Page 30 of 32 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 316

Thread: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

  1. #291
    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 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
    18 because of science. At 18 weeks, the spinal cord is completely attached to the brain through the thalamus and there are all the necessary components for spatial awareness, corporal and mental pain, pleasure, etc. Learning has begun, even if it is in the most rudimentary sense of the word.

    Killing the fetus at that point is beyond disturbing.

  2. #292
    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
    Killing the fetus at that point is beyond disturbing.
    Fair enough

    I don't really think about Abortion past 18/20 weeks because it just so rarely happens but when you put it in such stark terms, you make it sound ... human like. I can't think of another word to describe it
    Last edited by Laila; 08-06-09 at 01:42 PM.


  3. #293
    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
    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.
    I have never narrowed in specifically on the SCOTUS ruling as a basis for all my arguments. I tend to refer to abortion laws in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    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.
    I mention it for those who are against abortion completely, regardless of the stage. But I see you don't fall into that category, so I will refrain in the future.

    The tipping point is subjective, even in the 2nd trimester. I am definitely pro-choice when it comes to the first trimester, and am more reluctantly pro-choice up until the point where the fetus could be theoretically supported as a pre-mature birth, but would urge them to only seek an abortion at that time if it's a therapeutic one. Generally, my criterion for restrictions is pain and self-awareness, and since the jury is still out on the stage for that, I tend to accept a wider margin of time frames written into law. That is the doctor talking.

    Personally/spiritually, I think the fetus has a soul from day one, and that an abortion is also an agreement between mother and child. In the case of the aborted fetus, it may be the wish of the soul to only experience life up until that point, and not wish to be born. But I of course could never argue this for the creation of laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    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.
    Our ideas are curbed? What does that have to do with the right to life?

    You could argue that if the founding fathers considered a fetus to be "life", they would have written it in... but they weren't that nitpicky, probably because abortion in their era wasn't really a big deal.

    I never claimed abortion is a right in a Constitutional sense, but just because it isn't mentioned there does not mean it isn't warranted, as is the case with other laws. I find it silly when people, both from the left or right, say, "The Constitution mentions nothing about that," as a reason to grant or restrict freedoms.

    The Constitution emphasizes the most important things that a government cannot do. Outside of that, it's anyone's rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    I don't give a flying rat's ass about this pluralism argument. It means less to me than the dust on my boot.
    Of course you don't, which is the whole reason why the pro-life movement will not be sustained, unless further empirical evidence moves us to limit abortion rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    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.
    The SCOTUS ruling makes it a right, even if it's a controversial one. That fact aside, I mostly mean "right" in the normative sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    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?
    I don't find it hypocritical to let people decide for themselves what it means, as opposed to making one law that controls all of society. I also encourage active, unbiased research into fetal development. As a doctor, I am always reading, and my views change according to peer reviewed findings.

    There is nothing remotely concrete, empirically, to suggest when fetal life shows definite signs of sentience and individuality, which would be emotive markers that would move us to change laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    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.
    The abolishment of slavery had more to do with industrialization than it did ethics. Machines replaced the workers required for agriculture and factories. The moral incentives were just the icing on the cake.

    Apples and oranges.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    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."
    When pro-lifers can explain to me how they hope to manage the underground abortion establishment in order to mimize the loss of both fetus and mother, then I might be more open to their hysterical ranting about how an 8 celled organism has personhood.

    If they are against abortion, then naturally they are in favor of socialized welfare. If abortion is illegal, then taxes should be increased to pay for support services for unprepared mothers.

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    I am more inclined to every day to stop allying myself with that kind of thinking. It taints the soul.
    I think you are too generalizing of what "that kind of thinking" is. I've heard some pretty bad arguments from both sides, some of them in this very thread.

    Most pro-lifers automatically assume that pro-choice is the exact dialectical opposite of their views, i.e. pro-choice must be pro-abortion. This is the reason why debates get so heated. Pro-choicers naturally end up defending reasonable doubt which makes them look guilty of being pro-abortion, and things escalate from there.

    I am not pro-abortion by very virtue of risk to the mother. There can be complications to the procedure, and women who are sexually active should place better care into contraceptive measures.
    Last edited by Orion; 08-06-09 at 01:40 PM.

  4. #294
    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
    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.
    You can either deal with the FACT that a fair portion of your tax dollars pay for things that you don't approve of or not. If you refuse to acknowledge this fact, then you're engaging in willful ignorance. If you accept this fact, then your argument about not wanting pay for things of which you don't approve is moot. The choice is between recognizing reality, and the thus, the weakness of that argument, or willful ignorance. I won't presume to make your choice for you. Enjoy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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?
    Again, we come to the crux of what you find logical based on your ideology versus what i find logical based on my ideology. Certain issues that THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT finds deserving (say the space program) are funded by your tax dollars when you may not approve of those expenditures. If you don't like it, you can leave the country, and try to find a home country that doesn't do this. It doesn't matter to me, other than that it shows the flaw in your reasoning concerning your beef over what your tax dollars are spent on. If abortion is the one issue out of thousands and thousands that you don't want your tax dollars spent on, then fine, say that this is the tipping point for you, personally, but don't act like it's wrong that your tax dollars are spent on things you don't like, but you've not once brought that up in a thread where you're shouting and hollering about THAT EXACT ISSUE. If you don't like the fact that your tax dollars are paying for things you don't like, then i'd have expected you to talk about that at some point in this thread AS you were talking about abortion being ADDED to that list.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    What aspect of a civilized society necessitates such a tax policy?
    It's not just one aspect, it's a combination. Governments throughout history have recognized the value in taxation and then making decisions about what to do with that money. The most powerful civilizations have been those that taxed their citizens, and it's bleeding obvious that not every citizen always approves of every tax dollar spent. That's the nature of governments that use taxation, as any student of history and current socio-economic engines is aware.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Doing what is unjust never serves the common good. It can only give the appearance of such.
    I disagree, and lots of people think that the government has treated them unjustly. If you want to make an argument out of this unproven premise, then you'll have to demonstrate how "doing unjust never serves the common good," and then prove that "abortion funded by taxation is unjust" not just in your opinion, but in reality, in a way that is nearly obvious to anyone. That's a tall order, but i'd like to see your attempt.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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.
    Maybe to you, but intelligent people who are decent students of civic policy understand the necessity and the reality of normal taxation policy. Everybody who pays taxes pays for things that they'd not choose to pay for were they the ones deciding. That's why there's committees and such in congress, and you and me don't vote on 75 different decisions during our lunch break every day.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I'm glad you see my point.
    Oh my gosh! You're such a whiny little baby. Good grief.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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.
    Okay, that's good. Go with that and build a case instead of all your whiny little self-centered arguments about how it pisses you off so bad that you're slamming down your coffee cup between sips. You may have something. My initial response is that the gov't currently uses your tax dollars to pay for all sorts of things and the fact that the constitution doesn't address these expenditures hasn't stopped them. (For example, public schools are paid for with tax dollars, and the gov't doles out the cash, but you have zero say so in the process and it's not a constitutional procedure).


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I thought I was already doing that.
    You were, but you were acting like your opinion was AUTOMATICALLY more logically sound and obvious. Even when you think it is, you shouldn't act like that. I reminded you what was the proper sort of thing for you to do, and where it's limit was to be found. Just listing a premise, and qualifying it as obvious, does not an argument make. It's sloppy, and beneath you, i hope.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    The only thing I require from you is base servility. A simple bow, whilst in my divine presence, will suffice.
    As long as you act this way, and as though your opinions are automatically right, you can learn nothing from anyone anywhere. Do you really want to claim that kind of godhood and in that process admit that you have learned all you will ever learn? To be teachable is to know that you do not have all the facts or divine opinions. Forums such as this one are a great place to learn more about life and yourself, but if your opinion of yourself is so high, that you automatically think that you are right, then you are useless to the forum, and the forum is useless to you. No one can ever learn from a person with that ego, and a person with that ego can never learn from anything or anyone. I don't care if you want to behave that way, but it might make a difference to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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.
    Good. I like it a lot. Now tell me why you think we should
    1. Look at the "spirit" of the law.
    2. Explain carefully what is meant by the phrase "spirit-of-the-law" (versus the letter of the law-- which i would probably prefer, but i'm not sure).
    3. Explain why we must understand the minds of the men who wrote it.
    4. Explain what method we can use (falsifiable/verifiable and not just opinion) to determine FOR SURE that we actually "understand the minds of the men who wrote it".
    5. Show, with careful reasoning and syllogism how it might be that this policy goes against what they would have supported.

    The reason that you've got to take these steps, is because on the face of it, you've just provided a nice little slot of rhetoric, as easily used by either side of the debate. For example, an opponent of yours could use the same sentences, and then you've both got the same rhetoric, but neither of you has any demonstrable evidence to support your claim. Here, i'll show you what i mean:

    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 inclined to believe they would support such a thing as abortions paid for with general tax dollars.


    Do you see?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I'd prefer to dwell.
    Suit yourself. I've forgotten it and hadn't thought about it since, and had to go back and look up what the heck you were talking about. Hell, dwell on it as much as you want. I was just giving you sound advice, but i should have know that you wouldn't take it.

  5. #295
    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
    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.
    I worded the question that way because i was quite certain that you DO NOT have a problem with free-speech, because i was advocating that you use your free-speech. It'd be similar to having a conversation with kids, and they say, "I want to play video games today," and you say, "But i wanted to take you to the theme park and ride roller coasters, what's wrong with that?" Obviously, the child realizes that your plan is preferable to theirs, and that there's "nothing wrong with that". It's called a "rhetorical question," which is why i didn't realize that that was the question to which you were referring. I don't think anyone has ever acted before to me as if an obviously rhetorical question was an actual question to be argued over. **giggle**


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Why would I deign to answer a question which falsely presumes what I believe? I think free speech is just lovely.
    Well, why should i try to explain how a rhetorical question works to somebody with enough brain power to operate a computer? Because i'm willing to help you, and correct you so that you can see what you were to blind to before. You should be appreciative of my efforts and either accommodate me or correct me. I'll do my best to remember not to ask any more rhetorical questions, and if you suspect that i have, you can ask me if it was a serious question or not (or alternatively, you could grab the nearest 4th or 5th grader that happens to wander by). It won't bother me, and i'll learn a little more about your mental processes--which will help me talk to you in a way that you will understand.

    The larger point is that you have your free-speech rights to attempt to stop such a law from ever happening. I have my free-speech rights to attempt to get the law passed. As long as you go around acting like your opinion is obvious and right, but you don't detail why, then i'll beat you every time, whether or not i'm obvious and right. The reason? Because i won't act so high and mighty, and i'll carefully explain the logic and reasoning behind my perspective. So while you might have a better argument, if you were to take the time to suss it out, you'll never know and you won't win many converts to your cause because just acting pretentious about it is unattractive and only gets you the followers that already agree with you anyway. The people you'd like on your side are the ones who didn't agree with you to begin with, and for them you're going to have to do better than just thumping your chest and cawing out hoarsely, "ME RITE ON NO TAXAMATION FOR NABORSHON". This is sometimes why there is surprise upsets from the underdog. The underdog can't act like he's automatically right and his position sensible. He has to do the slow, hard, dirty work of convincing those that don't already agree with him. And this process, of explaining carefully and logically, is what i'm looking for from you. I promise you that i'm open and willing to look extremely carefully at what you present--if you'd actually present something--anything at all. If you can actually put feet on your position, and show how it is more sensible than mine, you'll have a convert from the other side instead of a bunch of puppet heads on strings nodding whether you say "Scooby Doo" or whatever it is you say dogmatically and with vigor about "IT'S 'A WRONG, I TELL YOU BRATHAS!!" without any thought or construct. Get you a convert, and that's something of which to be proud, and then that guy is out fighting your battle for you, with logic and reasoning. Talk to mirrors, and all there is is the echo of your own raspy voice.

  6. #296
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,519

    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.



    Why in your opinion, and I respect your pro-choice opinion much moreso than most, is it 18 weeks?


    Wouldn't 8 weeks, 2 months be plenty of time to figure out your pregnant and get an abortion?

    If we are to put a time on it, wouldn't 8 weeks be plenty?


    Hell I had 48 hours to plea "not guilty" to a ny ticket......
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  7. #297
    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 Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Why in your opinion, and I respect your pro-choice opinion much moreso than most, is it 18 weeks?


    Wouldn't 8 weeks, 2 months be plenty of time to figure out your pregnant and get an abortion?

    If we are to put a time on it, wouldn't 8 weeks be plenty?


    Hell I had 48 hours to plea "not guilty" to a ny ticket......

    For me it would depend on the wording of the law, and what it allows for and what it doesn't. For example, if we're talking about a health issue for the mother, there should be no limit at all. Right up to delivery. If we're talking about abortion for convenience, i have no issue with the time frame being closer to what you describe. Of course, some women don't know that they're pregnant in the 8 week period, so that's an issue to deal with. I can just imagine some woman devastated that she didn't find out one day earlier that she was pregnant.

  8. #298
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,519

    Re: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Sammyo View Post
    For me it would depend on the wording of the law, and what it allows for and what it doesn't. For example, if we're talking about a health issue for the mother, there should be no limit at all. Right up to delivery.

    100% agree

    ] If we're talking about abortion for convenience, i have no issue with the time frame being closer to what you describe. Of course, some women don't know that they're pregnant in the 8 week period, so that's an issue to deal with. I can just imagine some woman devastated that she didn't find out one day earlier that she was pregnant.
    It will happen, but a campaign like the aids campaign or "Crack is wack" and perhaps while they are teaching how gay sex works in sex ed, they can hammer in that a woman needs to test if she is sexually active... no?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  9. #299
    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 Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    It will happen, but a campaign like the aids campaign or "Crack is wack" and perhaps while they are teaching how gay sex works in sex ed, they can hammer in that a woman needs to test if she is sexually active... no?
    Well ofc but some women are just irresponsible.
    You should know about 10 weeks in, if not. There is something wrong with that person.


  10. #300
    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 Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    It will happen, but a campaign like the aids campaign or "Crack is wack" and perhaps while they are teaching how gay sex works in sex ed, they can hammer in that a woman needs to test if she is sexually active... no?
    Yeah, but because 8 weeks is just barely past two ovulation cycles, that time frame is more susceptible to mistake. Plenty of girls don't have regular periods and so they could miss the signs of a more mature and regular woman. I'd be tempted to argue for something closer to three cycle periods just so there'd be more time for the more ignorant individuals to become aware. Of course, if the limitations were set where you describe, i'd take issue with any "wait time law" that would violate that time constraint. In other words, i wouldn't favor a 48 hour wait law if the latest a woman could get an abortion was 8 weeks for the simple reason that she might find out she was pregnant only 36 hours before her 8 week time limit, and then she's screwed because based on the two laws working against her, she's caught in a catch-22.

Page 30 of 32 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 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
  •