with zero federal assistance), are on the hook just as any dead-beat dad, for all financial aid that the mother requires to raise, clothe, feed, educate, college financings, etc.... for the entire life of the child, as well as paying for any and all disruptions of the mother’s education and/or career.

They want it. They gotta pay for it.

Do we have to pay slave owners for the financial impact they will undergo for releasing their slaves if by law we force them to do so ? If not, what is the difference ?

By the way, I agree with you up to #3. But #4 is really overdoing it.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
So it seems that none of this pro-life people would support a measure like this. Why is that? It would seem that if you were concerned about the life of these children you would be happy to see taxes going to that cause.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
So it seems that none of this pro-life people would support a measure like this. Why is that? It would seem that if you were concerned about the life of these children you would be happy to see taxes going to that cause.
Don't be so hasty with your conclusions. There could be a myriad reasons people don't want to pay for somebody else's health care. Maybe they think that it should be the mother's responsibility to pay for her own and her child's health care. I don't know, I'm just throwing out other possible reasons.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Don't be so hasty with your conclusions. There could be a myriad reasons people don't want to pay for somebody else's health care. Maybe they think that it should be the mother's responsibility to pay for her own and her child's health care. I don't know, I'm just throwing out other possible reasons.
That is what I am saying. The very same men who think it should be up to them to decide when a.woman can or cannot get an abortion figure that the health of the child is some one else’s responsibility.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
That is what I am saying. The very same men who think it should be up to them to decide when a.woman can or cannot get an abortion figure that the health of the child is some one else’s responsibility.
It is somebody else's responsible; the one who had the baby (with rare exceptions). When we first got married, we refrained from having children. Why? Because we couldn't afford to have a baby. We never would have dreamed of having taxpayers pay our way. What is so wrong with that? Are mothers these days that helpless? I don't think so. But they are getting that way the more we all are forced to pay for what they should be paying. It's not a good trajectory. Let's give people the credit for being able to fend for themselves.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
It is somebody else's responsible; the one who had the baby (with rare exceptions). When we first got married, we refrained from having children. Why? Because we couldn't afford to have a baby. We never would have dreamed of having taxpayers pay our way. What is so wrong with that? Are mothers these days that helpless? I don't think so. But they are getting that way the more we all are forced to pay for what they should be paying. It's not a good trajectory. Let's give people the credit for being able to fend for themselves.
Fine, but don’t let anyone tell you that the men you passed these abortion bills did so because they care about the well being of the child.

I actually do believe it should be the responsibility of the mother do deal with the situation the best way she sees fit. That is why I am pro-choice.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Fine, but don’t let anyone tell you that the men you passed these abortion bills did so because they care about the well being of the child.

I actually do believe it should be the responsibility of the mother do deal with the situation the best way she sees fit. That is why I am pro-choice.
I can't disagree with you on what you said about the people who passed the abortion bill. I don't really think they care about any particular mother or child. But I think that is pretty much the case with ant bill passed by a Senator/Representative. If they care at all about how it affects their constituents it is usually only to the degree that those constituents would be likely to return them to office. I suppose they care about others to some degree, but on the whole I think they are out for themselves.

In the book of Acts the early Christians took much better care of each other than we do today. Without being forced, they readily shared of their possessions with others to the degree that it said nobody lacked for anything. To me that is a much better model for a prosperous society.

How much money that could go directly to those in need is instead diverted to a bureaucracy that doles out the money? I don't really know, but I wouldn't be surprised if more than half the money people are forced to give away goes to administration and not to the poor person who needs the help. That is why I'm fundamentally against using tax dollars to help those in need.

Take care...
 
Top