So you expect passage of the AHCA to “correlate” to a higher death rate in the United States?
Perhaps you could help us here by articulating the specific principles that allowed marriage between an adult man and an adult woman, but rejected marriage between an adult father and his adult daughter. Then we could help you understand if those same principles stand if we allow same-sex marriage.
The cited studies that started this side convo certainly hint at causation. Also, goddamn common sense that less access to health care will cause an increase in mortality. Quit being a brick wall and pretending nothing matters and just admit you don’t really care all that much if it does matter.
He seems to be claiming that DonTCare simply **allows **people to die rather than actually killing them.
Yeah I get that. Just like putting up guardrails on a twisty mountain road doesn’t really save lives, it merely stops people from killing themselves. If we sold all those guardrails for scrap metal, we aren’t literally killing people. Sound logic, weak morals.
Please don’t presume to tell me what I think. It’s obnoxious, and probably not appropriate for this forum. TIA.
It’s a reasonable surmising of your position.
No, actually, it is not.
Is.
My brain hurts. Please apologize for that.
No.
Everyone, that’s enough sniping. Is/Is not is not actually substantive debate. If you feel you need to take a break from the thread that’s also an option.
[/moderating]
nm
Sure: [Begin principle]We inherited the concept of marriage, not only from English common law, but from human common law. Sexual intercourse gives much pleasure, but it also causes unwanted babies. It’s best for society that we channel sexual intercourse into an institution called “marriage” whereby a couple capable of procreation, that is one man and one woman, who desire to have sexual intercourse, enter into a relationship whereby it lasts for a lifetime.
Hey, it just so happens that the common religion shared by the people has such a relationship, so we will adopt its basic structure. We don’t want fathers and daughters having children, so they are out, and two guys cannot have a child, so they are out.
Okay, it’s imperfect because infertile men and women can still marry, but we aren’t going to bother doing fertility testing. {end principle]
Now, you may disagree with the above. I disagree with a lot of it, given modern society’s permissive attitudes about sex. But what about it violates the Constitution? Especially since the authors of the Constitution lived under that exact system and had no thought or desire to change it?
Unlike the beliefs that take decisions away from the people, a particular piece of legislation does not need to make perfect sense. People are free to amend the legislation at the corners as they see fit.
For judges to decree that a certain law is wrong, they must draw from an overarching principle to prevent it.
Example: A city can pass an ordinance to disallow people in the public park after dark.
That is fine. It doesn’t matter if I really like being in the park at dark, or if I’m not hurting anyone in the park after dark. The city can shut it down right then, and I’m free to elect a new city council if I don’t like it.
The flip side is different. If you want to take power away from the people through their city council to prohibit people from visiting the park after dark, you have to find some fundamental right or freedom that allows people to attend the park after dark. The burdens are not equal.
Will you promise to return the favor?
No, he will not, as I instructed. Please do the same.
[/moderating]
And not dying as the result of pregnancy or puerperal fever. Doctors and midwives consistently and thoroughly hand-washing before poking around in the parts of a woman having a baby saved many lives, and it took until the mid-to-late 1800s (IIRC) to make that the norm.
That seems needlessly complicated. How about “Two consenting adults can get married”?
An easy principle to explain, and treats all consenting adults equally.
Can we keep the thread on Repeal and Replace, please? Plenty of other threads out there for other topics.
Cite away.
Get this through your head. I AM NOT A LIBERAL. I am a registered Democrat because that’s pretty much the only choice a responsible, fact-driven person can make in this environment, and because my state required it in order for me to vote for a Democrat in the primaries. My partisanship is anti-bullshit vs. bullshit, and there is only one major party that’s anywhere near that standard.
Here’s what didn’t change in the Senate’s health care bill: $1 trillion in tax cuts
So, let me make sure I’ve got this straight. Your position is that making a giant tax cut that inequitably provides benefits to the most wealthy among us doesn’t increase the wealth divide? Or is that just ‘partisan nonsense?’