Pete Degraaf is one of those people.

As well as pretty much everyone in the comments section.

European1919 wrote:Only in third world countries like the USA which are ruled by witch doctors and religious nuts. Come to civilised Europe - you'll love it.

Found in the comment section. Pure gold

Terje-Tubby wrote:

European1919 wrote:Only in third world countries like the USA which are ruled by witch doctors and religious nuts. Come to civilised Europe - you'll love it.

Found in the comment section. Pure gold

Also, any chance of a copy and post of the article?

dogma wrote:Pete Degraaf is one of those people.

Because , I can't be held responsible for my own mistakes and be expected to pay for elective procedures!

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Pete Degraaf is one of those people.

Because , I can't be held responsible for my own mistakes and be expected to pay for elective procedures!

Yeah, because someone raping a women is her own mistake.

Define mistakes.

Contraception isn't foolproof you know. Jubber Ronnies can split, the Pill can fail to it's work.

But of course, the thoughts of those who don't want Abortion totally hold more weight than those who want the choice.

To be perfectly honest, rather than pro or anti abortion, I simply believe in a person's right to choose. And if you criminalise the procedure, or deliberately restrict it, it will still go on. Bottle of Gin and a Coat Hanger anyone?

Mr Mystery wrote:Define mistakes.

Contraception isn't foolproof you know. Jubber Ronnies can split, the Pill can fail to it's work.

But of course, the thoughts of those who don't want Abortion totally hold more weight than those who want the choice.

To be perfectly honest, rather than pro or anti abortion, I simply believe in a person's right to choose. And if you criminalise the procedure, or deliberately restrict it, it will still go on. Bottle of Gin and a Coat Hanger anyone?

+1

Mr Mystery wrote:Define mistakes.

You're right, I shouldn't have said "mistake." I should have said "consequences."

Mr Mystery wrote:Contraception isn't foolproof you know. Jubber Ronnies can split, the Pill can fail to it's work.

Right. Getting pregnant is a consequence of having sex. This has been a well known and established fact for at least the past few million years.

Mr Mystery wrote:But of course, the thoughts of those who don't want Abortion totally hold more weight than those who want the choice.

The "right to choose" is irrelevant here. The question is: who has to pay for it. I don't have any risk of getting pregnant, so why should I pay for insurance services that offer to cover the procedure? Let those who bear the risk of a procedure bear the cost.

...I'm intentionally avoiding the discussion regarding the legality of abortion.

Mr Mystery wrote:Define mistakes.

Contraception isn't foolproof you know. Jubber Ronnies can split, the Pill can fail to it's work.

But of course, the thoughts of those who don't want Abortion totally hold more weight than those who want the choice.

To be perfectly honest, rather than pro or anti abortion, I simply believe in a person's right to choose. And if you criminalise the procedure, or deliberately restrict it, it will still go on. Bottle of Gin and a Coat Hanger anyone?

Edited.

Cheesecat wrote:

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Pete Degraaf is one of those people.

Because , I can't be held responsible for my own mistakes and be expected to pay for elective procedures!

Yeah, because someone raping a women is her own mistake.

Whoa there, Milque-dawg. That's not what biccat is suggesting at all. There's a lot more going on here than rape-victims getting pregnant. I daresay that specific scenario represents very, very little of the larger phenomenon (of course that's pure opinion). But honestly there is no need to jump up the conversation to blood-boiling.

In that vein, biccat would you please extrapolate on your point?

Manchu wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Pete Degraaf is one of those people.

Because , I can't be held responsible for my own mistakes and be expected to pay for elective procedures!

Yeah, because someone raping a women is her own mistake.

Whoa there, Milque-dawg. That's not what biccat is suggesting at all. There's a lot more going on here than rape-victims getting pregnant. I daresay that specific scenario represents very, very little of the larger phenomenon (of course that's pure opinion). But honestly there is no need to jump up the conversation to blood-boiling.

In that vein, biccat would you please extrapolate on your point?

Yeah, it was vague and I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction plus I feel I might have misread. I just have little respect for people who try to make abortion harder than it already was.

Manchu wrote:In that vein, biccat would you please extrapolate on your point?

Having sex entails the risk of getting pregnant. If you intend to use abortion as a "last ditch" birth control method (as grotesque as that is), you should bear the expense.

The new law requires that insurance providers require a separate rider for abortion coverage, it can't be part of a "standard package." See page 8.

The problem, of course, is measuring a person's intent after the fact.

Manchu wrote:The problem, of course, is measuring a person's intent after the fact.

It's not even a concern.

Want an abortion?

1) Pay for it yourself.
2) Obtain charity.
3) Buy insurance ahead of time.

Why should I, as an insurance consumer, be required to pay for coverage that I don't need, don't want, and have a moral objection to?

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:The problem, of course, is measuring a person's intent after the fact.

It's not even a concern.

Want an abortion?

1) Pay for it yourself.
2) Obtain charity.
3) Buy insurance ahead of time.

Why should I, as an insurance consumer, be required to pay for coverage that I don't need, don't want, and have a moral objection to?

Because you would have to pay more if that pregnancy came to term and the child had to be raised on benefits...

biccat wrote:Why should I, as an insurance consumer, be required to pay for coverage that I don't need, don't want, and have a moral objection to?

Do your premiums also cover drink drivers who crash into trees and need treatment?

@biccat:

Yep, the way insurance works is that you pay for things that other people might do/suffer in exchange for them paying for things that you might do/suffer.

Also, I don't think your idea about taxes is very realistic. Taxes are levied and paid with a view to the commonweal not to individual benefits. Your point reminds me of people who don't want to pay for public schools because they themselves don't have children or don't want to pay for roads because they themselves do not have cars.

SilverMK2 wrote:

biccat wrote:Why should I, as an insurance consumer, be required to pay for coverage that I don't need, don't want, and have a moral objection to?

Do your premiums also cover drink drivers who crash into trees and need treatment?

Are you asking if my premiums cover injuries that might be due to auto accidents? Because yes, they do. People who drive drunk and crash into trees don't require different treatment than those in the ordinary course of business.

And while I do not drink and drive, I may be a victim of a drunk driver or other auto accident, so I think this is good coverage to have.

Manchu wrote:Yep, the way insurance works is that you pay for things that other people might do/suffer in exchange for them paying for things that you might do/suffer.

You calculate your risk of needing treatment and pay a percentage of that treatment based on your risk. Which is exactly what the bill in question proposes to do: allow people who want to pay for abortion coverage to do so while allowing those who do not want abortion coverage to refuse to pay for it.

Manchu wrote:Also, I don't think your idea about taxes is very realistic. Taxes are levied and paid with a view to the commonweal not to individual benefits. Your point reminds me of people who don't want to pay for public schools because they themselves don't have children or don't want to pay for roads because they themselves do not have cars.

Your point is irrelevant to this discussion. I never raised the issue of taxes. If you're going to respond to something I haven't written, please provide a quote box including what you want me to say so that I at least have context to respond.

Sorry, I thought the issue was (indirectly) publicly funding abortions.

Deleted by Manchu.

Aww, I don't; have a blame the victim image meme saved on my computer. Sad panda :(

biccat wrote:
Because , I can't be held responsible for my own mistakes and be expected to pay for elective procedures!

Wait, I'm confused. I said he was bad at politics because what he said is easily interpreted as being objectionable, and should have been obviously so prior to the statement being made. He compared being raped to getting a flat tire, I suppose both require penetration, but one is of the corpus and the other is of, hopefully vulcanized, rubber or a behaviorally similar composite. He could very easily have responded with more tact. For example, "I don't feel as though people who purchase insurance should be forced to support something they feel is morally questionable." which also the message Kansas lawmakers have been promulgating for the last year.

On to your, entirely separate and vaguely offensive, point: this is a law which mandates that insurance companies separate coverage for abortions from ordinary insurance. This is something insurance companies offer of their own free will, and I'm more than a little shocked (that's a lie, by the way) that you, the paragon of market solutions, would find this law meritorious. Its very inconsistent with your previously expressed opinions.

biccat wrote:
Why should I, as an insurance consumer, be required to pay for coverage that I don't need, don't want, and have a moral objection to?

Why should you, as an insurance consumer, have any say over what sort of insurance that insurance companies are allowed to offer?

dogma wrote:Wait, I'm confused. I said he was bad at politics because what he said is easily interpreted as being objectionable, and should have been obviously so prior to the statement being made.

You did? Hold on, let me go back and check and then I'll happily edit my post...

Oh wait, no, you didn't. You just said he was bad at politics.

dogma wrote:He compared being raped to getting a flat tire

No he didn't, and you're misinterpreting both his comments and those of the article you linked. If you've got something else to share, please do.

dogma wrote:On to your, entirely separate and vaguely offensive, point:

It's offensive to require people to pay for products or services they consume? You're going to have a hell of a time if you choose a career outside of academia.

dogma wrote:This is something insurance companies offer of their own free will, and I'm more than a little shocked (that's a lie, by the way) that you, the paragon of market solutions, would find this law meritorious. Its very inconsistent with your previously expressed opinions.

I'm not a libertarian, I'm a Conservative. There's a substantial difference. For example, I don't think that companies should be able to kill people.

Of course, the law is also a response to the new health care law that forces everyone to purchase insurance, but requires that health care exchanges segregate abortion coverage. It's possible that the bill in question is intended to level the playing field, requiring all health insurers to segregate abortion coverage so that the exchanges don't have a competitive advantage.

dogma wrote:Why should you, as an insurance consumer, have any say over what sort of insurance that insurance companies are allowed to offer?

Because I'm a consumer. If I don't want certain coverage, then I won't buy it. But if state law requires provision of abortion services, I don't have a choice in the matter.

Trithread duel? Intense.

biccat wrote:Because I'm a consumer. If I don't want certain coverage, then I won't buy it. But if state law requires provision of abortion services, I don't have a choice in the matter.

That has nothing to do with the proposed law. The law is basically forcing health insurance companies to have separate policies which cover abortion, and FORCING them to remove coverage for abortion from their standard policies.

This entire thing is basically just conservatives trying to gain the anti-abortion vote, damn the consequences for everything else, damn the average anti-abortion viewholder's complete and utter lack of comprehension of family planning programs.

corpsesarefun wrote:Trithread duel? Intense.

I was thinking the same thing...

biccat wrote:
You did? Hold on, let me go back and check and then I'll happily edit my post...

Oh wait, no, you didn't. You just said he was bad at politics.

Yes, I said he was bad at politics, and later explained why I said such a thing. Elaboration is a thing which people do.

Anyway, what do you think being bad at politics entails? Perhaps saying objectionable things?

Is "politically correct" not a phrase you're familiar with?

biccat wrote:
No he didn't, and you're misinterpreting both his comments and those of the article you linked. If you've got something else to share, please do.

Yes, he did. He didn't say "I'm comparing rape to getting a flat tire." but he did respond to a question about preparing for rape with a comment about preparing for a flat tire. This is a comparison, obviously so.

biccat wrote:
It's offensive to require people to pay for products or services they consume? You're going to have a hell of a time if you choose a career outside of academia.

They already do pay for the products they consume. Did you not read the article?

biccat wrote:
I'm not a libertarian, I'm a Conservative. There's a substantial difference. For example, I don't think that companies should be able to kill people.

I based that claim on your earlier advocacy of a "capitalistocracy", thank you for the clarification.

biccat wrote:
Of course, the law is also a response to the new health care law that forces everyone to purchase insurance, but requires that health care exchanges segregate abortion coverage. It's possible that the bill in question is intended to level the playing field, requiring all health insurers to segregate abortion coverage so that the exchanges don't have a competitive advantage.

Why shouldn't they? Or, rather, why wouldn't said insurers simply do so of their own accord?

Are you claiming that people can't decide what's best for them?

biccat wrote:
Because I'm a consumer. If I don't want certain coverage, then I won't buy it. But if state law requires provision of abortion services, I don't have a choice in the matter.

But state law doesn't require that.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:Because I'm a consumer. If I don't want certain coverage, then I won't buy it. But if state law requires provision of abortion services, I don't have a choice in the matter.

That has nothing to do with the proposed law. The law is basically forcing health insurance companies to have separate policies which cover abortion, and FORCING them to remove coverage for abortion from their standard policies.

This entire thing is basically just conservatives trying to gain the anti-abortion vote, damn the consequences for everything else, damn the average anti-abortion viewholder's complete and utter lack of comprehension of family planning programs.

Oh I so don't want to go here, but I doubt many insurance companies currently cover abortion services.

Frazzled wrote:
Oh I so don't want to go here, but I doubt many insurance companies currently cover abortion services.

According to the article 87% do. No citations, but they could probably be tracked down.

If insurance covers neonatal and childbirth expenses, why wouldn't they cover abortion expenses, from a purely business oriented perspective?

It would be vaguely similar to insurance cover physical therapy and extensive care to save a diabetics foot, but not cover amputation of it.

Children are shockingly expensive to a state. That the people pushing this are the same guys who want to cut any form of welfare makes it extra ironic.

Most American's don't have that kind of emergency savings, actually:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/24/news/economy/americans_lack_emergency_funds/index.htm

dogma wrote:Yes, I said he was bad at politics, and later explained why I said such a thing. Elaboration is a thing which people do.

Obviously you are living in a separate reality from me, because unless you're Laura Bassett, this post contains no elaboration.

Polonius wrote:Most American's don't have that kind of emergency savings, actually:

Most Americans are in debt for that matter. And with that, I'm gonna go play some terraria or something.

biccat wrote:
Obviously you are living in a separate reality from me, because unless you're Laura Bassett, this post contains no elaboration.

Do you not know what the word "later" means?

That explains most of your problems, if such basic English is beyond your grasp.

So biccat can't pay for an abortion with his insurance premiums, but hers could pay for his prostate checks/surgery(god forbid, example only!)?
seems uneven...


And you make it sound like the only reason for an abortion is for birth control. there are medical reasons for it, too.

alarmingrick wrote:So biccat can't pay for an abortion with his insurance premiums, but hers could pay for his prostate checks/surgery(god forbid, example only!)?
seems uneven...

And my insurance would cover breast exams, pap smears, and other women's health issues. But these aren't elective procedures like abortion, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

alarmingrick wrote:And you make it sound like the only reason for an abortion is for birth control. there are medical reasons for it, too.

Medical/health based abortions are not subject to the waiver. But nice try!

Are you taxed for child welfare in America?

corpsesarefun wrote:Trithread duel? Intense.

Quick, someone make another politics thread so we can make it four.

purplefood wrote:Are you taxed for child welfare in America?

Not directly, but yes, parents can receive child welfare (public money) to raise their kids.

biccat wrote:

purplefood wrote:Are you taxed for child welfare in America?

Not directly, but yes, parents can receive child welfare (public money) to raise their kids.

Raising a child (Wanted or unwanted) costs a lot more than an abortion. I disagree with using abortion as birth control That should be taught in schools) but if a family or whoever will be raising the child cannot support it then i feel that abortion isn't only cheaper for everyone else in the long run but also better for both the mother and father. That said they should both be informed of other options such as adoption.

purplefood wrote:

biccat wrote:

purplefood wrote:Are you taxed for child welfare in America?

Not directly, but yes, parents can receive child welfare (public money) to raise their kids.

Raising a child (Wanted or unwanted) costs a lot more than an abortion. I disagree with using abortion as birth control That should be taught in schools) but if a family or whoever will be raising the child cannot support it then i feel that abortion isn't only cheaper for everyone else in the long run but also better for both the mother and father. That said they should both be informed of other options such as adoption.

If you disagree with using abortion as birth control, then what reason is there for the procedure? Lets assume for the moment that we're not talking about cases to save the life of the mother or rape/incest, but the other 90% of cases.

While raising a child costs a lot of money (a fact that I'm well aware of), does paying for a child carry with it the right to determine whether the child shall be born or not? Basically, if the government is going to pay for the kid, why give the mother the decision to abort?

biccat wrote:

purplefood wrote:

biccat wrote:

purplefood wrote:Are you taxed for child welfare in America?

Not directly, but yes, parents can receive child welfare (public money) to raise their kids.

Raising a child (Wanted or unwanted) costs a lot more than an abortion. I disagree with using abortion as birth control That should be taught in schools) but if a family or whoever will be raising the child cannot support it then i feel that abortion isn't only cheaper for everyone else in the long run but also better for both the mother and father. That said they should both be informed of other options such as adoption.

If you disagree with using abortion as birth control, then what reason is there for the procedure? Lets assume for the moment that we're not talking about cases to save the life of the mother or rape/incest, but the other 90% of cases.

While raising a child costs a lot of money (a fact that I'm well aware of), does paying for a child carry with it the right to determine whether the child shall be born or not? Basically, if the government is going to pay for the kid, why give the mother the decision to abort?

Because the child will change the mother's life more than it will change the government.
Paying for the child does not give a person the right to decide whether it should be born or not but you were making the argument that it would cost you money "I don't have any risk of getting pregnant, so why should I pay for insurance services that offer to cover the procedure?" it would cost you even more if the child was born...

Mistakes can happen, birth control can fail and condoms can split, abortions shouldn't be the first thing people use as birth control but it should be used if a mother/family is incapable of raising the child due to financial or other problems.
At any rate i need to go to college right now...
Back in about 2 hours.

biccat wrote:Are you asking if my premiums cover injuries that might be due to auto accidents? Because yes, they do. People who drive drunk and crash into trees don't require different treatment than those in the ordinary course of business.

And while I do not drink and drive, I may be a victim of a drunk driver or other auto accident, so I think this is good coverage to have.

My question was more along the lines of "do your insurance payments go towards treating people who get injured doing stupid things (and even illegal things such as drink driving), or things that you do not agree with (such as drink driving)". If so, do you agree that such people should get treatment?

I am not sure how the system works in America, but I would imagine that some of your tax dollars go towards keeping prisoners healthy, on medical treatment etc. These people have commited crimes and yet they are cared for.

Why should people who have (for whatever reason) fallen pregnant with an unwanted child not be cared for by society/insurance if they want to have an abortion? Do you make criminals repay any medical expenses they incur whilst at His Presidents Pleasure?

I don't see a problem with a company offereing "no abortion covered" policies. I'd imagine the premiums will be higher, because they'll be paying for more childbirths (for more expensive than an abortion) but if people want to pay more for the privilege of not paying for abortions, i say good on them.

Prohibiting an insurance company to pay for a safe and legal medical procedure seems... wrong, somehow.

Of course, this law, like most abortion laws, aren't nearly as much about the sanctity of life as they are about punishing women that have sex.

If the insurance companies want to offer various planned parenthood options, including abortion, as part of their regular services, why shouldn't they?

Isn't that what, uhm... free market capitalists would agree with? I mean, far be it for I to be more right-wing than Biccat, but still...

SilverMK2 wrote:My question was more along the lines of "do your insurance payments go towards treating people who get injured doing stupid things (and even illegal things such as drink driving), or things that you do not agree with (such as drink driving)". If so, do you agree that such people should get treatment?

The problem with your argument is that it's not the treatment of injuries as a result of unpreferred activity that is the problem. I have a problem with people driving drunk, but I don't have a problem with people getting treatment for broken bones or other injuries that may be as a consequence to drunk driving. In contrast, I have no problem with people having sex, whether using a contraceptive or not. But I do have a problem with the intentional taking of a human life that is a consequence of that activity.

Insurance isn't based on the need for protection against an event (drunk driving insurance, speeding insurance, running red lights insurance), but instead protection against financial loss in paying for treatment.

SilverMK2 wrote:I am not sure how the system works in America, but I would imagine that some of your tax dollars go towards keeping prisoners healthy, on medical treatment etc. These people have commited crimes and yet they are cared for.

When a person commits a crime and is imprisoned there is a duty for the state to provide basic care, which may include medical expenses. However, this does not translate to a general duty for the government to care for everyone living under the protections of the government.

Besides, at least several states charge inmates a daily fee for the time they spend incarcerated. This fee (theoretically) offsets the expenses paid by the prison.

SilverMK2 wrote:Why should people who have (for whatever reason) fallen pregnant with an unwanted child not be cared for by society/insurance if they want to have an abortion? Do you make criminals repay any medical expenses they incur whilst at His Presidents Pleasure?

Women (well, 99.99999999% of them) don't "fall pregnant" for "whatever reason." Except in the case of rape (which I would be willing to make an exception for, distasteful as the procedure is), there are deliberate actions that lead to pregnancy. Everyone understands (or should) that contraceptives aren't 100% effective, and are therefore merely a means of reducing the risk of pregnancy, not eliminating the risk of pregnancy.

Consequence-free sex isn't a right. And a person's interest in consequence-free sex shouldn't overwhelm the interest of human life.

I've always loved how conservatives want the Gov. the hell out of their lives. yet it's okay to go into the lives of a Gay/Lesbian couple
to deny them happiness. or tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. Hypocrisy at it's finest!

biccat wrote:But I do have a problem with the intentional taking of a human life that is a consequence of that activity.

And here we have a point: What constitutes a "human life"? I gather you believe that human life starts at conception?

Women (well, 99.99999999% of them) don't "fall pregnant" for "whatever reason."

I used those terms to be as vague and general as possible to allow for all circumstances.

Except in the case of rape (which I would be willing to make an exception for, distasteful as the procedure is), there are deliberate actions that lead to pregnancy. Everyone understands (or should) that contraceptives aren't 100% effective, and are therefore merely a means of reducing the risk of pregnancy, not eliminating the risk of pregnancy.

However, pregnancy is not the desired goal of the vast majority of sexual activity. If a person were to become pregnant through a split condom/forgetting a pill/antibiotics making the pill not work/etc, one would not expect them to then "live with the consequences", in the same way that a workman relies on his equipment to protect him and if he gets injured through some failure of that equipment you don't tell him to "suck it up" and "live with the consequences".

A shoddy workman who doesn't use the protective gear they should be using is far more lkely to be injured but they will still be treated the same by medical professionals, will still get the same rehabilitation, etc, etc. You can look down on them all you want for being an idiot, but you can't deny them the right to medical care that either they have paid for (via insurance) or are entitled to (via taxes/NHS/etc) simply because they were doing something stupid.

Consequence-free sex isn't a right. And a person's interest in consequence-free sex shouldn't overwhelm the interest of human life.

Having children isn't a right either... And as I mentioned above, when "human life" starts is debatable. You also seem to ignore the "human lives" that will be changed by bringing an unwanted/unplanned/etc child into the world: My wife and I would lose everything if we had a child now - we simply cannot afford to have one, and there are many, many people in the same or similar positions all over the world.

Wait, weren't we talking about insurance a moment ago?

Melissia wrote:Wait, weren't we talking about insurance a moment ago?

Ah... the OT! hang on, things change fast and often fly right out of control!

SilverMK2 wrote:And here we have a point: What constitutes a "human life"? I gather you believe that human life starts at conception?

Yes, I do, but that isn't the whole of it. There are two interests at stake here, one is the right of a woman "to control her body," and the other is the right of the developing fetus to develop into a full grown human, that is a chance to live.

You can't simply hand-wave away the fact of growth and development of a fetus into a living and breathing human being, assuming you're not a sociopath. In order to support abortion, you have to balance the right of the woman to "control her body" over the right of (whether actual or potential) life of the child whose future you are destroying.

Most abortions are not made for cases of rape/incest/threat to mother's life, but rather for convenience - people who want to enjoy sex without the hassle of pregnancy. I think that weighing this interest (consequence-free sex) above life (real or potential) is borderline psychotic, but I understand that some people can support that balance.

SilverMK2 wrote:However, pregnancy is not the desired goal of the vast majority of sexual activity.

And homicide may not be the desired outcome of firing an assault rifle into a school, but that doesn't mean it's not a foreseeable consequence that you should be held responsible for.

SilverMK2 wrote:If a person were to become pregnant through a split condom/forgetting a pill/antibiotics making the pill not work/etc, one would not expect them to then "live with the consequences"

Why shouldn't they live with the consequences (either financial or physical) of those activities? Simply because they didn't want to get pregnant they should have an easy out?

SilverMK2 wrote:in the same way that a workman relies on his equipment to protect him and if he gets injured through some failure of that equipment you don't tell him to "suck it up" and "live with the consequences".

A shoddy workman who doesn't use the protective gear they should be using is far more lkely to be injured but they will still be treated the same by medical professionals, will still get the same rehabilitation, etc, etc. You can look down on them all you want for being an idiot, but you can't deny them the right to medical care that either they have paid for (via insurance) or are entitled to (via taxes/NHS/etc) simply because they were doing something stupid.

The balance between these interests (paying for treatment vs. harm to the worker) is much easier to balance in favor of preventing harm to the worker. In the case of insurance, the worker is able to make that balance himself - determine his risk and pay for protection against that risk.

SilverMK2 wrote:Having children isn't a right either... And as I mentioned above, when "human life" starts is debatable. You also seem to ignore the "human lives" that will be changed by bringing an unwanted/unplanned/etc child into the world: My wife and I would lose everything if we had a child now - we simply cannot afford to have one, and there are many, many people in the same or similar positions all over the world.

I'm not ignoring the human lives that would be changed, I'm simply saying that if you want to mitigate risk by 100%, there's a very effective method of "birth control" that doesn't require abortion.

My wife and I aren't interested in having another kid right now either. But we understand that if we have sex that's a possibility, even with a condom and birth control pills. If those were to fail, we would step up and care for the child. If we were financially unable to afford a child, we would think long and hard about having sex.

That assault rifle analogy isn't really appropriate...
Also it seems you are essentially saying that if someone gets pregnant (Even if they did use protection and it failed) then they should be forced to live with the consequences...

purplefood wrote:That assault rifle analogy isn't really appropriate...
Also it seems you are essentially saying that if someone gets pregnant (Even if they did use protection and it failed) then they should be forced to live with the consequences...

It's demonstrating the concept of foreseeable consequences, and to that extent it's appropriate.

And yes, if you get pregnant you should deal with it. There's no "force" involved, it's just a consequence of your actions.

biccat wrote:

purplefood wrote:That assault rifle analogy isn't really appropriate...
Also it seems you are essentially saying that if someone gets pregnant (Even if they did use protection and it failed) then they should be forced to live with the consequences...

It's demonstrating the concept of foreseeable consequences, and to that extent it's appropriate.

And yes, if you get pregnant you should deal with it. There's no "force" involved, it's just a consequence of your actions.

If you can prevent the consequences which are unwanted shouldn't you at least get the chance to do so?
The consequences may not be foreseeable if you are using protection and you believe you are safe.

purplefood wrote:If you can prevent the consequences which are unwanted shouldn't you at least get the chance to do so?

Well, that's where we get into the balancing test. If I get kidney disease, should I have the chance to get a new kidney from my (now living) son? Does my interest (avoiding ongoing dialysis) outweigh his interest (avoiding surgery)? Generally, society says "no".

Do you think that someone's recourse for a condom breaking outweighs the interest of life that a (potential) child has?

purplefood wrote:The consequences may not be foreseeable if you are using protection and you believe you are safe.

Foreseeable doesn't mean "this will happen," it means "there's a chance that this might happen which is a logical consequence of the action."

Another example:
You are taking your dog for a walk in the park. He bites another dog (despite being both leashed and muzzled). He then barks at a squirrel who runs up a tree, causing the tree to fall over, roll downhill and crush someone's car.

A dog bite is foreseeable. A crushed car is not.

biccat wrote:

purplefood wrote:If you can prevent the consequences which are unwanted shouldn't you at least get the chance to do so?

Well, that's where we get into the balancing test. If I get kidney disease, should I have the chance to get a new kidney from my (now living) son? Does my interest (avoiding ongoing dialysis) outweigh his interest (avoiding surgery)? Generally, society says "no".

Do you think that someone's recourse for a condom breaking outweighs the interest of life that a (potential) child has?

purplefood wrote:The consequences may not be foreseeable if you are using protection and you believe you are safe.

Foreseeable doesn't mean "this will happen," it means "there's a chance that this might happen which is a logical consequence of the action."

Another example:
You are taking your dog for a walk in the park. He bites another dog (despite being both leashed and muzzled). He then barks at a squirrel who runs up a tree, causing the tree to fall over, roll downhill and crush someone's car.

A dog bite is foreseeable. A crushed car is not.

Fair point. I still think people should at least get the chance make them pay for it themselves or have to pay half of it or something, but the option should be there if they do not want a child, if you properly educate people then there shouldn't be such a high rate of unwanted pregnancies. Yes there is the lost potential of the child but the mother might have gone on to greater things herself so if the pregancy did come to term then you lose that potential.

purplefood wrote:Yes there is the lost potential of the child but the mother might have gone on to greater things herself so if the pregancy did come to term then you lose that potential.

I wasn't talking about hypothetical potential ("the kid could have been Einstein!"), but actual potential ("the kid would be born alive"). There's no way to know what a kid will do or not do, same for the mother. But the actual real result of an abortion is deprivation of a human life. In my opinion, there are very few interests that can be weighed against that and come out on top (punishment for the intentional taking of innocent human life being one).

biccat wrote:

purplefood wrote:Yes there is the lost potential of the child but the mother might have gone on to greater things herself so if the pregancy did come to term then you lose that potential.

I wasn't talking about hypothetical potential ("the kid could have been Einstein!"), but actual potential ("the kid would be born alive"). There's no way to know what a kid will do or not do, same for the mother. But the actual real result of an abortion is deprivation of a human life. In my opinion, there are very few interests that can be weighed against that and come out on top (punishment for the intentional taking of innocent human life being one).

Ahh right i was thinking of that.
I a a bit uneasy because i don't like to be callous but frankly unless it can survive outside of the womb i wouldn't say it is alive or whatever particular term you wish to use.

In the end i think the option should at least be there. It might not be covered by insurance or a National Healthcare Scheme but it should be there.

biccat wrote:Foreseeable doesn't mean "this will happen," it means "there's a chance that this might happen which is a logical consequence of the action."

No it doesn't...

Foreseeable simply means "capable of being anticipated".

Which is an extremely broad definition. You could argue that someone walking through Dallas foresees being shot, for example, even if it is incredibly unlikely. More likely would be getting in a wreck, but I digress.

biccat wrote:
And my insurance would cover breast exams, pap smears, and other women's health issues. But these aren't elective procedures like abortion, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

No, all of those are elective procedures. All procedures which are not directly going to save the life of a patient are elective.

biccat wrote:
Medical/health based abortions are not subject to the waiver. But nice try!

No, only in instances of life-threatening pregnancy are abortions permitted, per the bill. This is not the same as something which is based on medicine.

biccat wrote:
I wasn't talking about hypothetical potential ("the kid could have been Einstein!"), but actual potential ("the kid would be born alive").

In the first parenthetic phrase you're talking about potential (could) in the second you're talking about implication (would). That's not indicative of consistent reasoning.

biccat wrote:
There's no way to know what a kid will do or not do, same for the mother.

But apparently you know that he would have been born alive. Strange how you can know that about the future, but nothing else about the future.

biccat wrote:
But the actual real result of an abortion is deprivation of a human life. In my opinion, there are very few interests that can be weighed against that and come out on top (punishment for the intentional taking of innocent human life being one).

Really? Driving cars results in the deprivation of human life, and yet our interest in that seems to take precedent over the resultant deaths. So does owning guns, eating fatty food, and drinking liquor.

alarmingrick wrote:I've always loved how conservatives want the Gov. the hell out of their lives. yet it's okay to go into the lives of a Gay/Lesbian couple
to deny them happiness. or tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. Hypocrisy at it's finest!

<sarcasm>But its totally reasonable!!!!</sarcasm>

It isn't hypocrisy, its just emotional preference disguised by rhetorical claims to things like principle, morality, and tradition. Its the same thing most people do, with a slightly different flair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've thought about this a bit more, and I'm now doubly curious as to why some believe this bill is good. It would force insurance companies to force women to buy separate abortion coverage, but it would not force them to use only the revenue thus generated to pay for abortions, meaning that all those morally righteous folk who chose to buy non-abortion related insurance would still be contributing to those heathen abortions consumers.

biccat wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Define mistakes.

You're right, I shouldn't have said "mistake." I should have said "consequences."

Mr Mystery wrote:Contraception isn't foolproof you know. Jubber Ronnies can split, the Pill can fail to it's work.

Right. Getting pregnant is a consequence of having sex. This has been a well known and established fact for at least the past few million years.

Mr Mystery wrote:But of course, the thoughts of those who don't want Abortion totally hold more weight than those who want the choice.

The "right to choose" is irrelevant here. The question is: who has to pay for it. I don't have any risk of getting pregnant, so why should I pay for insurance services that offer to cover the procedure? Let those who bear the risk of a procedure bear the cost.

...I'm intentionally avoiding the discussion regarding the legality of abortion.

Yet I have no chance of getting cervical cancer, nor do I have any risk of hundreds of hereditrary disorders and diseases as they simply do not run in my family. Why should my insurance premiums be higher because the cost of all risks is divided up between the Policy Holders?

This is all about your personal objection, dressed up to look like a reasonable argument. If you don't want to pay for the risk of other people's behaviour, tough titty, that's how insurance works. Some pay more, as the under writers consider them to be less of a risk.

All right guys, this is just a thread about medical insurance.

It's hardly a matter of life and death so there's no need to go over the top.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:I've always loved how conservatives want the Gov. the hell out of their lives. yet it's okay to go into the lives of a Gay/Lesbian couple
to deny them happiness. or tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. Hypocrisy at it's finest!

<sarcasm>But its totally reasonable!!!!</sarcasm>

To be fair, it's not a matter of what she should do with her body in this context, it's a matter of someone, say biccat, not wanting to pay for it.

It's not as evil as some would make it sound. There are plenty of people who don't want their tax dollars to pay for Defense spending and whatnot. This isn't a strictly Conservative phenomenon.

I don't suppose women like not being paid for all the pregnancy, childcare, elder care and housework they do for free.

Maybe they should stop.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't suppose women like not being paid for all the pregnancy, childcare, elder care and housework they do for free.

Maybe they should stop.

If they don't want to do it, maybe they should. It's a choice they make to not work in order to do those things in most cases, innit? They would then probably have to then pay someone else to do those things, though.

I'm not sure if I'm reading things into posts that aren't there, but it seems like there's an undercurrent of implying that not wanting to pay for elective procedures is misogynistic. Maybe it's just me. That said, I'm sure those who don't want to pay for abortions most likely don't want to pay for vasectomies either.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't suppose women like not being paid for all the pregnancy, childcare, elder care and housework they do for free.

Maybe they should stop.

If they don't want to do it, maybe they should. It's a choice they make to not work in order to do those things in most cases, innit? They would then probably have to then pay someone else to do those things, though.

They could just stop and let men do it instead.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm not sure if I'm reading things into posts that aren't there, but it seems like there's an undercurrent of implying that not wanting to pay for elective procedures is misogynistic. Maybe it's just me. That said, I'm sure those who don't want to pay for abortions most likely don't want to pay for vasectomies either.

It is misogynistic to want none of your insurance premium to be used for paying for abortions.

Women only get pregnant by having sex with men. To refuse insurance is misogynistic because it puts the blame on women and ignores mens' role.

Kilkrazy wrote:It is misogynistic to want none of your insurance premium to be used for paying for abortions.

Women only get pregnant by having sex with men. To refuse insurance is misogynistic because it puts the blame on women and ignores mens' role.

I think you're jumping a couple of steps, here.

Nowhere has anyone said that the other half of the pair that made the fetus to be aborted shouldn't pony up a few shekels to pay the vaccuum operator. I'm just saying it isn't unreasonable to not want one's insurance premiums to go up due to what could be objectively argued to be irresponsible behavior (in many cases).

So the majority of pregnancies are due to irresponsible behavior?

Ahtman wrote:So the majority of pregnancies are due to irresponsible behavior?

I would say a lot of unwanted pregnancies are due to that yeah.
There are other causes obviously but a fair chunk of them is down to that.

purplefood wrote:

Ahtman wrote:So the majority of pregnancies are due to irresponsible behavior?

I would say a lot of unwanted pregnancies are due to that yeah.
There are other causes obviously but a fair chunk of them is down to that.

Well you saying that is tantamount to proof I guess. No need for research or understanding, we have gut feelings and personal opinions, most likely with the mighty power of anecdotal evidence to fuel them.

What is irresponsible behavior again? People keep saying that but no one has clearly defined it. Would it be only if people were drinking before sex? Any sex outside of a marriage? What are we talking about here?

Ahtman wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Ahtman wrote:So the majority of pregnancies are due to irresponsible behavior?

I would say a lot of unwanted pregnancies are due to that yeah.
There are other causes obviously but a fair chunk of them is down to that.

Well you saying that is tantamount to proof I guess. No need for research or understanding, we have gut feelings and personal opinions, most likely with the mighty power of anecdotal evidence to fuel them.

What is irresponsible behavior again? People keep saying that but no one has clearly defined it. Would it be only if people were drinking before sex? Any sex outside of a marriage? What are we talking about here?

I never said it is factual or anything like that, you simply made that part up.
I would say Irresponsible behaviour in this context is having sex without protection of any kind drunk or not.

purplefood wrote:I never said it is factual or anything like that, you simply made that part up.

And I didn't say you said factual, in fact I mocked you for explicitly not basing your findings in fact but your own opinion based on nothing.

purplefood wrote:I would say Irresponsible behaviour in this context is having sex without protection of any kind drunk or not.

Now I will use the word factual. So you have some factual data to back up that is what leads to the majority of women that seek abortions? I can think of at least three other problems present here but I don't really feel like putting the effort in. If you can't see where the problems are by now it doesn't really matter and abortion debates on this forum are rarely worth the time after a while.

Ahtman wrote:

purplefood wrote:I never said it is factual or anything like that, you simply made that part up.

And I didn't say you said factual, in fact I mocked you for explicitly not basing your findings in fact but your own opinion based on nothing.

purplefood wrote:I would say Irresponsible behaviour in this context is having sex without protection of any kind drunk or not.

Now I will use the word factual. So you have some factual data to back up that is what leads to the majority of women that seek abortions? I can think of at least three other problems present here but I don't really feel like putting the effort in. If you can't see where the problems are by now it doesn't really matter and abortion debates on this forum are rarely worth the time after a while.

What do you expect, it was a guess.
No, in that, i have merely said what i think constitutes irresponsible behaviour.
At any rate irresponsible behaviour isn't what makes woman want an abortion but rather how they end up pregnant in the first place.

Monster Rain wrote:
To be fair, it's not a matter of what she should do with her body in this context, it's a matter of someone, say biccat, not wanting to pay for it.

It's not as evil as some would make it sound. There are plenty of people who don't want their tax dollars to pay for Defense spending and whatnot. This isn't a strictly Conservative phenomenon.

It isn't a matter of tax dollars though, but the purchase of a particular type of insurance. Mandate or no, its naive to believe that being able to purchase a policy without abortion coverage means that you aren't funding abortion by purchasing said policy. Supporting a company that offers abortion coverage means that you're paying for abortions, albeit not by direct purchase of the coverage. This is doubly true in the case on insurance where the individual risks associated with a particular policy are not calculated with respect only to the policy purchased, but all other policies offered by the company. Revenue generated through premiums related to general health insurance can, and will, be shuffled around if it means maintaining an otherwise profitable product that takes a large hit due to unusual demand during a particular period; products like abortion coverage.

When company X claims that you aren't covered for abortion, that's all it means, it doesn't mean that you aren't also paying for abortions which others are covered for, nor does it mean that your premiums will actually drop due to the absence of abortion coverage.

purplefood wrote:

Ahtman wrote:So the majority of pregnancies are due to irresponsible behavior?

I would say a lot of unwanted pregnancies are due to that yeah.

Yes. If even some of them are, it still makes my point.

Ahtman wrote:Well you saying that is tantamount to proof I guess. No need for research or understanding, we have gut feelings and personal opinions, most likely with the mighty power of anecdotal evidence to fuel them.

I would like to see some proof that women are intentionally getting pregnant so as to get an abortion in statistically significant numbers.

dogma wrote:It isn't a matter of tax dollars though

Actually, considering the write-offs that the medical industry gets that's a pretty blurry line. I wasn't taking a position on this either way, just pointing out a certain amount of sanctimony from some of those involved in the discussion. I've long since realized the inevitability of having my money spent on things I'd rather not have it spent on.

Monster Rain wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Well you saying that is tantamount to proof I guess. No need for research or understanding, we have gut feelings and personal opinions, most likely with the mighty power of anecdotal evidence to fuel them.

I would like to see some proof that women are intentionally getting pregnant so as to get an abortion in statistically significant numbers.

I'd say it's more like they want to get pregnant, but are forced to abort due to health reasons for the mother or an uncurable condition in the fetus.
well, and rape or incest.

alarmingrick wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Well you saying that is tantamount to proof I guess. No need for research or understanding, we have gut feelings and personal opinions, most likely with the mighty power of anecdotal evidence to fuel them.

I would like to see some proof that women are intentionally getting pregnant so as to get an abortion in statistically significant numbers.

I'd say it's more like they want to get pregnant, but are forced to abort due to health reasons for the mother or an uncurable condition in the fetus.
well, and rape or incest.

Terminating a pregnancy under those circumstances wouldn't exactly be "elective" though, would it?

I thought that was biccat's problem with having to pay for it.

Monster Rain wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Well you saying that is tantamount to proof I guess. No need for research or understanding, we have gut feelings and personal opinions, most likely with the mighty power of anecdotal evidence to fuel them.

I would like to see some proof that women are intentionally getting pregnant so as to get an abortion in statistically significant numbers.

I'd say it's more like they want to get pregnant, but are forced to abort due to health reasons for the mother or an uncurable condition in the fetus.
well, and rape or incest.

Terminating a pregnancy under those circumstances wouldn't exactly be "elective" though, would they?

Depends on the A-hole insurance company, wouldn't it?

Dude, I hate insurance companies.

There's not much I do like about our current health-care system, really.

Monster Rain wrote:
Terminating a pregnancy under those circumstances wouldn't exactly be "elective" though, would it?

I thought that was biccat's problem with having to pay for it.

Well, here's the thing, there are two definitions of "elective" I have heard as regards medical procedures.

The first is any procedure which is performed for any reason other than immediately preserving the life of the patient.

The second is any procedure which is planned ahead of time.

I've also heard certain procedures referred to as semi-elective because, while they are planned ahead of time, they significantly improve the immediate health, or survival chances, of the patient. Often times thing like setting broken bones will also be referred as semi-elective as, while they are emergency procedures, not all broken bones are life threatening.

All three of these are definitions I've picked up from reading though medical journals over the years. The political definition of "elective" tends to be "Any procedure which I don't feel is necessary.", and is basically just a way to dress up an argument so as to make it appear that matters of medicine have been considered.

I think the "lay" definition of elective is something a patient wants done to solve a problem that isn't actually medical. A boob job or nose job are prime examples, being cosmetic surgery carried out for vanity in most cases.

An abortion falls into a difficult area since obviously women don't have to get pregnant, and being pregnant isn't usually a life-threatening condition (though it certainly is a medical condition).

From the male authoritarian viewpoint if women do get pregnant is their duty to carry on with it regardless of their social circumstances.

I guess I'm failing to see where the male authoritarian view has any bearing on the discussion.

If you really can't fathom that someone could hold a different position than you on this without being misogynist(like, you know, many pro-life women) just say so I can stop wasting time trying to have a reasonable discussion on the subject.

Monster Rain wrote:I guess I'm failing to see where the male authoritarian view has any bearing on the discussion.

That us because you are part of the male-centric phallocracy that rules the world.

Monster Rain wrote:I guess I'm failing to see where the male authoritarian view has any bearing on the discussion.

If you really can't fathom that someone could hold a different position than you on this without being misogynist(like, you know, many pro-life women) just say so I can stop wasting time trying to have a reasonable discussion on the subject.

I'd say it factors in when it's the majority(or a strong minority) of view points of people voting on the Laws or deciding the court rulings.
and being perfectly blunt, i feel we are close in view points on this. i just think there are a lot of factors at play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I guess I'm failing to see where the male authoritarian view has any bearing on the discussion.

That us because you are part of the male-centric phallocracy that rules the world.

Would that be ruled by a president or a King/Queen set up....

Monster Rain wrote:I guess I'm failing to see where the male authoritarian view has any bearing on the discussion.

If we're talking about what is, and is not, elective, then it stand to reason that we should start by discussing what sorts of viewpoints would think of abortion as elective procedure, and at how certain sorts of viewpoints interpret electivity.

I think we can all agree that there are people who hold a perspective that we would call "male authoritarian" and that the people that hold this viewpoint are not likely to feel abortions are anything other than optional, and very likely immoral.

As far people like biccat: he clearly dislikes abortion, sufficiently so that he was unable to remark directly to my initial comment, instead preferring to speak on the issue we are currently on.

That said, I do find it curious that so many people are so deeply opposed to abortion, but not at all opposed to driving cars at speeds in excess of the legal limit, or driving cars at all (both of which necessarily lead to human death, but only the former is banned, implying a certain acceptable trade off). There's also the, more direct, issue of what some have called "Mississippi Syndrome" whereby many people are very sensitive to the needs of the fetus, to the point of excepting responsibility for its birth, but completely unwilling to provide pre, or post-natal care via state funds; leading to a situation in which Mississippi is both the safest state for the unborn, and the least safe state for the recently born.

I'm not sure being strictly pro-life is necessarily misogynistic in in intent, but it does lay a higher burden on women than men, making it worse/harder/more annoying to be a woman while not overly affecting men.

Meaning, banning abortion doesn't hurt men, outside of fiscal concerns (child support and the like). Banning abortion forces women to carry a fetus to term. I don't know if you've ever been around a pregnant woman, but it doesn't seem very pleasant.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:That said, I do find it curious that so many people are so deeply opposed to abortion, but not at all opposed to driving cars at speeds in excess of the legal limit, or driving cars at all (both of which necessarily lead to human death, but only the former is banned, implying a certain acceptable trade off). There's also the, more direct, issue of what some have called "Mississippi Syndrome" whereby many people are very sensitive to the needs of the fetus, to the point of excepting responsibility for its birth, but completely unwilling to provide pre, or post-natal care via state funds; leading to a situation in which Mississippi is both the safest state for the unborn, and the least safe state for the recently born.

This is because concern for the fetus is secondary to a dislike of non-reproductive sex. Any lawyer worth his salt can distinguish between utter neglect (complete lack of neo-natal health care) and active destruction of the fetus, so they're not completely contradictory. That said, I think the biggest factor in if a person is pro-life or pro-choice has to do with that person's acceptance of recreational sex. If you consider that to have value, than you start to really like the societal benefits to abortion, hate the anti-female aspects of abortion bans, and draw that arbitrary line of "person-hood" more liberally. If you think that non-reproductive sex is wrong, with little value, or a risk whose consequences must be paid... than you're going to do the opposite.

alarmingrick wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I guess I'm failing to see where the male authoritarian view has any bearing on the discussion.

If you really can't fathom that someone could hold a different position than you on this without being misogynist(like, you know, many pro-life women) just say so I can stop wasting time trying to have a reasonable discussion on the subject.

I'd say it factors in when it's the majority(or a strong minority) of view points of people voting on the Laws or deciding the court rulings.
and being perfectly blunt, i feel we are close in view points on this. i just think there are a lot of factors at play.

Oh totally. I don't even necessarily agree with biccat on this, I'm just saying that he isn't evil for holding the viewpoint that he does.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I guess I'm failing to see where the male authoritarian view has any bearing on the discussion.

If we're talking about what is, and is not, elective, then it stand to reason that we should start by discussing what sorts of viewpoints would think of abortion as elective procedure, and at how certain sorts of viewpoints interpret electivity.

I think we can all agree that there are people who hold a perspective that we would call "male authoritarian" and that the people that hold this viewpoint are not likely to feel abortions are anything other than optional, and very likely immoral..

I think "elective" in the context that biccat was using it in was about abortion for reasons that aren't medically necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

As to the latter part of that quote, yes there are people that are "male authoritarian" that are opposed to abortion, but there are people that genuinely oppose it for much less nefarious purposes.

dogma wrote:There's also the, more direct, issue of what some have called "Mississippi Syndrome" whereby many people are very sensitive to the needs of the fetus, to the point of excepting responsibility for its birth, but completely unwilling to provide pre, or post-natal care via state funds; leading to a situation in which Mississippi is both the safest state for the unborn, and the least safe state for the recently born.

Which is where the "pro-life" party, the Republicans, show their detachment from reality in many cases. If you're going to fight for these kids to be brought into the world you have to bear some responsibility for their welfare once they make their entrance.

Monster Rain wrote:I think "elective" in the context that biccat was using it in was about abortion for reasons that aren't medically necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

Abortion still reduces the risk to the mother though, which makes it similar to nearly every medical procedure that improves the chances, but doesn't immediately save a life. By that definition it's no more or less elective than a knee replacement or mammogram.

Heh.

Logically I see your point.

Monster Rain wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I guess I'm failing to see where the male authoritarian view has any bearing on the discussion.

If you really can't fathom that someone could hold a different position than you on this without being misogynist(like, you know, many pro-life women) just say so I can stop wasting time trying to have a reasonable discussion on the subject.

I'd say it factors in when it's the majority(or a strong minority) of view points of people voting on the Laws or deciding the court rulings.
and being perfectly blunt, i feel we are close in view points on this. i just think there are a lot of factors at play.

Oh totally. I don't even necessarily agree with biccat on this, I'm just saying that he isn't evil for holding the viewpoint that he does.

as a father of 3, i personally don't like the idea of Abortions, period. but i also feel like it's not my place to tell people they can or can't do something.
it's between them their gods as far as i'm concerned.

That's pretty much my take on it.