I don’t agree that public policies are the way to best offer such support, because they generally run afoul of the give-a-fish/teach-to-fish distinction. And I am convinced that a country that celebrates the ability to destroy unborn children is in no position to turn around and mask that parade of destruction with friendly minimum wage policies.
God is unambiguously pro-choice. If you oppose legal abortion, you’re doing Satan’s work.
No one celebrates any such thing and you have an incorrect legal definition of “children.” What is celebrated is a woman not being forced to be an incubator for 9 months during which time she has to nourish something other than herself, have morning sickness, etc.
‘Sorry, you have a pre-existing condition. We call it Oz Syndrome - you lack a brain, a heart, and even the least bit of courage.’
This is, of course, the crux of our disagreement.
But I’ll happily confine my statements to the purely legal definition:
And I am convinced that a country that celebrates the ability to destroy [del]unborn children[/del] the life or potential life of the unborn[sup]*[/sup] is in no position to turn around and mask that parade of destruction with friendly minimum wage policies.
- See Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 US 833, 870 (1992).
But similarly, I’m sure your recognize that many others are convinced that a country that would celebrate the restriction of women’s ability to control who and what gets to be inside their bodies is in no position to turn around and mask that parade of oppression with any other policies.
I do!
And what’s more, I recognize that in this matter, I bear the burden of persuasion. Those that think as you do can point to the law as supporting their positions.
Don’t flatter yourself. What you call a challenge to preconception is often nothing more than facile pedantry.
What does public policy that punishes women by forcing them to have children they don’t want and then adds insult to injury by not proving a living minimum wage teach those who become victims of such circumstance?
Americans are obsessed with the “pre-existing conditions” bit, but the rest of the developed world is equally horrified by the “it came out of nowhere and I couldn’t pay for it” bit. Such as newborns with previously unknown conditions, virus strains that happen to be particularly nasty, hospital-borne illnesses… in the last case y’all are expected to sue, is it? Those of us from UHC countries are expected to get appropriate treatment without having to speak with anybody from Accounting, and to please not yell too loudly when complaining, it’s a hospital ssshhh.
You get a point here for some sophisticated word usage, but understanding a discussion and responding on point is apparently harder for you.
JFC, you’re a fatuous bore.
I don’t find you all that exciting myself, but sometimes you go with what’s available, such as it is.
Under Trumpcare rape would go back to being an pre-existing condition. /
So apparently conservatives think a woman who is raped and chooses to have the baby, but has to deliver it through c-section because of complications–and then suffers from postpartum depression afterwards–should have to pay more for coverage. I guess she made the wrong choices and deserves to be punished, right? They don’t care that a person like this might not be able to afford “high risk” health insurance. I think they want people like this to die. That’s the only explanation I can think of for why conservatives don’t have a problem with something like this.
I don’t think he’s even human. Maybe he’s a horcrux (however you spell it).
This is just ridiculously stupid. That statement doesn’t mean what you are refuting here, and your refutation isn’t even a valid one.
The claim is not that people have to enact laws that agree with their religion. The claim is simply that, if you are religious, you will act like you believe what you claim to believe. He can push whatever policy he wants, but he made a moral claim about people who are healthy having done something to deserve their health, and that people who had preexisting conditions deserved it. This is contrary to the Bible, which says that bad things happen to good people. Hence, he is being a bad Christian by making the moral argument he made.
Furthermore, you already do very much promote your opinion on abortion as law because of what your religion tells you. There is no other argument for being opposed to abortion. So, if we can’t have it both ways, then it means you have to also argue other aspects of your religion.
This entire post is just ridiculous, and you should, frankly, be ashamed for posting it. Taking one line completely out of context to give a pseudo-intellectual refutation that doesn’t actually work.
You are a much better arguer than this.
I wonder how many times we have to keep telling people like Bricker and Shodan that before they either improve or it stops being true.
Best of luck to your friend.
But what im not understanding is how her healthcare relates to obamacare and bashing conservatives. You say your friend is moving on to a “better” organization which i assume includes employer paid health insurance. Just like you.
So somehow, conservatives are sabotaging your friends employer paid health insurance?
Fair’s fair. So are the people in his district. 
The answer is that America is that stupid and cruel, that we as a society value money over the life and health of our fellow citizens.
It’s the only conclusion I’ve been able to come to.