Does anyone on this site oppose the Hyde amendment?

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 34
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,303
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
Lets say you do something morally neutral such as buy a red car.  Society is pro choice on owning red cars.  But society would cease to be pro choice on red cars if the government offered to give them for free to low income people.  If the government did that, the government would be picking a side and encouraging poor people to get red cars.

Similarly, pro choicers often want the government to stay out of the abortion business.  However, they appear to be inconsistent with this idea because the majority of pro choicers (including Biden) want the government to pick a side on the abortion debate by giving women free abortions that want them.  If you want a red car, you pay for it yourself, since the government doesn't have a stance on whether or not you get a red car.  With the same logic, if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself.  The government should not be giving free abortions to people paid for by the taxpayers, many of whom oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds.  Just as I wouldn't force a Christian to fund a satanic temple (even though I think they should be allowed to exist), I wouldn't have a Christian who opposes abortion be forced to fund abortions, which they don't approve of.  I want the amount of things people are legally forced to fund be minimal.
#2
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) constitutionally protected the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, and Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)  allowed the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment to sustains life. Both case decisions involve allowance of the right to bodily integrity that may logically be extended to a person seeking health care services at his or her own expense, but not at public expense, which is precisely supported by the Hyde amendment.

#3
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
It doesnt make sense in principle but ill explain when i have more time
#4
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
I want the amount of things people are legally forced to fund be minimal.
Minimal? Not ruled out completely? How do you determine what should and shouldn’t be forced to fund?

(even though I think they should be allowed to exist)
Lastly what kind of Christian says this? Unless you were trolling when you listed yourself as Christian on your profile.
#5
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Alec
The Hyde Amendment does not make much sense to me because people are morally opposed to a lot of things. Their tax dollars are used for them regardless. There are people who oppose being taxed involuntarily, people who oppose social programs, people who oppose immigration restrictions, plenty of people who oppose the United States' continued international intervention, etc. These things are still funded, so why is abortion the issue in particular?

One way it would make sense is this: A pro-choice person believes that abortion should be legal because people have different views on it. When people disagree, you defer to the woman's right to bodily autonomy. Therefore, since the government has not implicitly declared an abortion to be ethically permissible, people have a special right not to fund it since their views are the ones that are being deferred to. 
#6
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
History has shown that the right will use any kind of ploy they can think of to make it impossible, or as difficult as possible, to get an abortion. As armored cat said, the amendment, on the face of it, makes absolutely no sense. You do not get to decide what your tax dollars are spent on outside of an election. We force pacifists to help fund the military. If republicans actually gave a shit about the morality of forcing people to fund things they are morally opposed to, there would be hundreds, if not thousands, of exceptions that should be made. But they don't. Because it has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of making people fund abortions. It is entirely about trying to restrict abortions in every single way they can legally get away with. It is about denying women their rights, not protecting the rights of others. 
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'd just be happy not giving child rapists Covid stimulus checks. The rights of child rapists shouldn't be indulged by leftards.
#8
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Similarly, pro choicers often want the government to stay out of the abortion business.  However, they appear to be inconsistent with this idea because the majority of pro choicers (including Biden) want the government to pick a side on the abortion debate by giving women free abortions that want them.  If you want a red car, you pay for it yourself, since the government doesn't have a stance on whether or not you get a red car.  With the same logic, if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself.  The government should not be giving free abortions to people paid for by the taxpayers, many of whom oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds.  Just as I wouldn't force a Christian to fund a satanic temple (even though I think they should be allowed to exist), I wouldn't have a Christian who opposes abortion be forced to fund abortions, which they don't approve of. 
Nicely put. I see this possibly resulting in disaster. It's the same when the Christian (though in reality "Catholic") church attempted to fuse itself with the government. While this did allow the Church greater influence, it also subjected itself to the discretion of the State (e.g. referendums on Gay Marriage.) So, instead of neutral arbitration, the State is an active, partial participant in subsidizing one side of a very polarizing dispute. And by allowing the state to be a participant, "bodily autonomy" will also be subject to referendum.

Topic's author
#9
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,303
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@Tarik
Lastly what kind of Christian says this? Unless you were trolling when you listed yourself as Christian on your profile.
Separation of church and state is the law.  Being Christian doesn’t mean I support mandatory biblical theocracy for people that don’t believe in God.
Topic's author
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,303
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Pacifists should be allowed to not fund the military if they can prove they are a pacifist and aren’t claiming to be one to save money.  I want as much of what people to pay for to be direct as possible.  If a woman cannot afford an abortion, she should find consenting sources to fund it.  Maybe you can fund a woman’s abortion (since your tax dollars were going to that anyways).  I don’t want to pay for other people’s choices.
#11
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
 I don’t want to pay for other people’s choices.
then go find some deserted island somewhere. Because in a modern society, that isn't even remotely an option. If you don't like the things the government spends the money on, then you get to vote for a different government. You don't get to pick and choose which policies you like and which you don't and only pay taxes towards the ones you like. If they gave me an option, I wouldn't pay a dime towards a bloated, runaway military budget. But no one is going to offer me that choice. Likewise, you have no right to decide which healthcare options the government should or shouldn't help to provide to other people. 

#12
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Separation of church and state is the law.
You don’t have to agree with the law.

Being Christian doesn’t mean I support mandatory biblical theocracy for people that don’t believe in God.
That’s one thing, satanic temples are another.
#13
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
I want abortion legal and safe.  If you get a medical card you don't get any elective surgery paid for as far as I know. You also don' t get eye or dental. If you are going to not take advantage of the free birth control your card allows for then you have to pay for an abortion. That said if the government paid for one non medical abortion in a person's life time it wouldn't bother me. 
#14
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
  • Shown Here: 
  • Introduced in Senate (01/24/2013)
Hyde Amendment Codification Act - Prohibits the expenditure for any abortion of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law .

Prohibits the use of federal funds for any health benefits coverage that includes abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services, and plans receiving federal funds must keep them segregated from any funds for abortion services.)

Excludes from such prohibitions an abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or (2) the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, as certified by a physician.
I oppose this amendment on two fronts:
  1. Taxes is an involuntary service that citizens perform via social contract, what the government does with that money is dictated by what the law dictates, and furthermore what the elected officials the citizens voted for choose. Roe v. Wade already ruled that abortion is legal, and this code would inhibit abortion clinics from providing a legal service. 
  2. To deny healthcare intuitionally is to reignite discrimination systematically, specifically against women's body sovereignty, the same logic used here was used previously to deny women a right to divorce their husband (but you're going to harm your husband), or to work as pilots (periods make them unstable, they'll harm people), and so on and so forth. 
Not to even mention how this assumes that one ought to avoid abortion, which I don't agree with. 

#15
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,908
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
I don't oppose it. If you don't want to get pregnant keep you dick in your pants and/or keep your legs closed. Why should I as a tax payer pay for your irresponsible life choices.

#16
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@sadolite
If you don't want to get pregnant keep you dick in your pants and/or keep your legs closed.
yeah. yeah. I've heard this one before. "just ignore one of the most important parts of life to protect my delicate feelings". Man right wing people are so damn fragile. 
#17
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,908
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
Truth is a hard thing to accept when you have been lied to all your life. I speak from experience.


#18
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@sadolite
Truth is a hard thing to accept when you have been lied to all your life. I speak from experience.
I have no idea what "lies" you are referring to. We are discussing a health issue and whether or not you right wing loons should have the right to withhold paying towards a specific policy they don't like. If that argument were made for virtually anything else it wouldn't be taken seriously. But because the right are loons, they demand special treatment to protect their very fragile feelings. And yet somehow they think it is the left that is weak. It's unbelievable. 
#19
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
What other elective procedures does the government pay for? If it's none then why should abortion be special? 
#20
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What other elective procedures does the government pay for? If it's none then why should abortion be special? 
1st off, it sounds like you  are saying "elective procedure" as if it is something unimportant. the term "elective" procedure includes all sorts of things that might not kill you, but would make your life a living hell if untreated. things like kidney stones, hernia surgery etc. "elective" procedures are critically important to peoples' health. 

And, through programs like medicaid, the government helps to pay for all kinds of elective procedures. Lab work, x rays, physical or occupational therapy etc. Abortion shouldn't be special. Republicans try to make it special for their dogmatic reasons. 
#21
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
Elective abortion isn't life threatening. Kidney stones can be. You can also give up the child and not have to raise it. Again, birth control is free. If you aren't going to use it or the morning after pill then you can pay for the abortion.  I get real tired of hearing about republican's being evil when personal responsibility  is expected when your are already getting free crap and just need to get off your butt and access it.  You can get an IUD for free and not get pregnant for five years. It's literally a five minute appointment. Yet that is a liberal inconvenience and should not be expected to be used cause you don't like the poor having to exert any personal responsibility cause your guilt at them being poor. 
#22
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Elective abortion isn't life threatening. Kidney stones can be.
pregnancy can absolutely be life threatening. Women do die from pregnancy. It also has serious health implications, some of which can be permanent. So lets not pretend like forcing someone to go through with a pregnancy doesn't have serious impacts to their health. 

You can also give up the child and not have to raise it.
that has no bearing on this conversation. The point is that the right wants to force a woman to go through a painful, potentially fatal medical procedure (pregnancy and birth) against her will. What happens to a potential child afterwards isn't really relevant to the question of the medical procedure. 

If you aren't going to use it or the morning after pill then you can pay for the abortion.
no contraceptives are 100% successful. not everyone has access to the morning after pill. Assuming that everyone has easy access to all the tools to prevent pregnancy is a big assumption. And even then, those tools can fail.

And even then, why is that relevant to this question at all? Should we refuse to treat car crash victims who weren't wearing a seatbelt because they didn't use all available safety equipment? Bottom line, you disagree with their choices and want them to suffer for it.

Yet that is a liberal inconvenience and should not be expected to be used cause you don't like the poor having to exert any personal responsibility cause your guilt at them being poor. 
wow... that is just a whole lot of bullshit. By that standard, if you get into a car crash and don't wear your seatbelt, the doctor should just smother you with a pillow. accidentally take too much of your medication? well you didn't take personal responsibility so why should we help? 

Personal responsibility is a good thing. But people make mistakes. Saying "fuck you, you deserve to suffer" when they do isn't helpful. 
#23
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
pregnancy can absolutely be life threatening. Women do die from pregnancy. It also has serious health implications, some of which can be permanent. So lets not pretend like forcing someone to go through with a pregnancy doesn't have serious impacts to their health. 
If life threatening then the medical would pay for it. So you are trying to mix two different types of abortion. 

no contraceptives are 100% successful. not everyone has access to the morning after pill. Assuming that everyone has easy access to all the tools to prevent pregnancy is a big assumption. And even then, those tools can fail.
Funny they can't get to PP for birth control but they can for the abortion. LOL. 


Personal responsibility is a good thing. But people make mistakes. Saying "fuck you, you deserve to suffer" when they do isn't helpful. 
As I stated I am all for one elective abortion per person for free. At some point people need to quit expecting someone else to pay for their lack of judgement. 
#24
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If life threatening then the medical would pay for it. So you are trying to mix two different types of abortion. 
no. Pregnancy can be life threatening, just like a kidney stone. We don't wait for the person's life to be in danger to do something about a kidney stone. It is a medical issue that needs to be taken care of. Why would we need to wait for the woman's life to be directly endangered to do something about a pregnancy?

Funny they can't get to PP for birth control but they can for the abortion. LOL.
I don't actually see any valid point here. You seem to just be trying to insult people and use that as grounds to ignore them when they need help. Which is pretty despicable. 

As I stated I am all for one elective abortion per person for free. At some point people need to quit expecting someone else to pay for their lack of judgement. 
so we are just arguing semantics then? We both agree on the core argument. That the Hyde amendment is wrong. Because as per the Hyde amendment, you proposal would be illegal. 
#25
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Republicans try to make it special for their dogmatic reasons. 
Oh.  And Democrats have no dogma? You’re just bleeding all over the page because you cannot afford an astringent?
#26
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
That the Hyde amendment is wrong. Because as per the Hyde amendment, you proposal would be illegal. 

No I think it can be tweaked. One and only one. I was asked a question and answered it. I am not out giving government money to women to have abortions because they can't get to PP till they are pregnant. I am also not a law maker. 
#27
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Oh.  And Democrats have no dogma?
they do. But it usually isn't the kind that actively tries to screw people over. 

You’re just bleeding all over the page because you cannot afford an astringent?
I'm not "bleeding" anywhere. I am point out how shitty republicans are. 
#28
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No I think it can be tweaked. One and only one. I was asked a question and answered it. I am not out giving government money to women to have abortions because they can't get to PP till they are pregnant. I am also not a law maker. 
you are contradicting yourself. The Hyde amendment say s no government money should be spent on it. you are saying the exact opposite. you are saying money should be spent on it, you just want some limits. That's fair enough, I don't think we need to pay for dozens of abortions for the same person. But if you support any funding at all for abortions, then you disagree with the Hyde amendment. 

#29
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
they do. But it usually isn't the kind that actively tries to screw people over. 
Telling me that I must fork over hard earned money to benefit someone who has no work ethic, but feels entitled, is not screwing me? Tell it to your pocket mouse; he might believe you, but I'm not socialist's fool.
#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Telling me that I must fork over hard earned money to benefit someone who has no work ethic, but feels entitled, is not screwing me?
you can't even get through an explanation of how you feel victimized without attempting to victimize other people. That right there is an excellent highlight of how shitty the right is.