Bush appoints anti-birth control fundamentalist to run family planning program

[delalluvia]

 

Makes me SOOOOOOOOOO fucking furious.

Are we surprised that Dubya's thinking on women's
rights as humans and thinking beings who need to
control their own reproduction in order to be better
educated and to be able to compete in the economic
world is something he's against?  Looks like he and
his cronies prefer American women to be alongside
burka-wearers in Muslim countries.

Here's the CNN story:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html

His guy Keroack has a group:

"A Woman's Concern [a Christian nonprofit] is
persuaded that the crass commercialization and
distribution of birth control is demeaning to women,
degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human
health and happiness."

A news blurb on NPR this morning about a government
report highlights that federal money has been going to
fund various "faith based" family planning that have
programs that have no accounability requirement for
effectiveness, accuracy or scientific validation.

Another winner was Dubya's previous appointment of
(evangelical) Dr. David Hager to an FDA advisory
committee that determined the fate of contraceptive
approvals.

Hager's ex-wife (Ms. Davis) describes their marriage:

""Sex was coinage; it was a commodity," she said.
Sometimes Hager would blithely shift from vaginal to
anal sex. Davis protested. "He would say, 'Oh, I
didn't mean to have anal sex with you; I can't feel
the difference,'" Davis recalls incredulously. "And I
would say, 'Well then, you're in the wrong business.'"

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/mcgarvey

Dr. Hager, who couldn't tell his wife's vagina from
her asshole, is a gynecologist.

[jpwagoneer1964]

So women can use abortion aas a means of birth controll? Sorry doing preinancy it's not just her body.

[delalluvia]

So women can use abortion aas a means of birth controll? Sorry doing preinancy it's not just her body.

Some women do, there are exceptions to everything of course, but the majority of women who need and use the service are not using it for birth control.  In case you haven't had an abortion, the process is not exactly a picnic.  But of course, you're missing the point of the issue.  The man is against ALL contraception.  Which means of course, forcing more women to do exactly as you say - using abortion as birth control.

[jpwagoneer1964]

Some women do, there are exceptions to everything of course, but the majority of women who need and use the service are not using it for birth control.  In case you haven't had an abortion, the process is not exactly a picnic.

Especially for the baby,

[delalluvia]

Especially for the baby,

Really? How do you know? 

[jpwagoneer1964]

Really? How do you know? 

Because the baby is kiled, murdured or didn't you realize that!!!!!

[delalluvia]

Because the baby is kiled, murdured or didn't you realize that!!!!!

No, all I know is that a fetus is killed.  It's not a baby.  It's just a bunch of cells with no brain and no consciousness.  That's all I know.  That's all the AMA knows as well.  I was just asking.

[jpwagoneer1964]

No, all I know is that a fetus is killed.  It's not a baby.  It's just a bunch of cells with no brain and no consciousness.  That's all I know.  That's all the AMA knows as well.  I was just asking.

But that's not the truth

[delalluvia]

But that's not the truth

It isn't?  Why not?

[jpwagoneer1964]

It isn't?  Why not?

So exactly when does "a bunch of cells' become a baby? Killing is killing, there is now way past that.

[delalluvia]

So exactly when does "a bunch of cells' become a baby? Killing is killing, there is now way past that.

When it has a brain.  I think - last I read - that's about 6 months or so?  Otherwise it's just a bunch of cells developing and dividing.

Killing is just killing.  What does that mean?

[jpwagoneer1964]

When it has a brain.  I think - last I read - that's about 6 months or so?  Otherwise it's just a bunch of cells developing and dividing.

Killing is just killing.  What does that mean?

At Conception is when itl's a baby, the cell are living thing. And it is no picnic for women, causing al lifetime of regret, sorrow that really can't be taken back.

[delalluvia]

At Conception is when itl's a baby, the cell are living thing. And it is no picnic for women, causing al lifetime of regret, sorrow that really can't be taken back.

Yes, the cells are living.  So are tumors.  Living cells.  I'd hardly call them babies though.  It is no picnic for women, causing a lifetime of regret and sorrow that can't be taken back, but at least she's the only one suffering.  She brings a child into this world, the child would suffer with her.

[jpwagoneer1964]

Yes, the cells are living.  So are tumors.  Living cells.  I'd hardly call them babies though.  It is no picnic for women, causing a lifetime of regret and sorrow that can't be taken back, but at least she's the only one suffering.  She brings a child into this world, the child would suffer with her.

Ever hear of adoption? Why would the child suffer? The woman had a chance at living to and here child had none?

[delalluvia]

Ever hear of adoption? Why would the child suffer? The woman had a chance at living to and here child had none?

Again, I'm talking an early term abortion.  Not a child.

[Sheriff Roland]

You have to accept that the "child to be" is the mother's responsibily. Her "Choice" is the one she will have to live with, and should not be dictated by other "opinions" (& that's all we have to offer here) as to when a human being begins life.

One hopes that the choice for or against abortion is a well informed one, but it MUST remain a woman's choice - not a religion based politically imposed decision.

You two have been very vocal in expressing your views, but people, they're merely that ... views, opinions.

Now let's respect that we have differing opinions.

Sheriff Roland

[jpwagoneer1964]

But there is no difference. Sorry. I think we both got our points across.

Mark

[delalluvia]

You have to accept that the "child to be" is the mother's responsibily. Her "Choice" is the one she will have to live with, and should not be dictated by other "opinions" (& that's all we have to offer here) as to when a human being begins life.

One hopes that the choice for or against abortion is a well informed one, but it MUST remain a woman's choice - not a religion based politically imposed decision.

You two have been very vocal in expressing your views, but people, they're merely that ... views, opinions.

Now let's respect that we have differing opinions.

Sheriff Roland

Well said,Roland.  Most of us have polarized views on the topic, but the main issue is that one POV should not supercede anothers.  If women want to have abortions, for whatever reason, it is STILL their body and there should not be others dictating laws against their having one based on their own belief systems.

And I do believe one needs a brain to be a person.  I believed strongly that that poor lady Terri Schiavo died 15 years ago.  The 'who' of her died with her brain, while the 'what' of her still lived on.  To me, it's just that simple.

[jpwagoneer1964]

And I do believe one needs a brain to be a person.  I believed strongly that that poor lady Terri Schiavo died 15 years ago.  The 'who' of her died with her brain, while the 'what' of her still lived on.  To me, it's just that simple.

The problem with that argument is that when a woman is pregnant it is no longer just her body.

[injest]

So women can use abortion aas a means of birth controll? Sorry doing preinancy it's not just her body.

yes you said that is your opinion already.

[injest]

but reading thru...you are both repeating yourselves. Since it doesn't seem either of you are going to change your stance; you should let it rest.

[David In Indy]

President Bush hates women.

President Bush hates gay people.

President Bush hates Native Americans.

President Bush hates Catholics, Jews and Muslims.

President Bush hates anyone who isn't a W.A.S.P.

President Bush hates Americans.

President Bush hates the World.

President Bush only loves himself, his family, and the few others who constantly kiss his ass.

President Bush should be impeached and thrown in prison. 

[LauraGigs]

Bush's policy is to give much more of a damn about cell clusters (stem cells, zygotes, et cetera) than about human beings. 

His stance on Iraq, the environment and healthcare all prove this. It would be laughable if it weren't so damn tragic.

[Front-Ranger]

The foundations of Christianity are in Judeaism, the first successful paternalistic religion. In those days, a man could take a female and impregnate her and there wasn't a damn thing she could do about it, under the law. Women developed the ability to abort unwanted pregnancies, which enraged men, and so the oppressive system of laws and morality was a counter-invention of men.

Actually the situation hasn't changed much even today, especially for poor women. They have little access to birth control and men use them for cheap entertainment and to assert their territorial claims.  Access to abortion is for many women the only way out of a life-long sentence to poverty and submission to men. 

[jpwagoneer1964]

Aparently no one has heard of adoption. And why should it ever be tax payer funded!

[Sheriff Roland]

Aparently no one has heard of adoption. And why should it ever be tax payer funded!

Mark, you're doing it again. you're repeating yourself:

Ever hear of adoption? Why would the child suffer? The woman had a chance at living to and here child had none?

As for taxpayers paying for it, it's part a being in a society that takes care of it's own (citizen's health matters to all - ergo the public purse should pay)

Edited for spelling purposes

[jpwagoneer1964]

The name is Mark

[delalluvia]

The name is Mark

Mark, you're repeating yourself.  Adoption is an option, but for a woman who is not capable, mentally, physically, emotionally, socially or economically to have a child what makes you think going through 9 months of carrying a child, dealing with all the changes both inside and outside, the burden of pre-natal care and finally the risks and costs of childbirth are any easier?

[jpwagoneer1964]

Mark, you're repeating yourself.  Adoption is an option, but for a woman who is not capable, mentally, physically, emotionally, socially or economically to have a child what makes you think going through 9 months of carrying a child, dealing with all the changes both inside and outside, the burden of pre-natal care and finally the risks and costs of childbirth are any easier?

The child had a chance at life. And the 9 months with be a hell of a lot easer versis a whole lifetime of regreat, loss, suffering by the woman. Most private adoption will support the mother during this time. Tthere are other choices. Most women live to regret ever having abortion, something that years of therapy can't ever cure.

Society shouldn't have to fund the misjudgement of others, I think the father should always pay. We seem to live in a society where we are not accountable for our actions.

[delalluvia]

The child had a chance at life. And the 9 months with be a hell of a lot easer versis a whole lifetime of regreat, loss, suffering by the woman.

And abandoning a full term child at an orphanage, where they may or may not be adopted is any easier on the woman?  You seem to think that all children are adopted.  If that were the case, why are so many children in state homes, orphanages or out and out abandoned on the street?

Because most people who want children want their own, not someone elses. 

There are other choices. Most women live to regret ever having abortion, something that years of therapy can't ever cure.

How do you know?  Most women have regrets, many have regrets but know they made the right decision for themselves.  Not every woman who has an abortion lives a horrible life of regret and needs therapy.  These are just stories intended to scare women from having abortions.  Most of the women I know who had abortions are now married, and have children.

Society shouldn't have to fund the misjudgement of others, I think the father should always pay. We seem to live in a society where we are not accountable for our actions.

Then the unwanted children will be abandoned on the street.  This is what usually happens when a parent cannot afford to raise a child and the state will not take them.  Take a look at Catholic countries to our south where abortion is strictly outlawed and the state has little money to pay for expensive upkeep of unwanted children.  There are many abandoned children in the streets. 

[Sheriff Roland]

The name is Mark

First let me apologise about the spelling error (I'm french & sometimes the spelling comes out wrong). Believe me, it was nothing more than a typo.

The child had a chance at life. And the 9 months with be a hell of a lot easer versis a whole lifetime of regreat, loss, suffering by the woman. Most private adoption will support the mother during this time. Tthere are other choices. Most women live to regret ever having abortion, something that years of therapy can't ever cure.

I believe I've adressed this before:

One hopes that the choice for or against abortion is a well informed one, but it MUST remain a woman's choice - not a religion based politically imposed decision.
Now let's respect that we have differing opinions.

Society shouldn't have to fund the misjudgement of others, I think the father should always pay. We seem to live in a society where we are not accountable for our actions.

again both of us have expressed our views on this one before:

Aparently no one has heard of adoption. And why should it ever be tax payer funded!

and

Mark, you're doing it again. you're repeating yourself:

As for taxpayers paying for it, it's part a being in a society that takes care of it's own (citizen's health matters to all - ergo the public purse should pay)

So allow me to suggest that going around in circles is great for increasing out post counts, but little else. Our views are out there and need not be repeated endlessly.

[nakymaton]

If you haven't been pregnant, you can't really know what those nine months are like. Your body is simultaneously your body and not your body. Your mind is simultaneously your old mind, and some strange, bizarre thing that is transformed by hormones: emotional, irrational, capable of new things and incapable of old ones. The fetus is simultaneously part of you and something of its own, and changes throughout those nine months, from something indistinguishable from the experience of bad PMS during the first month (and how many menstrual periods may involve the natural self-aborting of a fertilized egg, or the failed implantation of an egg?), to something that wriggles and kicks and responds to music and movement. It is a terrible and wonderful experience. Nobody should be forced to experience it. Nobody should be forced not to experience it. And the physical and mental experience does not end with the separation of the fetus/child from the woman, whether the pregnancy ends with birth or with abortion or with miscarriage; whether a child is adopted or raised by its birth mother.

There are no easy answers. Life does not have a simple beginning. An egg is a living cell. A sperm is a living cell. A fertilized egg will not live unless it is implanted. Without intervention, some fertilized eggs will go on to become fetuses and then babies; many will never be successfully implanted, or will be miscarried, or will be stillborn. With medical intervention, some fertilized eggs that would otherwise not have survived will go on to become adult human beings. Intervention may prevent some eggs from being fertilized, or it may prevent some fertilized eggs from being implanted, or may prevent some fetuses from being born. And human intervention may prevent some children from living to adulthood, or may keep some children alive. Humans keep some young men and women alive when they would otherwise have died, and kill others who would otherwise have lived. Humans can keep a brain-dead woman alive on a machine, and can use machines to kill convicted criminals.

"Thou shalt not kill" is a far more complicated commandment than it may seem at the surface.

[Arad-3]

 Abortion will always be an issue that there will never be a right or wrong answer to. There are just to many pro's and con's to this subject.

Yes men women and men use abortion repeatedly as a quick remedy to careless sex. This is wrong.  But there are alot of reasons that a abortion is justified.( my opinion)  Like a violent rape. birth defects, mental and phisical health of the mothers and fathers. Poverty. and Age .etc. Is is wrong or is it right? i don't know. but unfortunately, sometimes it is necessary.

[injest]

The foundations of Christianity are in Judeaism, the first successful paternalistic religion. In those days, a man could take a female and impregnate her and there wasn't a damn thing she could do about it, under the law. Women developed the ability to abort unwanted pregnancies, which enraged men, and so the oppressive system of laws and morality was a counter-invention of men.

Actually the situation hasn't changed much even today, especially for poor women. They have little access to birth control and men use them for cheap entertainment and to assert their territorial claims.  Access to abortion is for many women the only way out of a life-long sentence to poverty and submission to men. 

actually abortion has been found in even earlier civilizations...but you are right that men reacted to it by using the draconian means we see in the Middle East and Africa...(ok...everywhere...LOL)

[jpwagoneer1964]

Oh? and what about rape and incest? babies with major deformities?

Society funds the misjudgement of a lot of people. you are contradicting yourself here...if the woman is permanently traumatized seems she is being 'held accountable for her actions'

and what about the man? Studies here in Texas show that with teenage mothers the FATHERs AVERAGE age is over seven years older than the girl. Where would we imprison these men? Because I would assume that if you advocating forcing girls to carry babies to term that you will want the men similarly 'inconvenienced'

Never having carried a child yourself; you can have NO idea of the pain and suffering you go thru. I WANTED my children..and spent a total of six months flat on my back too sick to move...I very nearly died. A young girl forced to carry a child will have  permanent physical problems.

Sadly I don't think changing the legal status is the answer. I certainly do not disagree that in cases of rape,  incest and  the heath or imaturity of the mother preventing carrying full term.

I do think our citizens should he held accoutable for there actions. I never suggested that we imprission the father only have the pay the costs, not the taxpayers. This could be done just like deadbeat dad were it is collected thru Social Security. if the dad is a minor should be split between parents.

In California a minor teenage girl is requred parent permission to get her ears pierced but not to have an abortion!

Giveng up a baby to a family for adoption is an honorable thing.

[LauraGigs]

I respect your point of view and don't want to argue things into the ground. But you make it all sound so easy.

Hold the father accountable? How, exactly, when so many just abandon the mother? How would this be enforced? What infrastructure would state governments have to set up to enforce this, and how much would that cost (hello) taxpayers? (Or do we just magically privatize it all, and have adoption agencies chasing down deadbeat dads — adding to the cost of adoption, which is already prohibitive?)

Giveng up a baby to a family for adoption is an honorable thing.

Again, so easy and simple. Healthy white infants are a hot "commodity", but what of the babies who don't fall into this category? What happens to them?

[delalluvia]

Sadly I don't think changing the legal status is the answer. I certainly do not disagree that in cases of rape,  incest and  the heath or imaturity of the mother preventing carrying full term.

I do think our citizens should he held accoutable for there actions. I never suggested that we imprission the father only have the pay the costs, not the taxpayers. This could be done just like deadbeat dad were it is collected thru Social Security. if the dad is a minor should be split between parents.

In California a minor teenage girl is requred parent permission to get her ears pierced but not to have an abortion!

Giveng up a baby to a family for adoption is an honorable thing.

Laura is right, you make it sound so quick and easy when it is nothing of the sort.  Apparently you're not aware that enforcing deadbeat dads to cough up money also takes funding a whole bureacracy to do so - i.e. taxpayer money.  And you underestimate the viability of such assistance.  One friend had to call every month for enforcement because if she did not, her ex- would not pay.  Another friend never got any money because every time her ex- got a job, reported his new job to the Attorney General for deductions to begin, he found out exactly how long the paperwork would take to go through, then he just quit his job and went to another and the whole process started again.  That was of course, when he wasn't living on his new girlfriends.  Not every father out there has an upscale profession that he can't leave.

In many situations, the father is an adult, over 18, but does not have a job.  He's 19 or so, still living with his parents.  Who are you going to suggest be billed then?

Society does constantly fund misjudgments.  From welfare to social security.  This is nothing new.

Adoption is an option.  it is always an option, but it shouldn't be the only option.

And let's not pass judgments on what is honorable and what is not.  You start to describe something as honorable, you put society right back into Middle Age attitudes.

Adoption is honorable.

Having sex ONLY in the bonds of matrimony is honorable.

All women (not men, mind you) who have sex outside of marriage are not honorable and as such are whores and should be stoned to death.

All that was and in some places still is 'honorable' too.   

Who wants that?

[injest]

In my state Texas, records show the fathers of the babies of teenage mothers are on AVERAGE seven (7) years older. That is the average!

and as far as collecting child support? the state attorney generals office tells the mothers that if the fathers pay even a little every month no charges will be filed on them. I have a friend that worked at Kmart? She said every month they would get women coming to pick up their child support from Western Union? they were all between 25 and 50 dollars. Because the men know that as long as they have a receipt saying they paid SOMETHING no one in the government was going to say a word.

Women on welfare getting $25 a month child support have no access to help. The program giving them legal assistance has been gutted. and the people figuring their food stamps or housing assistance count the FULL amount of the support to figure their allotments; no matter how much they are actually getting from the father.

There are no simple or economical solutions.

[Penthesilea]

Just a quick statistics about fathers (not) paying child support. This statistics is from Germany, I'd be interested if any of you have one for the US.
Please have in mind that Germany has relatively strict laws concerning child support. Theoretically there's no way around it, but reality shows different:

1/3 pays no child support at all
1/3 pays too less and/or irregulary
1/3 pays regulary child support amounting to what the court decision says

Even fathers of born children lack of willingness to pay for their children. Many of them have lived together with their children for years. One should think it's self-evident to take financially care for their offspring - but it isn't.

Do you think fathers-to-be would be any more willing/responsible to contribute their share?

From Mark:
I certainly do not disagree that in cases of rape,  incest and  the heath or imaturity of the mother preventing carrying full term.

So there are cases in which you think abortion is/should be/might be justified. But who has the right to decide in what cases an abortion is justified and in which not?
Roland has put it to the point:

One hopes that the choice for or against abortion is a well informed one, but it MUST remain a woman's choice - not a religion based politically imposed decision.

The key to avoid abortions are not threats and punishments, but is sex education, access to contraceptive and providing advice and financial help for women who have an unwanted pregnancy.

[injest]

and please note...although we have been discussing abortion...this guy is anti-BIRTH CONTROL...that means he objects to the pill, condom and natural methods....not just abortion!

he is not an anti abortionist...he is abstinence only!

and to me that is very close to the hard core religious people who feel it is wrong to attempt to stop getting pregnant at all. There are groups who feel it is the DUTY of married people to reproduce and take the stand that married couples should engage in sexual relations and leave it up to God how many children they are 'blessed' with.

remember there are religious people who object to masturbation too...all sex should be an opportunity for a baby to be born.

very unrealistic and to me dangerous.

[Front-Ranger]

To add to the complications, girls are growing up faster than ever. Today, girls sometimes as young as 9 years old are capable of having children. Why this is happening is not known and is not even being studied. Pre-teen and teenaged children should not be required to have babies if they become pregnant. Of course, having a child and giving it up for adoption is very honorable, but it should always be the choice of the mother whether to do this.

[nakymaton]

he is not an anti abortionist...he is abstinence only!

and to me that is very close to the hard core religious people who feel it is wrong to attempt to stop getting pregnant at all. There are groups who feel it is the DUTY of married people to reproduce and take the stand that married couples should engage in sexual relations and leave it up to God how many children they are 'blessed' with.

This is my biggest problem with the abstinence-only people. They assume that anyone who is married will be having children. And having children. And having children.

This bothers me for two reasons. A) I am not a baby factory. I am a human being with a brain and with talents and abilities that, frankly, do not suit me for a lifetime of pregnancy and child-rearing. And B) The world is already a damn crowded place. Every child born in the US consumes some ridiculous amount of energy, and generates a ridiculous amount of garbage. We pollute our air and our water. We are changing the atmosphere. And the damage that we and our children do will make this planet a less pleasant place for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. (And the contributions of a few brilliant individuals don't balance the damage done by the sheer numbers of humans on this planet.)

I don't believe in preventing people from having children that they want, and I'm not going to promote abortion for population control. But in societies where women have education and the right to choose whether or not to bear children, population growth rates tend to be lower.

Abstinence may be a great idea for teenagers (though it may not be realistic). But the people who promote it act as if there is no reason why married people would ever want to prevent pregnancies. And that scares me.

[injest]

another scary thing...

here in Texas there are some religious radio stations...here since the election they have started focusing almost exclusively on the idea that Americans are not producing enough children to maintain our current level of living.

and these are seperate channels! (not that there are conspiracies!! LOL)

They keep calling up these statistics that there are not enough children being born and that we are in danger of extinction because the average number of children have dropped under 2 per couple...

seriously, a few less people wouldn't bother me...

they say we will not have enough people to run the country or to pay taxes and that we will be vulnerable to takeover...

[injest]

Just a quick statistics about fathers (not) paying child support. This statistics is from Germany, I'd be interested if any of you have one for the US.
Please have in mind that Germany has relatively strict laws concerning child support. Theoretically there's no way around it, but reality shows different:

1/3 pays no child support at all
1/3 pays too less and/or irregulary
1/3 pays regulary child support amounting to what the court decision says

Even fathers of born children lack of willingness to pay for their children. Many of them have lived together with their children for years. One should think it's self-evident to take financially care for their offspring - but it isn't.

Do you think fathers-to-be would be any more willing/responsible to contribute their share?


So there are cases in which you think abortion is/should be/might be justified. But who has the right to decide in what cases an abortion is justified and in which not?
Roland has put it to the point:

The key to avoid abortions are not threats and punishments, but is sex education, access to contraceptive and providing advice and financial help for women who have an unwanted pregnancy.

this was the only website I could find..(sorry I am Googlechallenged)
The Federal Office of Child Support Preliminary Statistics for 2004 reports over $107 Billion in accumulated unpaid support (up from $100 billion in 2002) is due to 17 million children in the United States. The government child support agency collection rate, the percentage of cases receiving one or more payments was 50%, which is down from 68% in 2002.


please note...cases recieving ONE payment count toward that 50%

[injest]

according to the office of Child Support Enforcement...out of 1,524,569 cases filed for child support only 662,526 have a known father. Whether the mother refuses to say or if the men refuse to acknowledge...we pay for them....

so which do you want? to pay a couple of hundred for an abortion or tens of thousands for a life time for these children....

an interesting quote from the director:

 But we collected an average of $600 per arrearage case, while the average amount of arrears per arrearage case is $9,000.

[delalluvia]

What Mel and injest said.  The guy is particularly bad to be in the position because he is anti-contraception.

I know the type and they are almost always Born Agains and fundamentalists and the Born Agains are usually the most hypocritical.  They believe that STDs and unwanted pregnancies could be prevented if only unmarried people would stop having sex!

Therefore if people come down with STDs or unwanted pregnancies, it is their own fault for not following the mandates of God who is only trying to care for us and those sinners should pay for it, both spiritually, physically and economically.  To try to solve the problem is to try to avoid punishment from god for their sinful ways.

    Yeah, I know.

This is the compassion of these people who - by the by - think nothing of avoiding god's punishment to them by feeding their kids antibiotics and having corrective surgery when they become ill.  One of my Born Again friends is a hypocrite of the worst sort.  He believes all single people should not have sex if they are not married.

This is after he had a nice normal young adulthood of having sexual threesomes in college, 'dating' topless dancers by the half dozen and pretty much trying to score with any woman who would have him.  He was faaaaaaar from being a virgin when he got married, but now sees no problem in passing judgment on others who lead the same life he did.

Dubya's man is probably very similar in attitude and not the kind of person who should be in charge of this program.  Funding has already been cut to Planned Parenthood, though thankfully, only a 3rd of their funding came from the government.  The rest is from private donations and organizations.

The countries with the smallest percentage of pregnant teenagers and STDs are those Scandinavian countries that emphasize birth control and safe sexual practices to their children from almost grade school.

A man who preaches abstinence in charge of such an important family planning program is a step backward, not forward.

[jpwagoneer1964]

What Mel and injest said.  The guy is particularly bad to be in the position because he is anti-contraception.

I know the type and they are almost always Born Agains and fundamentalists and the Born Agains are usually the most hypocritical.  They believe that STDs and unwanted pregnancies could be prevented if only unmarried people would stop having sex!

 
This is the compassion of these people who - by the by - think nothing of avoiding god's punishment to them by feeding their kids antibiotics and having corrective surgery when they become ill.  One of my Born Again friends is a hypocrite of the worst sort.  He believes all single people should not have sex if they are not married.

This is after he had a nice normal young adulthood of having sexual threesomes in college, 'dating' topless dancers by the half dozen and pretty much trying to score with any woman who would have him.  He was faaaaaaar from being a virgin when he got married, but now sees no problem in passing judgment on others who lead the same life he did.

Dubya's man is probably very similar in attitude and not the kind of person who should be in charge of this program.  Funding has already been cut to Planned Parenthood, though thankfully, only a 3rd of their funding came from the government.  The rest is from private donations and organizations.

The countries with the smallest percentage of pregnant teenagers and STDs are those Scandinavian countries that emphasize birth control and safe sexual practices to their children from almost grade school.

A man who preaches abstinence in charge of such an important family planning program is a step backward, not forward.

So you are judging, read that prejudging all Christians from a few. How fair is that?

[delalluvia]

So you are judging, read that preejudging all Christians from a few. How fair is that?

I am not judging him.  He has already admitted as such and he is already in support of such actions.  I don't have to judge him, I"m merely stating the obvious and clearly written.

[jpwagoneer1964]

I am not judging him.  He has already admitted as such and he is already in support of such actions.  I don't have to judge him, I"m merely stating the obvious and clearly written.

Yet you are judging all Christians.

[injest]

What Mel and injest said.  The guy is particularly bad to be in the position because he is anti-contraception.

I know the type and they are almost always Born Agains and fundamentalists and the Born Agains are usually the most hypocritical.  They believe that STDs and unwanted pregnancies could be prevented if only unmarried people would stop having sex!

Therefore if people come down with STDs or unwanted pregnancies, it is their own fault for not following the mandates of God who is only trying to care for us and those sinners should pay for it, both spiritually, physically and economically.  To try to solve the problem is to try to avoid punishment from god for their sinful ways.

    Yeah, I know.

This is the compassion of these people who - by the by - think nothing of avoiding god's punishment to them by feeding their kids antibiotics and having corrective surgery when they become ill.  One of my Born Again friends is a hypocrite of the worst sort.  He believes all single people should not have sex if they are not married.

This is after he had a nice normal young adulthood of having sexual threesomes in college, 'dating' topless dancers by the half dozen and pretty much trying to score with any woman who would have him.  He was faaaaaaar from being a virgin when he got married, but now sees no problem in passing judgment on others who lead the same life he did.

Dubya's man is probably very similar in attitude and not the kind of person who should be in charge of this program.  Funding has already been cut to Planned Parenthood, though thankfully, only a 3rd of their funding came from the government.  The rest is from private donations and organizations.

The countries with the smallest percentage of pregnant teenagers and STDs are those Scandinavian countries that emphasize birth control and safe sexual practices to their children from almost grade school.

A man who preaches abstinence in charge of such an important family planning program is a step backward, not forward.

you know I think you are way smart...and I agree with most everything in your post but i just am uncomfortable with saying you know a 'type'...to me that is being prejudiced and no different than them making blanket generalizations about gays or women...

[delalluvia]

you know I think you are way smart...and I agree with most everything in your post but i just am uncomfortable with saying you know a 'type'...to me that is being prejudiced and no different than them making blanket generalizations about gays or women...

I'm sorry injest, but when I say I know the type, I'm not talking out of thin air.  Does it cover everyone?  Of course not.  Not even my religious friends.  Some are extremely liberal.  But I have yet to meet a liberal Born Again.  All of them have this attitude.  If any of you out there know a Born Again Christian who does not espouse this attitude, please let me know, I would be happy to transmit this information along to my Born Again friends who do.

I don't know what else to call someone who says one thing but does another but hypocrites or cherry pickers or cafeteria Christians.  I'm really down on the Mormon religion, for being what it is, but amazingly the best Christian I've ever met has been a Mormon.  He is a strict follower of all their practices, down to wearing the funky underwear, keeping to his diet, keeping his virginity and keeping the Sabbath.  I don't call the guy on Sundays because he's not taking calls, going to movies, watching TV or getting on the computer.

It would not be giving this guy justice to call the cherry pickers, Christians, alongside this guy.  It seems that he has earned being called a Christian while the others are pretty much wannabes.  And it's not a judgment call either.  Christians/Born Agains are XYZ according to their own beliefs.  I simply match actions to belief systems.

[injest]

I visited their website last night...they wrote like they thought we were all r   e   a   l   l   y    S  L  O  W!!

Nice to know they have such a high opinion of their visitors...

[Kelda]

Yet you are judging all Christians.

It could be said you are doing the same thing when discussing those that have abortions.

As for UK stats on payments made by parents can't find any quickly but the child support agency here in the UK is in turmoil and is to be scrapped. Its absolutely useless.

my sister sees her ex husband working every day - yet he pays £5 a week for his 3 kids. and he gets legal aid - as he says he doesn't have a job and despite her providing photographic evidence.. she can't get him to pay up or get the csa to catch him.

No argument is cut and dry - but I think there should be options available to people which do not enforce people in every day life to adhere by the judgements of others.

I'm not a regualr church goer - I admit it. But my philosophy is - if I am a good person, I do right by my family, friends etc, and help out as I can in my community and treat everyone as equals and speak up where I feel prejudices come about - then I am a good person and god will now that and reward me for that. 

There are plenty of so called devout christians out there that are the worst kind of people I know.

[ednbarby]

I have a suggestion:  Let's make all women experiencing unwanted pregnancies carry them to term under the following condition:

The father of the unwanted pregnancy must wear a Scarlet Letter A embroidered on the front of every piece of clothing he owns for the rest of his life, and he must have one tattooed on his chest for when he goes shirtless.

Because a woman carrying an unwanted child is not just experiencing all the physiological and psychological traumas associated with that.  She is showing the unsympathetic world that she is a "sinner" as soon as she starts to show.  Why should that be only the mother's burden?  Isn't it half the father's, too?  And it doesn't end when the pregnancy is over and the child is born and given to adoptive parents.

You know what I think would bring an end to the whole abortion debate as we know it?  Is if there were a law that said that not only would the fathers have to wear the scarlet letter (and what the hell - I'll be fair about it - the mothers do, too, after the babies are born), but that conservative lawmakers would have to foot the bill for *every one* of those adoptive babies.  Until they are 18.  Better yet - that they'd have to adopt every last one of them into their own families.

I'd like to see these assholes - oh, sorry - these people put their money where their mouths are.

I'm guessing you're not a parent, Mark.  I'm guessing that because almost without exception, the most vocal pro-lifers I know are not.  But if you are, I apologize.  And if you are, you know that raising a child you wanted more than anything in the world is hard as nails.  Now imagine raising one you didn't want.  And what if you don't have the resources to go and put that child up for adoption?  What if you're a poor, urban crack addict whose child nobody is gonna want to adopt?  Do you think it's still better to bring that unwanted child into your horrible, miserable world than the alternative?  Are you willing to adopt *that* child?

I do respect your opinion and understand it very well.  But I think that you also need to consider that we aren't talking about middle-class surbanites having unwanted pregnancies more times than not.
 

[injest]

not that we have strong feelings about this issue though

 

It is called a hot button issue for a reason!

I don't think Mark is a bad guy here, ya'll...and he has indicated he is open to debate...let's not get too far on his case. If we all agreed with each other the world would be a very boring place. and I for one like to hear the other side...even if I disagree...

I do want to keep discussing this issue...the appointee's stance DOES (in my opinion) disqualify him ...can we focus on the appointee's views...and lets not go to personal attacks..

NO ONE has at this point but I just wanted to wave everyone off before it gets too hot in here!!

[delalluvia]

not that we have strong feelings about this issue though

 

It is called a hot button issue for a reason!

I don't think Mark is a bad guy here, ya'll...and he has indicated he is open to debate...let's not get too far on his case. If we all agreed with each other the world would be a very boring place. and I for one like to hear the other side...even if I disagree...

I do want to keep discussing this issue...the appointee's stance DOES (in my opinion) disqualify him ...can we focus on the appointee's views...and lets not go to personal attacks..

NO ONE has at this point but I just wanted to wave everyone off before it gets too hot in here!!

You said it injest!!  Whew, the sweat is really flying here!  We'll try to keep it as civil as possible. 

[ednbarby]

Sorry, y'all!  Definitely my biggest hot-button issue.  Can you tell? 

Mark, I mean no disrespect.  I respect you and your argument/opinions very much.  And I don't expect to change your mind - just give you an opposing viewpoint you may not have thought about and that, while you won't agree with it, will give you a little more understanding as to where some of us are coming from on this issue.

Peace.

[David In Indy]

NO ONE has at this point but I just wanted to wave everyone off before it gets too hot in here!!

It sure did get hot in here Jess. All this heat snapped the elastic in my BVD's.

Let's all sit down and cool off.

A glass of ice cold lemonade for everyone. 

[injest]

It sure did get hot in here Jess. All this heat snapped the elastic in my BVD's.

Let's all sit down and cool off.

A glass of ice cold lemonade for everyone. 

here you go...

[ednbarby]

Mmmmm.  I feel cooler already. 

[jpwagoneer1964]

My favorite drink:

Plain iced tea with lemon.

[injest]

you know I have been going thru this website and I am wondering...where is their MEN'S website. Why doesn't he get up in MEN'S sexual behavior?

I am still furious that insurance will cover erectile disfunction drugs but not birth control! (well my friends' insurance at least...there may be some plans that cover both)

[Lynne]

you know I have been going thru this website and I am wondering...where is their MEN'S website. Why doesn't he get up in MEN'S sexual behavior?

I am still furious that insurance will cover erectile disfunction drugs but not birth control! (well my friends' insurance at least...there may be some plans that cover both)

A good question.  I am fortunate to work for a progressive company.  My company offers benefits to the employee and/or spouse, and spouse can be a legal domestic partner.  I suppose that is b/c it's an international company...no legal partnerships legalized in AL.  Prescription birth control, vasectomies, tubal ligations all covered.  Condoms, interestingly enough are not...probably because they are non-prescription.  They can be reimbursed via a pre-tax spending account.

[ednbarby]

My insurance is through UnitedHealthcare, via American Airlines.  They do *not* cover birth control (or preventative medicine like annual GYN exams and tests), but they probably do cover erectile dysfunction "therapies," knowing them, and considering that they're probably about the most male-dominated industry in the country, after oil drilling and politics.

[LauraGigs]

Tell Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt to reject Keroack's appointment immediately:

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/feministmajority/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6020

[delalluvia]

Tell Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt to reject Keroack's appointment immediately:

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/feministmajority/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6020

Already did through Planned Parenthood's petition:

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/replace_keroack2

I am still furious that insurance will cover erectile disfunction drugs but not birth control! (well my friends' insurance at least...there may be some plans that cover both)

Yeah, really chaps me as well.  From what I gathered, there is no real reason other than favoritism toward men.  A man doesn't have to get a woody to pee, so there's no real 'health' reason for insurance to cover ED drugs and not birth control.  Things are changing, thankfully.

[Penthesilea]

A man doesn't have to get a woody to pee, so there's no real 'health' reason for insurance to cover ED drugs  

Are you serious here or was this a cynical joke?

I hate that to play the devil's advocate here, but....

A female body getting pregnant is no illness. On the contrary, it's what the female body is made for (Edit: please keep in mind that I say female body not  women. I mean the plain bodily functions of every female mammal).
Erectile dysfunction is an illness and therefore it is indeed a health reason to be covered. Only because ED drugs are misused as "lifestyle drugs" doesn't mean that ED isn't an illness. ED is often an effect of spinal cord injuries, diabetes, injuries from previous operations, etc. There are many reasons for ED, not all so clear as in these examples.

Back on topic: I agree birth control should be covered to avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions. It's not logical, it's not fair and I understand your anger about the situation.
 

[delalluvia]

was this a cynical joke?

Not at all.

A female body getting pregnant is no illness. On the contrary, it's what the female body is made for. Erectile dysfunction is an illness and therefore it is indeed a health reason to be covered. Only because ED drugs are misused as "lifestyle drugs" doesn't mean that ED isn't an illness. ED is often an effect of spinal cord injuries, diabetes, injuries from previous operations, etc. There are many reasons for ED, not all so clear as in these examples.

EDs are symptomatic of other diseases.  Not getting an erection is not an 'illness' in itself.  Do people HAVE to have sex to be healthy human beings?  Mentally perhaps, psychologically perhaps, but physically?  Many celibates live long healthy lives.  However, many women do die from pregnancy and giving birth.  Which do I think more important?  Well, I've already made that clear.

[ednbarby]

EDs are symptomatic of other diseases.  Not getting an erection is not an 'illness' in itself.  Do people HAVE to have sex to be healthy human beings?  Mentally perhaps, psychologically perhaps, but physically?  Many celibates live long healthy lives.  However, many women do die from pregnancy and giving birth.  Which do I think more important?  Well, I've already made that clear.

I'll drink the holiday eggnog to that. 

[Penthesilea]

Do people HAVE to have sex to be healthy human beings?  Mentally perhaps, psychologically perhaps, but physically?  Many celibates live long healthy lives.  However, many women do die from pregnancy and giving birth.  Which do I think more important?  Well, I've already made that clear.

Is it necessary to be mentally and psycholigically healthy to be a healthy human being?

What about counselling sessions? Should they not be covered by health insurance?

The mental and psychological state of a person has effects on his physical well-being and vice versa because humans are more than the sum of their organs.


More apples and oranges, but I hope you'll see what I want to express with these examples:

What about the little finger of your left hand? Do you really need it? I mean is it essentially for you to survive? I, for example, could live without the little finger on my left hand. Since I'm neither a piano player nor a secretary, it wouldn't even handicap me in my daily life and job if I hadn't it.
But if I injured it tomorrow, I would expect my health incurance to cover the costs to rescue it and regain it's full functionality.

Or what about the treatment of scars? Imagine you had a big scar right across your cheek and it could be treated, so in the effect it would be far less apparent. Should health insurance cover the costs? Cause you won't experience physical illness directly as an effect from it.

Following your logic wiht ED, health insurance should not cover the costs of said scar treatment either.


Edit: I modified a statment in my earlier post, because it was perhaps mistakable:

A female body getting pregnant is no illness. On the contrary, it's what the female body is made for (Edit: please keep in mind that I say female body not  women. I mean the plain bodily functions of every female mammal).

[Kelda]

My insurance is through UnitedHealthcare, via American Airlines.  They do *not* cover birth control (or preventative medicine like annual GYN exams and tests), but they probably do cover erectile dysfunction "therapies," knowing them, and considering that they're probably about the most male-dominated industry in the country, after oil drilling and politics.

So in the US birth control is not free?

All contraceptives are free in the UK. You just have to go get them from the doctor.

[isabelle]

Very interesting thread. A very hot-button issue for me too, Barb.

Birth contol: absolutely should be covered by health insurance. It is not completely free in France: some brands of pills are not covered, condoms and diaphragms and spermicides are not covered, and the IUD is now covered, but that is very recent. Abortion is also covered (since 1980).

Abortion has to remain free, and an option. And yes, if you have sex education in school, that insists on contraception, and that doesn't only explain how babies are made, but also that it is essential to have enough self-respect to have sex with someone you love, or at least trust( i.e., that you must not let yourself be coaxed into having sex by an older adult - that's for teens), the rate of abortions would certainly go down. It is a very hard thing to go thru (abortion), but you do get over it without seeing a shrink - unless you've grown up thinking you are an unforgivable slut for not going through with a pregnancy. The nr of women using abortion as birth control must be very small indeed, and shouldn't be used as a scarecow.

One thing though, that I really, really cannot accept easily, although I can see your point: to me, giving a child up for adoption is the worst option; a child knowing s/he was abandonned grows up with one of the worst blows to self-esteem ever, even if s/he has a loving foster family.
And what about the mother who has abandonned a child? I know for one that I could never live with that.

So as someone said at the beginning of the thread, abortion may not be good, but it can be the least of several evils.

NB: In France, abortion is allowed only in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. I admit I find it hard to agree with late-term abortion (6th, 7th, 8th month), unless the mother's life depends on it, but still... (because the baby is viable by then).

And one last thing: I believe that you should be either in favour of abortion in ANY case, or against it in ANY case; I find very hypocritical the position that consists in agreeing with abortion in case of rape or incest only, but not in other cases or it is murder. WHAT? Whether caused by rape or failure of your contraceptive device, a bunch of cells is a bunch of cells, or a baby is a baby .

[delalluvia]

Is it necessary to be mentally and psycholigically healthy to be a healthy human being?

Certainly, but does not having sex always detrimental to one's health?  Obviously not, as many men, women and obviously many teenagers, go years and sometimes their entire lives without sex and manage to live healthy happy lives.  So the answer to your question is yes, but having sex doesn't always lead to mental/psychological health.

What about counselling sessions? Should they not be covered by health insurance?

Some are, some aren't.  One must prove that whatever is happening or not happening in one's life is actually causing psychological damage and is not 'frivolous'.

The mental and psychological state of a person has effects on his physical well-being and vice versa because humans are more than the sum of their organs.

True, but obviously sex isn't one of those requirements needed for a healthy life.

What about the little finger of your left hand? Do you really need it? I mean is it essentially for you to survive? I, for example, could live without the little finger on my left hand. Since I'm neither a piano player nor a secretary, it wouldn't even handicap me in my daily life and job if I hadn't it.
But if I injured it tomorrow, I would expect my health incurance to cover the costs to rescue it and regain it's full functionality.

You might be disappointed.  What if said person goes to the hospital and is told that the digit cannot be re-attached?  Will a person be so traumatized that insurance will be required to pay the rest of their lives for such trauma?  Nope.  Insurance will pay the hospital to sew you up and that's pretty much it.  You're expected to function fine without it.

Trying to restore a limp dick will not cure some man of diabetes or hypertension.  He has other more important  problems besides not getting a woody.

Or what about the treatment of scars? Imagine you had a big scar right across your cheek and it could be treated, so in the effect it would be far less apparent. Should health insurance cover the costs? Cause you won't experience physical illness directly as an effect from it.

You are going to be disappointed.  That's cosmetic work and most insurance will not pay.  Again, having a scar on your face does not keep you from working or functioning at home and society.  If you're having issues about it - as in your example - any physical flaw that gives someone mental and physical illness as a result should be covered by insurance:

example:

Woman has acne scarring on her face.  It traumatizes her mentally and psychologically and obviously disfigures her physically.  Should insurance pay for all the cosmetic work?

A man wants an eyelift because - OMG - he's getting old and he's just shocked and dismayed about it, it causes him depression.  Should insurance cover it?

A teenager is traumatized and won't appear in public because her nose is too big.  Should insurance cover counseling sessions and cosmetic surgery?

Following your logic insurance should cover all of this.

[delalluvia]

So in the US birth control is not free?

All contraceptives are free in the UK. You just have to go get them from the doctor.

Hi Kelda.  No, they are not free.  The only place I know that gives them away for free (and the bc I'm talking about are condoms and vaginal shields.  Other bcs - the pill, IUD, implant, etc - are not free and require doctor treatment/visits) are places like Planned Parenthood and various other organizations.  These groups are what Bush and his Administration are trying to stamp out or weaken by cutting funding.

[delalluvia]

And one last thing: I believe that you should be either in favour of abortion in ANY case, or against it in ANY case; I find very hypocritical the position that consists in agreeing with abortion in case of rape or incest only, but not in other cases or it is murder. WHAT? Whether caused by rape or failure of your contraceptive device, a bunch of cells is a bunch of cells, or a baby is a baby .

I agree completely, isabelle.  I may not like late-term abortion, but because of my beliefs, if someone wants to have one, I'm not going to stop them.

[nakymaton]

Those of you who are outside the US: what is covered by health insurance here varies quite a bit from person to person and from plan to plan. A lot of things aren't covered, or require a different type of insurance. (Dental work is its own health insurance. A lot of common vision-related stuff, like eyeglasses or contacts, are not covered. Mental health tends to be only partially covered. If you have cancer, your insurance coverage will run out, and you will not be able to get more.) So it is striking that Viagra generally IS covered, when so many other things are not.

There was a bit of a fuss raised over Viagra being covered while birth control was not. Some states changed their laws to require insurers to cover birth control, but some didn't. (I remember when the change happened. My health care provider used to give me a year of free samples when I went in for my annual exam, because not many people used the same pill that I did, and because she knew it was not covered by my insurance. And then, suddenly, my insurance started covering it. And now I live in a state where birth control generally is not covered again.)

Some colleges used to give away free condoms in the 80's, in an effort to promote safe sex for both birth control and prevention of AIDS. There was a student organization that explained the different types of contraceptives, their strengths and weaknesses, and how to use them. That was the first time I learned anything about contraception -- my high school didn't have any sort of sex education class (not even one that explained the reproductive system... oh, and my Creationist biology teacher didn't cover those parts of the body, either), and my parents were too embarrassed to say anything more than "don't have sex... but if you do, use birth control." (And I should add... I went to a public school, not a religious school.) And my doctor told my mother that I didn't need an annual exam unless I was already having sex. (As if I would have told my mother, given how incredibly brief our one conversation was!)

And that was the 80's, before the "abstinence-only" campaigns started. I hate to think what's being taught (or not taught) to kids now.

[isabelle]

  I may not like late-term abortion, but because of my beliefs, if someone wants to have one, I'm not going to stop them.

DEL, I totally agree. I wouldn't stop anyone having a late-term abortion. I guess I was thinking a bit too personally when I said "I find it hard to agree with it". But I do, have to, if I want to be coherent with my beliefs.

[Penthesilea]

Those of you who are outside the US: what is covered by health insurance here varies quite a bit from person to person and from plan to plan. A lot of things aren't covered, or require a different type of insurance. (Dental work is its own health insurance. A lot of common vision-related stuff, like eyeglasses or contacts, are not covered. Mental health tends to be only partially covered. If you have cancer, your insurance coverage will run out, and you will not be able to get more.) So it is striking that Viagra generally IS covered, when so many other things are not.

Thanks, Mel. I was starting to think in that direction after delalluvia's last reply. This makes me understand her point a lot more.

If you have cancer, your insurance coverage will run out, and you will not be able to get more

  Is there an error in this sentence? Did you mean: If you have cancer, and additionally have the bad luck that your health insurance runs out, then you will not able to get a new one?
Or is it in fact so that insurance companies have the right to kick out/cancel contracts when someone gets cancer? Please tell me that's not the case.

-- my high school didn't have any sort of sex education class (not even one that explained the reproductive system... oh, and my Creationist biology teacher didn't cover those parts of the body, either), and my parents were too embarrassed to say anything more than "don't have sex... but if you do, use birth control." (And I should add... I went to a public school, not a religious school.)
...
And that was the 80's, before the "abstinence-only" campaigns started. I hate to think what's being taught (or not taught) to kids now.

Oh.My.God. Leaves me speechless but angry.

I learned the basics about the reproductive system (where the babies come from and how they are made) before I started school (at age 6) from my parents. They had explained it to me and showed me books with pictures in it. And I did the same with my children. They knew the correct names for the genitals and what teenagers and adults do with them by the time they started school.

And in school the children have sex education shortly before puberty (I think about the age of 11) and methods of birth control are self-evident a part of it.

[jpwagoneer1964]

One thing though, that I really, really cannot accept easily, although I can see your point: to me, giving a child up for adoption is the worst option; a child knowing s/he was abandonned grows up with one of the worst blows to self-esteem ever, even if s/he has a loving foster family.
 

Adoption is the best choice for a baby( As opposed to abortion) So much better than being murderd before birth. And acopted child will grow up with  parent who wanted them. Lets call it what it  is, killing Babies.

[injest]

I don't see adoption as being a bad choice at all...how it affects a child's self esteem will (like many other factors) depend on the parents..in this case adoptive....

there will always be good parents and bad parents...doesn't matter if they are adoptive or biological!

I do have a problem with an abortion after the first trimester...and I know that opens me up to being called a hypocrit....

the whole issue is one of those that will never be an absolute..no one will ever get everyone on the same side of the issue. What we need is compromise....what are you willing to accept or give to the other side. not everything is black/white...there are a lot of grey.

[nakymaton]

Is there an error in this sentence? Did you mean: If you have cancer, and additionally have the bad luck that your health insurance runs out, then you will not able to get a new one?
Or is it in fact so that insurance companies have the right to kick out/cancel contracts when someone gets cancer? Please tell me that's not the case.

I'm not clear on the details, so I could be wrong. But what I understand (from what I've heard about the experience of a friend of my husband's) is that there is either a maximum payment that insurance will cover, or that the patient has to pay 50% of the cost of the care for cancer. And then if you are sick enough to lose your job, that's it for health insurance -- health insurance is typically a job-related benefit.

There is actually supplemental cancer insurance available. My husband was so freaked out by his friend's experience that he decided to get the extra insurance.

[isabelle]

And adopted children will grow up with  parents who wanted them.

Well, this does not seem to be enough; it might be a question of mentality, cos here in France abandonning your child is really frowned upon - so much so that we are the only country in the world, I believe, to give women the possibility to abandon their child "under X", i.e. anonymously, which means the kid will never be able to know who their mother was, let alone their dad, but then that's very common! (unfortunately).

I happen to have worked with kids who'd been abandonned, and a very high proportion of them were seriously troubled kids. Even when they grew up in a loving family, which in fact is the minority of them (it is so hard to have a French kid adopted here, that parents "buy" their kids from Africa or Asia!).

Also, the delay to have an abortion in France is very short - 10 weeks - which leaves some women with no option but to have the kid, or go to a foreign country with more liberal laws if they have the money; just to show you that abandonning your kid is not seen as an honourable option here: the number of babies (unwanted ones), that are killed AT BIRTH, by their desperate, usually very young, mothers is very high here.

So I'll repeat what has been said: abortion, not a good solution, but one that is certainly not the worst.

[injest]

we (US) have had a problem with people dumping unwanted babies in toilets and trash bins...they have laws now in most states that if you leave your baby at a designated place you will not be charged with a crime...(I mean you can leave the baby anonymously...just walk in and hand it to an attendent)

most are at fire stations or hospitals...but we still have babies dumped.

maybe we are talking about two different things...when I think of adoption I think of a person making the decision while pregnant and signing the baby over at birth...not the baby dumped in a trash bin...(I agree that that would be hard for a child to get over!)

[delalluvia]

  Mel said:
If you have cancer, your insurance coverage will run out, and you will not be able to get more

Penthe said:  Shocked Is there an error in this sentence? Did you mean: If you have cancer, and additionally have the bad luck that your health insurance runs out, then you will not able to get a new one?
Or is it in fact so that insurance companies have the right to kick out/cancel contracts when someone gets cancer? Please tell me that's not the case.

We had layoffs all spring and summer at my company.  A co-worker of mine had been working quite a bit.  Seems his wife had lost her job because her cancer made her too ill to work.  Luckily, she was on her husband's insurance with my company.

Her treatment during the year was apparently quite expensive.  Yes, she maxed out the benefits that were allowed in one year.  Her insurance coverage stopped for that year.  Benefits do have a dollar amount cap and she had reached it.  It would be impossible for her to get additional coverage as her illness was already existing.  Insurance carriers will not insure someone with a pre-existing condition.

Her husband worked many many hours to make the money to pay for her treatment and pain killers. 

He got laid off in the spring.  With him went their insurance coverage and income for her treatment.

Don't know what happened to them. 

[delalluvia]

we (US) have had a problem with people dumping unwanted babies in toilets and trash bins...they have laws now in most states that if you leave your baby at a designated place you will not be charged with a crime...(I mean you can leave the baby anonymously...just walk in and hand it to an attendent)

most are at fire stations or hospitals...but we still have babies dumped.

maybe we are talking about two different things...when I think of adoption I think of a person making the decision while pregnant and signing the baby over at birth...not the baby dumped in a trash bin...(I agree that that would be hard for a child to get over!)

I'm not sure that's what Isabelle meant.

Almost all children in orphanages or in state homes are not living a wonderful life.  Most feel abandoned simply due to the fact that they are there and not with a parent.  It doesn't matter if they were found in a trash bin or signed over like a package at birth (I'm fairly certain this info is not given the children until they are adults).  The fact is that they were not wanted by the person they might have expected to want them the most.

This most certainly degrades their self-esteem, especially as most abandoned children are not adopted.  If they are successfully adopted, especially when very very young, too young to remember the circumstances of their birth, then it isn't an issue until later.  If they are adopted after the realization and knowledge sinks in, then they will have to fight a very strong fear of abandonment for the rest of their lives.  I can't imagine that's easy or enjoyable.

[silkncense]

there is either a maximum payment that insurance will cover, or that the patient has to pay 50% of the cost of the care for cancer. And then if you are sick enough to lose your job, that's it for health insurance -- health insurance is typically a job-related benefit.

This is true.  Many (most?) health insurance policies have a maximum (often 2 million $).  If a person has health coverage through their employer & then looses their job because they are unable to work, they often also are unable to continue health coverage payments which increase because they are no longer in a 'group plan.'.

The HIGHEST number of bankruptcies in this country are due to heath issues!  (Another HOT button after the President & banks led people to believe it was because people were running around over spending on themselves)

[injest]

yes and they changed the laws to make getting a bankruptcy very difficult.

[isabelle]

I'm not sure that's what Isabelle meant.

You are right Del.
I am using the term "abandoning your child" the same way as in English you use the euphemism "giving up for adoption". Even language shows the different mentalities. We still think that giving up your child for adoption means abandoning it.