So pro-lifers are in it for sadism? :smack::rolleyes:
We have an object lesson as to what happens when you do this. Both the House and the Senate HCR bills ban abortion funding (except for rape/incest/life of the mother). But the way the Senate banned it wasn’t good enough for some of the anti-choice people. So, those people mounted a disinformation campaign and put out statements that were flat-out lies about the Senate bill–falsely claiming that it allowed government funding of abortions (outside of the exceptions). There’s no point in negotiating with these people. They do not operate in a good-faith honest manner, and they will not be happy with whatever you give them.
The answer to the OP is that banning abortion would be unconstutional, and it’s not worth destroying the Constitution to gt something we’re about to get without destroying the constitution.
Philosophically, it’s obviously not worthwhile trade.
So giving government power is bad but giving unelected and unaccountable health insurance bureaucrat power is just fine?
:dubious:
And who are you to define what this person can and cannot afford?
Or imposing their religious beliefs on other people.
No, that’s not the answer to the OP, since he was talking about a Constitutional amendment. Clearly, if a Constitutional amendment were passed banning abortion, then banning abortion would be constitutional.
Now, you could of course argue that banning abortion should be unconstitutional, but then you’re at the beginning of your argument, not at the end of it. You then have to go on to say why it should be unconstitutional.
Missed this. So what? You’re not part of my body either. Does that mean you get a right to control my body?
What you want is to give other people the right to control women’s bodies in a way that nobody has a right to control men’s bodies. You want to set up a regime that is completely discriminatory against women, while at the same time claiming that your discriminatory regime is required by the ERA.:rolleyes:
Ookay. Insurance companies would need access to tax records to determine who could have afforded care earlier. Either that, or the feds would certify who could get turned down for pre-existing conditions and who can’t, presumably based on IRS tax records. Tracing the consequences of your plan would require greater specification and further policy analysis.
It’s still not clear to me why you wouldn’t just require the wealthy and middle class to buy health insurance to begin with. To me, that’s simply saying that membership in our society entails rights, but also responsibilities.
Pretty much. What benefit does the Ku Klux Klan get for harassing and attacking blacks? What benefit did bigoted whites get from separate water fountains, miscegenation laws and so forth? What benefit do people get from forbidding people of the same sex to marry?
Like it or not, there are and always have been millions of people in the US alone who are motivated mainly by the desire to hurt others. It’s not some rare, exotic behavior.
If you believe that aborting a fetus is equivalent to murder, then naturally you would philosophically ascribe the same fundamental human rights to the fetus as you would give to the mother (and that’s without bringing religion into it).
This perspective must be understood for pro-lifers like Curtis LeMay.
From there, the argument is really over whether or not the fetus should have human rights, and if so, which trumps which (the mother’s or the fetus)?
That said, as to the OP: No, I think the constitution is fine on that front. Give women the right, and let any ostensible blood you think may fall on those individuals be sorted out in the afterlife (if, in fact, your specific brand of religion/faith turns out to be a reality. If there is no God, it’s kind of moot.). As for the fathers? They can debate their case to the mothers all they want, but the mother gets the veto, because she’s carrying the fetus.
Liberals: Would You Support An Abortion Ban In Exchange For A UHC Bill and Immigration Reform
Liberals: Would You Support Getting Gutshot and Sodomised With A Rusty Corkscrew In Exchange For Not Being Blinded With A Hot Poker And Getting Your Testicles Ripped Off By Rottweillers?
Eh. Anti-choice people always pop up in these threads with the notion that the fetus is a human life, as if that’s some big revelation that pro-choice people have never thought about. In our society, we routinely allow people to be killed for any number of reasons. And some of those people are as innocent as the purest snow, yet we still allow them to be killed.
Now me, personally, I would prefer that society minimize the times that innocent people are killed. So, for example, I think that if you are going to invade a country because they have WMDs, you had better damn well make sure that they have WMDs and you had better plan properly for the aftermath of such an invasion in order to minimize the number of people killed. Similarly, I think that if evidence starts turning up that a state, such as, I don’t know, TEXAS, may have executed an innocent man, that you should be demanding a thorough investigation into that execution in order to make sure than an innocent man wasn’t actually killed. But I realize that’s a minority viewpoint in this country, and the majority of people in the US are quite blase about the killing of human life, innocent or not.
And I would prefer that abortions are minimized as well, which is why I’m in favor of comprehensive sex education and widespread access to birth control.
But even if I consider a fetus a human life from the moment of conception, the fact of the matter is that banning abortion means that you are dictating how another person can control their own body. If the fetus could beam itself out of the womb, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But if you desire to have abortion restrictions, then what you desire is to control another person’s ability to control their own body. Period. I don’t know why anti-choicers try to avoid that simple point. I personally think there should be minimal restrictions at the beginning of the pregnancy, but I have no problem with increasing restrictions as the pregnancy progresses. But I’m not going to pretend that I am doing anything other than restricting another person’s right to control their own body in creating those restrictions.
And you are endangering those people, because there will always be abortions. And when they’re not legal, they are dangerous. They end women’s lives. They orphan already existing children. They destroy families. The ongoing willful blindness to this demonstrable truth by the pro-ban (aka anti-reality) arm of the pro-life contingent speaks volumes about their truth intentions and motivations. It’s not about saving lives, it’s about punishing women for making choices that they disagree with.
Personally, being a Christian like Curtis (which shows just what a wide brush “Christian” is if he and I are considered in the same category anywhere) I have similar religous views on abortion. Do I think that those views should be mandated by law? Abso-freaking lutely not!! Religious views (or “morality”) should never be legislated on people, as that’s just forced religious adherence, not genuine religious devotion. If you don’t want an abortion, fine, don’t get one, but don’t mandate religion on those that think different. That’s anti-Biblical! Keep ideas based on yoru particular religious tenets out of these laws! If your religion wants you to not abort, that’s up to your religion, but if your belief system is OK with it, we shoudln’t be forcing another belief system on them!
(My kingdom for this thread to be in the Pit, there’s so much more that I really want to say that I can’t in a non-Pit thread, only scratching the surface here … )
Abortion is one of those issues on which compromise is only possible when one side doesn’t have to give anything up.
Regards,
Shodan
OK, here’s the thing.
Putting aside that a forced purchase is entirely unconstitutional, I feel the law of unintended consequences about to rear it’s ugly head. To wit: How much is the fine for willingly forgoing insurance? One early draft of this bill had it at $699 or so; is that still the number?
I don’t know about you guys, but my personal health ins premium through my job is about $500/month, family coverage by Aetna (“I’m glad I met ya”). What’s to stop someone like me from just paying the 700 once a year, then wait until something bad happens before buying insurance, your ‘house-on-fire, quick let’s buy some fire insurance’ metaphor? Or to use a better example, since I have a wife and kids and they get shots and doc visits all the time… some single young person who would otherwise pay $250 month premiums doing the same thing?
And does anyone have a link somewhere objective (no Kos or Huffpo or Redstate pls) that shows the breakdown of people that are like that last example?
Read them again.
Did he recommend that people should be thrown into the sea?
:smack:
I don’t exactly know what the fine is but I’d bet dollar to donuts that it isn’t as stiff as buying insurance for the year. With that said, I’ll gladly pay the fine when I get sick enough to need insurance for the free ride.
Now stretch that “I” by the teeming millions and you’ll see what I did.
No it isn’t. Don’t believe everything you hear on the radio.
I seriously doubt there are going to be any “teeming millions” defiantly choosing to pay fines rather than buy insurance (most of the teabaggers already have insurance – or Medicare, or Medicaid, or VA benefits or some other government handout), but even if they were to do that, it would be an even bigger win for health care costs and the economy. It just means we would get your money free and clear without having to give anything back. That money can then be allocated to subsidize health care. Paying a fine is the same as paying a tax. What do we care if you decide you don’t want anything in return for it as long as you pay what you owe (and you WILL pay what you owe).
I heard somewhere that 30 million of the 40 million currently uninsured can AFFORD healthcare, they just choose to do without.
Take half that number if you want.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/31/164557.shtml (quick google foo)