Liberals: Would You Support An Abortion Ban In Exchange For A UHC Bill and Immigration Reform

Especially foreign policy. But *especially *domestic policy.

Lol.

Wait, what? You (or really your parents) are sucking on the gov. tit for your insurance but you (your parents) want to deny coverage to others who probably need it more than you do if we don’t agree to completely ban procedures that you (your parents) think are wrong, no matter who pays for them, solely because of your religious beliefs? Over my dead body.

In other words: HELL NO.

The State Children’s Health Insurance Plan. If your parents don’t have insurance and make too much to qualify for Medicaid, you may be covered under SCHIP. It’d depend on how much they make and where you live.

Not who you think will run in those elections, but how you’ll actually feel when you can actually vote. My point is that people tend to change from 13 or 14 to 18 or 21. So I don’t really care who you feel you could or couldn’t support now. Let’s see what you think in the debates here on the 2014 midterms. I find it unlikely that you’ll be a single-issue abortion voter.

What is that? Not wasting trillions on invading foreign countries for bogus reasons?

So your passionately held belief is not really a dealbreaker then. You just want a Republican elected. Which is fine, but maybe you should just say that.

How very grand of you that you even deign to consider her plight.

Healthnet.

Which I’m not-other issues go in and national security is more important.

No I mean what Pat Buchanan, Noam Chomsky, and Ron Paul (among others) have advocated: withdrawl from NATO and all other alliances, withdrawl of US troops from most foreign nations (or even all), suspension of all free trade pacts, economic protectionism, and generally a pre-Pearl Harbor mentality.

If of course a pro-abortion Republican was the only electable one I’d support him but if there was a choice between a pro-abortion and pro-life one (in say a primary) and both were relatively likely to have a good chance in the general one I’d choose the latter.

Because all know that the best judge under such circumstances is not a doctor.

The best judge is a local Republican religious fanatic.

Wouldn’t support it. Abortion is serious fundamental human rights territory. Giving control of my body to anyone else is fundamentally wrong.

UHC and immigration reforms are nice extras a rich country can afford.

No. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Also, I believe it’s disgustingly inhuman and inhumane to presume a right to play games with a woman’s biology and reproductive rights as though they’re commodities. And no, to anticipate your next question, I don’t believe a fetus has the same rights as its host. In fact, I don’t believe a fetus has rights at all until the moment of viability, which contrasts the seeming conservative mindset that all rights cease upon viability, but that’s another story.

That’s your criteria? Are you kidding? So if the girl is able to carry the product of the rape with no physical ill effects, she should have to? We should forget about the fact that she was physically brutalized against her will and her rights as a human being squashed like a bug under someone’s boot when she was raped. She should be brutalized against her will again by being forced to gestate a constant reminder of the rape every second of every minute of every day for nine months while the abomination grows inside her, and then be forced, that’s right, FORCED, to bear the child. Then again, as a man, you’ll never have to worry about being in such a predicament, and that’s what really matters isn’t it? Anyway, women are not really human, are they? They’re certainly less human than a clump of dividing cells according to religious conservative dogma, which is just sick.

…and anti reproductive rights conservatives wonder why they’re considered evil. Wow.

The right of fetuses to live is a fundamental right.

Incidentally I do support ERA because in my opinion the wording of the document which gives total equality for both sexes explicitly gives one of two choices: 1) neither men nor women can have the right to choose abortion or 2) men can have say in making women have abortions.

A lot of political compromises are achieved by gaining consensus on unrelated issues. And I do think it’s related-if people have a right to health care don’t they also have the right to live?

That is some kookoo reading of the ERA right there. Here’s the text:

Healthnet. Is that the Boston Medical Center Healthnet Plan? The plan that manages the participants of MassHealth and Commonwealth Care?

So, in other words, if this means that you live in Massachusetts it also means that you’ve spent the last four years of your life living under basically the system that is about to pass the House. And having the government pay for it to boot.

By that text if men do not have the right to have say in performing abortions women should not either.

California not Massachusetts.

Men do have the exact same say to women in performing abortions. Nobody is allowed to make abortion decisions for anybody else who is legally competent to make their own decisions. Nothing in that rule discriminates on the basis of sex. As I said, a completely kookoo reading of the text.

No, of course not. A womans right to her own body cannot be bargained away.

No, it is not.

Isn’t it a bit unfair if the father of the fetus has no say in the abortion? :rolleyes: