• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

Orius said:
Why?

UHC paying for abortions means that all abortion clinics become subject to government inspection, which means we can make sure that procedures are being performed safely and humanely. At private clinics things can happen more behind closed doors.
Click to expand...




What about coverage for other electives like lyposuction, nose jobs, etc?
 
Sammyo said:
"Murder" or "kill"? Abortion isn't murder, but it is killing. Some killing, like abortion, is justified, and therefore not murder. So if you want to murder someone, yes, i'm anti-choice just like if you wanted to rape someone. However, if you want to kill someone, and it's justified, i'm pro-choice, just like if you want to have sex with a consenting adult, instead of raping them. I'm pro-choice if the choice is justified. I'm not pro-choice if the act is considered wrong by the very term used to describe it.

To put a point on it, i'm pro-choice when it comes to you being allowed to chose to kill someone who has broken into your home and threatened or harmed your family. (And other scenarios).
Click to expand...



Abortion is killing? Thanks for the consession. unjustified killing of another human is murder.


What justification do you have to take this other humans life?
 
Sammyo said:
Yep. Abortion is killing, but justified, as i explained. Not murder. So sayeth the supremest court in the land.




According to me, or according to the law of the land?
Click to expand...

In a ruling that was confessed to be flawed by the Justice who wrote it. Roe is bad judicial opinion and needs to be revisited in a sincere attempt at getting it right.
 
Sammyo said:
Yep. Abortion is killing, but justified, as i explained. Not murder. So sayeth the supremest court in the land.
Click to expand...

Are you refering to the unconstitutional roe v wade, abortion of a decision?



According to me, or according to the law of the land?
Click to expand...

Lets start with you. I find those that use the law to justify barbarism, well simple.
 
jallman said:
In a ruling that was confessed to be flawed by the Justice who wrote it. Roe is bad judicial opinion and needs to be revisited in a sincere attempt at getting it right.
Click to expand...

So? Let them revisit it. That doesn't change the fact that it's the law of the land. Currently, abortion is justified and legal. As long as it is, it's the choice of any law-abiding citizen. I'm in favor of people having the choice to do that which is allowed by the law.
 
Sammyo said:
So?
Click to expand...

Well how do you answer that? Color me unimpressed.

Let them revisit it.
Click to expand...

I think that's what I just called for if I'm not mistaken...

That doesn't change the fact that it's the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Oh oh oh...I'm sorry. I thought we were here to debate an issue, not reference the law and say "case closed". Who knew? :doh

Currently, abortion is justified and legal.
Click to expand...

And if you would care to actually READ and join the discussion rather than touting the obvious at us as if it's somehow relevant or insightful, you would see that I am not advocating anything other than abortion being legal and justified.

As long as it is, it's the choice of any law-abiding citizen. I'm in favor of people having the choice to do that which is allowed by the law.
Click to expand...

Well then you have contributed the sum of all you have to offer. Would you mind if we got back to the discussion now that you've said your piece?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So in other words, we must pay for you to kill your child of inconvience.... I find this unnacceptable. Abortion is legal. I get it, however, expecting me to pay for it is abhorrent.
Click to expand...

Abortions are decisions that are still up to the states to make. So you would have the Federal government dictate to the states whether they can do abortions or not? What kind of Conservative ARE you. :mrgreen:

As far as the health care goes, abortions or not. I think it is abhorrent to take money out of my pocket and give it to someone else for ANYTHING.
 
Last edited:
Sammyo said:
So? Let them revisit it. That doesn't change the fact that it's the law of the land. Currently, abortion is justified and legal. As long as it is, it's the choice of any law-abiding citizen. I'm in favor of people having the choice to do that which is allowed by the law.
Click to expand...




this is the type of simple minded thinking, this country could use less of. Just because something is legal, does not make it right.

Slavery for one. by your logic you would have been pro slavery back in the 1800....


btw... you don't smoke weed do you? ;)
 
danarhea said:
Abortions are decisions that are still up to the states to make. So you would have the Federal government dictate to the states whether they can do abortions or not? What kind of Conservative ARE you. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...



I am the type that thinks that you are killing someone. life is the ultimate right.


Should murder be a states issue? could a state be allowed to legalize murder, or say slavery?
 
Sammyo said:
That's astoundingly well-stated, Orius! It also follows perfectly, from that stance, that abortion should be a choice, and not mandated. It's not fair to force someone to get an abortion, and it's not fair to keep them from getting an abortion. Either way takes away choice.

As to your ending statement, of course. That's to be expected, but that fact has no bearing at all on the logical arguments for or against the issue. My "being pissed" about some current legislation has no bearing on it whatsoever. An anti-abortionists "being pissed" at this sort of law is not a reason for or against it. It should come down to the surrounding issues and the logical reasons for or against the issue, not people's emotions. People can vote their emotions if it comes to a vote, but a person's emotions are not, in and of themselves, an argument either way.
Click to expand...

My money isn't an emotional argument, my money is my property and I have say in what I give it to. I don't want to pay for someone's fake boobs, or lip injections, or any elective medical procedure including abortion. Pay your own way. I'm willing to argue medical needs and emergencies, but elective procedures should always come from the pocket of the person who wants it.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I am the type that thinks that you are killing someone. life is the ultimate right.


Should murder be a states issue? could a state be allowed to legalize murder, or say slavery?
Click to expand...

Edited my post while you were posting. Here is the rest of what I posted:

As far as the health care goes, abortions or not. I think it is abhorrent to take money out of my pocket and give it to someone else for ANYTHING.
 
danarhea said:
Edited my post while you were posting. Here is the rest of what I posted:

As far as the health care goes, abortions or not. I think it is abhorrent to take money out of my pocket and give it to someone else for ANYTHING.
Click to expand...




This part I agree with.
 
jallman said:
Well how do you answer that? Color me unimpressed.
Click to expand...

Well, let me rephrase it just for you. What logical conclusion follows from your dangling premise?


jallman said:
I think that's what I just called for if I'm not mistaken...
Click to expand...

And i was just voicing my agreement with you so you'd not have to wage a battle on that front. Silly me, you were going to battle either way, even if i declared that i was right there beside you.


jallman said:
Oh oh oh...I'm sorry. I thought we were here to debate an issue, not reference the law and say "case closed". Who knew? :doh
Click to expand...

We can debate the issue all you want as soon as you put forth some sort of point. As it is, your statements are not in line with the law of the land, and mine are. Deal with that, and proceed. I've not declared that that's the end of the issue and for you to do so, based on pure assumption is both ridiculous and presumptuous. It was your call, and you made it.


jallman said:
And if you would care to actually READ and join the discussion rather than touting the obvious at us as if it's somehow relevant or insightful, you would see that I am not advocating anything other than abortion being legal and justified.
Click to expand...

I was responding to what you said in your post. If you'd read my last 12 college papers you'd know a lot more about my viewpoint as well. Who cares? I was answering what you said, not debating an entire discussions worth of issues.


jallman said:
Well then you have contributed the sum of all you have to offer. Would you mind if we got back to the discussion now that you've said your piece?
Click to expand...

Really? I stopped you from your discussion with my posts?!? WOW!! I had no idea that my posts had that sort of power. Gee, jailman... i mean... willy-willikers!! My posts are teh shiznit!! Here i was thinking that i was replying to one post of yours, and what you said in it, and lo and behold i was holding up the ENTIRE DISCUSSION because i hadn't addressed the entire issue instead of what you had most recently put forth. Wow, i mean, WOW!
 
Sammyo said:
Well, let me rephrase it just for you. What logical conclusion follows from your dangling premise?




And i was just voicing my agreement with you so you'd not have to wage a battle on that front. Silly me, you were going to battle either way, even if i declared that i was right there beside you.




We can debate the issue all you want as soon as you put forth some sort of point. As it is, your statements are not in line with the law of the land, and mine are. Deal with that, and proceed. I've not declared that that's the end of the issue and for you to do so, based on pure assumption is both ridiculous and presumptuous. It was your call, and you made it.




I was responding to what you said in your post. If you'd read my last 12 college papers you'd know a lot more about my viewpoint as well. Who cares? I was answering what you said, not debating an entire discussions worth of issues.




Really? I stopped you from your discussion with my posts?!? WOW!! I had no idea that my posts had that sort of power. Gee, jailman... i mean... willy-willikers!! My posts are teh shiznit!! Here i was thinking that i was replying to one post of yours, and what you said in it, and lo and behold i was holding up the ENTIRE DISCUSSION because i hadn't addressed the entire issue instead of what you had most recently put forth. Wow, i mean, WOW!
Click to expand...

Alright, I see where this is going and I've no interest in following you into this exercise of asinine posturing and boorish attack. You have fun with all that now. And a good day to you sir.

Now, would any adults like to rejoin the conversation?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
this is the type of simple minded thinking, this country could use less of. Just because something is legal, does not make it right.
Click to expand...

I never said it did. I said that what was legal made a distinction in the terminology used by the legal process. By the current laws, abortion isn't murder. You can say that it is, but your opinion doesn't make law.


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Slavery for one. by your logic you would have been pro slavery back in the 1800....
Click to expand...

And by your logic, you could currently call slavery "right" and be in favor of it because you don't support the law of the land. It's no big deal, and i certainly don't always support the law of the land, but the law is what it is, regardless of what terms you want to supplant for your own choices in rhetoric.
 
Sammyo said:
I never said it did. I said that what was legal made a distinction in the terminology used by the legal process. By the current laws, abortion isn't murder. You can say that it is, but your opinion doesn't make law.
Click to expand...


Abortion is wrong and should be considered murder.


Is this semantics game better?



And by your logic, you could currently call slavery "right" and be in favor of it because you don't support the law of the land. It's no big deal, and i certainly don't support the law of the land, but the law is what it is, regardless of what terms you want to supplant for your own choices in rhetoric.
Click to expand...



I am not the one claiming law makes something right. that uhm is you.
 
Ikari said:
My money isn't an emotional argument, my money is my property and I have say in what I give it to.
Click to expand...

I never said that, and i never would. Your money isn't an argument, period. What happens with your money might be the premise of an argument, but only that.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Abortion is wrong and should be considered murder.
Click to expand...

Okay, then do your best to get the law to reflect this.


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Is this semantics game better?
Click to expand...

Why are you playing semantic games at all? When a term carries within itself its own pronouncement of "wrongness" then you should be careful with it. According to the law, abortion isn't "murder", just like sex with a consenting partner isn't "rape".


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I am not the one claiming law makes something right. that uhm is you.
Click to expand...

FAIL I never claimed that the law makes anything right. I'll expect an apology. I claimed that the law defines the terms as they are currently judged in the legal system. Please read more carefully next time.
 
Sammyo said:
Okay, then do your best to get the law to reflect this.
Click to expand...


Ok, this is not debating, this is professing idiocy.



Why are you playing semantic games at all? When a term carries within itself its own pronouncement of "wrongness" then you should be careful with it. According to the law, abortion isn't "murder", just like sex with a consenting partner isn't "rape".
Click to expand...


See above.



FAIL I never claimed that the law makes anything right. I'll expect an apology. I claimed that the law defines the terms as they are currently judged in the legal system. Please read more carefully next time.
Click to expand...



Right, and uhm you can take your request for an apology and go pound you some sand, son. :lol:


Taking of a life without justification is wrong. the fact you want to play a tap dance game around an intellectual genuine discussion is all on you. I am losing interest in this white belt game you play....
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Ok, this is not debating, this is professing idiocy.
Click to expand...

Actually, i was simply notifying you of what a responsible citizen would do-- get the laws to reflect their views. That's as american as apple pie, and i'll thank you to not call the tenets of our country "professing idiocy".


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
See above.
Click to expand...

Fact, dear reverend, facts.


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Right, and uhm you can take your request for an apology and go pound you some sand, son. :lol:
Click to expand...

Ah, so you're perfectly fine with lying about what another member has said. Good to know, and no, if you feel this way, then i certainly don't expect an apology from you. Why would a proud liar apologize?


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Taking of a life without justification is wrong. the fact you want to play a tap dance game around an intellectual genuine discussion is all on you. I am losing interest in this white belt game you play....
Click to expand...

Abortion is justified. This is a valid opinion shared by the supreme court of the land. That your opinion differs is just fine and dandy, but is only an opinion, just like mine. When your opinion is shared by the supreme court, then you'll be able to turn this argument right back around on me, but as of now, the courts agree with me. Abortion is justified, and not murder. If you'd like to show how it is, with discussion or debate, then do so, and quit blaming your failures on me, and my mere recitation of the relevant facts in play. Your tactic of "Nu-uh, i'm right and abortion is murder and who cares if the courts agree with you" doesn't cut it as a logical argument. It barely qualifies as a coherent statement, but i don't really know how much to expect from someone who is proud of lying about what another person has said.
 
Orius said:
You can't have UHC until the chatter dies down.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think the solution to a great, great many of America's problems (not the least of which is health care) intersect with drug decriminalization. The negative consequences of prohibition in America so far outweigh the positive that it is almost axiomatic that we should scrap the War On Drugs, the most colossal and monumental failure of a government program to ever exist.

Health
Crime
Poverty

All these things are profoundly affected by drug prohibition in a negative way. Drug laws have virtually no discernable benefits yet politicians cling to them with fervent tenacity. And why not? Because, as Judge Jim Gray says, "...it is imminently fundable."

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yd_IWvLZOQ"]YouTube - High Time for Change? With Judge Jim Gray - Decrimmialize Drugs[/ame]

Now THAT'S a sharp conservative. Wouldn't mind seeing Judge Jim Gray on the Supreme Court sometime in the not-too-distant future.

If this post seems random to you it is because I'm under the influence of illegal drugs...:cool:
 
Last edited:
Sammyo said:
Actually, i was simply notifying you of what a responsible citizen would do-- get the laws to reflect their views. That's as american as apple pie, and i'll thank you to not call the tenets of our country "professing idiocy".




Fact, dear reverend, facts.




Ah, so you're perfectly fine with lying about what another member has said. Good to know, and no, if you feel this way, then i certainly don't expect an apology from you. Why would a proud liar apologize?
Click to expand...



You would have to be someone I respected in order for the Greatness that is the Good Reverend to care about whatever it is you are throwing a tantrum over now....


:lol:


Abortion is justified. This is a valid opinion shared by the supreme court of the land. That your opinion differs is just fine and dandy, but is only an opinion, just like mine. When your opinion is shared by the supreme court, then you'll be able to turn this argument right back around on me, but as of now, the courts agree with me. Abortion is justified, and not murder. If you'd like to show how it is, with discussion or debate, then do so, and quit blaming your failures on me, and my mere recitation of the relevant facts in play. Your tactic of "Nu-uh, i'm right and abortion is murder and who cares if the courts agree with you" doesn't cut it as a logical argument. It barely qualifies as a coherent statement, but i don't really know how much to expect from someone who is proud of lying about what another person has said.
Click to expand...



This is the white belt verbal jiu-jitsu I am talking aboutm you go from claiming you never claimed that "law makes it right", to claiming that abortion is justified because its law....


You fail, as you have been intellectually oma-plata's and don't know the escape, white belt! :lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You would have to be someone I respected in order for the Greatness that is the Good Reverend to care about whatever it is you are throwing a tantrum over now....
Click to expand...

LOL!! Anything to keep from offering a valid rebuttal!


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
This is the white belt verbal jiu-jitsu I am talking aboutm you go from claiming you never claimed that "law makes it right", to claiming that abortion is justified because its law....
Click to expand...

Well, you were the one claiming that something being legal didn't make it right. I'm in agreement with you, but if you're going to make a distinction when it suits you, then go ahead and make that same distinction when it comes to your accusations. I didn't say that the law makes abortion right, i said that the law makes abortion justified. You're the one so keen on making the distinction, and that's all well and good, but you can't make the distinction when you're trying to put me to the screws, and then deny the distinction a post later when claiming that i said something i never said. Start pulling those sorts of stunts and you'll earn the title of "hypocrite" fairly quickly.


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You fail, as you have been intellectually oma-plata's and don't know the escape, white belt! :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure. You're the one claiming that there's a difference when it suits you, but denying that same distinction when it comes to the lies you've told. Laughable, "good" reverend, laughable.
 
yeah, no lies, you just bloviating incoherently has you confused. We are done here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom