Page 29 of 32 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 316

Thread: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

  1. #281
    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

    My post was not overly emotional... this is just your usual ad hom, bait and evade tactic that you use when someone errodes your thought process with hard logic.

    Have fun taking a breather. I know I'm quite formiddable.

  2. #282
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    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.
    Yeah and at one time it was BELIEVED that "coloreds" were worth 2/3 of a person and didn't have rights at all. Or more poignantly, it was just a "belief" that "coloreds" had rights while the law stated they didn't.

    There is othing flawed about any example I gave, much as you might need there to be, to continue on this failed notion that the fetus, beyond a point in development has every ability to feel pain and be aware of itself and its surroundings even if it may not understand them.

    Your dependence on the argument of "born or unborn" is nothing more than a grossly simplistic and barbaric attempt at devaluing the fetus for what it really is based on a matter of positioning on one side of the uterus or the other. I guess all humans are worth something in your book as long as they come from the right side of the tracks. THAT, my friend, is nothing more than a "belief".

    So yeah, my point still stands... one group is trying to control another based on a BELIEF that cannot be proven.
    You didn't listen to a word I said. Your belief does stand, but it stands on a foundation of shifting sand, much like all emotional and ill conceived contrivances that attempt to devalue human life.

    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.
    Yeah, its the most fair to everyone except the human life being murdered before it gets out of the starting gate. And we can prove either way whether there are the components that make up a CNS, granting all the capablities we identify with personhood.

    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.
    The 18th week falls within the second trimester. That would be allowable, if I am not mistaken. I find that barbaric and disgusting.

    The constitution and rights apply to those already born.
    Only because we didn't know any better at the time. So what I am gathering from you is that since the Constitution didn't make concessions for something that was not understood, our modern understanding of development should just be cast aside because the Constitution trumps reason? I'm sorry; I reject that lazy morality.

    Since 1/4 of pregnancies self-terminate anyway, giving embryoes the same rights as a born person makes no sense at all.
    I would be hard pressed to believe that those self terminations occur 1/4 of the time beyond the point of development where there is an intact CNS.

    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.
    Give yourself a break. I never suggested such foolishness and your attempt to rhetorically ask me a stupid question shows just how tenuous your grasp on this argument really is.

  3. #283
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    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.
    Oh good, this makes your abortion my personal business forever

  4. #284
    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
    Yeah and at one time it was BELIEVED that "coloreds" were worth 2/3 of a person and didn't have rights at all. Or more poignantly, it was just a "belief" that "coloreds" had rights while the law stated they didn't.
    Again, this deals with an autonomous human being. There is no concrete evidence to prove that a 1 month old fetus is developed enough to even be remotely called a person.

    I respect that you believe it is, but this belief is not enough to override the rights of others who disagree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    There is othing flawed about any example I gave, much as you might need there to be, to continue on this failed notion that the fetus, beyond a point in development has every ability to feel pain and be aware of itself and its surroundings even if it may not understand them.
    Then please cite concrete proof which demonstrates pain perception from the point of conception. I would be happy to read it and weigh in on it further. That's the thing about the secular world, you need proof to back up these kinds of statements. So show me some.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Your dependence on the argument of "born or unborn" is nothing more than a grossly simplistic and barbaric attempt at devaluing the fetus for what it really is based on a matter of positioning on one side of the uterus or the other. I guess all humans are worth something in your book as long as they come from the right side of the tracks. THAT, my friend, is nothing more than a "belief".
    I'd just like to say, that just because I'm saying it, doesn't mean I believe it to be true on a philosophical or spiritual level. I'm simply stating a current reality... people aren't "persons" in any legal sense until they are born.

    As for pain, suffering, and entitlement to be free of cruel and unusual treatment, that is more debatable... but I would not grant this to a pre-second trimester fetus as there is little evidence of the things that constitute personhood, the foremost of which is pain perception and self-awareness.

    So please don't assume that I think any fetus, at any stage, could be aborted on the basis that it hasn't been born yet. That's just silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    You didn't listen to a word I said. Your belief does stand, but it stands on a foundation of shifting sand, much like all emotional and ill conceived contrivances that attempt to devalue human life.
    I don't find it devaluing at all for someone to decide what something the size of a watermelon seed means to them. If they don't want to abort it, then they won't; if it's inconsequential to them, then that's their choice.

    As for the shifting sand bit... a lot of that shifting sand revolves around empirical evidence, as was partly the basis of Roe v Wade. I do realize though that the right wing will willfully ignore cutting edge research in favor of their own sentimental biases, as is their right.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Yeah, its the most fair to everyone except the human life being murdered before it gets out of the starting gate. And we can prove either way whether there are the components that make up a CNS, granting all the capablities we identify with personhood.
    I believe that a first trimester fetus is the groundwork for a human life, but to presume it should have all the entitlements of a born child is a bit of a stretch. If you've ever looked at aborted fetuses at various stages in jars (just FYI, these are usually donated, not usurped), they don't exactly evoke a parental instinct.

    The presumption of what it might become is not sufficient to deny rights either. That is essentially making laws for future, hypothetical people who don't exist yet, and I find that preposterous. For all you know, the hypothetical fetus you are fighting to provide more rights for could self-terminate at any point in the pregnancy.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    The 18th week falls within the second trimester. That would be allowable, if I am not mistaken. I find that barbaric and disgusting.
    In a lot of places, it's even later.

    As I said to Rev, our society's regard for life is rather inconsistent. I don't see why a fetus should be forced to be born into a world that it could later hypothetically reject. I say this as a counter to those who say the fetus has no say. Furthermore, I don't find a pea-sized organism in such an early stage of development to be of larger consequence.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Only because we didn't know any better at the time. So what I am gathering from you is that since the Constitution didn't make concessions for something that was not understood, our modern understanding of development should just be cast aside because the Constitution trumps reason? I'm sorry; I reject that lazy morality.
    Are you insinuating that abortion didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written?

    Wow.

    I think it was left out for a reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    I would be hard pressed to believe that those self terminations occur 1/4 of the time beyond the point of development where there is an intact CNS.
    Just to clarify... are you against ALL abortion, or just abortion after the first trimester?

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    Give yourself a break. I never suggested such foolishness and your attempt to rhetorically ask me a stupid question shows just how tenuous your grasp on this argument really is.
    This kind of comment is uncalled for.

    I was raising a valid point. If we grant personhood rights to fetuses, then miscarriages could be subject to investigation. How do you police every woman from getting an abortion? There are plenty of natural, undetectable methods to abort a fetus, just like there are medical drugs.

    The original reason why abortion was ultimately endorsed in a lot of nations with UHC is because of underground abortions. The pro-life movement continually tries to minimize this, but history does not lie.

    People are going to continue getting them. The pro-life movement will not stop them. It's akin to banning cigarettes or alcohol. It flies in the face of human desire to live one's life the way one wants. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to end it. I would rather the clinic be there to help her than her do it at home, 1950's style, and end up dead.
    Last edited by Orion; 08-06-09 at 01:17 PM.

  5. #285
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

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

    I never said "bad". I said that it was flawed and it was confessed to be flawed by Justice Blackmun who wrote it. He confesses the flaw within the very opinion you seem to be defending without knowing what it actually says. You are defending what Blackmun himself didn't defend and they were his words.

    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.
    Everyone except the fetus.

    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.
    Why do you keep arbitrarily going to this "first month" time frame. Most women don't realize they are even pregnant or know for sure within the "first month". I have zero issues with an abortion in the "first month" to start with. My issue with abortion comes in how it is abused past the point of diminished moral consequence. The point where it tips from being an abortion to being a murder.

    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.
    Not really. You and I have our rights curbed all the time and we are sentient. And we have our rights curbed over ideas and not just the fact that there is a life at stake. And I am not sure where you get this idea that there is a "right" to have an abortion. If you can find me such a "right" in the Constitution, being that you hold it to a higher level of respect than modern science and all, please do.

    Making a pro-choice ruling is the only way to encompass pluralism.
    I don't give a flying rat's ass about this pluralism argument. It means less to me than the dust on my boot.

    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.
    Again, please show me where there is this supposed "right" to have an abortion. In all my civics and history classes, I was never taught about this "right" to have an abortion. You seem to know something I don't so please share it with me.

    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.
    Funny that. You hold the PL crowd to that standard, but you don't hold the PC crowd to the same standard when they exert the ultimate control in deciding life or death for the fetus. Got hypocrisy?

    Although the UHC policy would force them to fund abortion, up until now there has been nothing forcing them to take part in abortions.
    No one had to own slaves either. There was nothing forcing anyone to take part in slavery. Except living with the knowledge that your neighbor is owning slaves.

    Sorry, you don't get to make the decision for everyone.
    I may not on my own. But my voice thrown in with millions of other voices who feel the same way may very well get to make that decision for everyone And the more prochoicers I interact with, the more inclined I am to believe that the whole argument is nothing more than an emotional, hyper individualist and selfish argument that boils down to "Waaa, you're not the boss of me."

    I am more inclined to every day to stop allying myself with that kind of thinking. It taints the soul.

  6. #286
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    To answer the question in your response...I have no issue with an abortion in the first and even partially into the second trimester. When you start getting to the 18 week point, then I am adamantly against it except in the most extreme of circumstances.

  7. #287
    Sage
    Laila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    04-28-17 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,095

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Oh good, this makes your abortion my personal business forever


    And there is another reason why it should never be public funded in US


  8. #288
    Sage
    Laila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    04-28-17 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,095

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    To answer the question in your response...I have no issue with an abortion in the first and even partially into the second trimester. When you start getting to the 18 week point, then I am adamantly against it except in the most extreme of circumstances.
    18 because of science or viability?

    Interesting, its legal until 24 here but almost no one actually have a abortion at such a late stage


  9. #289
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Laila View Post
    18 because of science or viability?

    Interesting, its legal until 24 here but almost no one actually have a abortion at such a late stage
    Makes ya wonder what all the fuss is about.

  10. #290
    Sage
    Laila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Seen
    04-28-17 @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,095

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Makes ya wonder what all the fuss is about.
    Not a fuss for me.
    BMA says there is no case for it to be changed from 24 weeks during the public debate

    When BMA says Abortion limit should be lowered because of viability, MPs should respond and lower it otherwise keep it where it is


Page 29 of 32 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... 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
  •