I’m sorry, are there a lot of men getting pregnant in your community? What the hell does the ERA have to say about abortion?
The right to choice is about the right for women to have autonomy in their persons and in their bodies.
Why should he have any say at all in what another person does with her own body? can i have a say in your medical decisions?
Wasn’t Giuliani first elected mayor of New York several years before you were born? Were you active in politics that young? Maybe fetuses are people, and republicans at that.
But the fetus is not just another bodypart it is a lifeform dependent on the mother.
You’re talking about removing a fundamental right from 50% of society without their consent. That’s not compromise. That’s fiat.
It’s not.
A fetus is not a person.
Unlike others on the board, I do not expect that your personal growth in future years will turn you into a liberal. I suspect you’ll always be conservative.
What I do expect - hope might be a better word - is that your demonstrated intelligence and ability to think will turn you into someone with a better knowledge of society and a better understanding of nuance and of common sense.
Your statement here is the functional equivilant of saying that the ERA would have required unisex public restrooms.
And so you get to make that decision for all women, everywhere?
I mean if he runs for governor or senator.
:rolleyes: back at you. The plain textual meaning of the ERA is what it is, whether or not you consider it unfair. If you want to make some sort of non-originalist or non-textual argument regarding the ERA, feel free, but you’re going to have to do better than “it’s unfair!”
I will add that given the events of the past decade, I no longer believe that the majority of people in this country give a fig about life, innocent or otherwise. While there are probably some anti-choicers who genuinely are concerned with preserving life, I’m not willing to give the anti-choice political movement the benefit of the doubt any longer. So, I personally will not respond to any of your arguments about fairness or sanctity of life or whatever else you are planning to throw out in this thread, but maybe you can convince other people.
You’re also talking about massively expanding government with the UHC program so two biggies there.
No it isn’t. If you take this literally it means that women and men should have equal rights in all areas including “abortion rights”.
Then I’ll do it for you.
There is widespread support in the public for permitting those with pre-existing conditions - the sick - to buy health care. As Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who require a doctor, but the sick.”
But if that happens, insurance companies will face customers who buy health insurance only when they get sick. This is untenable. It is like a homeowner who buys fire insurance only when his home is engulfed in flames. Such a situation would destroy the insurance market – as citizens cancel their plans, insurance companies would raise their rates – which would cause more citizens to cancel their plans. The technical term for this is an adverse selection death spiral.
What to do? Well here is where the individual mandate sets in. If Curtis LeMay opposes mandates -if he thinks it’s ok for freeloaders to pass over health insurance, but get medical care later- then he must also favor the status quo, where insurance companies turn down the sick. This of course is ungodly, or at least contradicts the gospels.
But if you have an individual mandate, you need subsidies for the waitress who can chip in some money for health care, but less than $8000 per year.
The plan does all this. It’s basically the minimally acceptable plan consistent with the gospel quoted above – though Jesus also said that if someone asks for your coat, give them your cloak as well. Doing the bare moral minimum is profoundly unchristian.
Jesus said nothing about abortions, so I can’t comment on that aspect of the thread.
If it’s clear they did not purchase health care plan not because they couldn’t afford it but because they didn’t choose to buy it than insurance companies should deal with them as they see fit. For instance someone who was poor and wanted health insurance but than developed a disease is different from a middle-class guy who could afford health insurance and only wants it now as he has developed a disease. As for Jesus not saying anything about abortion-He never said anything about pedophilia either.
No it doesn’t, because it is a negative right, not a positive right. All it says is that the law can not discriminate between men and women. If everybody has control over their own bodies, then there is no discrimination.
As for whether the fetus is itself a person, under the Federal constitution, it is not–it’s not really anything (at least pre-viability). If you want to have the Federal constitution treat the fetus as a person, you will have to get an amendment passed or a doctrine such as substantive due process will have to expand to include “fetal personhood.”
Except the fetus is not really part of the body the way a liver or a kidney is.
No. Under no circumstances would I support a ban on abortion. Nor would I make a deal with the religious right for any reason, both because I find them disgusting in a multitude of ways, and because I don’t regard them as being remotely trustworthy or rational enough to be worth dealing with anyway.
Yes to a degree, but that’s a direct consequence of the fact that biology is unfair. It’s not like men and women are each carrying half of the fetus and assemble it at birth. Abortion is a matter of womens rights, because women are the ones carrying the fetus. I have no more right to demand that she carry a fetus to term than she has to demand that I donate a kidney to her.
Now, in some hypothetical scenario where the fetus is being gestated in an artificial womb, then yes he’d deserve an equal say in the matter; but obviously that’s not going to be an issue in the immediate future.
What many who call themselves pro-life overlook is that this is the biggest anti-abortion reform that’s ever passed in this country. We had a recent GQ thread about the costs of pregnancy: Even for a routine, uncomplicated pregnancy, it’s in the vicinity of $10,000. If someone who has no insurance and can’t afford that kind of money out of pocket gets pregnant, what do you expect she’s going to do? Abortion is going to look like a very appealing option. By making sure everyone’s covered, you’re making sure nobody has to face that choice, which will inevitably decrease abortions.
sigh Certainly then, the insurance companies will not pay for their care. Just as certainly, you and I will. When they go to the emergency room, they will receive necessary care. Their inability to pay for that care will be reflected in higher costs for you and me, at emergency room rates.
Why? Because you say so? No woman can make that decision for themselves? You make it for them?
Apart from recommending that they be tied to a millstone and thrown into the sea, you mean?