According to your response ,you just want your thoughts to control others, You admit your self that society doesn’t really consider the fertile egg or fetus a part of society until birth. You are of course welcome to you beliefs and should not be forced to go against them, but neither should your ideas be forced on others in this circumstance, since your body isn’t involved, nor are you supporting the un born you consider part of society,if you did ,you would be contributing to the woman’s prenatal care and the care until it has reasched adulthood. It sounds like your thinking comes from a religious belief not science.
Do you mean that I, personally, am not contributing to prenatal care? Or do you mean my proposed scheme would not contribute to prenatal care?
Try to form a coherent argument.
cough potkettle cough
We could judge the U.S.'s actions in Iraq by its fruits:
- Failure to find the WMD’s that George W Bush said was our reason to invade.
- Billions of dollars of additional national debt.
- Thousands of dead US soldiers.
- After 23 YEARS of harsh rule under Saddam Hussein, 900,000 Iraqis died. In the years following America’s 7-year occupation of Iraq, 655,000 Iraqis have died, mostly from direct acts of violence. Proportional to the United States population that would amount to more deaths from war than almost all wars fought by America, combined.
You’re right… the Pope seems to get it.
The whole pro-choice movement is just another extension (or, maybe, pre-cursor?) to the “might makes right” subset of social Darwinism that passes for capitalist thinking today. Prey on those weaker than you, dehumanize them, trample on those who get in your way, it’s the baby’s fault for being disadvantaged (in this case unwanted), if they can’t fight back they don’t deserve to live (same thinking goes on with anti-environmentalist whackos), etc. All of it bears alarming similarities to the most bully-ish aspects of free market thinking.*
I don’t know if you live in America but did you know that while the U.S. Government cannot tell a woman what to do with her body, the Government does tell men what to do with theirs? (Selective Service and, if war breaks out, the draft.) And even funnier than this is that women serve on draft boards to potentially decide whose bodies get hijacked for war. Imagine the uproar if they were denied the legal right to an abortion by a panel of men? snicker At least with pregnancy, 93% of the time the woman actually did something to get pregnant. If the draft is reactivated you get penalized just for being born male…
- This mentality is held by both men and women alike. It is true that if men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. A pox upon all of them…
Knock off the name calling.
[ /Modding ]
I certainly didn’t intend it as name calling. I intended it as pointing out what I took as the irony of Bricker requiring a coherent argument when his position is without one.
I wasn’t trying to be any snippier than what I said in the above sentence, I was just trying to be funny about it. What name would I even be calling him, Black? 
But doesn’t UHC put us incrementally closer to your ideal vision of a society?
If slavery were legal, and abortion were legal, would you vote against a measure to outlaw slavery just because it doesn’t also outlaw abortion?
If we have three different societies: X, Y, and Z
X has legal abortion and no UHC
Y has legal abortion and UHC
Z has outlawed abortion and has UHC
Doesn’t it make logical sense, assuming that both abortion and UHC are important issues, that Y is a better society than X, even if it’s not as perfect as Z?
Couldn’t you just as easily decide not to support an abortion ban that’s not packaged with universal health care, because it arbitrarily refuses to protect post-born humans?
I mean you ,and all who think think like you, and wonder just how much of a sacrifice you personally are supporting, from conception to birth.and how many!
Talk doesn’t put food on the table, health care, education and etc. to bring a fertile egg to full adulthood ,and it is my opinion that if a person is really interested in the welfare of the woman and born (or yet unborn) child they would put their money where their mouth is!
Imagine this scenario:
The year is 2017. Roe vs Wade has been overturned. There’s a vote coming up in the House for an “Omnibus Ban Abortion And Implement Single Payer Health Care” bill and the bill has already passed in the Senate. But it fails by one vote.
Representative Soandso casts the deciding “No” vote. He is in favor of banning abortion and health care for all, but it turns out that he’s also a devout vegetarian, and thinks that it’s completely arbitrary that we protect unborn human life but fail to protect animal life from being slaughtered for food.
Doesn’t that seem just a little bit… silly? Counterproductive? Making the perfect be the enemy of the good? Bricker, that’s what your position looks like to me.
I don’t believe you, because I have a pretty good answer for you and it won’t change your mind in the slightest.
I serve on the board of directors of a local pro-life charity. Our focus is providing necessities to expectant mothers: car seats, cribs, layettes, diapers – all at no charge, all intended to lessen the financial burden of choosing to keep a child and making it possible to do so. In addition, we teach several vocation classes, intended to give women a leg up in entering a new career or increasing their earning potential. And we assist with medical expenses and referrals to other sources of aid in the area. I devote considerable hours to this endeavor every month, both in teaching and working on processing donations, as well as fundraising efforts for the charity. Finally, we manage adoption referrals for those not wanting to raise a child but not abortion-minded.
Our view is somewhat similar to what you’ve said: it doesn’t do much good to simply piously state that we should keep and not abort children; we try to make it more of a possible, practical choice to keep a child.
Well?
I believe there is a principled distinction to be made between human and animal life.
Way to fight the analogy there. If you can come out of nitpick mode, can you address the substance of what he said? Why is that guy illogical and you not?
Bricker, as I understand it, your argument is that “universal” health care which covers some arbitrary subset of society but which excludes another subset is fundamentally unjust. Is this correct? Which subset, then, do you claim wouldn’t be covered under the proposed universal health care plans? It’s not fetuses, since the proposals do include funding for prenatal care.
Because there is no principled distinction to be made – in my opinion, of course – between born and unborn humans with respect to health care.
Does the belief make the difference, or the fact? I mean, it doesn’t seem particularly reasonable to declare cynicism based on your beliefs; it would be like me claiming your pro-life beliefs are hypocritical because I don’t think fetuses are worthy of protection in the same way adult humans are. It’s judging *your *actions by my belief system.
Unborn humans would have access to universal health care, via their mothers. This would be far better for children because of widespread prenatal care.
The fact that some of those children would later be murdered (from your point of view), has nothing whatsoever to do with the availability of medical care.
Serving on a board and helping a little bit isn’t enough, you are not sacrificing like you expect a woman to do. If every pro-birther would really sacrifice as much as they should, there would be no starving children, here or in other countries.
Spending the time and money trying to tell a woman what she should do with her body like you insist,isn’t helping her. Better the time and money spent protesting and trying to ply her with guilt would be better spent, if the pro-birth people would really be Pro-Life, and see that the woman was protected, in stead of trying to force her to follow what your mindset does. Did you ever suffer the agony some women have by giving up their child? I know women who have. And I also know women who have carried a fertile egg to term and the child suffered mental anguish all it’s life.
If a woman had the morning after pill available then there would be no (or little) need for an abortion, and preventing the need in the first place is better for the woman. She is more than just an incubator. She is already born and should have rights as well. It should remain her choice not some one else’s.
Bilologially there is a difference, I doubt you would consider a horse embryo a horse, and wouldn’t like it if I sold you one ,if you expected a horse! Your religious believes or other beliefs should not be forced on those who do not believe as you do. It is like in some Muslim countries whre they can legally cut off a woman’s nose ,ears etc. even kill them, if they believe it is according to their beliefs.
If a woman chooses to have a child she should be just as protected, and no one should be able to force you to believe any differently, so both choices should be respected!
What a shocker.
You said, “Talk doesn’t put food on the table, health care, education and etc. to bring a fertile egg to full adulthood …”
And as it happens, I had an exact answer for you; I spend considerable hours every month doing activities that address PRECISELY those concerns: food, health carem and education.
And I predicted that you’d find a way to keep your opinion intact.
And you did:
Not sure how you read “helping a little bit,” into what I wrote. But I note, with absoultely no surprise, that you’ve moved the goalposts.