Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by ckblv
 Well at least you admit that you are in favor of the total government take over of health care, that is more than many liberals will do. I admire your honesty even if I don't agree with your position.
|
|
Originally Posted by ckblv
Barack Obama is the MOST pro-abortion President we have ever had, of course there will be federally funded abortions when this monstrosity goes into effect in 2014. I can foresee no other outcome than federally funded abortion.
Estimates say abortions will go up 30%. Who knows if that is true or false though, just an estimate. |
|
Originally Posted by Carolina
Please do not twist my words. That is not what I said at all. What I said, was, SINCE all the Rebublicans did was fight against all bipartisan efforts, and all they fought for, all they wanted was to kill the bill - not to change, not to work with the democrats, not to offer better solutions, not to make it better... But simply to kill kill and kill it. So, SINCE all they wanted was to kill it, then yes, I would like the original, untouched, completely Democrat Version, without any Republican Amendment. See, in this case, it is a matter of actions and consequences. Never I said this. Please, do not do this again. Do not take my words and distort it.
|
| I would be happier if there wasn't anything Republican AT ALL in there. If it was the original Democratic bill period, and that we didn't have to give in for nothing. |
|
Originally Posted by Skippymjp
I'm sorry, but to me, that just doesn't really ring true. Because, the other way to present that estimate is to say that right now, 30% more pregnant women than the current ratio want an abortion, but can't afford one. There is just something a bit off in that claim.
|
|
Originally Posted by ckblv
Since the original Democratic Bill had the public option in it and that is what you said you wished had passed, I took that to mean that you are in favor of the public option.
|
| No. I am actually not happy... After the Republican party did nothing but try to stop this bill to pass and to destroy any and every attempt to make it work, I would be happier if there wasn't anything Republican AT ALL in there. If it was the original Democratic bill period, and that we didn't have to give in for nothing. I would be much much MUCH happier then. We made plenty of bipartisan efforts, but the Republicans just wanted one thing and one thing only - destroy the bill. Well then... |
|
Originally Posted by ut0pia
I just cannot fathom how a child, born because the mother couldn't afford an abortion, will be raised...That scares me, because it usually means the child will be born without any medical care whatsoever.
|
|
Originally Posted by ut0pia
And besides, abortions are legal, period...So why should Obama not be pro abortion?? It's the law of the land after all..That means there should be no stigma attached to them, I think that pro lifers need to just not have abortions and be happy, and whatever anyone else does is their business. I'd never have an abortion myself, but I don't try and tell other people what to do.
|
|
Originally Posted by ut0pia
I just cannot fathom how a child, born because the mother couldn't afford an abortion, will be raised...That scares me, because it usually means the child will be born without any medical care whatsoever.
The cost of giving birth is higher than the cost of an abortion, so that means that anyone who wanted an abortion before health insurance reform bill got one and cost didn't stop anyone. I don't see how the rate of abortions will increase just because they will be cheaper, because I don't think any women will all of a sudden want abortions because they are cheaper. Abortion IS a medical procedure, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be covered under insurance. And besides, abortions are legal, period...So why should Obama not be pro abortion?? It's the law of the land after all..That means there should be no stigma attached to them, I think that pro lifers need to just not have abortions and be happy, and whatever anyone else does is their business. I'd never have an abortion myself, but I don't try and tell other people what to do. |
|
Originally Posted by Carolina
Stop doing it! If you quote me, take the complete paragraph, instead of quoting half sentences and taking me out of contest. You keep doing this over and over again.
Once again, this is exactly what I said, and I quote myself: |
|
Originally Posted by Skippymjp
I'm sorry, but to me, that just doesn't really ring true. Because, the other way to present that estimate is to say that right now, 30% more pregnant women than the current ratio want an abortion, but can't afford one. There is just something a bit off in that claim.
|
|
Originally Posted by ut0pia
I just cannot fathom how a child, born because the mother couldn't afford an abortion, will be raised...That scares me, because it usually means the child will be born without any medical care whatsoever.
The cost of giving birth is higher than the cost of an abortion, so that means that anyone who wanted an abortion before health insurance reform bill got one and cost didn't stop anyone. I don't see how the rate of abortions will increase just because they will be cheaper, because I don't think any women will all of a sudden want abortions because they are cheaper. Abortion IS a medical procedure, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be covered under insurance. And besides, abortions are legal, period...So why should Obama not be pro abortion?? It's the law of the land after all..That means there should be no stigma attached to them, I think that pro lifers need to just not have abortions and be happy, and whatever anyone else does is their business. I'd never have an abortion myself, but I don't try and tell other people what to do. |
|
Originally Posted by strange_wings
Check your state. Usually states provide coverage for children when the legal guardian(s) cannot pay for it. Thanks to a social health program paid for by tax payers, children do get medical care. (I have some step-nieces and nephew on in, here)
Of course there's also the other thing that commonly happens, grandparents take care of the child. Many have to do it on what little they get a month, so the extra programs and health care offered from the state helps them a lot. (Or more rarely, the mother sells the child off to the highest bidder. I happened to bump into a person earlier that had done just that with her last baby.) |
|
Originally Posted by ckblv
I didn't mean to upset you, geesh, I was just quoting the part I was replying to. No worries.
|
|
Originally Posted by ckblv
Since the original Democratic Bill had the public option in it and that is what you said you wished had passed, I took that to mean that you are in favor of the public option.
|
|
Originally Posted by 2dogmom
Oh I can fathom it. I am a landlord and have some low income tenants. Some of them have been real pieces of work. The way it works is that they figure out how to milk welfare, free tuition and play the "oh poor poor me I'm a single mom card." They go for beer runs, get drugs from their boyfriends (multiple boyfriends) and make sure they're always either pregnant or have an infant child so the welfare gravy train doesn't stop. And these are the same people who use the "sanctity of life" baloney to justify themselves.
I don't get it. The same people who would be up in arms over someone complaining over paying an adoption fee for a pet because they don't see how an owner like that would be able to cover vet care have no issues with someone who can't afford an abortion sticking the taxpayer with the bill for their promiscuous lifestyle over a period of years. I just don't see how dumping your problems on society is a decent thing to do but somehow if it involves cranking out babies to stay on the public dole then the arch conservative right seems to think it is the "right" thing to do. |
Women like that are the Democrats of society, the ones with their hands out saying "gimme, gimme"| And these are the same people who use the "sanctity of life" baloney to justify themselves. |
|
Originally Posted by Carolina
Abortion is already covered by insurance, and by Medicaid in most states, right now... In some states Medicaid covers abortions under all and any circumstances, and in other states only for rape, incest, and life and health of the child and mother. The complete list, by state, can be found here. The issue with abortion, IMO runs much much deeper. When a woman wants to have an abortion, it is not the law who will stop her. And the problem with that becomes a matter of life and death - literally... then the problem falls if you care for the lives of these women. I come from country where abortion is Illegal. I can guarantee you that the number of abortions is pretty much the same as here.... What is very different, is the number of DEATHS because of the unsafe conditions where these illegal procedures are performed. These desperate women resort to desperate measures, and will go clandestine "clinics" where a filthy abortion doctor who might as well be a baby butcher will stick a dirty fork/wire on her insides to pull her unborn baby to take care of her "problem". She will then Take a tea to bleed the rest, and walk back home. Thousands and thousands of woman die because of illegal abortion in my country. That is the reality of illegal abortion. Not pretty. Oh, there are also the kidney drugs you buy online and you take it by the handful and pray to not overdose, but to instead abort... Then if the baby survives, you pray to have no damages... Would you like to have abortion butchers instead of legal doctors? Because that is what is out there. IMO people need to put aside their religious beliefs when thinking about abortion... This is a much much bigger issue. This involves women livess - LOTS and LOTS of lives. |
|
Originally Posted by 2dogmom
I'm in favor of the public option because I'd like to see the private health insurers have competition from an entity that is not geared toweard making a profit for shareholders and rewarding executive with fat bonuses according to who is the most successful in denying claims, raising premiums, and refusing coverage while raking in profits. I'm more than willing to pay for my health insurance - I would just like the possibility of paying a fair price and not getting reamed. And I don't see that happening as long as private insurers are the only game in town.
|
|
Originally Posted by ut0pia
Oh, so it's a toss up between us taxpayers giving the option of paying for the abortion, or paying for the health program to help pay for medical care for children with poor parents....My guess is the latter is costing a lot more...But I'm not thinking like a pro lifer here, who believe in "life of the unborn" (that just sounds creepy), I believe that in the third trimester there is no such thing as a "baby"
|
|
Originally Posted by ut0pia
Oh, so it's a toss up between us taxpayers giving the option of paying for the abortion, or paying for the health program to help pay for medical care for children with poor parents....My guess is the latter is costing a lot more...But I'm not thinking like a pro lifer here, who believe in "life of the unborn" (that just sounds creepy), I believe that in the third trimester there is no such thing as a "baby"
|
|
Originally Posted by Cinder
Of course this does not apply to every situation, but compare the price of an abortion to the price of a condom and then explain to me why others need to pay for someone elses stupidity? But then, if I have to pay to raise their child, provide it with foster care, health insurance, education, etc., I guess the abortion was a bargain.
|
|
Originally Posted by Cinder
Lots of things are legal. That doesn't mean they should be free, because if it does, I'll just submit my list of what I'd like covered and you'll be willing to pay, right?
Sorry, that sounded crabby. |
|
Originally Posted by ckblv
Creepy? An unborn baby is creepy? Why is that Utopia?
If you viewed an Ultrasound of a baby in the 2nd Trimester and saw that baby sucking his thumb, stretching his little body, smiling and kicking would you think he was a baby or would he still be kinda "creepy?" |
|
Originally Posted by strange_wings
If the woman hasn't had the abortion within the first 2 months I believe she's lost her chance - suck it up and deal with it. After that it's too late, put the baby up for adoption if you can't provide for it.
|
|
Originally Posted by ut0pia
Exactly we would pay for the stupidity just in order to avoid not only paying for the child's welfare, but it is more than likely that an unwanted child that isn't provided with the love, support and discipline will not become an exactly great member of society...
No, it doesn't, but if paying for something concerns not only the individual receiving it, but society in general, then it's a different story. And abortions wouldn't be free in general, they may potentially be free to low income women... |
|
Originally Posted by ut0pia
ooops I don't know what I was thinking I meant to say FIRST trimester! I think after the first trimester, there can be a valid argument made that abortions should not be legal..
|
|
Originally Posted by strange_wings
^Low income means no money. Birth control isn't handed out for free (at least not in communities without a Planned Parenthood - another nice socialized service which gets protested in some states/communities). Of course we could all agree that if they can't care for them they shouldn't make them. But since when do humans do anything that logical?
Not even quite that long, IMO. It becomes a fetus at nine weeks. |
|
Originally Posted by ckblv
One has to wonder how these women eat if they have "no money."
|
Of course its easily for those who do have to pass these judgments on others who don't. They can get in their faces, call them vulgar names, abuse them, and still go home at night and sleep.
|
Originally Posted by strange_wings
Shelters/various places that give out food, eating at family or friends places, stealing, going without. Some people do go without in this country, people choose not to see it and like to write them all off as lazy bums begging for handouts.
Of course its easily for those who do have to pass these judgments on others who don't. They can get in their faces, call them vulgar names, abuse them, and still go home at night and sleep. |
|
Originally Posted by strange_wings
Not all of people that are low income are necessarily homeless - though many may be close to it.
As for the eye roll, that was more at what I was referencing, which was sort of vague - crazy vulgar acting tea baggers. |
|
Originally Posted by Carolina
Sorry, but that is not how you come across at all... You come across as you think of them exactly as you call them - lazy Democrats bums who have their arms out to suck the Government dry with their gimme gimme gimme. You are not afraid of voice your opinion about them.
|
