Do You Believe in the Concept of "My Body, My Choice"

[logical4u]

It would probably save tax dollars over time. The women that want abortions and need the gov't to pay for them would in turn be more likely to be a tax burden on the system anyway. If they can't pay for an abortion, pre-natal and obstetric care is much more expensive than that so we would be on the hook for 10 times the amount of the procedure right off the bat assuming an optimal outcome. This doesn't even begin to include future hardships that are eligible for even more public assistance like housing and food and continuing medicaid coverage.

Abortions don't count in overall stats as far as infant mortality either, and women not wanting to be pregnant are not in the category of tending to care about their pregnancies so our stats would suffer and so would the children, not to mention the costs skyrocketing. High risk pregnancies are expensive, so are neo-natal specialists. Neonatologists do four more years of school than regular doctors, the nurses are all specialized and paid more and NICUs are really really expensive to run.

How about the gov pays for tying tubes of young women on assistance? When and if she is able to PAY to have the proceedure reversed, she can. It would beat murdereng innocents.

As a matter of practicality, I doubt there are a lot of young women on assistance that are not already in the system because of a pregnancy or because they already have children. A single childless woman would have a hard time qualifying for any benefits. So would a single man for that matter. At any rate your suggestion smacks of eugenics and government control. You're still spending money but mandating/manipulating a social behavior. This is only a conservative issue because the "fundies" got into the Republican party and are now controlling it. This is not a classic conservative issue, in fact it is a classically unAmerican type of thought. And why is it always put on the woman? Let's have vasectomies for all single men that are not married instead, eh? Doesn't sound so rosy now does it?

I am a conservative, but think this is one way that is reversable that could be used to discourage lifelong gov assistance. As for the vasectomies, if they are on public assistance, the same thing should apply: staple the tubes, and let them pay to reverse it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I'm looking at my check right now thinking just what has the government done for me lately

What does it think, that it's God's gift to this earth?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z0h_c9eH-8]YouTube - Janet Jackson- What Have You Done For Me Lately[/ame]

so now i'm janet jackson and the govt is an 80's dude in leather pants and a coat

or am I the girl in the hole?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQb2m6VJ-eo]YouTube - Best performance - Ted Levine[/ame]

 

[Emma]

 

[California Girl]

Great, now I'm unAmerican, in addition to an abuser and a civil war starter.

Fuck this shit!

Yes, you are all these things and probably far worse that we are unaware of yet.... I'm gonna get Glenn Beck onto you.

We probably need a whole thread dedicated to the bad stuff that Ravi has done over her several lifetimes.

*Note to the terminally dumb: the above statement should not be taken as the real view of California Girl. It is for humor only and should not be taken seriously. Thank You.*

 

[Immanuel]

Great, now I'm unAmerican, in addition to an abuser and a civil war starter.

Fuck this shit!

Hey, it is a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

Immie

 

[logical4u]

Why do you find the choices fallacious? I'll explain myself a little differently here.

I'm saying its a womans body and her choice if she decides to have an abortion and if a woman decides to do so, under current law, then she should be able to (even if i dont like abortion). The woman should not be heckled, fined, or otherwise have any external negative impact from it.

I'm also saying its my body and my choice if I decide to purchase health insurance coverage. The individual should not be looked down on, fined, or otherwise have any external negative impact from this decision.

I dont see what is fallacious but i'm willing to listen if you want to explain it better.

The questions you ask are ancillary to the topic matter, they do relate but they are not at the heart of my question or intention.

I understand what you're saying. Thing is, I still find the choice fallacious. I believe in choice within the perameters set by Roe. As much as it was a poorly written decision, it does a good balancing act between a woman's right to control her own body and state interest in protection of lives in being.

To me, requiring everyone to purchase health insurance so that the costs are allocated among young and old, healthy and sick, is simply good economics and no more infringes on our right to control our body than requiring us to have automobile insurance when we drive. No one is forcing or preventing medical care; No one is imposing anything on the person. That is why I commented as I did.

I hope that articulates my position a bit more clearly. And thanks for listening. Always a pleasure.

"Requiring" everyone to purchase anything is overstepping the authority of the gov. They re-defined the right to drive as a privilege, so gov could exercise control over the roadways and drivers: it was a loss of freedoms so that the roads could be made "safer". In this way, they could "force" people to have auto insurance.
The gov is not there to enforce "good economics", if it were, we would not have the inventions that gave us the technology of today. Edison, Bell, Whitney, all had many failures before they had successful inventions, if the gov were enforcing "good economics", they would have been forced to give up after a few failures.

The gov has in its power to pass laws: if you don't purchase medical insurance, medical establishments will not be able to treat you by law (passed after the medical insurance reform bill). If you don't purchase insurance, the gov (on your seeking emergency care), can pass laws that enables the medical facilities to experiment on you (bill passed after MIRB Medical Insurance Reform Bill). If you can't afford insurance (determined by the gov), your medical treatment will be part of a survey group to study new treatment methods (passed after the MIRB).

You, a citizen with some freedoms, believe this would never happen in this country. You believe the gov is interested in protecting your freedoms as it says in the Constitution. Ask someone that has been around a while if they could buy dynomite in a store (for their own purposes), ask them about about being able to buy medicines over the counter that are now only perscription. Our freedoms are slowly being taken away by people that are afraid of pain and death, thinking the gov can protect them from either (newsflash: it can't ). This healthcare reform is the greatest threat to our freedoms, that has been put forth in our country's history.

Read any of the bills you can, search it and see where the citizen/patient protections (from the gov, or one of their agencies) are listed. There are no protections for your freedom, your body, your children's bodies. It gives the gov control over every person living in the USA. That is not FREEDOM. That is SUBJUGATION (slavery).

 

[oreo]

It's your choice as long as "I" don't have to pay for it.

I am a conservative & the one thing I agree 100% with Obama on--is assessing a penalty on those who can afford medical insurance but "choose" not to get it. WHY? Because "I" have to pay for them--when they end up in our hospitals.