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

[JW Frogen]

Killing a conceived life is killing, (what else has been conceived other than a human life, a Hyundai Getz?) there is no other way to put it and retain any dignity in human language or life.

Still, some times we legally determine greater good is served by killing.

I have no problem with current abortion laws, just do not pretend you are not doing what you are doing, killing.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Very good, IMO. I think I can agree with you there.

But thats what I said too ravi. now i'm really confused

And like i told Anguille it doesn't matter what its for you will never get me to happily go along with imposing any increased or new taxes, i will fight for cost and spending reductions to pay for it all day long.

Are you just splitting hairs trying to get me fired up or something? Or am I totally misunderstanding what you were getting at way back on page 1?

EDIT: Oh now I see its my gay avatar

You left out her final sentence.

I wasn't talking about that at all in my OP when you initially responded to me which is why I didn't include it.

I was specifically talking about people who CHOOSE to not have health insurance. So basically you are saying you are ok with imposing a fine on someone for making a personal choice about their body, correct?

If I am wrong please explain in a way that I dont have to continue to ask you over and over as to what you are getting at.

 

[Immanuel]

I have not read the thread at all, but my two cents worth say that it is the woman's body and her choice, but the choice needs to be made before conception. If you don't want to "do the time" make damned sure you don't get pregnant and if you don't want to do the time with the partner you are with then don't play that game with him.

I realize some times birth control fails, but the couple takes that risk when they "choose" to have sex. Again, if you are not willing to take that risk, don't risk it. You take the risk when you play around. Unless you are just plain stupid, you know what the risks are, so you assume the risk when you begin to play around.

The same thing goes for men. You know what the consequences are, if you are not willing to follow through with your responsibilities then find something else for gratification.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

But thats what I said too ravi. now i'm really confused

And like i told Anguille it doesn't matter what its for you will never get me to happily go along with imposing any increased or new taxes, i will fight for cost and spending reductions to pay for it all day long.

Are you just splitting hairs trying to get me fired up or something? Or am I totally misunderstanding what you were getting at way back on page 1?

EDIT: Oh now I see its my gay avatar

You left out her final sentence.

I wasn't talking about that at all in my OP when you initially responded to me which is why I didn't include it.

I was specifically talking about people who CHOOSE to not have health insurance. So basically you are saying you are ok with imposing a fine on someone for making a personal choice about their body, correct?

If I am wrong please explain in a way that I dont have to continue to ask you over and over as to what you are getting at.

Sure, as long as the fine is affordable to the person in question. Otherwise, no.

If someone chooses to not have health care insurance and they end up in the ER they've already cost the taxpayers more than their fine would be.

 

[logical4u]

Shouldn't the poll be women only?

Doesn't the making of a child (all stages including embyo and fetus, different terms used to make the experimentation and murder less repulsive) require a man and a woman?

 

[logical4u]

We should just pay for all abortions with our hard-earned tax dollars?

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.

 

[Immanuel]

.....suck it up, and raise your child.

I am always astounded by that kind of attitude towards children. Basically regarding them as punishment for pregnancy.

That is funny because you support abortion, are left leaning and the reason abortion is permitted is because the left views an unwanted pregnancy and the living outcome of that pregnancy as a punishment of the woman. They believe that the woman should not be punished; therefore, they promote the termination of that punishment for any reason at all.

So it seems to me that this is the attitude that you are taking. It seems that you view, the child as a punishment of the poor mother, in fact, it is a lifetime sentence without the possibility of parole and thus the government must protect her right to escape punishment by killing the child.

I see the child as a blessing at all times. You see it as punishment yet you are projecting you feelings on Dis.

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

I don't have a problem with 'my body, my choice'. But when a woman has an abortion what is she doing to her body? What part of her body is different once the abortion takes place? What part of her body is no longer there once the abortion takes place? Abortion isn't about the woman's body . . . it's about removing someone else's body from the woman's body. 'My body, my choice' is bullshit when it comes to abortion.

 

[logical4u]

I'm not sure if I have a specific question its just something about your post is nagging at my brain. Let me make a statement and see where it goes.

I feel, in the end, that purchasing health insurance coverage or having an abortion both fall under the "my body, my choice" statement. I feel it would be wrong for the govt to deny abortion and I also feel its wrong for the government to fine me if i choose to not have health insurance as both are an individuals personal choice to make.

You said I can't compare the two and that just isn't processing for me right now. Which is why I asked you to make a slightly more in depth post to see if there is something i'm missing about your position.

You can't compel a person to give birth...I just can't see how it would be possible physically or constitutionally.

You can compel someone to pay a tax. No one is making you seek medical treatment, instead they are taxing you to pay for medical care.

I think we are missing each other here Ravi. I'm not talking about increasing or imposing a tax to pay for health care, I'm talking about fining someone who chooses to not purchase or take health care for whatever reason they may choose to do so.

That "fine" IS A TAX. It goes into gov coffers. It is a tax (proposed to help pay for health care for others).

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You left out her final sentence.

I wasn't talking about that at all in my OP when you initially responded to me which is why I didn't include it.

I was specifically talking about people who CHOOSE to not have health insurance. So basically you are saying you are ok with imposing a fine on someone for making a personal choice about their body, correct?

If I am wrong please explain in a way that I dont have to continue to ask you over and over as to what you are getting at.

Sure, as long as the fine is affordable to the person in question. Otherwise, no.

If someone chooses to not have health care insurance and they end up in the ER they've already cost the taxpayers more than their fine would be.

I thought thats what your position was but I didn't want to project my assumption on you. Thanks.

You should vote that way in the poll since no one has chosen that option yet "my body my choice with abortion but not health care"

That "fine" IS A TAX. It goes into gov coffers. It is a tax (proposed to help pay for health care for others).

I know fines/fees are the same as taxes I was just trying to make sure I wasn't assuming anything about Ravi's position.

 

[rdean]

Republicans believe that government should stay out of people's personal decisions. Unless they disagree with those decisions.

 

[jillian]

Kind of fallacious choices there, Pilgrim.

Perhaps the better question is:

should anyone else's religious beliefs impact on the medical decisions made by a woman and her doctor?

as for the healt care issue, not related to the initial question.

but on that as well... who would you rather have decide your insurance realities...some claim rep just out of high school who's told to deny as many claims as possible?

or someone without a profit motive?

 

[Ravi]

I wasn't talking about that at all in my OP when you initially responded to me which is why I didn't include it.

I was specifically talking about people who CHOOSE to not have health insurance. So basically you are saying you are ok with imposing a fine on someone for making a personal choice about their body, correct?

If I am wrong please explain in a way that I dont have to continue to ask you over and over as to what you are getting at.

Sure, as long as the fine is affordable to the person in question. Otherwise, no.

If someone chooses to not have health care insurance and they end up in the ER they've already cost the taxpayers more than their fine would be.

I thought thats what your position was but I didn't want to project my assumption on you. Thanks.

You should vote that way in the poll since no one has chosen that option yet "my body my choice with abortion but not health care"

That "fine" IS A TAX. It goes into gov coffers. It is a tax (proposed to help pay for health care for others).

I know fines/fees are the same as taxes I was just trying to make sure I wasn't assuming anything about Ravi's position.

Like I said above somewhere, the comparison isn't valid. Therefore I can't vote.

 

[Emma]

I'm for Abortion in the first trimester only unless the life of the mother is in danger, rape, etc.

The key question is: Are you for it on the taxpayer dime, on demand?

If those conditions exist, yes.

 

[ncarolinadixie]

Ravi....you stated that you have no problem with the "fine/tax" as long as the person it pertains to can afford it. You do realize that if this part of the health care fiasco is voted FOR that the very people that this bill is supposed to help, those that can't afford health care coverage NOW are the ones that are going to be "fined/taxed" right? In effect, the people that it will pertain to can't afford it. If they could they would be able to buy health care coverage now.

I just can't post my feelings on the "my body, my choice" part of the poll. I'm one of those evil people that don't believe in abortion but believe its the womans decision and I do believe in the death penalty as I see absolutely NO comparison in the two. Do I think abortions should be tax payer funded? Absolutely NOT with exceptions. If the woman is having an abortion simply to do away with an unwanted pregnancies, it's all on her! In the case of incest or rape, both of which fall under a "crime" heading, there are funds through the individual states that are tax payer funded funds to help victims of crimes defer necessary medical costs. IMO, in the case of rape or incest, it would be a necessary medical procedure. But for the women doing it simply because they were irresponsible NO. Now I know there are cases of birth control failure to take into consideration. It happens. The person is trying to be responsible and a boo boo happens. IMO that is something that should be considered before you go willy nilly having sex with someone that you most likely have no intention of having a long term relationship with. I'm also of the mindset that it really doesn't matter if a woman is on the pill or whatever.......she should still require the man to wear a condom. Call it double the protection if you must, I call it possibly saving your life. Birth Control pills do NOT protect you against HIV.

 

[veritas]

We should just pay for all abortions with our hard-earned tax dollars?

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?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Like I said above somewhere, the comparison isn't valid. Therefore I can't vote.

I have another question about your opinion. Do you feel its ok to impose a fine on someone who chooses to have an abortion in the first trimester (excluding saving the life of the mother or rape instances)?

And if you say no i'm not going to do what you may be assuming I am asking this for (IE im not going to say HAHAHAHA gotcha)

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Kind of fallacious choices there, Pilgrim.

Perhaps the better question is:

should anyone else's religious beliefs impact on the medical decisions made by a woman and her doctor?

as for the healt care issue, not related to the initial question.

but on that as well... who would you rather have decide your insurance realities...some claim rep just out of high school who's told to deny as many claims as possible?

or someone without a profit motive?

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republicans believe that government should stay out of people's personal decisions. Unless they disagree with those decisions.

What a coincidence. Democrats believe the government should be involved in all of people's personal decisions . . . except for abortion.

 

[goshinj]

My body, my choice. I agree somewhat. When it comes to abortion? Everyone in this world has a brain. This is a fact. The problem in this world is that some people are stupid and some people are smart. You have a choice. Use protection or you know the consequences. If you get pregnant from rape, incest, or if you have pregnancy problems which threaten your own life, then abortion should 100% be allowed. If the forsaid problems have not occured, then you should not under any circumstances be allowed abortion. Period. It's as simple as that and if you question this then you are an idiot. That's right. Stupid. Thanks for your time.