My body my right?

[Votto]

We hear this from abortion advocates all over the country, but these same people then turn around and want socialized health care so that the government will decide every other decision regarding my health care?

You can't have it both ways kids.

 

[beautress]

We hear this from abortion advocates all over the country, but these same people then turn around and want socialized health care so that the government will decide every other decision regarding my health care?

You can't have it both ways kids.

Killing a fetus is killing a human being.

You can't have it both ways, and that's all there is to it. The fetus has different DNA than its mother. That means it is a different person. Your rights over another person end where his or her nose starts.

 

[dblack]

We hear this from abortion advocates all over the country, but these same people then turn around and want socialized health care so that the government will decide every other decision regarding my health care?

I'm opposed to abortion legislation because don't think government should have any sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. It seems insane that people want it to have the kind of control. I oppose socialized medicine for the same reason.

 

[Votto]

We hear this from abortion advocates all over the country, but these same people then turn around and want socialized health care so that the government will decide every other decision regarding my health care?

I'm opposed to abortion legislation because don't think government should have any sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. It seems insane that people want it to have the kind of control. I oppose socialized medicine for the same reason.

But if a medical procedure murders a life, society has a moral imperative to stop it.

Otherwise, what good is the state?

We need human life to be defined before we go around eradicating it, something Roe vs. Wade incompetently failed to do.

They had a moral imperative to do so.

 

[MAGAman]

I'm opposed to abortion legislation because don't think government should have any sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. It seems insane that people want it to have the kind of control. I oppose socialized medicine for the same reason.

People in favor of human rights don't believe any human should be killed on a whim.

 

[ReinyDays]

Legislating morality is a slippery slope ... legislating State control over all children is slipperier ... let's first spend all the money we need to upgrade our foster care system ... and then spend more to test DNA samples and track down the fathers, make them pay their half of the bill ... or throw the fathers in prison if the ages aren't right ...

Couple of college sophomores, 38 seconds of stupidity ... then the long drive down to Mexico ...

What about moral outrage towards divorce, affairs, adultery? ... "Until death do we part" is supposed to be more than just words ...

 

[dblack]

We hear this from abortion advocates all over the country, but these same people then turn around and want socialized health care so that the government will decide every other decision regarding my health care?

I'm opposed to abortion legislation because don't think government should have any sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. It seems insane that people want it to have the kind of control. I oppose socialized medicine for the same reason.

But if a medical procedure murders a life, society has a moral imperative to stop it.

Not if said "life" is inside another person's body. Then, it's none of society's business.

Otherwise, what good is the state?

It's there to safeguard the rights of people who have already been born.

We need human life to be defined before we go around eradicating it, something Roe vs. Wade incompetently failed to do.

They had a moral imperative to do so.

It isn't "human life" that's in question, it's legal personhood. They're not the same thing.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It is the height of hypocrisy for a person to claim they should have control over their own body while denying others the right to ever be able to control theirs.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Private Property "

* Self Ownership Versus Self Determination *

It is the height of hypocrisy for a person to claim they should have control over their own body while denying others the right to ever be able to control theirs.

Since a fetus does not have constitutional protections , a fetus is the private property of the mother from which privacy protections of the constitution follow .

Now , when it comes to health care , the issue becomes " whose money is it ? " .

What ever became of the political banter from both parties that health care costs funded by the government needed to be reigned in to mitigate the growing national debt ?

As the government does not take in premiums and invest them to offset losses , which those opposed to state capitalism ( some forms of socialism and all communism ) do not want bureaucrats to practice , rather than " bleed out the nose " , the affordable care act shifted dealing with private health providers away from government to private insurance providers by negotiating insurance policies offered through exchanges by which individuals between 100% and 400% of the poverty line would only be responsible for no more than some percentage ( progressive up to approximately 4% ) of their total income for the plans .

The scheme was to change the statistic by which government was obligated to public health care , which is as most expect for themselves when purchasing insurance , to stave off catastrophic expense .

A problem with health care is that the costs of procedures are all over the map and the private industries ( health care providers and insurers ) are not in the business of minimizing patient costs for procedures or premiums , whereas the government schedules limited those expenditures for government , with private health care providers being obligated to write off the differences .

The individual mandate was included to prevent those within the 100% to 400% of the poverty line from shirking financial responsibility and optioning to walk into healthcare facilities that reverts management costs and payment back to the government rather than through private insurance providers .

 

[dblack]

Since a fetus does not have constitutional protections , a fetus is the private property of the mother , from which privacy protections of the constitution follow.

That's all that really needs to be said on the matter.

What ever became of the political banter from both parties that health care costs funded by the government needed to be reigned in to mitigate the growing national debt?

Our political parties are only worried about the growth of government when they're not in power.

As the government does not take ...

The rest of your post is unintelligible.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We hear this from abortion advocates all over the country, but these same people then turn around and want socialized health care so that the government will decide every other decision regarding my health care?

You can't have it both ways kids.

Having it both ways is the heart of the Communist. The Contradiction and double standard define what it is to be a Communist.

{
Doublethink
Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Also related is cognitive dissonance, in which contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance—thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction} - George Orwell

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Legislating morality is a slippery slope ... legislating State control over all children is slipperier ... let's first spend all the money we need to upgrade our foster care system ... and then spend more to test DNA samples and track down the fathers, make them pay their half of the bill ... or throw the fathers in prison if the ages aren't right ...

Couple of college sophomores, 38 seconds of stupidity ... then the long drive down to Mexico ...

What about moral outrage towards divorce, affairs, adultery? ... "Until death do we part" is supposed to be more than just words ...

There should be civil laws that enforce the marriage contract. What good are the vows, acknowledged by the government, creating a "legal" marriage if the parties are not subject to a penalty for not keeping their word? The alternative is to do away with government permitted marriage and just allow people to be married without a marriage license.

 

[beautress]

We hear this from abortion advocates all over the country, but these same people then turn around and want socialized health care so that the government will decide every other decision regarding my health care?

I'm opposed to abortion legislation because don't think government should have any sovereignty over the contents of a person's body. It seems insane that people want it to have the kind of control. I oppose socialized medicine for the same reason.

But if a medical procedure murders a life, society has a moral imperative to stop it.

Otherwise, what good is the state?

We need human life to be defined before we go around eradicating it, something Roe vs. Wade incompetently failed to do.

They had a moral imperative to do so.

The political world is craven about it until President Trump came along. He's the only president we've had to stand up to the me-first committee of the "cellmass" killers, which is the entire Democrat Party at this point, may it perish for lack of membership.

 

[ReinyDays]

There should be civil laws that enforce the marriage contract. What good are the vows, acknowledged by the government, creating a "legal" marriage if the parties are not subject to a penalty for not keeping their word? The alternative is to do away with government permitted marriage and just allow people to be married without a marriage license.

Secular marriage is a contract ... granted, a very specialized contract but a contract all the same ... because marriage almost always means the individuals' finances are wholly co-mingled, there needs to be specific rules for dividing up the money when the couple decides to dissolve their contract ... and this is different than cohabitating, just simply living together, mingling the finances and hope for the best ...

Certainly, we can outlaw sex if the purpose isn't procreation ... if we could effectively enforce such a law, abortion rates would crash to almost nothing ... next we could limit haircut styles for men to two or three ... make women stop wearing pants ... force everyone to politely wait at 4-way stops ... the slippery slope ...

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Over Arching Scope "

* Motivated By Strife *

That's all that really needs to be said on the matter.

Neither the pro-choice nor anti-choice pundits on abortion will explain the constitutional basis for roe v wade , as abortion is a strategy piece to manipulate fools in a game run by political hacks who do not want the issue removed as a status for party allegiance .

* Abandonment Issues *

Our political parties are only worried about the growth of government when they're not in power.

The demonicrats raise the deficit by promoting social spending on aimless welfare programs and by offshoring industry .

The repugnicans raise the deficit by promoting aimless tax incentives for oligarchs and by offshoring industry .

United States balance of trade - Wikipedia
On June 26, 2009, Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, called for the U.S. to increase its manufacturing base employment to 20% of the workforce, commenting that the U.S. has outsourced too much in some areas and can no longer rely on the financial sector and consumer spending to drive demand.[14]

* Partisan Blindness *

The rest of your post is unintelligible.

That it is unintelligible to you does not mean it is not intelligible to others .

 

[dblack]

The rest of your post is unintelligible.

That it is unintelligible to you does not mean it is not intelligible to others .

Then maybe you can explain it. I'm not objecting to the argument, it's just that I couldn't find one. The grammer and sentence structure were such that I couldn't figure out what it was supposed to mean.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There should be civil laws that enforce the marriage contract. What good are the vows, acknowledged by the government, creating a "legal" marriage if the parties are not subject to a penalty for not keeping their word? The alternative is to do away with government permitted marriage and just allow people to be married without a marriage license.

Secular marriage is a contract ... granted, a very specialized contract but a contract all the same ... because marriage almost always means the individuals' finances are wholly co-mingled, there needs to be specific rules for dividing up the money when the couple decides to dissolve their contract ... and this is different than cohabitating, just simply living together, mingling the finances and hope for the best ...

Certainly, we can outlaw sex if the purpose isn't procreation ... if we could effectively enforce such a law, abortion rates would crash to almost nothing ... next we could limit haircut styles for men to two or three ... make women stop wearing pants ... force everyone to politely wait at 4-way stops ... the slippery slope ...

I don't know what that has to do with what I said. The terms of a marriage contract have nothing to do with outlawing sex; I would like to see my wife have to live by the vows she made (all that crap that the husband -wife relationship is above the other relationships.) And if people are in a marriage and one partner has sex with someone without the other partner's knowledge and consent, there should be a penalty. Otherwise, the contract is a sham. Everything else you mentioned has no relevance to what I said.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Not Enough Manufacturing And High Tech Industry With Too Much Population Fluff "

* Cordial Request Congenial Accommodation *

Then maybe you can explain it. I'm not objecting to the argument, it's just that I couldn't find one. The grammer and sentence structure were such that I couldn't figure out what it was supposed to mean.

Individuals purchase private health insurance to have adequate health care and to avert debilitating debt .

Health insurance companies collect premiums and apply them as capital investments to offset expenditures and make a profit .

There are demands on government to socialize health care for some portion of the demographic .

Would it be acceptable for the government to collect premiums as an insurance company and make capital investments to offset expenditures and make profit ?

Would it make sense for government to purchase health insurance to cover some portion of the demographic to avert debilitating federal debt ?

* Immigration And Market Indicators *[/b

Browse Topics | Congressional Budget Officehealth-care
The 2019 Long-Term Budget Outlook | Congressional Budget Office
Report The 2019 Long-Term Budget Outlook- June 25, 2019
If current laws generally remained unchanged, large budget deficits would boost federal debt to unprecedented levels over the next 30 years, CBO projects.

Federal Subsidies for Health Insurance Coverage for People Under Age 65: 2019 to 2029 | Congressional Budget Office
Report Federal Subsidies for Health Insurance Coverage for People Under Age 65: 2019 to 2029 May 2, 2019
CBO and JCT project that federal subsidies, taxes, and penalties associated with health insurance coverage for people under age 65 will result in a net subsidy from the federal government of $737 billion in 2019 and $1.3 trillion in 2029.

 

[pop102377]

We hear this from abortion advocates all over the country, but these same people then turn around and want socialized health care so that the government will decide every other decision regarding my health care?

You can't have it both ways kids.

The government has nothing to say about your healthcare. You just don’t pay for it because you paid for it with your taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Votto]

We hear this from abortion advocates all over the country, but these same people then turn around and want socialized health care so that the government will decide every other decision regarding my health care?

You can't have it both ways kids.

The government has nothing to say about your healthcare. You just don’t pay for it because you paid for it with your taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope.

Government turns down more people for various health care requests than private insurance does in the US today.

In fact, all socialist health care systems do this.