Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

Ikari · Aug 5, 2009

Orius said:
With UHC, you don't really. All countries with a progressive birth control policy that have UHC cover abortion for their people. It's just common sense. I realize you can't see this because we come from two different cultures, but it's more unethical to offer selective procedures based on populist morality. You either have UHC or you don't. The "universal" part is important.

I do reiterate though that the U.S. is simply not ready for UHC. They can't make the initial leap of wanting to pay for the collective health of their society, so why should I expect them to understand why UHC being pro-choice makes sense?

Your country just isn't ready. There are too many debates happening and UHC intersects a lot of them. You can't have UHC until the chatter dies down.

I may not want UHC, it depends on what form it takes. But there's no reason that we have to do what other countries do. The "progressive" countries may allow for abortion through UHC, but we don't have to be like them. Your condescending tone aside, I don't want to be like them. I think Europe and the rest of the West has lost a lot of resolve, and I don't want to go down that same path. We can make UHC if we want it, but we don't need to do so by your rules. There are many things to debate and work out as to whether or not we can make a go at this UHC, but just because the "progressive" countries do something doesn't mean we have to. "Progressive" countries have stripped their people's ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. I wouldn't encourage the US to go the same direction. So you can take that smug attitude of yours and shove it. I don't care what you've done, or how much better you think yourself to be. I want to do what's best for the US, for my freedom and liberty which includes control over the government. And if we're going to have some form of UHC system, I'm going to fight funding elective medical procedures.

Laila · Aug 5, 2009

Orius said:
Our countries legalized abortion and funded it across the board under pro-choice policy. They looked at it and said, "If you want one, we will help. If you don't want one, don't get one." But in our countries, the evangelists and religious right are given less of a voice in secular politics. They have much more power in the U.S.

I still assert that if you don't like abortion, then don't get one... but it's not enough for the opposition. For them, it's: "Oh, but we want to control everyone and make sure people aren't being murdered!"

That is the same premis those who do not support Abortion over here work under.
Not this stupid idea of trying to restrict everyone else, just not going to get it themselves or their wife/daughter etc. and fair enough.

What helped UK in legalizing it, was the way it occured.
Not like US where a women went to SC for it.
The first legislation was designed to protect the doctors performing it not the women under strict rules. Still in UK, If i wanted a Abortion. I'd need the notice of two difference doctors

Orion · Aug 5, 2009

Ikari said:
I may not want UHC, it depends on what form it takes. But there's no reason that we have to do what other countries do. The "progressive" countries may allow for abortion through UHC, but we don't have to be like them. Your condescending tone aside, I don't want to be like them. I think Europe and the rest of the West has lost a lot of resolve, and I don't want to go down that same path. We can make UHC if we want it, but we don't need to do so by your rules. There are many things to debate and work out as to whether or not we can make a go at this UHC, but just because the "progressive" countries do something doesn't mean we have to. "Progressive" countries have stripped their people's ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. I wouldn't encourage the US to go the same direction. So you can take that smug attitude of yours and shove it. I don't care what you've done, or how much better you think yourself to be. I want to do what's best for the US, for my freedom and liberty which includes control over the government. And if we're going to have some form of UHC system, I'm going to fight funding elective medical procedures.

I'm not trying to be smug or superior, so there is no need to get defensive. Pro-choice policy naturally encompasses everyone. It encompasses those who don't support abortion because it is not forcing them to get one or even promoting it, and it supports those who want to get it. I don't see why this is such a divisive issue in the U.S. It wasn't even a divisive issue pre 1850 in your own country. Abortion isn't infringing on your right to live the life that you want, although I can understand why you would think that about UHC.

As I've said in previous threads, the majority don't know why the pro-life movement even started in the U.S... and it has nothing to do with the sanctity of life, although, that is what it eventually transformed into.

For you, if it's about controlling government, then you've already lost. The people of the U.S. have remarkably little say anymore as government powers expand, and it's mostly for the simple reason that you are all divided over hotbutton issues like this one. You will never unite and rise to the occasion.

As for the rhetoric about my country and bearing arms... we have never had civil war. Our transition from a colonial territory to a sovereign nation has been relatively smooth, and there haven't been cases of mass uprise against the government in our short history. We don't have a violent history like the U.S... we never fought among ourselves to the degree you have. We have more common trust.

Anyway, let's avoid the gun debate. The abortion one is far more interesting.

Ikari · Aug 5, 2009

Orius said:
I'm not trying to be smug or superior,

Not doing a good job of it.

Orius said:
Pro-choice policy naturally encompasses everyone. It encompasses those who don't support abortion because it is not forcing them to get one or even promoting it, and it supports those who want to get it. I don't see why this is such a divisive issue in the U.S. It wasn't even a divisive issue pre 1850 in your own country. Abortion isn't infringing on your right to live the life that you want, although I can understand why you would think that about UHC.

I can't stop abortion, the SCOTUS has already ruled on it, it can't be changed. I'm saying, if you want elective medical procedures pay for it yourself. I'm not going to fund it.

Goobieman · Aug 5, 2009

Ikari said:
I can't stop abortion, the SCOTUS has already ruled on it, it can't be changed. I'm saying, if you want elective medical procedures pay for it yourself. I'm not going to fund it.

This is a perfectly reasonable stance, one that should be supported by those who support "choice".

Sammyo · Aug 5, 2009

Ethereal said:
My disagreement with your opinion was not offered absent any reasoning. The coercive nature of government-funded abortions is a valid observation and a logical premise from which to argue.

You're not for it, and i am. That you keep describing the situation as it is is not a rebuttal. We both know what the situation is and your disagreement with it in relationship to my agreement with it is NOT a logical argument. Yes, the gov't is spending your money for a procedure you don't think is ethical. Yes, i'm for it and you're against it. What now?

Ethereal said:
That's fine, but don't be surprised when I inform you that your opinion - although very neat! - doesn't make any sense.

Doesn't make sense according to whom? Your ideology and values? I should hope it doesn't, as that'd mean you were inconsistent. It sure makes sense to me, according to my ideology and values, and you'll be hard pressed to show otherwise, but i would welcome the attempt.

Ethereal said:
Opinions can also be correct or incorrect. Your's happens to be incorrect.

Prove that opinions can be correct or incorrect first. Then prove that my opinion on this is incorrect. This should be fun.

Ethereal said:
Two wrongs don't make a right, you know.

Nope, but three lefts do.

Ethereal said:
Sammyo's children, whilst in attendance at any public school, shall be made to pray to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose blood was shed so that we may have everlasting life.

So, what do you think of my law?

I think that it's silly and unconstitutional. I'd fight against it. Wow, what a shocker. So what? You're going to voice your opinions and "fight" against the laws with which you don't agree. I'm going to voice my opinions and "fight" against the laws with which i don't agree. This the american way. That your law is unconstitutional would help my fight, but that's irrelevant.

Ethereal said:
DING-DING-DING! We have a winner!

Every post of mine in this thread has been a "winner". That you suddenly notice is of no concern to me.

Ethereal said:
So, suppose, in the course of your vocalizing, I simply told you to "stop whining". Would you consider that to be a logical refutation of your position?

It would depend on what i had previously said to which that was your reply. Did i ever say that "stop whining" was a logical refutation of anyone's position? I think not. All i see from you is whining and more whining. Even now, as you attempt to obscure the issue in an avalanche of non-sequiturs instead of rational syllogisms, it's just more bitching and moaning. I still have yet to see one robust, logical presentation in favor of your position. With all your hemming and hawing, there's no meat amidst all the tendons and cartilage. Are we going to ever eat steak, Ethereal, or are we just going to talk about the color of the plates and the name brand of the knives?

Ethereal said:
When are you going to stop beating your wife? See, I can ask loaded questions, too.

Anybody can ask loaded questions. Who cares? All i see you doing is being obscure and rhetorical. Why not address the issue at hand? Are you so scarred of the actual issue that you feel the need to dodge with red herrings every other sentence? I explained to you the REALITY of how the process works. You don't have to answer my questions about that reality, but you can't deny it. Again, 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 and that's what make this country so great. You can say something about that or not. What do i care?

Ethereal said:
Nowhere have I advocated anything in opposition to free speech or the exercise thereof. I'm simply trying to contest the validity of your opinion, not its existence.

Then get busy contesting it and quit pointing out such obvious points as could be picked up by any 4th grader that knows how to read the English language. You've yet to say anything at all, really. What's your point, that you can throw red herrings and non-sequiturs around all day long? Hell, people who can do that are all over the place. They hardly need to advertise.

Ethereal said:
Hey, thanks for that. I love reality.

To a fault, it appears. You just keep stating the facts over and over that everybody already knew from the get go. Let me know when you've got something to say that isn't already blatantly obvious to every single person who takes a 2-second cursory glance at the thread title.

jallman · Aug 5, 2009

Orius said:
I still assert that if you don't like abortion, then don't get one... but it's not enough for the opposition. For them, it's: "Oh, but we want to control everyone and make sure people aren't being murdered!"

I mean this with all due respect...but that is a very myopic and simplistic view of the abortion issue. I am prochoice, myself, but I also understand that there is a whole depth of issues to the bolded portion of your statement. And yeah, even being prochoice, I am totally down with seeing that people aren't being murdered. If you wanna call that controling others, then so be it. I'm a control freak. And I'm not sorry about it.

Sammyo · Aug 5, 2009

Orius said:
I'm not trying to be smug or superior, so there is no need to get defensive.

Meh, the folks who disagree with you on this issue are going to claim it anyway. In all likelihood you ARE superior, but that's just my humble opinion.

Laila · Aug 5, 2009

Goobieman said:
This is a perfectly reasonable stance, one that should be supported by those who support "choice".

I do.
I have no issue with whether US gets UHC or not.

I find the notion of making pro lifers pay for Abortion when they are against it outside of necessity wrong

Orion · Aug 5, 2009

jallman said:
I mean this with all due respect...but that is a very myopic and simplistic view of the abortion issue. I am prochoice, myself, but I also understand that there is a whole depth of issues to the bolded portion of your statement. And yeah, even being prochoice, I am totally down with seeing that people aren't being murdered. If you wanna call that controling others, then so be it. I'm a control freak. And I'm not sorry about it.

This is my problem... control. One group trying to control what another person does, based on their staunch beliefs. You are entitled to think it's murder, and so am I, but that is irrelevant to the broad sphere of other people's beliefs. Just because you might believe it is murder, doesn't mean it actually is. Even science cannot determine what this means, and they are the ones looking at the hard neurological factors of first semester abortion.

I think it's arrogant and superior to belief what you think should override the views of all others. This is my view on abortion as a rule.

As for the UHC part of it... I cannot deny that, from an American perspective, it would be forcing all people to pay with abortion for their taxes. As a Canadian, I think it is perfectly ethical... but if I were an American who was against abortion, I'd be pissed.

Coronado · Aug 5, 2009

Orius said:
I still assert that if you don't like abortion, then don't get one...

Ooh, I like this one. How about these:

If you don't like machine guns, don't own one.
If you don't like domestic violence, don't beat your wife.
If you don't like drugs, don't do them.
If you don't like child abuse, don't abuse your child.
If you don't like murder, don't kill people.

See how stupid that vapid little quip is yet?

Councilman · Aug 5, 2009

Forcing you and I to pay for abortions through our tax dollars is only a part of the Obamanations that are contained in the "Obama I Don't Care about Your Health Plan."
The plan not only will cause your Granny to die but will eventually lead to a plan that will mimic the Oregon Health plan that will offer to pay for assisted suicides because it costs only a few dollars compared to real health care.
I urge each and everyone of you including the Liberals to read the stinking bill because just because you voted for this dangerous leftest Obama it will not exempt your Mom and Dad from this Obama death plan for older Americans.
http://www.jeffhead.com/HC-HouseII.pdf
Get informed get involved and stop this before it costs American lives.
It's not about Left or Right it's about Right and Wrong.

The latest daily Rassmusin poll says; Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.
Let's turn this into action!

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else". Sir Winston Churchill

Orion · Aug 5, 2009

Coronado said:
Ooh, I like this one. How about these:

If you don't like machine guns, don't own one.

If you don't like domestic violence, don't beat your wife.

If you don't like drugs, don't do them.

If you don't like child abuse, don't abuse your child.

If you don't like murder, don't kill people.

See how stupid that vapid little quip is yet?

Those all sound perfectly reasonable to me.

All of those things have to do with fully formed, autonomous human beings. A one month old embryo is not a person.

Sammyo · Aug 5, 2009

Orius said:
This is my problem... control. One group trying to control what another person does, based on their staunch beliefs. You are entitled to think it's murder, and so am I, but that is irrelevant to the broad sphere of other people's beliefs. Just because you might believe it is murder, doesn't mean it actually is. Even science cannot determine what this means, and they are the ones looking at the hard neurological factors of first semester abortion.

I think it's arrogant and superior to belief what you think should override the views of all others. This is my view on abortion as a rule.

As for the UHC part of it... I cannot deny that, from an American perspective, it would be forcing all people to pay with abortion for their taxes. As a Canadian, I think it is perfectly ethical... but if I were an American who was against abortion, I'd be pissed.

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.

Sammyo · Aug 5, 2009

Councilman said:
Forcing you and I to pay for abortions through our tax dollars is only a part of the Obamanations that are contained in the "Obama I Don't Care about Your Health Plan."
The plan not only will cause your Granny to die but will eventually lead to a plan that will mimic the Oregon Health plan that will offer to pay for assisted suicides because it costs only a few dollars compared to real health care.
I urge each and everyone of you including the Liberals to read the stinking bill because just because you voted for this dangerous leftest Obama it will not exempt your Mom and Dad from this Obama death plan for older Americans.
http://www.jeffhead.com/HC-HouseII.pdf
Get informed get involved and stop this before it costs American lives.
It's not about Left or Right it's about Right and Wrong.

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else". Sir Winston Churchill

Yeah, but i'm with Winston Churchill on this one. We've a lot of things to try before we go that route, Councilman.

Sammyo · Aug 5, 2009

Orius said:
Those all sound perfectly reasonable to me.

All of those things have to do with fully formed, autonomous human beings. A one month old embryo is not a person.

Well, we could let the fetus decide. Just take it out of its mother, who wants an abortion, and let it decide to live or die. Its choice.

Orion · Aug 5, 2009

Sammyo said:
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.

I understand your reasoning, but it's still a bit of a dilemma to make anti-choice people pay for abortions. Then again, their tax dollars already pay for the execution of inmates in the states that have capital punishment, so I'm not clear on what the big deal is.

In any case, if they are against UHC covering abortion, then they might as well be against UHC as a whole, because that's what the entire thing is: paying for something that has nothing to do with you.

Nonetheless, from a policy perspective, I support the initiative of the Democrats to not only make UHC, but a UHC that doesn't discriminate. It should cover abortion and people will just have to live with that.

Sammyo · Aug 5, 2009

Orius said:
I understand your reasoning, but it's still a bit of a dilemma to make anti-choice people pay for abortions. Then again, their tax dollars already pay for the execution of inmates in the states that have capital punishment, so I'm not clear on what the big deal is.

People pay for stuff they don't ethically approve of all the time, with their tax dollars. Yeah, it sucks that i have to do this, but i can either leave the country or pay my taxes. (Or not pay them and go to jail).

The Prof · Aug 5, 2009

pelosi/obama's insistence on altering the public funding of abortion has COST THEM THEIR HEALTH CARE BILL

it's the bluedog's basic bugaboo

pelosi/obama just do not get it, they don't understand american politics

the united states is NOT one giant chicago

you can't just RAHM thru anything you want because it's in some harvard textbook

another example is leadership's campaign today to VILLIFY folks who show up at town halls to express their legitimate concerns

all this, from a community organizer, yet

it's all so STRONGARM

that's not LEADERSHIP

obama does not appreciate the american people, he does not comprehend politics, he is lost when it comes to leadership

he ATTACKS his critics

this is not the way to cobble CONSENSUS

groups associated with dnc chair howard dean have launched attack ads against evan bayh, blanche lincoln, mary landrieu, byron dorgan, kent conrad, bill nelson, ben nelson

Progressive Groups Team Up To Keep Health Care Ad Pressure On Dems

just as he's insisting that ABORTION ON DEMAND be paid for by those who have genuine HEARTFELT differences with his life philosophies, so is he also unyieldingly intent on the inclusion of ILLEGALS in whatever expansion of med insurance inches forward

Newsmax.com - Obama Health Plan to Cover 12 Million Illegals

obama's health care ambitions are impracticable enough without these insuperable problems

bothersome abortion has been committee complication for months, ie, under the public's radar screen

it's just now beginning to blip

the ILLEGALS issue is gonna EXPLODE

in mere weeks

seniors are FREAKING about END OF LIFE issues, obama's agenda to reduce their COSTS

just wait til they hear that pelosi insists on free provision for pedro and paloma

inept politics, suicide strategy---THAT's the point

you may now return to your chin stroking, platonic ruminations concerning the precise and exact constitution of human life

you're sure to reach rewarding resolution, there, readily

LOL!

Sammyo · Aug 5, 2009

Being charged by the letter, are you?

Coronado · Aug 5, 2009

Orius said:
Those all sound perfectly reasonable to me.

The point being, those particular examples are trite thought-terminating clichés, and they also assume that one has no right to do anything about others' illegal and/or immoral actions.

[quote=Orius;1058175760]All of those things have to do with fully formed, autonomous human beings. A one month old embryo is not a person.[/quote]

What constitutes a person is hardly a settled question in most contexts.

jallman · Aug 5, 2009

Orius said:
This is my problem... control. One group trying to control what another person does, based on their staunch beliefs. You are entitled to think it's murder, and so am I, but that is irrelevant to the broad sphere of other people's beliefs.

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.

Just because you might believe it is murder, doesn't mean it actually is.

Just because you might not believe it is murder, doesn't mean it actually isn't.

Even science cannot determine what this means, and they are the ones looking at the hard neurological factors of first semester abortion.

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.

I think it's arrogant and superior to belief what you think should override the views of all others. This is my view on abortion as a rule.

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.

As for the UHC part of it... I cannot deny that, from an American perspective, it would be forcing all people to pay with abortion for their taxes. As a Canadian, I think it is perfectly ethical... but if I were an American who was against abortion, I'd be pissed.

Well, we have some agreement there. :2wave:

ReverendHellh0und · Aug 5, 2009

Sammyo said:
I'm pro-abortion and proud of it. I'm also pro-choice, because i don't want abortion forced on anyone. I don't want my views on abortion forced on anyone, so i think the woman should choose and not me.

Most pro-lifers aren't just pro-life, but they're anti-choice because they want to strip away the choice from the woman. Meh, men have always wanted to boss women around. You should read about how much men did this in times past!

so if I want to murder someone and you say no, you are anti-choice? :roll:

ReverendHellh0und · Aug 5, 2009

hazlnut said:
Sorry, Rev, ol man, this has already been debunked in another thread with an article from factcheck.org.

Those facts are pesky stubborn things and that factcheck.org does a great job applying them to the daily partisan spin.

Check it out ---> DEBUNKED BY FACTS

I think fact check is wrong:

The Associated Press: Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

and 357 other recent articles. Could you point out were they are excluded in the actual plan? thanks.

Sammyo · Aug 5, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
so if I want to murder someone and you say no, you are anti-choice? :roll:

"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).

Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

Ikari

Laila

Orion

Ikari

Goobieman

Sammyo

Member

jallman

Sammyo

Member

Laila

Orion

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation

Councilman

Orion

Sammyo

Member

Sammyo

Member

Sammyo

Member

Orion

Sammyo

Member

The Prof

Sammyo

Member

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation

jallman

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

Sammyo

Member