Page 27 of 32 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 316

Thread: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

  1. #261
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    11-24-09 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    18

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Not everyone who is on death row or who has been executed by the State is guilty of the crime they are being punished for. That's why Illinois had suspended its death penalty awhile ago, they found I think it was about half or so of the people on death row were there for crimes they didn't commit. The failure mode for the DP is too high.
    Yet again, we see people wanting to derail the topic. Just for the sake of argument, let's say they were caught red handed pulling the trigger, killing another person.

    This thread is about the funding of abortions by the federal government thru our taxes. Someone tried to show a moral equivalence between wars, the Death penalty and abortion. I showed that there was none, but you want to argue the merits of the death penalty. Try again.

  2. #262
    Student Sammyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-29-09 @ 04:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    185

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    The next step in a "debate" would be to examine the ethical or logical basis for our opinions. For instance, we could start by establishing some agreed upon "truths":
    Okay.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Coercing other people into paying for things they don't want or need is unethical. Yes or no? And I'm not asking you to state, as a fact, that this is "ethical", I'm simply asking your opinion.
    No. It's perfectly ethical, in my opinion to force people to pay for things that they don't want or need. I don't want or need the roads to be kept up in Hawaii, but i should be coerced into paying for their upkeep through my tax dollars, and i am rightly so forced, as are you.

    The nature of taxation is that you sometimes pay for things that you don't want or need. That's the way it works, and not only that, but i think that it's a good way for things to work.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    The logical progression of thought which dictates that coercing people to pay for things they do not want or need is unethical. I thought that was blatantly obvious.
    Obviously not, since i think it's perfectly fine to force people to pay for things that they don't want or need. I think that this goes without saying in a civilized society that demands taxes from its citizens.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Well, I suppose I just assumed you and I would share a common ethical basis which holds unjust coercion in contempt. I didn't know you liked unjust coercion.
    I don't like unjust coercion, but sometimes it's necessary for the common good. Also, what is "unjust" or "just" changes depending on who you ask. I might think that a certain thing is "just" while you think it's "unjust". Basically, when the law declares it "just" you've got to go along or protest or whatever, but you've got to pay your taxes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I could not prove it, I could only show it to be illogical, based upon an agreed set of moral standards, which I falsely assumed you held. Apparently, you think unjust coercion is okay. That is a fundamental disagreement that cannot be reconciled. The letter and spirit of this nation's laws do not suite you. Perhaps you should exercise your right to leave the country.
    The letter and spirit of the laws suit me just fine. I'm in agreement with them, mostly, and the ones that i don't agree with i go along with in order to maintain my good standing in the citizenry. If the law changes to make my taxes pay for abortions, i'll consider it a good law, and you can do as you wish. As to showing something to be illogical, you notice that you could only do that based on a certain set of standards. When a person holds to a different set of standards, what is "logical" may be quite different, as you seem to agree. Some things that you don't consider "logical" may be perfectly logical to somebody with a different set of standards, so you research that set first. I don't claim that your stance is illogical, because it likely is, to you, from your viewpoint. I've no problem with that, just like you should have no problem recognizing that from my viewpoint, with my standards, it's logical. Your argument isn't with what is or isn't logical, as if that's some sort of set-in-stone fact, but with my standards and viewpoint. This is the entire point that i was trying to get to, and we've finally arrived.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    You sound like you're having a great time reading my posts. I'm glad of it. Maybe we could be friends...
    I don't know why not. I have plenty of friends with completely different ideological standpoints and contesting views.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Mmmmm, not addressing the point.
    Oh, pardon me. Yes, yes, Ethereal, quite right, two wrongs don't make a right. By the way, wood typically floats. NOW ADDRESS THIS POINT!!


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Stop whining.
    I was merely stating a fact. No whining involved. Get your ears checked.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Please discuss.
    What you suggested was unconstitutional. Sure, it can be changed if the constitution is amended or gone against, but it is unconstitutional. Do you need me to explain how, or what?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Yes...AND?
    And, that's it. Voice your opinions. See if you can change the laws to reflect your values. What do you need, me to ship you my spare soapbox?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Actually, the fact that such a law is unconstitutional means you would have a logical basis for your argument.
    Yes, it would. This was my point. If the constitution says something about a law, we should look at that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I must remind you that I am perfectly comfortable with you admitting that your statements are illogical. There's no need for you to insist on driving my point home, although I do appreciate it.
    LOL!! This is your reply to me busting you for implying that i thought something that i've never expressed!!! ha!! Look, i never said what you accused me of thinking. Get over it, and get on with your life.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    So long as you admit your question was a loaded one with no basis in sound reasoning or logic I'm in no position to complain.
    I have asked you NO illogical questions. If you feel i have, quote it, and explain how it seems illogical, and i will reword it for you. If you still find it illogical, i'll rephrase and try again. I'm sure that eventually we can find a way to discuss the issue without you simply labeling my questions with some description that enables you to squirm out of answering.
    Last edited by Sammyo; 08-05-09 at 05:59 PM.

  3. #263
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    11-07-12 @ 12:45 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    117

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I still assert that if you don't like abortion, then don't get one...
    I won't. And, I shouldn't be forced to pay for other people to do it, either! The "pro-choicers" in this thread are really showing their true colors. We'll all be forced to fund others' abortions. Where is the choice?

  4. #264
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
    Yet again, we see people wanting to derail the topic. Just for the sake of argument, let's say they were caught red handed pulling the trigger, killing another person.

    This thread is about the funding of abortions by the federal government thru our taxes. Someone tried to show a moral equivalence between wars, the Death penalty and abortion. I showed that there was none, but you want to argue the merits of the death penalty. Try again.
    I was illustrating a logical flaw in your argument. Sorry if your argument didn't hold up to criticism. I've already well commented on the funding, look at my posts already in this thread.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #265
    Student Sammyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-29-09 @ 04:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    185

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Dix View Post
    I won't. And, I shouldn't be forced to pay for other people to do it, either!
    I can see your point, and i understand why you feel this way. I think abortion should be available on demand because i think that almost all medical procedures should be available on demand. (Paid for by tax dollars, of course). I understand that this is a minority view, and that most people don't agree with me, and certainly most pro-choicers don't agree with me on this. However, i'm not going to lie about it just to be liked around here. I have the opinion that i have, and i think in the scope of tax-supported health care, it makes sense. For what it's worth, you should fight for your opinions on this issue and strive to make your voice heard. I don't really think that our tax dollars are going to fund abortion anytime soon, so it's probably not urgent or anything, but as an american you should go about voicing your concerns on this issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dix View Post
    The "pro-choicers" in this thread are really showing their true colors. We'll all be forced to fund others' abortions. Where is the choice?
    Not all pro-choicers want tax dollars to pay for abortions. I do, but i'm in the minority. As to your choice, you pay for all sorts of things with your tax dollars that you'd not be happy about, and have no choice in the matter. It's part of living in a country that demands taxes from its citizens. You have to pay for things that you don't approve of, because you don't decide where your tax dollars eventually go. When you vote, there's your chance to change who makes these decisions---to a degree, anyway.

  6. #266
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sammyo View Post
    No. It's perfectly ethical, in my opinion to force people to pay for things that they don't want or need. I don't want or need the roads to be kept up in Hawaii, but i should be coerced into paying for their upkeep through my tax dollars, and i am rightly so forced, as are you.
    What's the matter with Hawaii's tax dollars? Are they broken or something? Just so we're on the same page, this question presumes that you hold personal responsibility is some sort of esteem.

    The nature of taxation is that you sometimes pay for things that you don't want or need. That's the way it works, and not only that, but i think that it's a good way for things to work.
    Why is it "good"? Hawaii may like its new roads but some people in Michigan just got screwed out of their money. Those tax dollars could have been utilized for any number of things directly beneficial to people living in Michigan. Helping others is not a justification for taking people's money, no matter how cruel or crass it may sound. Nobody would tolerate officials from St. Jude's Children's Hospital going around and stealing other people's money under the pretense of helping others, so why is it any different when the government engages in such activity?

    Obviously not, since i think it's perfectly fine to force people to pay for things that they don't want or need. I think that this goes without saying in a civilized society that demands taxes from its citizens.
    What aspect of a civilized society necessitates such a tax policy?

    I don't like unjust coercion, but sometimes it's necessary for the common good.
    Doing what is unjust never serves the common good. It can only give the appearance of such.

    Also, what is "unjust" or "just" changes depending on who you ask. I might think that a certain thing is "just" while you think it's "unjust". Basically, when the law declares it "just" you've got to go along or protest or whatever, but you've got to pay your taxes.
    Of course.

    The letter and spirit of the laws suit me just fine. I'm in agreement with them, mostly, and the ones that i don't agree with i go along with in order to maintain my good standing in the citizenry. If the law changes to make my taxes pay for abortions, i'll consider it a good law, and you can do as you wish. As to showing something to be illogical, you notice that you could only do that based on a certain set of standards. When a person holds to a different set of standards, what is "logical" may be quite different, as you seem to agree. Some things that you don't consider "logical" may be perfectly logical to somebody with a different set of standards, so you research that set first. I don't claim that your stance is illogical, because it likely is, to you, from your viewpoint. I've no problem with that, just like you should have no problem recognizing that from my viewpoint, with my standards, it's logical. Your argument isn't with what is or isn't logical, as if that's some sort of set-in-stone fact, but with my standards and viewpoint. This is the entire point that i was trying to get to, and we've finally arrived.
    Our country's legal and philosophical foundation is steeped in the recognition of negative rights. Forcing other people to pay for things they do not want or need seems to fly in the face of such a concept.

    I don't know why not. I have plenty of friends with completely different ideological standpoints and contesting views.
    Sounds like you have a lot of smart friends...

    Oh, pardon me. Yes, yes, Ethereal, quite right, two wrongs don't make a right. By the way, wood typically floats. NOW ADDRESS THIS POINT!!
    I'm glad you see my point.

    What you suggested was unconstitutional. Sure, it can be changed if the constitution is amended or gone against, but it is unconstitutional. Do you need me to explain how, or what?
    I would also argue that your position is unconstitutional. I can't find the Constitutional clause which grants the government the explicit authority to pay for medical procedures.

    And, that's it. Voice your opinions. See if you can change the laws to reflect your values.
    I thought I was already doing that.

    What do you need, me to ship you my spare soapbox?
    The only thing I require from you is base servility. A simple bow, whilst in my divine presence, will suffice.

    Yes, it would. This was my point. If the constitution says something about a law, we should look at that.
    We should also look to the spirit of the law, which is to say we must understand the minds of men who wrote it. Based upon what they have written and said I am disinclined to believe they would support such a thing as you have espoused.

    LOL!! This is your reply to me busting you for implying that i thought something that i've never expressed!!! ha!! Look, i never said what you accused me of thinking. Get over it, and get on with your life.
    I'd prefer to dwell.

    I have asked you NO illogical questions. If you feel i have, quote it, and explain how it seems illogical...
    I already did quote it, but I'll do it again...

    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sammyo View Post
    It depends on the wording of the law. I imagine that i'd be vocal in some way just like you'd be vocal in some way on abortion paid for with tax dollars. I think you should have the right to be vocal about abortion paid for with tax dollars and that i should have the right to be vocal about whatever i please. That's what make this country so great. What about this process do you not like?
    Your question presumes that I have some kind of problem with the aforementioned scenario regarding free speech and the exercise thereof. Nothing I have said would indicate such a bias, hence the question is illogical in its presumption.

    ...and i will reword it for you.
    Do not presume to reward your master.



    If you still find it illogical, i'll rephrase and try again. I'm sure that eventually we can find a way to discuss the issue without you simply labeling my questions with some description that enables you to squirm out of answering.
    Why would I deign to answer a question which falsely presumes what I believe? I think free speech is just lovely.

  7. #267
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Let make a little demonstration about how flawed this moral relativity crap is...

    One group trying to control what another person does, based on their staunch beliefs. You are entitled to think putting Jews in furnaces is murder, and so am I, but that is irrelevant to the broad sphere of other people's beliefs.

    You are entitled to think enslaving blacks is wrong, and so am I, but that is irrelevant to the broad sphere of other people's beliefs.

    You are entitled to think that euthanizing grandma when she gets too old to care for herself is wrong, and so am I, but that is irrelevant to the broad sphere of other people's beliefs.

    See where this is going? Do you see the flaw in making this about people's feelings and beliefs? There needs to be a legal standard until such a time as science can determine with certainty both what personhood is biologically and when it is present in the fetus.
    Every example you made is flawed, because believing that a 1 month old embryo is alive, sentient, and should have right is a BELIEF. Every other situation you described relates to people who have already been born.

    So yeah, my point still stands... one group is trying to control another based on a BELIEF that cannot be proven.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Just because you might not believe it is murder, doesn't mean it actually isn't.
    Since we cannot prove it either way, we must let people decide for themselves what the matter means. Pro-choice policy lets people who think it's murder avoid abortion, and those who don't pursue it. It's the most fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    First trimester abortion isn't a debate to me. It's a medical procedure to alleviate a medical condition. Science can say with certainty that there is no morphological component available to the fetus at this stage that would predicate any definition of awareness. It's basically a blob of flesh who's only claims to significance are that which the woman gives it and the fact that it has a unique chemical structure in its DNA.

    Getting beyond that to the 18th weeks and beyond, we have serious issue if the government is to provide funding.
    This is my stance also... I wasn't aware that the gov. was going to fund post-18th week funding? It still has to adhere to Roe v. Wade and the limitations on timing.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    And it's cruel, barbaric, and superior to believe that what you think should override the right to life...one of our basic founding principles.
    The constitution and rights apply to those already born. Since 1/4 of pregnancies self-terminate anyway, giving embryoes the same rights as a born person makes no sense at all. Are you also proposing that we investigate every miscarriage to make sure the "right to life" wasn't denied by the mother? Please, give me a break.

  8. #268
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    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.
    It's only bad because you disagree with it.

    The UHC argument is just another layer to the abortion debate and it all stems from the same arguments. There is too much chatter, someone had to make a decision that best represents everyone. What the pro-life crowd wants is to deny people the choice, even though there isn't conclusive evidence that the fetus (if you can call it that within the first month) is experiencing unimaginable suffering. Asking the courts or government to preserve the "right to life" and thereby override the rights of the already-sentient, living mother, is a huge deal.

    Making a pro-choice ruling is the only way to encompass pluralism. Until there is some kind of concrete evidence which proves abortion is always, universally, unethical, there should be no reason to deny women this right.

    Now, what the pro-life crowd needs to do is give up their compulsion to try and control the lives of millions of other people. Although the UHC policy would force them to fund abortion, up until now there has been nothing forcing them to take part in abortions.

    Sorry, you don't get to make the decision for everyone.

  9. #269
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,544

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    I love the "Sentient" argument, as if that justifies killing....


    how sentient is a 1 month old? Prove your answer.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  10. #270
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    I love the "Sentient" argument, as if that justifies killing....


    how sentient is a 1 month old? Prove your answer.
    How sentient are a few dozen skin cells from your arm? What happens when you scratch your arm and they fly off into oblivion? Where is their right to life?

    You can make the same ridiculous argument for just about anything.

    The question of suffering matters a lot. It's not enough to simply demand the right to life, you must also define why, if it is indeed murder, it is unacceptable to terminate a pregnancy. One such way to measure it is the amount of suffering. Since a one month old fetus cannot even perceive pain since it lacks any form of nervous system, we can say that abortion at that stage is of no consequence to the fetus itself who lacks pertinent awareness of what is happening.

    Furthermore, this tiny blob of cells doesn't even resemble a person as we know it. You would not want to cuddle with this thing that looks more like a fish, so attributing personhood to it is irrelevant.

    If suffering is removed from the equation, then all we are left with is that we should preserve life just because it's life. Well, we see how humans treat life all the time. We kill it, eat it, turn it into furniture or housing, hunt it, etc. Not to mention we engage in wars to kill other humans. So life in of itself has an inconsistent value in our society.

Page 27 of 32 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •