My first post in my blog is a simple one. I like the idea I can rant on subjects I find interesting and need to had a little light shed on.
There are some who want to forbid the use of taxpayer money to subsidise insurance premiums of the poor for the purpose of abortion. The logic on the left is that this impedes the right for a woman to decide, the right believes that morally it's murder and should not be funded.
What is the reality here? First off, abortion in and of itself is a personal decision granted by secular law. The act of becoming pregnant is also a personal decision and choice. It is an elective process. In my opinion, no abortion should be funded by any means other than by the person responsible. If a woman can say 'no' and stop the process and does not chose to do so, then she should bear the responsibility for that decision. In other words, insurance should not be covering an elective procedure anyway. This in no way infringes upon a woman's right to choose, but that same woman must be compelled to accept responsibility for that right to choose. Since a husband or parent has no rights in this matter, the responsibility clearly falls on the shoulders of the woman.
The idea that the abortion amendments somehow limiting a woman's right to decide is a red herring. The amendment says nothing about her right to decide, just who will pay for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment