I quite enjoyed watching the speeches via YouTube of both President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney at the Al Smith dinner. It was fun and refreshing to see them both not take themselves so seriously and to be able to crack jokes at each other in a tasteful way. Haven't seen it? Need a little laugh if you're following the debates and geared up for election? Obama's speech here, and Romney's here.
Other side notes:
1. Our voting system bugs me. No wonder people become apathetic and don't vote...because people are so confused by the electoral college and if their vote really "counts." Regardless of who wins the popular vote in a particular state, that state may or may not require the appointed electoral to even vote with the majority of the state! What!? So then why did we vote? Just for fun!? (Same thing for the caucus I participated in here in NV... our vote really didn't matter.) The candidate who receives the most votes nationwide does not necessarily become president. That blows my mind...I wish the voting system was more straightforward.
2. What really bothers me is the fact that there are 4 tickets for president...but we only get commercial after commercial and televised debates of 2 of these. What is wrong with this picture? That only the wealthy truly get the support and publicity to run? Only the wealthy make good leaders? I know it takes money to run for president, it just seems so unfair that others who could be great candidates don't stand a chance. I would have loved to have seen debates including the other two. Looks like there's an illusion via media to believe the the general GOP and Democrat ideals are the only ones that exist or matter...so far from true.
3. Dear Gary Johnson, (garyjohnson2012.com) you would have had my vote if it wasn't for your stand on certain "civil rights" (namely legalizing all abortion. Period. I can understand certain circumstances like rape, threat to mother's health, etc, but for personal or social convenience, no way- and especially not on tax money as it can be now. I disagree simply because my belief is as yours that life is precious and needs to be protected. But our difference is that I believe that a baby is a human life too...even before medically defined "fetal viability".) Man! How I wish Ron Paul was on the ballot...
Check your facts on being able to use tax money for abortion. Not true in most cases. Taxpayer money can only be used for abortion in very rare, specific circumstances :)
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to read your source... I alway love to educate myself! Thanks in advance.
ReplyDeleteI have never read a statistic concerning the amount, however I don't really need to. The number should be 0 under tax money regardless of the circumstance. Other American's money should never pay even partly for another's abortion.
To be more specific, this is what I had read: http://aclj.org/obamacare/how-obamacare-uses-taxpayer-money-pay-abortions
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment, girl!
Currently, abortion is only covered by medicaid in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger (And if you get raped and make too much money to qualify for medicaid? You have to pay for the abortion yourself). If someone living below the poverty line is raped, I believe she should be able to get an abortion and that medicaid should pay for it. Abortion laws have ALWAYS been like this. Women have NEVER been able to get an elective abortion on the taxpayers dime.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.factcheck.org/2010/07/taxpayer-funded-abortions-in-high-risk-pools/
I suggest you get your information from non-biased sources, like factcheck, instead of those with an obvious slant.
Good day! :)
I appreciate you taking your time to share your opinion. I still completely disagree that the government would at anytime, regardless of someones economic status, force Americans to provide a charitable act against our will, to pay for someone's abortion.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the site. I like to read articles from multiple sites. Please feel free to comment on my blog at any time! Also, sometimes things are better said with a little more tact instead of speaking down to someone. For example, "You should check this non-biased source often for your research. It is the best place to find sound information. I refer to it often."
I totally admire your passion for political matters. I wish people would be more involved and informed like you! Thanks! :)
Did not mean to speak down to you, it just seems obvious to me that a site with an agenda would not be an un-biased source and I would take everything they say with a grain of salt. Also, this is not a political matter, but a matter of human rights. I make it a point to avoid most things political :)
ReplyDeleteI'm not just talking about economic status. So if a 14 year old, living below the poverty line, is raped and becomes pregnant, you think she should bear the child of her abuser just because she cannot afford an abortion? Or do you think the federal government should step in, and, because life is sacred, take care of HER life and pay for the abortion? These are the only situations in which the gov currently pays for abortions, so it seems to me that maybe we agree on this issue? I'm just very confused bc in your original post you said you could understand abortion being legal in these instances. So only women who are raped, victims of incest, or their life is endangered by the pregnancy AND are able to pay for the abortion on their own should be allowed to have one? Please clarify!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteSorry it’s taken me a minute to respond! I’ve been busy with cleaning and re-organizing children’s closets. My little guy is outgrowing all of his clothes, so I’ve been storing the little sizes and trying to find places for all of the new sizes. Now I’m tired! Phew. P.S….how old is your little guy now? I don’t have facebook anymore so I don’t keep up with anyone these days.
Yes, we agree on the matter that for those specific reasons alone, as you and I stated, abortion should be legal.
What we disagree on is who is paying for it. I believe in the Constitution and the role of government that it lays out. There are only a few specific things the federal government is designed to do. Being a financial reserve for the poor or even a minor living below the poverty line is not part of the federal government's role. If anyone who needs a procedure (or food or whatever the financial situation may be) the proper chain of help would be for that person to first look to family, friends, community, and then church/religious affiliation for financial support. Providing assistance such as welfare or money for abortion even in the very tragic case you described is unconstitutional. It is so because the act of providing such assistance is the government taking assumption of power to shift money from Americans collectively through taxes to individuals. The government is not meant to "take care" of anyone financially. It is meant to protect them in their right to exist. Receiving money from the federal government to have an abortion, no matter what the reason, is not a human right. Choosing to have the abortion because of rape, or life condition of the mother, is a human right. Thomas Paine said, "rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another." So again, receiving the finances for an abortion is not a right, because receiving funds for such a procedure would be a gift from one man to another.
At any rate, I believe abortion and the power to decide its restrictions, funding, etc should be completely a state matter and not a federal one.
In summary (lol..since I was so dang longwinded- Sorry) I think we just disagree on fundamental issues like the role of government as well as the definition of "rights."