Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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>