PDA

View Full Version : Poop GOP becoming "Pro-Choice"?


jAZ
08-20-2009, 06:59 PM
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/bachmann-no-government-control-over-my-body.php?ref=fpblg

Bachmann: No Government Control Over My Body!
Eric Kleefeld | August 20, 2009, 5:18PM

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who is a a staunch champion of the religious right and an opponent of President Obama on all things under the sun, has a new line against the Democrats on health care: Keep the government off my body!

Bachmann appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show on Tuesday, and check out what she said, at the 5:35 mark.

"That's why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress," said Bachmann, "and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions."

petegz28
08-20-2009, 07:03 PM
Do you even really want to go down this road? Like, you will tell a woman she can terminste a pregnancy but we (the Fed Gov) will tell you what healtch care choices you will make for yourself......nice, nice

googlegoogle
08-20-2009, 07:03 PM
your threads = LOL

banyon
08-20-2009, 07:05 PM
She is consistently a source for the most embarrassing quotes from any member of Congress. That district shoud be embarrassed.

jAZ
08-20-2009, 07:10 PM
Do you even really want to go down this road? Like, you will tell a woman she can terminste a pregnancy but we (the Fed Gov) will tell you what healtch care choices you will make for yourself......nice, nice

Don't lie. Nothing in these bills prevents people from using their own money to make their own healthcare choices.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-20-2009, 07:22 PM
Don't lie. Nothing in these bills prevents people from using their own money to make their own healthcare choices.

You just have to buy what they want you to buy, but you can double cover yourself if you want, nice.

petegz28
08-20-2009, 07:23 PM
Don't lie. Nothing in these bills prevents people from using their own money to make their own healthcare choices.

Um except if my choice is to not involve the Fed Gov. So who is telling lies, jAZ? That would be you. Even if one wants private care they have to go through "the exchange" which means the Fed Gov. Sorry, nice try. Better luck next time.

petegz28
08-20-2009, 07:25 PM
And FTR, jAZ, the argument over pro-choice is not about "the woman's body" but about the body she is carrying. This thread is stupid.

chiefzilla1501
08-20-2009, 07:25 PM
Don't lie. Nothing in these bills prevents people from using their own money to make their own healthcare choices.

When the public option drives the prices for coverage on their existing coverage up to the point where middle classers can't afford it, then yes, you are asking them to become reliant on an inferior gov't option which will likely have a lot less choices.

KCTitus
08-20-2009, 07:34 PM
Don't lie. Nothing in these bills prevents people from using their own money to make their own healthcare choices.

See page 16 of HR 3200. No new policies after enactment. Changes to 'grandfathered' policies render them void. After that, what 'choice' does anyone have? Just one.

banyon
08-20-2009, 07:39 PM
See page 16 of HR 3200. No new policies after enactment. Changes to 'grandfathered' policies render them void. After that, what 'choice' does anyone have? Just one.

No, that's not what that section means.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=210489&highlight=grandfathered

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5965999&highlight=grandfathered#post5965999

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=211739&highlight=grandfathered&page=2

KCTitus
08-20-2009, 07:43 PM
No, that's not what that section means.


Yes. It does. It's there in plain english. Please quote me the relevant passage that disagrees.

IBD agrees with me, Waxman does not. I have no clue what the 3rd link had to do with the price of tea in China.

banyon
08-20-2009, 07:50 PM
Yes. It does. It's there in plain english. Please quote me the relevant passage that disagrees.

IBD agrees with me, Waxman does not. I have no clue what the 3rd link had to do with the price of tea in China.

Well for starters, the third link had this:

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance
coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.

The remainder of your coverage will have to meet the minimum criteria which mainly relate to not excluding people by preexisting conditions.

That's my reading of it, unless someone has something to the contrary, I am willing to entertain differing interpretations.

And your choice to disbelieve the author's explanation and insist that a blog hit piece that hasn't even been adopted by Republican congressmen opposing the plan is somehow more credible leads me to conclude that my effort to persuade you may not prove fruitful.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-20-2009, 07:57 PM
Well for starters, the third link had this:



And your choice to disbelieve the author's explanation and insist that a blog hit piece that hasn't even been adopted by Republican congressmen opposing the plan is somehow more credible leads me to conclude that my effort to persuade you may not prove fruitful.

You get paid to lie for a living yet we are supposed to believe you?

KCTitus
08-20-2009, 07:57 PM
Well for starters, the third link had this:

And your choice to disbelieve the author's explanation and insist that a blog hit piece that hasn't even been adopted by Republican congressmen opposing the plan is somehow more credible leads me to conclude that my effort to persuade you may not prove fruitful.

You didnt read your own quote...

Government decides what plans are offered, what they must contain, and how much it costs.

Yeah, that pretty much failed to persuade me.

You have another quote?

banyon
08-20-2009, 07:58 PM
You get paid to lie for a living yet we are supposed to believe you?

If I lie in my job I would be disbarred. So go f*ck yourself.

banyon
08-20-2009, 08:01 PM
You didnt read your own quote...

Government decides what plans are offered, what they must contain, and how much it costs.

Yeah, that pretty much failed to persuade me.

You have another quote?

No, they don't.

They decide what the basic minimum coverage requirements are and if a private company wants to go beyond that, they are more than free to.

There are any number of industries (food safety, auto standards, drugs) where this is the situation. Appying your logic, car manufacturers and food manufacturers don't decide what products to make and don't have freedom in deciding the content.

Also, if you're going to disagree with my interpretation of the section I quoted, it would probably help if you offered your own.

I also note that you probably don't want to think about why if this is such a brilliant interpretation you can't find any congressment bringing this up.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-20-2009, 08:01 PM
If I lie in my job I would be disbarred. So go f*ck yourself.

Must have struck a nerve there, sorry if you had some rapists or murderers acquitted.

banyon
08-20-2009, 08:03 PM
Must have struck a nerve there, sorry if you had some rapists or murderers acquitted.

I have not, but you can go f*ck yourself anyway.

It's not nice to call people liars without evidence.

KCTitus
08-20-2009, 08:13 PM
No, they don't.

They decide what the basic minimum coverage requirements are and if a private company wants to go beyond that, they are more than free to.

There are any number of industries (food safety, auto standards, drugs) where this is the situation. Appying your logic, car manufacturers and food manufacturers don't decide what products to make and don't have freedom in deciding the content.

Also, if you're going to disagree with my interpretation of the section I quoted, it would probably help if you offered your own.

I also note that you probably don't want to think about why if this is such a brilliant interpretation you can't find any congressment bringing this up.

Determining basic minimum coverage can mean any number of things. The big one is pre-existing conditions. We both know this and no insurance company in their right mind is going to write a policy for someone with already confirmed health problems. It's a guaranteed loser...see, private insurers have to make a profit or go out of business, the goverment prints their own money and sells it to the Chinese.

You dont want to point to prescription drugs, the FDA requirements are the reason why so many drugs are as prohibitively expensive as they are. For Auto Standards, the car companies found a loop hole in the SUV, which got around the ridiculous cafe standards for gas mileage. Again Government in the way, and causing more problems.

If we both use the same quote and disagree with each others interpretation, why should I provide the same quote. Again, in that quote you posted the government decides what the minimum requirements are, how much it's going to cost and how the policies are written, but they dont have to worry about making a profit.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2009, 08:20 PM
GOP meaning the whole of them? Even the D party has pro-lifers and plenty of them.

chiefzilla1501
08-20-2009, 08:21 PM
No, they don't.

They decide what the basic minimum coverage requirements are and if a private company wants to go beyond that, they are more than free to.

There are any number of industries (food safety, auto standards, drugs) where this is the situation. Appying your logic, car manufacturers and food manufacturers don't decide what products to make and don't have freedom in deciding the content.

Also, if you're going to disagree with my interpretation of the section I quoted, it would probably help if you offered your own.

I also note that you probably don't want to think about why if this is such a brilliant interpretation you can't find any congressment bringing this up.

The difference is that the government can price at a far lower level for coverage than private insurers because they have government funding to help back them up. And unlike private insurers, if they lose a lot of money, they can just ask taxpayers to front the bill. There is absolutely no way a private insurer can compete with the public option on price.

So this idea that the public option is going to make private insurance more competitive is utter bullshit. All it's going to do is force private insurers to up their premiums. They will offer better coverage, but only to those who are willing to pay. Again, the rich are only slightly inconvenienced, and the middle class get screwed.

banyon
08-20-2009, 08:27 PM
The difference is that the government can price at a far lower level for coverage than private insurers because they have government funding to help back them up. And unlike private insurers, if they lose a lot of money, they can just ask taxpayers to front the bill. There is absolutely no way a private insurer can compete with the public option on price.

So this idea that the public option is going to make private insurance more competitive is utter bullshit. All it's going to do is force private insurers to up their premiums. They will offer better coverage, but only to those who are willing to pay. Again, the rich are only slightly inconvenienced, and the middle class get screwed.

No, I concure and accept that is the likely outcome. It will much mirror the education deomgraphic divide between private and public schools.

Just like I think society is overall better off when everyone gets a chance at education, I think the same of our health.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-20-2009, 08:30 PM
I have not, but you can go f*ck yourself anyway.

It's not nice to call people liars without evidence.

It's what you do for a living, although i doubt you speaking in that way would be acceptable in a court of law.

banyon
08-20-2009, 08:30 PM
Determining basic minimum coverage can mean any number of things. The big one is pre-existing conditions. We both know this and no insurance company in their right mind is going to write a policy for someone with already confirmed health problems. It's a guaranteed loser...see, private insurers have to make a profit or go out of business, the goverment prints their own money and sells it to the Chinese.

They won't go out of business if every competitor is required to do the same thing as them.

You dont want to point to prescription drugs, the FDA requirements are the reason why so many drugs are as prohibitively expensive as they are. For Auto Standards, the car companies found a loop hole in the SUV, which got around the ridiculous cafe standards for gas mileage. Again Government in the way, and causing more problems.

My point was that those industries have basic regulatory requirements and that the producers have a great deal of latitude in determining what type of product they wanted to offer. Your efficiency argument here is tangential.

If we both use the same quote and disagree with each others interpretation, why should I provide the same quote. Again, in that quote you posted the government decides what the minimum requirements are, how much it's going to cost and how the policies are written, but they dont have to worry about making a profit.

We didn't both use the same quote, I provided a different one, you disagreed with my interpretation of that section (the one in the third link, not our separate disagreement about section 102) and you just complained without offering your interpretation of that section.

banyon
08-20-2009, 08:32 PM
It's what you do for a living, although i doubt you speaking in that way would be acceptable in a court of law.

You don't have any clue what I do or how I conduct myself in real life so why don't you just STFU, and call it a night?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-20-2009, 08:35 PM
You don't have any clue what I do or how I conduct myself in real life so why don't you just STFU, and call it a night?

No i think i'll keep on since you have done the same to me for well over a year by saying things that i'm not, does it feel good? 3 consecutive posts with the F word, i hope you don't use that tone in court.

craneref
08-20-2009, 08:36 PM
Hate to throw some truth in here, I know it mucks up the spin, but pro-life supporters belief that the fetus is indeed a human life and has the right to life and no-one, including the mother has the right to arbitrarily end that life. This is not supporting a womens right to terminate another human life just because it is in her womb. I don't want the government telling the mother or the child what they have to do. I know I am sutck on that whole right to "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing!" But then I am one of those right wing conservative whackos that hate every person that isn't white and protestant!!! Of course don't tell my Conservative Korean wife, my consvertive college aged half Korean daughter or my adopted Korean son this, I am sure it would crush them.:D

BucEyedPea
08-20-2009, 08:38 PM
No i think i'll keep on since you have done the same to me for well over a year by saying things that i'm not, does it feel good? 3 consecutive posts with the F word, i hope you don't use that tone in court.
Yup, there's a reason most people don't like lawyers.

petegz28
08-20-2009, 08:42 PM
Yup, there's a reason most people don't like lawyers.

Aww, banyon isn't all that bad, misguided as he is. Lawyers are like nuclear missles...you have to have yours cause the other guy has his. Once you use them they fuck up everything. He is a walking WMD. Cut him some slack.

banyon
08-20-2009, 08:44 PM
No i think i'll keep on since you have done the same to me for well over a year by saying things that i'm not, does it feel good? 3 consecutive posts with the F word, i hope you don't use that tone in court.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I certainly haven't accused you of unethical behavior in your real life, so actually it's pretty different.

I've said some of the things you have posted have been nutty and conspiracist because that's what you post. I think I even apologized to you for something, but I guess your response is just to be an a-hole.

jAZ
08-20-2009, 09:44 PM
Um except if my choice is to not involve the Fed Gov. So who is telling lies, jAZ? That would be you. Even if one wants private care they have to go through "the exchange" which means the Fed Gov. Sorry, nice try. Better luck next time.

BS. You can buy any service you want with cash. Just walk up to the Dr. and pay for it.

jAZ
08-20-2009, 09:47 PM
And FTR, jAZ, the argument over pro-choice is not about "the woman's body" but about the body she is carrying. This thread is stupid.

Are you so dishonest that you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the oppositions POV? The entire debate is one side mandating protection for the fetus and the other rejecting the government mandaing the law over their own body.

You might agree with one side or the other, but don't lie to yourself and pretend that the pro-choice people aren't fighting to stop "the government control over my body".

Jenson71
08-20-2009, 09:47 PM
No i think i'll keep on since you have done the same to me for well over a year by saying things that i'm not, does it feel good? 3 consecutive posts with the F word, i hope you don't use that tone in court.

Killer Clown, your persona of 'conspiracy nutcase' is being intruded upon by 'elderly lady who sings to her cats and lives down the street.'

chiefzilla1501
08-20-2009, 10:02 PM
No, I concure and accept that is the likely outcome. It will much mirror the education deomgraphic divide between private and public schools.

Just like I think society is overall better off when everyone gets a chance at education, I think the same of our health.

That's what I think too. I just don't understand why the staunch liberals in Congress insist that the only way to do that is through a public option.

It should be exactly what Obama says, but he has to MEAN it--we need to provide cheaper coverage, but let people keep their existing coverage. I just happen to think you can do a ton of reform that will lower costs and prices without forcing this kind of an unnecssary option.

RaiderH8r
08-21-2009, 08:26 AM
This is one of my problems as a conservative. I love liberty, I love freedom. Freedom means that some people are going to make decisions that I don't agree with, don't approve of and sometimes absolutely abhor.

Abortion is one of them. I am pro choice. I don't like abortion, I think it is reprehensable, I think women at NARAL and NOW and NAFF who casually bandy about notions related to "reproductive rights" as something akin to having a wart removed are f'ing scum. Those broads are pro abortion, the hook and bucket crowd.
I also think that, in the real world, any woman worth a tinker's damn, with any measure of humanity and compassion whatsoever is going to have to make the most difficult decision in her life and will live with the consequences forever. Ultimately it will be her and her alone who will bear this cross. I think the Christian movement should be at the back door of planned parenthood helping these women with grief counseling and letting them know that while they don't agree with their choice it was their choice alone and that God is willing to forgive. Having said that, almost every women I know who has had an abortion (surprisingly many) have regrets and doubts about doing it. Women who had the child and bore the difficulties therein have also lived through innumerable joys as a result of their choice, regret over having the child has never once been considered. Just my anecdotal evidence.

/end rant/step off of soapbox/walk away/

ChiTown
08-21-2009, 08:59 AM
This is one of my problems as a conservative. I love liberty, I love freedom. Freedom means that some people are going to make decisions that I don't agree with, don't approve of and sometimes absolutely abhor.

Abortion is one of them. I am pro choice. I don't like abortion, I think it is reprehensable, I think women at NARAL and NOW and NAFF who casually bandy about notions related to "reproductive rights" as something akin to having a wart removed are f'ing scum. Those broads are pro abortion, the hook and bucket crowd.
I also think that, in the real world, any woman worth a tinker's damn, with any measure of humanity and compassion whatsoever is going to have to make the most difficult decision in her life and will live with the consequences forever. Ultimately it will be her and her alone who will bear this cross. I think the Christian movement should be at the back door of planned parenthood helping these women with grief counseling and letting them know that while they don't agree with their choice it was their choice alone and that God is willing to forgive. Having said that, almost every women I know who has had an abortion (surprisingly many) have regrets and doubts about doing it. Women who had the child and bore the difficulties therein have also lived through innumerable joys as a result of their choice, regret over having the child has never once been considered. Just my anecdotal evidence.

/end rant/step off of soapbox/walk away/

+1

petegz28
08-21-2009, 09:11 AM
BS. You can buy any service you want with cash. Just walk up to the Dr. and pay for it.

Now I can. If the bill passes, no I cannot.

petegz28
08-21-2009, 09:12 AM
Are you so dishonest that you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the oppositions POV? The entire debate is one side mandating protection for the fetus and the other rejecting the government mandaing the law over their own body.

You might agree with one side or the other, but don't lie to yourself and pretend that the pro-choice people aren't fighting to stop "the government control over my body".

Dude, WTF? You are talking shit now. You don't even make sense.

The Rick
08-21-2009, 09:13 AM
This is one of my problems as a conservative. I love liberty, I love freedom. Freedom means that some people are going to make decisions that I don't agree with, don't approve of and sometimes absolutely abhor.

Abortion is one of them. I am pro choice. I don't like abortion, I think it is reprehensable, I think women at NARAL and NOW and NAFF who casually bandy about notions related to "reproductive rights" as something akin to having a wart removed are f'ing scum. Those broads are pro abortion, the hook and bucket crowd.
I also think that, in the real world, any woman worth a tinker's damn, with any measure of humanity and compassion whatsoever is going to have to make the most difficult decision in her life and will live with the consequences forever. Ultimately it will be her and her alone who will bear this cross. I think the Christian movement should be at the back door of planned parenthood helping these women with grief counseling and letting them know that while they don't agree with their choice it was their choice alone and that God is willing to forgive. Having said that, almost every women I know who has had an abortion (surprisingly many) have regrets and doubts about doing it. Women who had the child and bore the difficulties therein have also lived through innumerable joys as a result of their choice, regret over having the child has never once been considered. Just my anecdotal evidence.

/end rant/step off of soapbox/walk away/
I can almost get behind this. Almost.

I'm of the opinion that the government should let people do whatever it is they want to do to themselves, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. And therein lies the problem. The thing that holds me up is the absolutely belief that the fetus is "someone else".

petegz28
08-21-2009, 09:15 AM
I can almost get behind this. Almost.

I'm of the opinion that the government should let people do whatever it is they want to do to themselves, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. And therein lies the problem. The thing that holds me up is the absolutely belief that the fetus is "someone else".

Agreed. I am torn on the issue myself.

RaiderH8r
08-21-2009, 09:35 AM
I can almost get behind this. Almost.

I'm of the opinion that the government should let people do whatever it is they want to do to themselves, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. And therein lies the problem. The thing that holds me up is the absolutely belief that the fetus is "someone else".

Yep. If this issue were easy it wouldn't be an issue. I agree with your assessment and I think it should be closely monitored as to what medicine can do for premature babies. In short, the opportunity to have an abortion should change with medicines' ability to keep a fetus viable in the case of a premature birth. It ain't easy and if I'm honest I'm not in my position lock stock and barrel. I am evolving my thoughts on this issue as I get more information and do my level best to give it due consideration weighing exactly what you pointed out; at what point is this about someone else? Tough tough stuff.

dirk digler
08-21-2009, 09:42 AM
This is one of my problems as a conservative. I love liberty, I love freedom. Freedom means that some people are going to make decisions that I don't agree with, don't approve of and sometimes absolutely abhor.

Abortion is one of them. I am pro choice. I don't like abortion, I think it is reprehensable, I think women at NARAL and NOW and NAFF who casually bandy about notions related to "reproductive rights" as something akin to having a wart removed are f'ing scum. Those broads are pro abortion, the hook and bucket crowd.
I also think that, in the real world, any woman worth a tinker's damn, with any measure of humanity and compassion whatsoever is going to have to make the most difficult decision in her life and will live with the consequences forever. Ultimately it will be her and her alone who will bear this cross. I think the Christian movement should be at the back door of planned parenthood helping these women with grief counseling and letting them know that while they don't agree with their choice it was their choice alone and that God is willing to forgive. Having said that, almost every women I know who has had an abortion (surprisingly many) have regrets and doubts about doing it. Women who had the child and bore the difficulties therein have also lived through innumerable joys as a result of their choice, regret over having the child has never once been considered. Just my anecdotal evidence.

/end rant/step off of soapbox/walk away/

I agree with 98% of your post. I don't know if I would use the word reprehensible because in alot of cases it is medically necessary. But other than that I agree with you.

Good post.

wild1
08-21-2009, 09:44 AM
in alot of cases it is medically necessary.

Totally false.

dirk digler
08-21-2009, 09:48 AM
Totally false.

That is your opinion. In our small world of CP there have been at least 2-3 people that have said they had abortions, might have been late-term, because of medical issues.

I know of several other women where I work that also had this happen. It is not uncommon.

KC native
08-21-2009, 09:49 AM
That is your opinion. In our small world of CP there have been at least 2-3 people that have said they had abortions, might have been late-term, because of medical issues.

I know of several other women where I work that also had this happen. It is not uncommon.

No you're wrong. Jeebus loves every little baby and would never make a late term abortion a medical necessity. PRAISE JEEBUS.

mlyonsd
08-21-2009, 09:59 AM
If the dems try to pass a health care bill that pays for abortion we'll see just how pro-choice the republicans (and the public) really are.

BigRedChief
08-21-2009, 10:01 AM
"That's why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress," said Bachmann, "and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions."

Damn, I never thought I would agree with anything that nutbag Bachman said.:eek:

She has no idea that she is a full blown hypocrit

BigRedChief
08-21-2009, 10:03 AM
If the dems try to pass a health care bill that pays for abortion we'll see just how pro-choice the republicans (and the public) really are.
Who in the hell ever proposed that? It's not in any bill, never has been, never will be. No one is crazy enough to propose that. It's a friggin urban myth like the death panels to kill grandma.

stevieray
08-21-2009, 10:13 AM
kill grandma.

making it sound ridiculous doesn't hide the fact that letting someone die because they aren't cost effective is inhumane.

RaiderH8r
08-21-2009, 10:15 AM
I agree with 98% of your post. I don't know if I would use the word reprehensible because in alot of cases it is medically necessary. But other than that I agree with you.

Good post.

I should clarify, I consider medically necessary apart from "convenience" care.

Thank you for the compliment.

wild1
08-21-2009, 10:15 AM
That is your opinion. In our small world of CP there have been at least 2-3 people that have said they had abortions, might have been late-term, because of medical issues.

I know of several other women where I work that also had this happen. It is not uncommon.

It is not an opinion, despite whatever anecdotes you may have heard.

BigRedChief
08-21-2009, 10:20 AM
making it sound ridiculous doesn't hide the fact that letting someone die because they aren't cost effective is inhumane.I agree. But who's proposing that we allow grandma to die to save money?

mlyonsd
08-21-2009, 10:21 AM
Who in the hell ever proposed that? It's not in any bill, never has been, never will be. No one is crazy enough to propose that. It's a friggin urban myth like the death panels to kill grandma.

Of course it's not "in any bill". The democratic committees forming the bills just choose to always strike the language forbidding it.

So draw your own conclusion if abortions are funded or not.

stevieray
08-21-2009, 10:23 AM
I agree. But who's proposing that we allow grandma to die to save money?

Cass Sunstein, Ezekial Emmanuel.

15 to 40..you won't qualify.

BigRedChief
08-21-2009, 10:25 AM
Of course it's not "in any bill". The democratic committees forming the bills just choose to always strike the language forbidding it.

So draw your own conclusion if abortions are funded or not.
What a leap of BS thinking. Public funded abortions is never going to happen and its a fear mongering and pandering approach to an uniformed portion of the electorate at its worst.

dirk digler
08-21-2009, 10:25 AM
It is not an opinion, despite whatever anecdotes you may have heard.

Yeah well you are wrong. One of my best friends just went through this last year when their baby was severly deformed and could have killed his wife if brought full term.

There is at least a couple of people on here that have shared similar stories as well unless you are calling them liars.

BigRedChief
08-21-2009, 10:26 AM
Cass Sunstein, Ezekial Emmanuel.

15 to 40..you won't qualify.
sorry, but, I don't know those names. Got links that show they propose killing off grandma to save money?

petegz28
08-21-2009, 10:33 AM
That is your opinion. In our small world of CP there have been at least 2-3 people that have said they had abortions, might have been late-term, because of medical issues.

I know of several other women where I work that also had this happen. It is not uncommon.

bullshit! 1%-8% of late term abortions are due to medical complications that threaten the mother.

mlyonsd
08-21-2009, 10:36 AM
What a leap of BS thinking. Public funded abortions is never going to happen and its a fear mongering and pandering approach to an uniformed portion of the electorate at its worst.

Quit being a DA. If the language prohibitting it is pulled what do you think that means? You're usually not this dense.

dirk digler
08-21-2009, 10:39 AM
bullshit! 1% of late term abortions are due to medical complications that threaten the mother.

You are missing the point. wild says it is completely bs about medically necessary abortions I disagree and you just cited a stat that backs me up. Thanks. :thumb:

Chief Henry
08-21-2009, 10:41 AM
What a leap of BS thinking. Public funded abortions is never going to happen and its a fear mongering and pandering approach to an uniformed portion of the electorate at its worst.



If you think Abortions will not be covered, you must be smoking some serious ganja. All ABORTIONS are sacred to the left.

petegz28
08-21-2009, 10:44 AM
You are missing the point. wild says it is completely bs about medically necessary abortions I disagree and you just cited a stat that backs me up. Thanks. :thumb:

Well my bad. There are medical reasons for abortions. but 90%-95% of the time that is NOT the case.

BigRedChief
08-21-2009, 10:45 AM
Quit being a DA. If the language prohibitting it is pulled what do you think that means? You're usually not this dense.I'm not the one making giant leaps of off the wall thinking. So you think this is some secret plot to get public funded abortions in the bill?

dirk digler
08-21-2009, 10:46 AM
There is nothing in the bill that says anything about covering abortion which to the pro-life crowd is a problem because that means it is not specifically denied\not covered.

dirk digler
08-21-2009, 10:46 AM
Well my bad. There are medical reasons for abortions. but 90%-95% of the time that is NOT the case.

I agree.

petegz28
08-21-2009, 10:48 AM
There is nothing in the bill that says anything about covering abortion which to the pro-life crowd is a problem because that means it is not specifically denied\not covered.

Dude, are you really this naive? Obama signed a bill to give our tax $'s to people in foreign countries to have abortions. The Left's trademark is abortion. Come one already!

stevieray
08-21-2009, 10:50 AM
sorry, but, I don't know those names. Got links that show they propose killing off grandma to save money?

My goodness man, BO himself said to know him is to know the people he surrounds himself with...do your homework...damn.

BigRedChief
08-21-2009, 10:52 AM
Dude, are you really this naive? Obama signed a bill to give our tax $'s to people in foreign countries to have abortions. The Left's trademark is abortion. Come one already!
What a croc of shit. I don't understand the neo-cons. You are all out balls to the wall for personal freedom and keeping the government out of our private lives but on abortion, one of the most personal and private of all issues a family/individual can face, you want the government to dictate to that individual what must happen in their situation and body.

dirk digler
08-21-2009, 10:54 AM
Dude, are you really this naive? Obama signed a bill to give our tax $'s to people in foreign countries to have abortions. The Left's trademark is abortion. Come one already!

I am against any idea of having abortion covered by this health care bill but there is the slippery slope of the medical necessary ones so how do we rectify those 2 positions?

petegz28
08-21-2009, 11:10 AM
What a croc of shit. I don't understand the neo-cons. You are all out balls to the wall for personal freedom and keeping the government out of our private lives but on abortion, one of the most personal and private of all issues a family/individual can face, you want the government to dictate to that individual what must happen in their situation and body.

JFC, I swear the level of ignorant fail you just displayed is the most I have seen in a long time. I don't give a fuck what a woman wants to do to HER body. Now the body inside of her is a different story.

petegz28
08-21-2009, 11:11 AM
I am against any idea of having abortion covered by this health care bill but there is the slippery slope of the medical necessary ones so how do we rectify those 2 positions?

Well, I don't mind covering legit medical issues. And will even borderline some social issues like rape and molestation. But a 17 yr old or even worse a 25 yr old woman who was irresponsible does not count.

wild1
08-21-2009, 11:14 AM
bullshit! 1%-8% of late term abortions are due to medical complications that threaten the mother.

Often included in the 'medically necessary' category are cases when the necessity is classified as depression/mental or thrown into a catch-all category for procedural purposes. It's difficult to get a true measure people's real reasons for acting in any situation even by asking directly, to say nothing of an extremely private and stigmatized decisions such as this one. I do not put much stock in these figures. A medical necessity is something that is done to treat or prevent illness or injury, but the likelihood of any such injury is often not objectively evaluated. I could say that I need a helicopter to get home this afternoon to preclude the possibility of me being injured in a traffic accident, but does that make it a true necessity?

The treatment must also not be mainly for convenience. Mainly is important, as there can be other reasoning involved and have the procedure not rise to the level of medical necessity.

It's true that there are some cases where there really is legitimate danger involved with going forward, but I'm confident the number truly falling under 'medically necessary' is less than 1%.

wild1
08-21-2009, 11:15 AM
What a croc of shit. I don't understand the neo-cons. You are all out balls to the wall for personal freedom and keeping the government out of our private lives but on abortion, one of the most personal and private of all issues a family/individual can face, you want the government to dictate to that individual what must happen in their situation and body.

Would it then be a "personal and private decision" for me to dispose of a week-old in similar fashion? Why should the government be involved in that decision?

BigRedChief
08-21-2009, 11:16 AM
JFC, I swear the level of ignorant fail you just displayed is the most I have seen in a long time. I don't give a **** what a woman wants to do to HER body. Now the body inside of her is a different story.
nice deflection, resort to insults and ignore the hypocratical BS position that you are taking on personal freedom from government tyranny.

petegz28
08-21-2009, 11:19 AM
nice deflection, resort to insults and ignore the hypocratical BS position that you are taking on personal freedom from government tyranny.

How am I a hypcrite? I said the woman can do whatever she wants with HER body. How is that hypocrtical?

Keep spinning your bullshit.....

Mr. Kotter
08-21-2009, 11:21 AM
What a croc of shit. I don't understand the neo-cons. You are all out balls to the wall for personal freedom and keeping the government out of our private lives but on abortion, one of the most personal and private of all issues a family/individual can face, you want the government to dictate to that individual what must happen in their situation and body.

Private life is one thing. When the rights of citizens conflict, private lives are another and that's when things tend get complicated. Government deciding between competing rights.

So, you say a baby has no rights at all....ever....until it breathes it's first breath, at least?

I'm not saying you believe that, but that's a logical conclusion based on your statement. When does a fetus have any "rights"....6, 7, 8 months? Once outside of the womb? When? I'm just sayin'...it's more complicated than you are indicating.

KC native
08-21-2009, 11:21 AM
JFC, I swear the level of ignorant fail you just displayed is the most I have seen in a long time. I don't give a **** what a woman wants to do to HER body. Now the body inside of her is a different story.

:spock: More moderateness from pete. ROFL

petegz28
08-21-2009, 11:25 AM
:spock: More moderateness from pete. ROFL

Oh I am sorry...I didn't know there was a fast and hard "moderate" take on abortion??


STFU, jizz stain.

dirk digler
08-21-2009, 11:29 AM
Private life is one thing. When the rights of citizens conflict, private lives are another and that's when things tend get complicated. Government deciding between competing rights.

So, you say a baby has no rights at all....ever....until it breathes it's first breath, at least?

I'm not saying you believe that, but that's a logical conclusion based on your statement. When does a fetus have any "rights"....6, 7, 8 months? Once outside of the womb? When? I'm just sayin'...it's more complicated than you are indicating.

Definitely a complicated issue but I tend to lean towards until it breathes its first breath.

If you look on the other side when a person is attached to a breathing machine just to be alive their family or if you have a living will can decide if you live or die.

BigRedChief
08-21-2009, 11:30 AM
Private life is one thing. When the rights of citizens conflict, private lives are another and things get complicated.

So, you say a baby has no rights at all....ever....until it breathes it's first breath, at least?

I'm not saying you believe that, but that's a logical conclusion based on your statement. When does a fetus have any "rights"....6, 7, 8 months? Once outside of the womb? When? I'm just sayin'...it's more complicated than you are indicating.
A fetus has "rights" when it can viably live outside the womb. Is that not the "norm" now legally in the US. That is why their are no late term abortions in the US, except for medical need. Isn't that right?

My personal belief is that life begins at the moment of conception. The instance that sperm penetrates the egg, life has begun. Now where in the process does it become a "human", and not a bunch of DNA with potential to be a "human". I don't know the answer to that question.

What I do know without a doubt is that a government unchecked that is allowed the right to dictate personal and moral choices on its citizens is a very dangerious path.

The majority have a right to see their personal and moral beliefs become the law of the land. The minority have a right to have their personal and moral beliefs protected from the majority enforcing their views on the minority. There is no black and white on this issue. No absolute "correct" positon on this issue. just mho.

petegz28
08-21-2009, 11:31 AM
A fetus has "rights" when it can viably live outside the womb. Is that not the "norm" now legally in the US. That is why their are no late term abortions in the US, except for medical need. Isn't that right?

My personal belief is that life begins at the moment of conception. The instance that sperm penetrates the egg, life has begun. Now where in the process does it become a "human", and not a bunch of DNS with potential to be a "human". I don't know the answer to that question.

What I do know without a doubt is that a government unchecked that is allowed the right to dictate personal and moral choices on its citizens is a very dangerious path.

The majority have a right to see their personal and moral beliefs become the law of the land. The minority have a right to have their personal and moral beliefs protected from the majority enforcing their views on the minority. There is no black and white on this issue. No absolute "correct" positon on this issue. just mho.


If I were to kill a woman who was say..8 weeks pregnant, I will be charged with 2 counts of murder\manslaughter, whatever.

You might want to re-think what you just said.

dirk digler
08-21-2009, 11:36 AM
If I were to kill a woman who was say..8 weeks pregnant, I will be charged with 2 counts of murder\manslaughter, whatever.

You might want to re-think what you just said.

That is because someone without any legal rights killed the mother and her baby. The mom has legal rights to have an abortion.

petegz28
08-21-2009, 11:43 AM
That is because someone without any legal rights killed the mother and her baby. The mom has legal rights to have an abortion.

Ok, now who is being hypocritical? Using your post we have established that the baby is indeed a life, thus the 2nd charge. So back to the point, cons believe you should be able to do whatever you want to yourself, NOT to another person. Since I would indeed be chaged with 2 counts then the fetus must be a person, afforded protections under our laws. Or there would be no basis to charge me with 2 counts.

So I take it then you are ready to admit then that in the case of a woman having a Right to an abortion for any reason is nothing more than sanctioned murder?

Reaper16
08-21-2009, 11:45 AM
I'm not the one making giant leaps of off the wall thinking. So you think this is some secret plot to get public funded abortions in the bill?
They think that this reform effort is some secret plot to obtain complete SuperCommunoFascist (or whatever composite term BEP wants to casually toss around today) control over the lives of every American. Something so evil would only, naturally, include taxing the public to kill all of their children before they are born.

dirk digler
08-21-2009, 11:47 AM
Ok, now who is being hypocritical? Using your post we have established that the baby is indeed a life, thus the 2nd charge. So back to the point, cons believe you should be able to do whatever you want to yourself, NOT to another person. Since I would indeed be chaged with 2 counts then the fetus must be a person, afforded protections under our laws. Or there would be no basis to charge me with 2 counts.

So I take it then you are ready to admit then that in the case of a woman having a Right to an abortion for any reason is nothing more than sanctioned murder?

If you go look at the law that was passed by Congress and signed by Bush it states that in all cases EXCEPT abortion that it is murder.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed by the US Congress and signed into law by Pres. Bush in 2004 explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

The reason being is because the mother is protected by Roe that she has a legal right to have an abortion

petegz28
08-21-2009, 11:51 AM
If you go look at the law that was passed by Congress and signed by Bush it states that in all cases EXCEPT abortion that it is murder.



The reason being is because the mother is protected by Roe that she has a legal right to have an abortion

Bush is\was a moron. Roe is a weak stretch of a finding as is. It is sanctioned murder. You can call it something else to lie to yourself all you wish. This is called having it both ways. Which is my core problem with it. It is a life when it benefits certain parties, it is a fetus when it benefits others, it is murder when it benefits others and it is abortion when it benefits others.

When the bottom line is, a life is being terminated by the will of someone else.

mlyonsd
08-21-2009, 12:46 PM
I'm not the one making giant leaps of off the wall thinking. So you think this is some secret plot to get public funded abortions in the bill?

Oh they aren't being secret about it at all.

patteeu
08-21-2009, 01:33 PM
What the thread starter doesn't seem to understand is that the "pro choice" position isn't primarily a health care issue. It's a lifestyle issue wrapped in the mostly transparent veil of health care language.

Pitt Gorilla
08-21-2009, 01:35 PM
This is one of my problems as a conservative. I love liberty, I love freedom. Freedom means that some people are going to make decisions that I don't agree with, don't approve of and sometimes absolutely abhor.

Abortion is one of them. I am pro choice. I don't like abortion, I think it is reprehensable, I think women at NARAL and NOW and NAFF who casually bandy about notions related to "reproductive rights" as something akin to having a wart removed are f'ing scum. Those broads are pro abortion, the hook and bucket crowd.
I also think that, in the real world, any woman worth a tinker's damn, with any measure of humanity and compassion whatsoever is going to have to make the most difficult decision in her life and will live with the consequences forever. Ultimately it will be her and her alone who will bear this cross. I think the Christian movement should be at the back door of planned parenthood helping these women with grief counseling and letting them know that while they don't agree with their choice it was their choice alone and that God is willing to forgive. Having said that, almost every women I know who has had an abortion (surprisingly many) have regrets and doubts about doing it. Women who had the child and bore the difficulties therein have also lived through innumerable joys as a result of their choice, regret over having the child has never once been considered. Just my anecdotal evidence.

/end rant/step off of soapbox/walk away/That's a good take and sums up pretty well how I feel.