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.

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