Re: Reid's abortion-payment tax
Jim
> http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=690
>
> "Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care
> plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi?s (D-CA), Senate Majority
> Leader Harry Reid?s (D-NV) massive, 2,074-page bill would levy
> a new ?abortion premium? fee on Americans in the government-run
> plan.
>
> Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under ?Voluntary
> Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services? the Health and Human
> Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when
> abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan. Leader
> Reid?s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan
> offered in the Exchange covers abortions (line 13, p. 120).
>
> What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will
> be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan.
> It?s right there beginning on line 11, page 122, section 1303,
> under ?Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.? The premium
> will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account ? and these federal funds
> will be used to pay for the abortion services."
>
> [ In clear violation of the Hyde Amendment, and 78% opposition of
> the US population. ]
baby murdering democrats are not concerned with what 78% of
the 'tax paying modules' want. to the democrats it is all about
increasing their control over the lives of the 'tax paying modules'
while increasing the size of their ever expanding and costly
bureaucracy of nonelective government officials. i.e "the huge
network of communist radicals on the Executive Branch's payroll".
Elmo
Get bent Jim. I'm no baby murderer (nor am I a Democrat) but I
understand the reality of what happens to women and their other
children when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. If you're not going
to pony up the money to support that woman and all of her children
through that pregnancy and the rest of their lives then shut up.
--
The world began without the human race and will certainly end without it.
AL
> Jim wrote:
[...]
>>
>> baby murdering democrats are not concerned with what 78% of the 'tax
>> paying modules' want. to the democrats it is all about increasing
>> their control over the lives of the 'tax paying modules' while
>> increasing the size of their ever expanding and costly bureaucracy of
>> nonelective government officials. i.e "the huge network of communist
>> radicals on the Executive Branch's payroll".
> Get bent Jim. I'm no baby murderer (nor am I a Democrat) but I
> understand the reality of what happens to women and their other
> children when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. If you're not going
> to pony up the money to support that woman and all of her children
> through that pregnancy and the rest of their lives then shut up.
jimmie's just off his nut...and by the same argument, aren't you just
sick & tired of ponying up MONEY to help all those damned OLD people out
there? The amount of MONEY to support "senior citizens", to feed, house,
medicate and diaper them is completely out of control - and they just
keep coming!!! This shit has GOT to stop! They're old 'n in the way -
time to die! We definitely need the Feds to step in and get control of
this situation and use our MONEY to fix the problem, we are completely
incapable of handling it ourselves. Just so you know, I'm not advocating
actually hurting anyone, God forbid. After all, I KNOW the Feds and
their 'medical' assistants would never allow babies to be dragged down
the birth canal to have their skulls cracked open & their brains sucked
out if it actually hurt, after all, they are bound by the hippocratic
oath which in part says:
"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my
ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. I will not give a
lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and
similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."
Well, we have an annointed one and a supreme court today that can blot
out that needless crap...
yeah, "get bent" jimmie...
Jim
is that the guytype way of saying "get intercoursed"
> I'm no baby murderer (nor am I a Democrat) but I
> understand the reality of what happens to women and their other
> children when an unwanted pregnancy occurs.
a fornicating society will always end up with children
they will later wish they had not produced.
> If you're not going
> to pony up the money to support that woman and all of her children
> through that pregnancy and the rest of their lives then shut up.
this particular post had nothing to do with how we are already through
our tax dollars supporting women and their children, lots of women and
their children. I believe that particular debate revolves around the
premise of how some would say if you can't afford children then don't
have them but that's a dead horse we should move past.
the current issue here is how democrat reid has made the choice to move
forward in violation of the Hyde Amendment, as well as the expressed
wishes of 78% of the US population.
so then, make an attempt to over look my blunt statement of how
"baby murdering democrats" are not concerned with what the majority have
expressed as being their requested outcome. instead I suggest we
all take a closer look at this massive 2,074-page bill in order to
determine if there exist a provision requiring our paychecks to be auto
deposited into some democrat slush fund.
Robin Baker
Democrats murder (????) because they don't like Reblicans telling
women "if you abort we will throw you in jail for murder"
Republicans like the death penalty for anything
....I wonder why this is a issue?
AL
Yeah, you're right, that IS an inane comment - why did YOU make it?
Jim
>
> > baby murdering democrats are . . .
>
> If you continue
[....]
in soft speak they call it abortion. in reality the act in and of itself
and by deliberate effort stops a beating heart. the courts have defined
the deliberate premeditated action of stopping a beating heart as first
degree murder. I am inclined to agree with the ideology of the courts
concerning the premeditated action of stopping a beating heart. with that
having been said it would be far more truthful if those seeking the service
of terminating the life of an unborn child would clearly say and state how
they are in the first degree committing the act of premeditated murder rather
than making use of the soft speak terminology. rather than justifying
what they are doing with some soft speak terminology used to partition and
grant to them some false sense of how their action is somehow different from
premeditated murder, they might find the act of killing the unborn more
unacceptable if they were to see clearly how murder is and always has been
murder.
in as far as the current issue of healthcare goes, yes the current system
excludes millions of people and certain reforms should be duly considered
so as to rightly implement just and efficient solutions. as we take the
time to consider the hundreds of thousands of details concerning the system
we would like to create in order to better serve all people we should note
and give due consideration to the wishes of the 78% who have already
expressed their dissatisfaction with publicly funding the deliberate act
of stopping a beating heart, i.e. baby murdering.
Ann
> geoff wrote:
>>
>> > baby murdering democrats are . . .
>>
>> If you continue
> [....]
>
> in soft speak they call it abortion. in reality the act in and of itself
> and by deliberate effort stops a beating heart. the courts have defined
> the deliberate premeditated action of stopping a beating heart as first
> degree murder. I am inclined to agree with the ideology of the courts
> concerning the premeditated action of stopping a beating heart. with that
> having been said it would be far more truthful if those seeking the
> service of terminating the life of an unborn child would clearly say and
> state how they are in the first degree committing the act of premeditated
> murder rather than making use of the soft speak terminology. rather
> than justifying what they are doing with some soft speak terminology used
> to partition and grant to them some false sense of how their action is
> somehow different from premeditated murder, they might find the act of
> killing the unborn more unacceptable if they were to see clearly how
> murder is and always has been murder.
By your definition, a heart transplant, inserting an artificial hear, and
certain other operations in which the heart is stopped are all murder. As
are executions and removing life support.
And, terminating a pregnancy within the first approx. four weeks is
acceptable to you because the heart hasn't yet started to beat?
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> [ . . . ] I'm no baby murderer [...]
Unfortunately, if the lunatic fringe lefties get their way
in the power grab for control of the 17% of our GNP that
health care represents, you may become one against your
will. The current Senate bill permits your tax dollars
to be used for the purpose, without your permission.
> (nor am I a Democrat) but I
> understand the reality of what happens to women and their other
> children when an unwanted pregnancy occurs.
Unwanted pregnancy is 100% preventable; all that woman has
to do is keep her knees together, and say "No".
( - insert rant about the average five children in America
per year concieved during a forcible rape, here. )
> If you're not going to pony up the money to support that
> woman and all of her children through that pregnancy and
> the rest of their lives then shut up.
Sorry, but that is the responsibility of the father(s) and
mother of those kids - not *anyone* else's. Like Berretta
used to say: "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time".
Our society as a whole takes a very benevolent path when it
comes to the health and welfare of innocent children -
particularly those who are 'unwanted'. There are many
organizations which will spring for pregnancy care, labor,
and delivery of an unwanted child - and will place that kid
with well-qualified, loving, adoptive parents shortly after
birth.
YouKidding?
Dweezil Dwarftosser <f4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Elmo said...
>
> >
> > [ . . . ] I'm no baby murderer [...]
>
> Unfortunately, if the lunatic fringe lefties get their way
> in the power grab for control of the 17% of our GNP that
> health care represents, you may become one against your
> will. The current Senate bill permits your tax dollars
> to be used for the purpose, without your permission.
>
> > (nor am I a Democrat) but I
> > understand the reality of what happens to women and their other
> > children when an unwanted pregnancy occurs.
>
> Unwanted pregnancy is 100% preventable; all that woman has
> to do is keep her knees together, and say "No".
And all the man has to do is keep his penis out out of women's vaginas
when they don't want children or neither does the woman. Or are you one
of those people that think women alone are responsible? My biology and
animal husbandry course taught me, that except in the case of very very
few incidents, most species require a male and a female for
reproduction. I do believe that is true for human beings?
> ( - insert rant about the average five children in America
> per year concieved during a forcible rape, here. )
>
> > If you're not going to pony up the money to support that
> > woman and all of her children through that pregnancy and
> > the rest of their lives then shut up.
>
> Sorry, but that is the responsibility of the father(s) and
> mother of those kids - not *anyone* else's. Like Berretta
> used to say: "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time".
>
> Our society as a whole takes a very benevolent path when it
> comes to the health and welfare of innocent children -
> particularly those who are 'unwanted'. There are many
> organizations which will spring for pregnancy care, labor,
> and delivery of an unwanted child - and will place that kid
> with well-qualified, loving, adoptive parents shortly after
> birth.
YK
Ann
<...>
> Our society as a whole takes a very benevolent path when it comes to the
> health and welfare of innocent children - particularly those who are
> 'unwanted'. There are many organizations which will spring for pregnancy
> care, labor, and delivery of an unwanted child - and will place that kid
> with well-qualified, loving, adoptive parents shortly after birth.
That's the "Disney version". Minnesota, for example, has a Positive
Alternatives program that lists organizations providing services to
pregnant girls/women. Only two of these organizations have comprehensive,
residential programs. Otoh, there are 15 organizations that facilitate
adoption. They provide some services, but only "referrals" for housing,
etc,
Minnesota currently has approx. 650 children in their foster care system
that have been cleared for adoption. How "benevolent" is a society that
will embrace newborns but turn their backs on these adoptive children?
enigma
news:pan.2009.11.22....@afsetc.com:
> That's the "Disney version". Minnesota, for example, has a
> Positive Alternatives program that lists organizations providing
> services to pregnant girls/women. Only two of these
> organizations have comprehensive, residential programs. Otoh,
> there are 15 organizations that facilitate adoption. They
> provide some services, but only "referrals" for housing, etc,
yup. there are a lot of kind & pretty words bandied about, but very
little action... i know of few groups that will pay to support a
woman through pregnancy, pay for proper prenatal care or even pay for
childbirth (which, for those of you who haven't a clue because
"insurance covers that", costs from $20,000 & up, for no
complications. and no, that's NOT including prenatal care)
> Minnesota currently has approx. 650 children in their foster
> care system that have been cleared for adoption. How
> "benevolent" is a society that will embrace newborns but turn
> their backs on these adoptive children?
it's easy to sell, i mean adopt out, pretty, healthy white babies.
it's far more difficult to place children of mixed race, black, or
hispanic children. even babies with special needs such as a meth
mother or a FAS baby are not wanted, along with birth defects or any
sort of special needs. once a child is over 6 months it becomes much
more difficult to find an adoptive family, & over three or with
siblings means *years* in the system, if they ever get adopted.
i do wish the militant anti-abortion folks would put their lives
where their mouths are & actually take in the unwanted kids, but i
don't know any who have or would adopt.
in a perfect world, with access to healthcare including birth
control information & access there would be less need for abortion.
European countries have legal abortion, but they have far fewer women
that use it because they *also* have free & easy access to birth
control (and perhaps less patriarchal morons trying to control their
bodies)
lee <not for abortion, but not going to deny anyone their own choice
either>
Jim
>
[....]
> in a perfect world, with access to healthcare including birth
> control information & access there would be less need for abortion.
statements don't arrive being to much more factual than that one.
[....]
Jim
> Jim wrote:
> >> > baby murdering democrats are . . .
[....]
> >
> > in soft speak they call it abortion. in reality the act in and of itself
> > and by deliberate effort stops a beating heart. the courts have defined
> > the deliberate premeditated action of stopping a beating heart as first
> > degree murder. I am inclined to agree with the ideology of the courts
> > concerning the premeditated action of stopping a beating heart. with that
> > having been said it would be far more truthful if those seeking the
> > service of terminating the life of an unborn child would clearly say and
> > state how they are in the first degree committing the act of premeditated
> > murder rather than making use of the soft speak terminology. rather
> > than justifying what they are doing with some soft speak terminology used
> > to partition and grant to them some false sense of how their action is
> > somehow different from premeditated murder, they might find the act of
> > killing the unborn more unacceptable if they were to see clearly how
> > murder is and always has been murder.
>
> By your definition, a heart transplant, inserting an artificial hear, and
> certain other operations in which the heart is stopped are all murder.
in those medical procedures it is always the goal to restart the heart.
> As are executions
executions, the process of enforcing a legal judgment can be
restated as a murder carried out, performed by the state.
> and removing life support.
in this day and age of advancement in the science of medicine we all to
often create the situation where life is nothing more than an artificial
existence. an existence only possible through the technology of machines
used to breath, pump blood, perform the function of the kidneys and other
life prolonging necessary functions. as a result of this man made situation
people have sought out the means to avoid life under these conditions.
legalities or legal instruments such as a Living Will (also known as a
Health Care Directive) are used to specify whether a person would like to
be kept on artificial life support if they become permanently unconscious
or are otherwise dying and unable to speak for their self. Estate planning
attorneys will commonly create both a Living Will and a Medical Power of Attorney
for their victims. victims, usually the result of some man made situation.
"People who lay up treasures on earth spend their life backing away
from their treasures. To them, death is loss."
"People who lay up treasures in heaven look forward to eternity; they
are moving daily toward their treasures. To them, death is gain."
> And, terminating a pregnancy within the first approx. four weeks is
> acceptable to you because the heart hasn't yet started to beat?
NO.
did the woman know she was and is pregnant? did the woman seek
to end the pregnancy? if yes then the woman made the choice to
end a life. this action on the part of the pregnant woman is
different exactly how from a criminal making the choice to employ
violence to kill?
it is the old and common tactic of the foolishness of man to argue
systematics while seeking a classification to justify their view
of correctness.
1Co 3:18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be
wise in this world, let him become a fool so that he may be wise.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for
it is written, "He takes the wise in their own craftiness."
1Co 3:20 And again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that
they are vain."
1Co 3:21 Therefore let no one glory in men. For all things are yours,
1Co 3:22 whether it is Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or
life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours,
1Co 3:23 and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.
Ann
> Ann wrote:
>
>> Jim wrote:
>
>> >> > baby murdering democrats are . . .
> [....]
>> >
>> > in soft speak they call it abortion. in reality the act in and of
>> > itself and by deliberate effort stops a beating heart. the courts
>> > have defined the deliberate premeditated action of stopping a beating
>> > heart as first degree murder. I am inclined to agree with the
>> > ideology of the courts concerning the premeditated action of stopping
>> > a beating heart. with that having been said it would be far more
>> > truthful if those seeking the service of terminating the life of an
>> > unborn child would clearly say and state how they are in the first
>> > degree committing the act of premeditated murder rather than making
>> > use of the soft speak terminology. rather than justifying what they
>> > are doing with some soft speak terminology used to partition and grant
>> > to them some false sense of how their action is somehow different from
>> > premeditated murder, they might find the act of killing the unborn
>> > more unacceptable if they were to see clearly how murder is and always
>> > has been murder.
>>
>> By your definition, a heart transplant, inserting an artificial hear,
>> and certain other operations in which the heart is stopped are all
>> murder.
>
> in those medical procedures it is always the goal to restart the heart.
Certainly the goal is that the patient survive, but there is significant
risk that he/she may not. And of course when the original heart is
removed, there is no intent to restart it. So, while the action wouldn't
be first degree murder, it would still be a homicide.
>> As are executions
>
> executions, the process of enforcing a legal judgment can be restated as
> a murder carried out, performed by the state.
>
>> and removing life support.
>
> in this day and age of advancement in the science of medicine we all to
> often create the situation where life is nothing more than an artificial
> existence. an existence only possible through the technology of
> machines used to breath, pump blood, perform the function of the kidneys
> and other life prolonging necessary functions. as a result of this man
> made situation people have sought out the means to avoid life under
> these conditions. legalities or legal instruments such as a Living Will
> (also known as a Health Care Directive) are used to specify whether a
> person would like to be kept on artificial life support if they become
> permanently unconscious or are otherwise dying and unable to speak for
> their self. Estate planning attorneys will commonly create both a
> Living Will and a Medical Power of Attorney for their victims. victims,
> usually the result of some man made situation.
>
> "People who lay up treasures on earth spend their life backing away from
> their treasures. To them, death is loss."
>
> "People who lay up treasures in heaven look forward to eternity; they
> are moving daily toward their treasures. To them, death is gain."
Even if the person welcomes the prospect of death, it's still murder by
your definition.
>> And, terminating a pregnancy within the first approx. four weeks is
>> acceptable to you because the heart hasn't yet started to beat?
>
> NO.
What about the "morning after pill"?
SpaceMonkeyGleep
wrote:
> did the woman know she was and is pregnant? did the woman seek
> to end the pregnancy? if yes then the woman made the choice to
> end a life. this action on the part of the pregnant woman is
> different exactly how from a criminal making the choice to employ
> violence to kill?
The difference lies in the fact that the woman is exercising her right
to remove a parasite from her body.
My opinion - Don't bother to try to convert me, it ain't gonna happen:
Until it can live on its own - As in outside the uterus, with NO life
support systems beyond "usual clothing" for the locale, NO medical
heroics, NO unusual care beyond that which is required by a normal
infant (IE feed, wash, diaper, repeat as needed) - a fetus is nothing
more or less than a parasite on the mother's body, and as such, it may
be removed without regard to its welfare at the whim of the woman
hosting it. Period.
Further, aside from the woman involved, it is my belief that NOBODY -
Not man, not beast, not president, not priest, not doctor, lawyer, or
indian chief - **NOBODY**, under any theory you might care to propose,
has *ANY* valid say in the decision. If you don't like it, that's a
prime case of "Ain't that just too damn bad for you?". Get over it. It's
not your place to like or dislike it. No more than it would be that
woman's place to like or dislike the idea of you eating anti-worm
medicine if you had a tapeworm.
Assuming the imaginary pal that the religious folk typically name "god"
actually existed, he/she/it/they would be the only entit(y/ies) other
than the woman qualified to have an opinion on the matter. However, I
haven't noticed said being(s) speaking up on this subject (or ANY OTHER
subject, for that matter - Interesting coincidence there, I'm
thinkin'...) either way. Lots of humans squawking about how they know
what god really wants, but not a stinking one of them squawking with
anything that bears even the slightest resemblance to actual authority
to speak for the deity. And oddly enough, those of them squawking the
loudest are the ones I'd consider the least likely to even have a clue
about said deity and what he/she/it might be thinking.
--
GLEEEEEP!
It ain't the bullet with my name on it that I'm afraid of - There's no dodging
that one. It's the one addressed "To whom it may concern" that worries me.
AL
> Jim wrote:
>> Ann wrote:
>>> Jim wrote:
[...]
>>>> in soft speak they call it abortion. in reality the act in and of
>>>> itself and by deliberate effort stops a beating heart. the courts
>>>> have defined the deliberate premeditated action of stopping a beating
>>>> heart as first degree murder. [...]
>>> By your definition, a heart transplant, inserting an artificial hear,
>>> and certain other operations in which the heart is stopped are all
>>> murder.
>> in those medical procedures it is always the goal to restart the heart.
> Certainly the goal is that the patient survive, but there is significant
> risk that he/she may not. And of course when the original heart is
> removed, there is no intent to restart it. So, while the action wouldn't
> be first degree murder, it would still be a homicide.
No, in the case of a transplant recipient, the patient has been informed
of, and has accepted, the risk of death in hopes of extending life. Your
argument of homicide, actually manslaughter might be a more appropriate
term, is no more valid than, say, declaring death by suicide of a
desperate victim of a disaster choosing an escape route that results in
death. In the case of the transplant patient who survives and goes on to
enjoy life, would you have the doctors arrested and charged for
attempted homicide? C'mon.
Your argument comparing transplant deaths to abortion especially fails
on the point that a transplant patient's unintended death is accompanied
by the deceased's permission, while abortion, an intended death, is not.
The transplant effort and the disaster victim's attempted escape may end
in death but they were struggles *for* life. That's not the case with
abortion.
Before you counter with abortion to save the mother's life, I have
always, in these exchanges, take the position that terminating a
pregnancy to save the mother's life is morally acceptable. I've also
taken the somewhat less tenable position that a pregnancy from rape or
incest should be allowed similar consideration. BUT, when mama jus wanna
get laid and baby happens - it should go full term, no exceptions.
[...]
> What about the "morning after pill"?
What about it?
I *think* it was St Francis Assisi who suggested that any sperm ejected
without resulting in a pregnancy was equivalent to abortion. I tend to
think he was submitting a satirical essay, but how knows? Monks can
develop some odd ideas... :)
Jim
> Jim wrote:
> > did the woman know she was and is pregnant? did the woman seek
> > to end the pregnancy? if yes then the woman made the choice to
> > end a life. this action on the part of the pregnant woman is
> > different exactly how from a criminal making the choice to employ
> > violence to kill?
>
> The difference lies in the fact that the woman is exercising her right
> to remove a parasite from her body.
> Until it can live on its own - As in outside the uterus, with NO life
> support systems beyond "usual clothing" for the locale, NO medical
> heroics, NO unusual care beyond that which is required by a normal
> infant (IE feed, wash, diaper, repeat as needed) - a fetus is nothing
> more or less than a parasite on the mother's body, and as such, it may
> be removed without regard to its welfare at the whim of the woman
> hosting it. Period.
applying this point of view could lead to the removal from society a
large number of people who currently do not live on their own. some
would even go as far as to make reference to these people as being a
parasite on society.
AL
spacemonkeygleeps for example...
Ann
> Ann wrote:
<...>
> Before you counter with abortion to save the mother's life, I have always,
> in these exchanges, take the position that terminating a pregnancy to save
> the mother's life is morally acceptable. I've also taken the somewhat less
> tenable position that a pregnancy from rape or incest should be allowed
> similar consideration. BUT, when mama jus wanna get laid and baby happens
> - it should go full term, no exceptions.
You're not a good predictor of how I'm going to reply; I had no intention
of making that argument. Abortion to save the life of the mother is a gray
area. But I don't understand how anyone who claims to oppose abortion can
make exceptions for rape and incest. Are those potential lives any less
"innocent" and worthy of preserving? Yes, rape/incest are traumatic
events, but so are some other unintended pregnancies.
<...>
SpaceMonkeyGleep
wrote:
Which has precisely WHAT to do with abortion? (Never mind the fact that
you're obviously attempting to pull the old "take the opposition's
point, stretch it to the most absurd extreme possible, and hope that
doing so makes your own position sound like the only reasonable
possibility by comparison" trick - A rather lame tactic, albeit heavily
used when one has no valid argument)
I won't bother going in the "And this would be a bad thing because... ?"
direction - It's too obvious a diversion from the actual discussion.
One of your so-called "social parasites" is, despite your wishes in the
matter, a viable life-form - He/she is an independent entity that is
capable (willing is another question, but we're not discussing
willingness here, just capability) of continuing to live without the
"life support" that comes in the form of another entity's body - He/she
is a self-contained, fully functioning unit that can, at least in
theory, survive indefinitely whether or not another living entity
exists.
A fetus, on the other hand, is a parasite - An incomplete being that,
until a fairly late stage in the pregnancy, is TOTALLY dependent on the
body of the host it inhabits for all life functions outside of having a
pulse. If removed from the host, by whatever method, for whatever
reason, it *WILL* die, usually in a matter of minutes, unless idiotic
levels of medical heroism are wasted on keeping it alive. Withdraw the
medical efforts, and it dies, again, usually in a matter of minutes.
The two "species" are no more comparable than an apple and an orange.
SpaceMonkeyGleep
AL <lit...@hamiltoncom.net> wrote:
VERY nice, Al... No valid point, so resort to an ad hominem. Somehow, I
expected better from you. Ah, well... Life is full of these little
disappointments.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> Minnesota currently has approx. 650 children in their foster care system
> that have been cleared for adoption. How "benevolent" is a society that
> will embrace newborns but turn their backs on these adoptive children?
Agreed. It takes outstanding people to adopt older children
(and those with special needs).
However, my target in this discussion is a bill which will
direct my tax money to a purpose I find morally abhorrent.
For almost 30 years, the Hyde Amendment (prohibiting federal
funds for purposes that would end in the destruction of innocent
human life) has been a fair agreement between the two sides.
A woman can obtain an abortion for virtually any reason - but
must pay for it from private funds - instead of causing a
crisis of conscience for a majority of American taxpayers.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> European countries have legal abortion, but they have far fewer women
> that use it because they *also* have free & easy access to birth
> control
Um ... it is true that prescriptions for chemical birth
control and surgical sterilization is commonly provided
in Europe as part of their health plans - but they have
a bigger problem than that: a birth rate that has been
below the replacement rate for years. Their populations
are in decline. Since their standard of living (including
medical care) is at least as good as ours, it is more
likely that their problem with this is cultural (greed?
self-centerdness?) rather than physiological.
> (and perhaps less patriarchal morons trying to control their
> bodies)
The only bodies that morons are trying to control are those
of innocent, unborn babies.
From the moment of conception, DNA can scientifically prove
without doubt that the fetus is demonstrably:
- a human being.
- an individual human being different from both the father
AND mother of the child.
These two facts alone totally destroy any fantasies that the
fetus is 'just some unwanted portion of the mother's body' that
can be destroyed at her will alone.
Murder: the unjustified killing of an innocent human being.
> lee <not for abortion, but not going to deny anyone their own choice
> either>
Like my choice NOT to pay for the destruction of any innocent?
AL
> AL wrote:
> <...>
>> Before you counter with abortion to save the mother's life, I have always,
>> in these exchanges, take the position that terminating a pregnancy to save
>> the mother's life is morally acceptable. I've also taken the somewhat less
>> tenable position that a pregnancy from rape or incest should be allowed
>> similar consideration. BUT, when mama jus wanna get laid and baby happens
>> - it should go full term, no exceptions.
> You're not a good predictor of how I'm going to reply; I had no intention
> of making that argument. Abortion to save the life of the mother is a gray
> area.
No one is morally *required* to die for someone else. If you and someone
else are in a struggle for your lives, say, drowning in a body of water,
and the other person is causing you to drown, you have the right to
defend yourself even though it means certain death for them. You have
the instinct and moral right of self preservation. Same with a pregnancy
that is killing the mother - she has the right of self preservation. She
likely also has the instinct of a mother, which makes for an
unbelievably difficult decision.
> But I don't understand how anyone who claims to oppose abortion can
> make exceptions for rape and incest. Are those potential lives any less
> "innocent" and worthy of preserving?
And that's exactly why I understand it is a less tenable position, but I
accept this very narrowly defined exception from the standpoint of
exonerating the victim of having to carry an undue burden of a criminal
act against her. But I also believe the body of evidence supporting the
rape abortion must be overwhelming and established by a legal decision,
not just a ploy to obtain an abortion after a reckless night of partying.
Incest, as it applies to this argument, looks no different to me than
rape. I haven't explored all the possible meanings of the word but my
interpretation would be the overpowering by a father, brother, etc., of
a weaker female, weaker by strength or mental capacity. To me that's
rape, a criminal behavior.
Whether this exception is morally right or not - I would not want to be
in the position to say. I would leave that to the victim of the crime to
decide, or possibly an adult guardian. But I don't believe the state has
the right to increase the suffering of a victim by criminalizing the
remedy of a rape pregnancy.
> Yes, rape/incest are traumatic
> events, but so are some other unintended pregnancies.
I was referring more to the criminal nature than the level of trauma
involved as the basis for my thinking. I am curious though, what other
*traumatic events* are you referring to that result in unintended
pregnancies?
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> The difference lies in the fact that the woman is exercising her right
> to remove a parasite from her body.
That 'parasite' is an innocent human being - NOT a part
of her body. (And since DNA mapping came into being,
absolutely provable.)
Since any such removal involves the death of that distinctly-
separate human being, she must resort to murder to accomplish
it.
My comment above is FACT; indisputably so.
All you have, is:
> My opinion - Don't bother to try to convert me, it ain't gonna happen:
No sweat. Just make sure that if they do pass this health
care power grab bill, it contains specific prohibitions
against using any government funds for the purpose.
As long as she pays to do so, she can have 13 abortions a year.
Jim
the statement you Dweezil have made here does wonders for
restoring the conversation to original intent. Good Job...
if the writers really wanted to pass their healthcare reforms without
causing delays they would not attempt to include controversial
objectionable items the american public has become so steadfastly
entrenched over. nor would they attempt to circumvent previously
agreed upon amendments.
Ann
From what I've read, the proposed Senate legislation *does* conform to
Hyde; the bill does not provide for federal funding of abortion. Stupak
(House bill) is more restrictive than Hyde. It would prohibit anyone who
gets a federal insurance subsidy from purchasing a policy that includes
abortion services -- even if they pay for that part of the coverage
themselves.
Ann
> Ann wrote:
<...>
>> Yes, rape/incest are traumatic
>> events, but so are some other unintended pregnancies.
>
> I was referring more to the criminal nature than the level of trauma
> involved as the basis for my thinking. I am curious though, what other
> *traumatic events* are you referring to that result in unintended
> pregnancies?
That's an interesting interpretation of what I wrote. What I was thinking
of was possible trauma stemming from the pregnancy. For example, a
married couple with three children who are just making it financially.
They both work but his job (and their health insurance) is not secure.
Ann
> Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>
>> Ann said...
>>
>> > Minnesota currently has approx. 650 children in their foster care
>> > system that have been cleared for adoption. How "benevolent" is a
>> > society that will embrace newborns but turn their backs on these
>> > adoptive children?
>>
>> Agreed. It takes outstanding people to adopt older children (and those
>> with special needs).
>>
>> However, my target in this discussion is a bill which will direct my tax
>> money to a purpose I find morally abhorrent.
>>
>> For almost 30 years, the Hyde Amendment (prohibiting federal funds for
>> purposes that would end in the destruction of innocent human life) has
>> been a fair agreement between the two sides. A woman can obtain an
>> abortion for virtually any reason - but must pay for it from private
>> funds - instead of causing a crisis of conscience for a majority of
>> American taxpayers.
>
> the statement you Dweezil have made here does wonders for restoring the
> conversation to original intent. Good Job...
Actually, it was him who went "off-topic" when he posted this:
"Our society as a whole takes a very benevolent path when it comes to the
health and welfare of innocent children - particularly those who are
'unwanted'. There are many organizations which will spring for
pregnancy care, labor, and delivery of an unwanted child - and will
place that kid with well-qualified, loving, adoptive parents shortly
after birth."
AL
I can't see that as trauma, that's stress from a financial crisis. You
are not proposing killing someone to save a buck or make a house
payment? It seems the current administration would support that proposal
and demand that I help pay for it. Since our current administration
would allow letting a full term, delivered but unwanted baby die,
perhaps the solution for the family you present would be to not only
kill the fetus, but one of its more costly siblings. After all, the only
difference between the dying delivered unwanted baby and it's sibling is
a short span of time.
FWIW
In the early 70's I was among those petitioning the government to allow
abortions as a matter of "a woman's right to choose". I stood by that
ideology for many years until I realized how insanely & brutally far
women were willing to go to be rid of the inconvenience of the human
life they helped to conceive. Had the 'procedure' remained as it was in
the early days, something legally limited to the 1st trimester, it would
likely have remained off the radar screen for most people even today.
But a 1st trimester termination was not good enough, it went to extremes
comparable to the behavior of WW2 Nazis. And now, to allow full term
delivered babies to die...the words to express my outrage don't exist.
Obviously human perversions will grow in whatever direction society
removes or reduces limits. And left to it's own devices, the government
is more than happy to finance these perversions with my money,
regardless of my objections.
You compare the financial stress of your sample family to trauma - what
about the trauma experienced by those of us who strenuously oppose being
forced to contribute to their "health care" abortion option?
As you've pointed out, I'm not so good at predicting your response, but
IF you were to show me where the abortion option has been removed from
the gov health care bill, I would not be impressed. As long as abortion
remains a legal and acceptable behavior, the liberals will fight
tirelessly to eventually include it in the health care program down the
road. But, I guess for now, its one battle at a time.
BTW - don't know about you, but I'm thinking we've ended up with a good
dialog?
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
> From what I've read, the proposed Senate legislation *does* conform to
> Hyde; the bill does not provide for federal funding of abortion. Stupak
> (House bill) is more restrictive than Hyde. It would prohibit anyone who
> gets a federal insurance subsidy from purchasing a policy that includes
> abortion services -- even if they pay for that part of the coverage
> themselves.
You make it sound like there are people who *plan*
on getting abortions.
--Tedward
Jim
> Jim wrote:
> > Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
[....]
> >>
> >> However, my target in this discussion is a bill which will direct my tax
> >> money to a purpose I find morally abhorrent.
> >>
> >> For almost 30 years, the Hyde Amendment (prohibiting federal funds for
> >> purposes that would end in the destruction of innocent human life) has
> >> been a fair agreement between the two sides. A woman can obtain an
> >> abortion for virtually any reason - but must pay for it from private
> >> funds - instead of causing a crisis of conscience for a majority of
> >> American taxpayers.
> >
> > the statement you Dweezil have made here does wonders for restoring the
> > conversation to original intent. Good Job...
>
> Actually, it was him who went "off-topic" when he posted this:
did I make an accusation wherein you felt accused?
[....]
Ann
> Ann wrote:
<...>
> BTW - don't know about you, but I'm thinking we've ended up with a good
> dialog?
Oops, I should break the habit of replying to a post as I read it. But,
yes that this is a good place to stop.
I just ran across this October CDC report that you might be interested in:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_04.pdf
Ann
Read again ... "a policy that *includes* abortion services" In my
experience, most people buy health and other insurance to insure against
costs of events that they hope will never happen. .
SpaceMonkeyGleep
Dweezil Dwarftosser <f4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> SpaceMonkeyGleep said...
>
> > The difference lies in the fact that the woman is exercising her right
> > to remove a parasite from her body.
>
> That 'parasite' is an innocent human being -
No, Dweezil, it's NOT a human being, innocent, guilty, or somewhere in
between. It's a parasitic blob of cells that could, should the woman
desire to support it, eventually become a human being. Until it can live
outside the uterus without heroic measures, it isn't human, so far as
I'm concerned. POTENTIAL human, certainly. BUt potential is not the same
thing as actuality.
> NOT a part of her body. (And since DNA mapping came into being,
> absolutely provable.)
Precisely - it is *NOT* part of her body - it is a parasite on (or more
accurately, in) her body and therefore, she is within her rights to
remove it, through whatever method is effective.
> Since any such removal involves the death of that distinctly-
> separate human being, she must resort to murder to accomplish
> it.
Except for the minor detail that to commit murder, one must kill a human
being. A blob of cells that could develop into a viable human is not the
same thing as a human being, no matter how you try to slice it.
> My comment above is FACT; indisputably so.
>
> All you have, is:
>
> > My opinion - Don't bother to try to convert me, it ain't gonna happen:
>
> No sweat. Just make sure that if they do pass this health
> care power grab bill, it contains specific prohibitions
> against using any government funds for the purpose.
Hell no, I won't make any such attempt or demand.
AL
[...]
> I just ran across this October CDC report that you might be interested in:
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_04.pdf
A good read and encouraging stats.
Now, if we can just prevent the government from throwing money at it and
continue the pro-life message, who knows how low those number might go?
AL
Tom Disque
"enigma" <eni...@evil.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CCB66357AE...@199.125.85.9...
> Ann <nntp...@afsetc.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2009.11.22....@afsetc.com:
[snip]
> i do wish the militant anti-abortion folks would put their lives
> where their mouths are & actually take in the unwanted kids, but i
> don't know any who have or would adopt.
[snip]
I wish the militant anti-death penalty folks would put their lives where
their mouths are and take murderers into their own homes, but that's
not gonna happen, either.
Tom Disque
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" <f4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.257273d92...@news2.flex.com...
> Elmo said...
>
>>
>> [ . . . ] I'm no baby murderer [...]
>
> Unfortunately, if the lunatic fringe lefties get their way
> in the power grab for control of the 17% of our GNP that
> health care represents, you may become one against your
> will. The current Senate bill permits your tax dollars
> to be used for the purpose, without your permission.
>
>> (nor am I a Democrat) but I
>> understand the reality of what happens to women and their other
>> children when an unwanted pregnancy occurs.
>
> Unwanted pregnancy is 100% preventable; all that woman has
> to do is keep her knees together, and say "No".
It's all up to the woman? The man has no responsibility?
Is that what you taught your daughter(s)?
> ( - insert rant about the average five children in America
> per year concieved during a forcible rape, here. )
>
>> If you're not going to pony up the money to support that
>> woman and all of her children through that pregnancy and
>> the rest of their lives then shut up.
If we save other victims of attempted murder, are we also
obligated to support those people as well?
> Sorry, but that is the responsibility of the father(s) and
> mother of those kids - not *anyone* else's. Like Berretta
> used to say: "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time".
>
> Our society as a whole takes a very benevolent path when it
> comes to the health and welfare of innocent children -
> particularly those who are 'unwanted'. There are many
> organizations which will spring for pregnancy care, labor,
> and delivery of an unwanted child - and will place that kid
> with well-qualified, loving, adoptive parents shortly after
> birth.
And there are *lots* of people out there wanting to adopt.
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
"Ann" <nntp...@afsetc.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11.24....@afsetc.com...
Read again... "even if they pay for that part of the coverage themselves."
In my experience, when you pay to insure something that is VERY SPECIFIC,
you expect that specific thing might happen.
--Tedward
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>> > The difference lies in the fact that the woman is exercising her right
>> > to remove a parasite from her body.
>>
>> That 'parasite' is an innocent human being -
>
> No, Dweezil, it's NOT a human being, innocent, guilty, or somewhere in
> between. It's a parasitic blob of cells that could, should the woman
> desire to support it, eventually become a human being. Until it can live
> outside the uterus without heroic measures, it isn't human, so far as
> I'm concerned.
So premature babies kept alive with heroic measures aren't human?
Do they not feel pain?
--Tedward
SpaceMonkeyGleep
Human, canine, feline, equine, bovine, other - NO distinction: If it
isn't viable without heroic measures, it is (or should be) a dead
whatever-it-might-have-eventually-become. Yes, I feel that preemies
should be allowed to live or die "under their own power" - Treat 'em
like a full-term infant in every way - *NORMAL CARE ONLY, NO HEROICS* -
and if it makes it, great. If not, oh well. Hold a funeral and try
again. It would only have been a burden - on its parents, on society, or
both - anyway.
> Do they not feel pain?
Assuming it does, give me a reason to care. And if it does, all the more
reason for it to be left to die, rather than being kept alive and
suffering.
Hint: To me, there is *NOTHING* sacred about life - The planet is lousy
with it, from the bottom of the deepest ocean trench (and beyond... Just
recently read a piece that makes it sound like they've found bacteria
living in solid rock at some ridiculous depth) to the top of the highest
mountain, and out into the fringes of space. Life is cheap. Whether one
entity amongst all the teeming quadrillions (or more - I'm just taking a
wild guess at what the actual number of individual living organisms on
the planet might be - I suspect I'm guessing *WAY* low) living things
there currently are lives or dies is totally devoid of any meaning
whatsoever to anything other than that particular entity and/or entities
that might be interested in eating the dead carcass.
Ann
>
> "Ann" <nntp...@afsetc.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.11.24....@afsetc.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:49:53 -0500, The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Ann" <nntp...@afsetc.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> From what I've read, the proposed Senate legislation *does* conform to
>>>> Hyde; the bill does not provide for federal funding of abortion.
>>>> Stupak (House bill) is more restrictive than Hyde. It would prohibit
>>>> anyone who gets a federal insurance subsidy from purchasing a policy
>>>> that includes abortion services -- even if they pay for that part of
>>>> the coverage themselves.
>>>
>>> You make it sound like there are people who *plan* on getting
>>> abortions.
>>>
>>> --Tedward
>>
>> Read again ... "a policy that *includes* abortion services" In my
>> experience, most people buy health and other insurance to insure against
>> costs of events that they hope will never happen. .
>
> Read again... "even if they pay for that part of the coverage themselves."
You're attempting to make it appear that women are buying separate
abortion policies. When in fact, with something like a Blue Cross group
health policy, it is a bundled service. Allegedly, until someone blew the
whistle, the group health insurance package the RNC provided to its
employees covered elective abortion.
> In my experience, when you pay to insure something that is VERY
> SPECIFIC, you expect that specific thing might happen.
So, you're saying that people who have a rider for, say, a piece of
jewelry on their homeowner policy are *expecting* to be burglarized?
Smells like potential insurance fraud to me.
> --Tedward
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>>>>> From what I've read, the proposed Senate legislation *does* conform to
>>>>> Hyde; the bill does not provide for federal funding of abortion.
>>>>> Stupak (House bill) is more restrictive than Hyde. It would prohibit
>>>>> anyone who gets a federal insurance subsidy from purchasing a policy
>>>>> that includes abortion services -- even if they pay for that part of
>>>>> the coverage themselves.
>>>>
>>>> You make it sound like there are people who *plan* on getting
>>>> abortions.
>>>>
>>>> --Tedward
>>>
>>> Read again ... "a policy that *includes* abortion services" In my
>>> experience, most people buy health and other insurance to insure against
>>> costs of events that they hope will never happen. .
>>
>> Read again... "even if they pay for that part of the coverage
>> themselves."
>
> You're attempting to make it appear that women are buying separate
> abortion policies.
No, just pointing out that you make it sound like there are
people who *plan* on getting abortions. Not that they are
literally planning to do so, just that a seperate rider to
cover abortion sounds odd.
>When in fact, with something like a Blue Cross group
> health policy, it is a bundled service. Allegedly, until someone blew the
> whistle, the group health insurance package the RNC provided to its
> employees covered elective abortion.
"...even if they pay for that part of the coverage themselves."
>> In my experience, when you pay to insure something that is VERY
>> SPECIFIC, you expect that specific thing might happen.
>
> So, you're saying that people who have a rider for, say, a piece of
> jewelry on their homeowner policy are *expecting* to be burglarized?
> Smells like potential insurance fraud to me.
They consider it likely enough to bother insuring the item.
(Whether or not they get robbed is somewhat out of their
control.)
--Tedward
Ann
> "Ann" <nntp...@afsetc.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> From what I've read, the proposed Senate legislation *does* conform
>>>>>> to Hyde; the bill does not provide for federal funding of abortion.
>>>>>> Stupak (House bill) is more restrictive than Hyde. It would
>>>>>> prohibit anyone who gets a federal insurance subsidy from purchasing
>>>>>> a policy that includes abortion services -- even if they pay for
>>>>>> that part of the coverage themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> You make it sound like there are people who *plan* on getting
>>>>> abortions.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Tedward
>>>>
>>>> Read again ... "a policy that *includes* abortion services" In my
>>>> experience, most people buy health and other insurance to insure
>>>> against costs of events that they hope will never happen. .
>>>
>>> Read again... "even if they pay for that part of the coverage
>>> themselves."
>>
>> You're attempting to make it appear that women are buying separate
>> abortion policies.
>
> No, just pointing out that you make it sound like there are people who
> *plan* on getting abortions.
And I promptly corrected your misunderstanding of what I wrote. (Or at
least I thought I did.)
> Not that they are literally planning to do
> so, just that a seperate rider to cover abortion sounds odd.
What separate rider?
>> When in fact, with something like a Blue Cross group
>> health policy, it is a bundled service. Allegedly, until someone blew
>> the whistle, the group health insurance package the RNC provided to its
>> employees covered elective abortion.
>
> "...even if they pay for that part of the coverage themselves."
Not clear why you posted that again, but here is an example that might
clarify it. A married couple with two boys are not covered by
employer health insurance. They do qualify for a government subsidy
that would cover approx. half the cost of an exchange's basic family group
policy. Of the two policies offered, only one fits their needs/budget
But, unfortunately for them, the policy includes elective abortion. (Which
they would never use because the mother had a medically indicated tubal
ligation after her second delivery.) Under Stupak, because they were
receiving a federal subsidy, they would be prohibited from enrolling in
the plan they selected.
>>> In my experience, when you pay to insure something that is VERY
>>> SPECIFIC, you expect that specific thing might happen.
>>
>> So, you're saying that people who have a rider for, say, a piece of
>> jewelry on their homeowner policy are *expecting* to be burglarized?
>> Smells like potential insurance fraud to me.
>
> They consider it likely enough to bother insuring the item. (Whether or
> not they get robbed is somewhat out of their control.)
Well, we do seeming to be getting somewhere on this. You've gone from
"expecting" to "likely enough". <g> But imo "unlikely, bur not
impossible" is a better description.
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> Not clear why you posted that again, but here is an example that might
> clarify it. A married couple with two boys are not covered by
> employer health insurance. They do qualify for a government subsidy
> that would cover approx. half the cost of an exchange's basic family group
> policy. Of the two policies offered, only one fits their needs/budget
The way I understand the schemes of the various bills so far, the
services that can be offered by qualifying private insurance plans
are standardized to match (and definitely never exceed the government
plan in services). Insurance companies can, of course, still offer
separate gold-plated *additional coverage* policies unrelated to the
basic "government-qualified" plans, at a significant premium (and
likely to be heavily taxed).
> But, unfortunately for them, the policy includes elective abortion.
Under the bills being considered, I don't think that is possible -
unless every qualifying plan (private or government) included the
exact same services.
The Stupak amendment(s) simply ensures that no basic government
plan (and the identical-services qualifying private plans, whether
subsidized or not) include abortion services.
Abortions would have to be paid out-of-pocket, by charitable third
parties, or by the purchase of 'abortion insurance' that is
unrelated in any way to one's healthcare coverage.
That way, there can be no hiding of abortion federal funding inside
any government-subsidized plan. ("You'll have to pay for that
abortion, yourself ... but we will increase your subsidy by the
same $250 you pay to the Abortuary...").
Ann
> Ann said...
>
>> Not clear why you posted that again, but here is an example that might
>> clarify it. A married couple with two boys are not covered by employer
>> health insurance. They do qualify for a government subsidy that would
>> cover approx. half the cost of an exchange's basic family group policy.
>> Of the two policies offered, only one fits their needs/budget
The remainder of the above paragraph was:
"But, unfortunately for them, the policy includes elective abortion.
(Which they would never use because the mother had a medically indicated
tubal ligation after her second delivery.) Under Stupak, because they
were receiving a federal subsidy, they would be prohibited from enrolling
in the plan they selected."
That is consistent with the Stupak Amendment (rev 8) to the House bill,
"1 SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.
2 (a) IN GENERAL.-No funds authorized or approp-
3 riated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)
4 may be used to pay for any abortion or to Cover any part
5 of the costs· of any health plan that includes coverage of
6 abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers·from
7 a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that
1 would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in dan-
2 ger of death unless an abortion is performed, including
3 a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising
4 from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the
5 result of an act of rape or incest."
(Apology for the blank lines but otherwise the news client would have
wrapped the text.)
=======
Ken Denny
> or unless the pregnancy is the
>
> 5 result of an act of rape or incest."
Why the exception for rape or incest? If abortion is murder it is
murder. Period. If it's about the sanctity of human life, why is the
life of a child conceived by rape any less valuable than one conceived
concentually? What about concentual incest? Why is that baby's life
expendable?
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
"Ann" <nntp...@afsetc.com> wrote
Look, if you don't think paying for specific abortion coverage is
weird, so be it.
--Tedward
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
> or unless the pregnancy is the
>
> 5 result of an act of rape or incest."
<
<Why the exception for rape or incest? If abortion is murder it is
<murder. Period.
You almost have a good point, but the bill is not about outlawing
or justifying abortion. It's just about the *funding* of it.
--Tedward
Ann
My understanding of an insurance rider is that it's in addition to the
primary bundle of coverage, not "part of" it.
> Look, if you don't think paying for specific abortion coverage is weird,
> so be it.
That was your interpretation of what I wrote, not my intended meaning.
>
> --Tedward
Dweezil Dwarftosser
Ann said...
> Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>
> > Ann said...
> >
> >> Not clear why you posted that again, but here is an example that might
> >> clarify it. A married couple with two boys are not covered by employer
> >> health insurance. They do qualify for a government subsidy that would
> >> cover approx. half the cost of an exchange's basic family group policy.
> >> Of the two policies offered, only one fits their needs/budget
> >>> The way I understand the schemes of the various bills so far, the
> >>> services that can be offered by qualifying private insurance plans
> >>> are standardized to match (and definitely never exceed the government
> >>> plan in services). Insurance companies can, of course, still offer
> >>> separate gold-plated *additional coverage* policies unrelated to the
> >>> basic "government-qualified" plans, at a significant premium (and
> >>> likely to be heavily taxed).
> But, unfortunately for them, the policy includes elective abortion.
> >>> Under the bills being considered, I don't think that is possible -
> >>> unless every qualifying plan (private or government) included the
> >>> exact same services.
> The remainder of the above paragraph was:
>
> "But, unfortunately for them, the policy includes elective abortion.
> (Which they would never use because the mother had a medically indicated
> tubal ligation after her second delivery.) Under Stupak, because they
> were receiving a federal subsidy, they would be prohibited from enrolling
> in the plan they selected."
Yes, that is what you wrote on the subject - but it presented a
hypothetical impossibility under the bills currently being
considered. I excluded it because your hypothetical argument
was/is invalid.
Once again: under Obamacare, all qualifying private health
insurance plans must exactly match the government plan in
services offered to the consumer. A person could indeed buy
a separate policy (or generous employers could provide one)
that covered purely elective procedures such as breast
augmentation, abortion, teeth-whitening, unnaturally-colored
contact lenses, or hair plugs. Under the bills, such policies
would incur a heavy tax penalty, but it would be your right to
purchase one *with non-government funds*.
The Stupak amendment(s) simply ensures that no basic government
plan (and the identical-services qualifying private plans, whether
subsidized or not) include abortion services.
Abortions would have to be paid out-of-pocket, by charitable third
parties, or by the purchase of 'abortion insurance' that is
unrelated in any way to one's healthcare coverage.
That way, there can be no hiding of abortion federal funding inside
any government-subsidized plan. ("You'll have to pay for that
abortion, yourself ... but we will increase your subsidy by the
same $250 you pay to the Abortuary...").
>
> That is consistent with the Stupak Amendment (rev 8) to the House bill,
An invalid scenario (i.e. - a *qualifying* commercial health
plan that includes elective procedures) can neither be
consistent nor inconsistent with the Stupak-style amendment
- since the remainder of both the House and Senate bills
seek to absolutely eliminate 'perks' in private plans that
are not present in the so-called 'public' plan.
> "1 SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.
> 2 (a) IN GENERAL.-No funds authorized or approp-
> 3 riated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)
> 4 may be used to pay for any abortion or to Cover any part
> 5 of the costs· of any health plan that includes coverage of
> 6 abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers·from
> 7 a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that
> 1 would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in dan-
> 2 ger of death unless an abortion is performed, including
> 3 a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising
> 4 from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the
> 5 result of an act of rape or incest."
> (Apology for the blank lines but otherwise the news client would have
> wrapped the text.)
Isn't it simpler to just delete the blank lines, as I have done
above ?
BTW - Stupak is still morally insufficient, because it permits
abortion for pregnancies arising out of rape or incest.
(Personal note: my heart agrees with its sentiments for the
abused mother in these two cases - but logic does not allow
an even greater crime than rape or incest: killing an innocent
human being for sins of the father. In fact, such multi-
generational punishments are expressly prohibited in the
Constitution.)
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> On Nov 24, 9:29 pm, Ann <nntpm...@afsetc.com> wrote:
> > or unless the pregnancy is the
> >
> > 5 result of an act of rape or incest."
>
> Why the exception for rape or incest? If abortion is murder it is
> murder. Period.
Agreed.
> If it's about the sanctity of human life, why is the life of a
> child conceived by rape any less valuable than one conceived
> concentually? What about concentual incest? Why is that baby's
> life expendable?
Simple: it isn't; the concept is purely a rationalization effort
of the left (and surprisingly, much of the 'evangelical' right).
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
I don't see how that can pay for that part of the coverage
if it is part of the primary bundle.
>> Look, if you don't think paying for specific abortion coverage is weird,
>> so be it.
>
> That was your interpretation of what I wrote, not my intended meaning.
Yeah, it did sound the way I thought.
--Tedward
AL
Nothing tastes better than a nice juicy rationalization...
You are right, that is a rationalization, it is not a simple or easy
rationalization, but one that stems from compassion for the victim of a
violent crime. Its only a legal allowance to be ultimately decided by
the victim, according to their moral compass. Maybe it would be better
to remove rape as a violent crime altogether, then the rape abortion
issue would be put to rest. C'mon, people get beat up all the time and
the assailant may get 30days or more likely a suspended sentence, no big
deal - no reason why rape should have any special standing in the legal
system. So a resulting pregnancy would pretty much be a misdemeanor -
'sides,da bitch was prolly axin' for it...
The legal twist I find interesting is that a woman can casually choose
abortion for "birth control", but if she were murdered before she could
abort, the assailant would be charged with a double murder -howz 'at
work? If abortion is not murder how can there be a double murder, if it
is a double murder how can abortion NOT be murder. Talk about a juicy
rationalization!
Ann
Iirc one proposal was that the money the federal government paid in
(including subsidies) and what the policy holders paid in would be kept
separate (on the books). Claims for elective abortions (other than life
of the mother, incest, and rape) would be paid only out of the
policyholder funds. Same sort or separation as when the federal government
pays a faith-based organization to operate a public program.
Jim
>
their choice is theirs and as such they should financially fund their choices.
Ann
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:06:37 -0500, Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>> Ann said...
>>
>>> Not clear why you posted that again, but here is an example that might
>>> clarify it. A married couple with two boys are not covered by employer
>>> health insurance. They do qualify for a government subsidy that would
>>> cover approx. half the cost of an exchange's basic family group policy.
>>> Of the two policies offered, only one fits their needs/budget
>
> The remainder of the above paragraph was:
>
> "But, unfortunately for them, the policy includes elective abortion.
> (Which they would never use because the mother had a medically indicated
> tubal ligation after her second delivery.) Under Stupak, because they
> were receiving a federal subsidy, they would be prohibited from enrolling
> in the plan they selected."
>
> That is consistent with the Stupak Amendment (rev 8) to the House bill,
The example is apparently incorrect, at least so far as the passed House
bill is concerned. There is also language that (paraphrased) requires any
company offering a policy in the exchange that bundles elective abortion
coverage (in addition to mother's life/rape/incest) to also offer an
otherwise identical policy that covers only those allowed elective
abortions.
So, the family in my example *could* buy the policy they wanted. Now if
they had two girls instead and wanted abortion coverage, I don't know how
that would go. There is no reverse requirement; a company may offer
only a single policy, one that excludes non-allowed elective abortion.
But if "rape" is defined in the bill to include statutory rape, then the
girls would be covered.
I discovered my error when I was looking up Stupak abortion riders and
single-service policies. The idea is apparently borrowed from the five
states that have laws preventing insurance companies from offering
policies that bundle (some) elective abortions. As far as I can find,
while allowed, no such rider policies actually exist. (Perhaps, one
company has applied to offer a policy in Oklahoma.)
> "1 SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.
<...>
enigma
news:heh5pc$pen$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu:
> In my experience, when you pay to insure something that is VERY
> SPECIFIC, you expect that specific thing might happen.
seriously? you buy fire insurance because you *expect* your house
will burn down? i bought insurance so that *if* my house burns down
i'm not stuck paying mortgage on an empty lot... i have full
replacement value. i also have *specific* riders covering certain
antiques & collectables & specific insurance on each of my livestock,
again, not because i *expect* anything, but because it's going to
allow me to replace things if i have a need.
many women currently have health insurance that covers pregnancy,
even unmarried women, and *that* doesn't mean they intend to ever
become pregnant. you are tossing herrings.
lee
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>> In my experience, when you pay to insure something that is VERY
>> SPECIFIC, you expect that specific thing might happen.
>
> seriously? you buy fire insurance because you *expect* your house
> will burn down?
You idiot. You should have bought a generalize homeowner's policy
instead that covers more than fire. And yes, people buy flood
insurance because they live in an area that expects to get flooded
every so often.
--Tedward
enigma
$2s0$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu:
reading comprehension is over your head? i have farm insurance, with
specific riders for antiques, collectables & my livestock. farm
insurance includes fire coverage on both house & outbuildings, but i
never expect to have one.
i also don't expect my livestock to get hit by lightening or carried
off in a tornado, and yet i have coverage...
lee
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>>>> In my experience, when you pay to insure something that is VERY
>>>> SPECIFIC, you expect that specific thing might happen.
>>>
>>> seriously? you buy fire insurance because you *expect* your house
>>> will burn down?
>>
>> You idiot. You should have bought a generalize homeowner's policy
>> instead that covers more than fire. And yes, people buy flood
>> insurance because they live in an area that expects to get flooded
>> every so often.
>
> reading comprehension is over your head? i have farm insurance,
So you lied about having specific fire insurance. Check!
--Tedward
enigma
no, i did not. i am not responsible for your misinterpretation of
what i said. that onus lies on you, dear. your lack of reading
comprehension hardly makes me a liar.
to make it simple for your little mind though, not a lot of folks
call it "homeowner's insurance" even though that is what it actually
is. it's far more often referred to as "fire insurance" even though
it covers theft & accidents as well. flood insurance is something one
tends to need to purchase as a seperate thing, or a rider, *because*
floods happen in the area one lives. regular insurance was loosing
too much money paying out over idjits building in flood zones, so
they stopped selling flood insurance without charging more for it.
insurance agents are always trying to sell me flood insurance, but i
don't need it where i live. i seriously do not think water will rise
over 300' to reach my house unless there's a flood of biblical
proportions (& if i recall correctly, god said he wasn't going to do
that again).
lee
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
The fact remains that health and homeowners policies are
general insurance, and adding specific riders for floods
or abortion insurand make it sound like you expect to get
pregnant or flooded.
I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp.
--Tedward
enigma
> The fact remains that health and homeowners policies are
> general insurance, and adding specific riders for floods
> or abortion insurand make it sound like you expect to get
> pregnant or flooded.
>
> I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp.
good. than don't make any female medical treatment a special rider &
everyone can just stop fussing over nothing then.
lee <in a perfect world there would not be a need for abortion, but
since we don't have that by a long shot, just suck it up & deal>
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
>"The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@eio.com> wrote in
>news:hfjjpm$v8u$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu:
>
>> The fact remains that health and homeowners policies are
>> general insurance, and adding specific riders for floods
>> or abortion insurand make it sound like you expect to get
>> pregnant or flooded.
Having fire insurance makes it sound like WHAT, then ?
>>
>> I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp.
>
> good. than don't make any female medical treatment a special rider &
>everyone can just stop fussing over nothing then.
>lee <in a perfect world there would not be a need for abortion, but
>since we don't have that by a long shot, just suck it up & deal>
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>>> The fact remains that health and homeowners policies are
>>> general insurance, and adding specific riders for floods
>>> or abortion insurand make it sound like you expect to get
>>> pregnant or flooded.
>
> Having fire insurance makes it sound like WHAT, then ?
If you only bought fire insurance for your house, I don't think
that's real smrat. I don't think my mortgage company would
have let me do that. It's like only buying fire insurance for
your car.
Did you buy brain tumor insurance too?
One clear difference between most types of insurance and health
insurance is that folks want health insurance to cover virtually
*everything*, instead of just catastrophic or major things. We
don't expect insurance to pay for new light bulbs or oil changes.
--Tedward
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
<e...@eio.com> wrote:
><.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote
>
>>>> The fact remains that health and homeowners policies are
>>>> general insurance, and adding specific riders for floods
>>>> or abortion insurand make it sound like you expect to get
>>>> pregnant or flooded.
>>
>> Having fire insurance makes it sound like WHAT, then ?
>
>If you only bought fire insurance for your house, I don't think
>that's real smrat. I don't think my mortgage company would
>have let me do that. It's like only buying fire insurance for
>your car.
>
>Did you buy brain tumor insurance too?
No - if anything happnes to my brain tumor, I'll just grow
another one :-)
>
>One clear difference between most types of insurance and health
>insurance is that folks want health insurance to cover virtually
>*everything*, instead of just catastrophic or major things. We
>don't expect insurance to pay for new light bulbs or oil changes.
>
>--Tedward
>
--
enigma
$n4u$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu:
> One clear difference between most types of insurance and health
> insurance is that folks want health insurance to cover virtually
> *everything*, instead of just catastrophic or major things. We
> don't expect insurance to pay for new light bulbs or oil changes.
personally, i'd like to be able to get *any* health insurance, but i
can't. i don't work for a company. originally i couldn't get health
insurance because it was stupid expensive, had high deductables and
copays & a low lifetime cap. then i got cancer & now i'm uninsurable
at all. <shrug>
by the time the congress critters get done, there won't be any
reform anyway.
lee