|
I would not be opposed to the governemt offering some kind of catastrophic injury/illness aid. but what we are getting now is just terrible
Ok, but back on topic this bill says insurance companies CANNOT roll this coverage into its regular services. So in what way is anyone made any more free by this law? The insurance company is banned from a business practice and a woman is effectively forced to pay more.
i am agianst that aspect of it. that this is some travesty of justice because women should all get free abortions on demand is equally nuts
I was wondering, Citizen R., if you could point to the article on the Michigan rape insurance law, or one of the posters commenting on it, that said this law is a travesty of justice because women should get free abortions on demand?
Just curious. I, of course, am in favor of free abortions on demand, but that doesn't have anything to do with the Michigan law.
i am agianst that aspect of it. that this is some travesty of justice because women should all get free abortions on demand is equally nuts
In what way is it nuts?
If you had anything else that caused as much impairment as a pregnancy you'd get it removed too.
If you had something that caused that kind of impairment and your insurance company said "No sorry we don't have to cover it" you'd be screaming at the insurance executive.
And if the government told me that you as a private citizen could not reach an agreement with a private insurance company to roll it into your general coverage you would be testing the profanity filter until it started to smoke.
But because this is something that happens to someone else, or its a government infringement on someone ELSE"S freedom, then its not a problem.
|
|
I was wondering, Citizen R., if you could point to the article on the Michigan rape insurance law, or one of the posters commenting on it, that said this law is a travesty of justice because women should get free abortions on demand?
Just curious. I, of course, am in favor of free abortions on demand, but that doesn't have anything to do with the Michigan law.
I live in MI trust me i hear it
|
|
i am agianst that aspect of it. that this is some travesty of justice because women should all get free abortions on demand is equally nutsIn what way is it nuts?
If you had anything else that caused as much impairment as a pregnancy you'd get it removed too.
If you had something that caused that kind of impairment and your insurance company said "No sorry we don't have to cover it" you'd be screaming at the insurance executive.
And if the government told me that you as a private citizen could not reach an agreement with a private insurance company to roll it into your general coverage you would be testing the profanity filter until it started to smoke.
But because this is something that happens to someone else, or its a government infringement on someone ELSE"S freedom, then its not a problem.
Like i said, it should be between the person and company with no gov involvement. But not getting it free on demand from someone else paying for it is hardly repression. You want it you pay for it, done.
Ah, you're referring to arguments off-screen. Kind of makes it hard to follow along unless you clarify.
Anyway, yeah,
For free abortion on demand!
For free, quality health care for all!
For a workers revolution to buy Andrew R. a car!
Like i said, it should be between the person and company with no gov involvement. But not getting it free on demand from someone else paying for it is hardly repression. You want it you pay for it, done.
So for a rape you'd rather pay for a childbirth than an abortion? Because by the time you need to pay for 1 the other isn't that far behind.
Even the idea you're calling nuts isn't that bad based on economic grounds alone: Its better in the long run and FAR cheaper.
|
|
Like i said, it should be between the person and company with no gov involvement. But not getting it free on demand from someone else paying for it is hardly repression. You want it you pay for it, done.So for a rape you'd rather pay for a childbirth than an abortion? Because by the time you need to pay for 1 the other isn't that far behind.
Even the idea you're calling nuts isn't that bad based on economic grounds alone: Its better in the long run and FAR cheaper.
For every one rape baby we would be paying for hundreds of "screw being responsible" ones. i am tired of paying for other peoples choices in any way
For every one rape baby we would be paying for hundreds of "screw being responsible" ones.Like i said, it should be between the person and company with no gov involvement. But not getting it free on demand from someone else paying for it is hardly repression. You want it you pay for it, done.So for a rape you'd rather pay for a childbirth than an abortion? Because by the time you need to pay for 1 the other isn't that far behind.
Even the idea you're calling nuts isn't that bad based on economic grounds alone: Its better in the long run and FAR cheaper.
And it would still save you money, because its more than 100 times cheaper than supporting an unwanted child.
You're paying next to nothing. These programs are a miniscule portion of the government budget and the amount of attention given to them is AstroTurfed grag manufactured to get you to vote against your own interests.
And it would still save you money, because its more than 100 times cheaper than supporting an unwanted child.
You're paying next to nothing. These programs are a miniscule portion of the government budget and the amount of attention given to them is AstroTurfed grag manufactured to get you to vote against your own interests.
It doesn't matter. The thought that anyone out there in the world might get something they don't deserve...keeps Citizen R. up at night.
The thought that anyone out there in the world might get something they don't deserve...
Or even things they do deserve, apparently.
What gets m is the narrow 'right now' focus of it all too, as if there was no thought given to the long term payoff/saving. Really poor business acumen.
|
|
The thought that anyone out there in the world might get something they don't deserve...Or even things they do deserve, apparently.
What gets m is the narrow 'right now' focus of it all too, as if there was no thought given to the long term payoff/saving. Really poor business acumen.
letting more people die off would save us loads in the long run. sometimes it is better to focus on right and wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i am tired of paying for other peoples choices in any way
Sharing burdens - including the burdens of poor decision-making - is one of the foundations of civilization. If you don't want to pay for others' choices, you need to find a nice, remote chunk of wilderness and fend for yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
letting more people die off would save us loads in the long run. sometimes it is better to focus on right and wrong.
And the loss of a few dollars to you is such a wrong that forcing rape victims to go to have their rapists baby because they can't afford an abortion becomes the right thing?
Those are some messed up priorities.
letting more people die off would save us loads in the long run. sometimes it is better to focus on right and wrong.And the loss of a few dollars to you is such a wrong that forcing rape victims to go to have their rapists baby because they can't afford an abortion becomes the right thing?
Those are some messed up priorities.
A few dollars? Try fractions of a penny.
letting more people die off would save us loads in the long run. sometimes it is better to focus on right and wrong.
Feel free to pick and choose your inconsistency.
Your stated positions over the course of this thread appear to be at odds.
For those of you who want abortion on demand is there a point where you cant have an abortion past this month? Do you have any problem with having an abortion based on the idea they wanted a boy but got a girl? If they find out the child will only have 1 leg? Wanted blonde hair but got red?
Some of you argue that a better civilization requires that society bears the burden. But at the same time you state society has no say and that an elected official/judge makes the decision regardless of belief/age/anything. Bear the burden and shut up is what i'm hearing. In fact society should be saying have the baby and we will help with the burden. I would argue that that type of society is a better model of Utopia that you should be striving for. A stronger society sticks together and says we will gather the neighborhood and help you raise your child. Isnt this done in other countries?
I bet theres some of you who get more upset over how Peter Jackson treats the Hobbit then the killing of healthy unborn babies. Its very clear that society cares more about dogs then it does unborn babies.
I'm blessed that i have children and i didnt have to make that choice. I was careful as a teenager and educated/afraid of having a baby when i wasnt ready. Consequences are part of life.
For many women/men an abortion is a do over for a mistake.How many do-vers do you get? unlimited? I take the side of Rush and say fine you made the mistake but why should i pay for it. The costs for birth control are low ($9 dollars a month).
The rape/incest is a small portion and i'm not opposed to it and i feel a law against it is barbaric. However if she waits until a certian point then its barbaric on her part.
Shouldnt every effort be made to try and convince the mother (except rape) to have the baby/then give up the baby for adoption and at the same time make the rules for adoption so that its harder to the mother to reconsider once shes had the baby and given it up for adoption. I ad a friend who got a lap band(helps reduce weight) and it seems to me they had to jump through a lot more hoops including meetings/education to reduce life threating weight.
In your Utopia society model does the father/Wife have any say? What if she/he is financially sound and could give the baby everything it wants. Does she/he have a right to fight it in court.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wicked Cool,
When men can carry the pregnancy to term, they get a say and that say is "Yes, I'll host the pregnancy". Until then, no, they do not have the right to hijack a woman's body to serve as an incubator for their progeny against her wishes anymore than you can be forced to become an organ donor against yours. It's her body, not yours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those of you who want abortion on demand is there a point where you cant have an abortion past this month? Do you have any problem with having an abortion based on the idea they wanted a boy but got a girl? If they find out the child will only have 1 leg? Wanted blonde hair but got red?
I can honestly say I have no problems with a woman getting an abortion for whatever reason she chooses.
Some of you argue that a better civilization requires that society bears the burden. But at the same time you state society has no say and that an elected official/judge makes the decision regardless of belief/age/anything. Bear the burden and shut up is what i'm hearing. In fact society should be saying have the baby and we will help with the burden. I would argue that that type of society is a better model of Utopia that you should be striving for. A stronger society sticks together and says we will gather the neighborhood and help you raise your child. Isnt this done in other countries?
Yeah, this would be a fine argument if the people pushing anti-abortion laws weren't also pushing harmful sex ed practices (abstinence does not work), cutting state support for people who cannot afford children, and reducing aid to the governmental bodies that take care of the children.
I bet theres some of you who get more upset over how Peter Jackson treats the Hobbit then the killing of healthy unborn babies. Its very clear that society cares more about dogs then it does unborn babies.I'm blessed that i have children and i didnt have to make that choice. I was careful as a teenager and educated/afraid of having a baby when i wasnt ready. Consequences are part of life.
For many women/men an abortion is a do over for a mistake.How many do-vers do you get? unlimited? I take the side of Rush and say fine you made the mistake but why should i pay for it. The costs for birth control are low ($9 dollars a month).
The rape/incest is a small portion and i'm not opposed to it and i feel a law against it is barbaric. However if she waits until a certian point then its barbaric on her part.
Shouldnt every effort be made to try and convince the mother (except rape) to have the baby/then give up the baby for adoption and at the same time make the rules for adoption so that its harder to the mother to reconsider once shes had the baby and given it up for adoption. I ad a friend who got a...
No. It costs society more to force her to cary it to term, and honestly I don't care about the potential of what is still a useless parrasite.
It's true. I care more about dogs and Peter Jackson than I do about unborn fetuses and zygotes.
For those of you who want abortion on demand is there a point where you cant have an abortion past this month?
Baring medical issues I'd be a little wary of abortions past 3-4 months or so.
Is there a point early enough where you think abortions are no big deal?
Do you have any problem with having an abortion based on the idea they wanted a boy but got a girl? If they find out the child will only have 1 leg? Wanted blonde hair but got red?
Not if its done soon enough.
Some of you argue that a better civilization requires that society bears the burden. But at the same time you state society has no say and that an elected official/judge makes the decision regardless of belief/age/anything.
Because society can all chip in half a cent for people that can't afford abortions to get them (assuming every abortion was publicly funded and late term it would come out to 6 dollars a person per year). Money is eminently sharable.
Society cannot bear the discomfort, pain, and risk of child birth. That lies solely with the individual.
Bear the burden and shut up is what i'm hearing. In fact society should be saying have the baby and we will help with the burden.
The obvious fact that american society does not do this aside... why?
Its very clear that society cares more about dogs then it does unborn babies.
I've made friends with dogs. Zygotes, not so much.
For many women/men an abortion is a do over for a mistake.How many do-vers do you get? unlimited? I take the side of Rush and say fine you made the mistake but why should i pay for it. The costs for birth control are low ($9 dollars a month).
Because you can pay for someone elses mistake now, or you can pay for it for 18 years
The only problem I have with the whole "woman's choice" thing at the moment is: if the father wants to have the baby and the mother doesn't, she aborts, no big deal (except for the father). If the father wants to abort, and the mother doesn't, pop is liable for child support.
Of course, my solution to this little bit of hypocrisy is state support for all indigent children...and workers revolution.
Of course, my solution to this little bit of hypocrisy is state support for all indigent children...and workers revolution.
We might take you seriously if that wasn't also your solution to wealth inequality, education, non violent drug offenses, and ice cream shortages.
It's a good solution.
Also, I am long since past caring if anyone takes me seriously. All your names are on a list and after the revolution everyone of you who have made anti-goblin comments will pay!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pst, Citizen Doodlebug...
We lost the list.
Well, actually. Somebody busted to hookah & we couldn't find any rolling paper...
\/eyes downcast\/
When the father has to take the physical labor and risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth, get back to me on that.The only problem I have with the whole "woman's choice" thing at the moment is: if the father wants to have the baby and the mother doesn't, she aborts, no big deal (except for the father). If the father wants to abort, and the mother doesn't, pop is liable for child support.
Of course, my solution to this little bit of hypocrisy is state support for all indigent children...and workers revolution.
Well, I forgot to add in something to the effect that it doesn't bother me all that much. But your response doesn't really make sense in the situation I described. Pops is saying "I don't want you to go through the physical labor and risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth" and she wants to anyway and then he's on the hook financially for the next 18 years.
And even the Bolsheviks wavered on that one.
"The new marriage and divorce laws were very popular. However, given women’s traditional responsibilities for children and their greater difficulties in finding and maintaining employment, for them divorce often proved more problematic than for men. For this reason the alimony provision was established for the disabled poor of both sexes, necessary due to the inability of the state at that time to guarantee jobs for all. The 1918 Code eliminated the distinction between 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' children, using instead the carefully considered wording 'children of parents who are not in a registered marriage.' Thus, women could claim child support from men to whom they were not married.
"The Code also established the right of all children to parental support until age 18 and the right of each spouse to his or her own property. In implementing the Code’s measures, judges were biased in favor of women and children, on the grounds that establishing support for the child took priority over protecting the financial interests of the male defendant." And, of course, my favorite part "In one case, a judge split child support three ways, because the mother had been sleeping with three different men."
Goblins do it in the factory barracks!
Vive le Galt!
Pst, Citizen Doodlebug...
We lost the list.
Well, actually. Somebody busted to hookah & we couldn't find any rolling paper...
\/eyes downcast\/
F&~+in' stoner goblins...
Anyway, it's funny. I guess I should be grateful for Citizen R., he drums up so much business. I mean look at all the posters who popped in--Citizen Betts? I don't think he's been in here since, like, the first page.
I agree that its ok its at a zygote stage but at a fetus stage is barbaric and its a real shame its referred to as a parasite. Theres a head and body and at that point i feel its human. Just because its being carried around doesnt mean that it shouldnt be protected. At a certain point it should be criminal if there is no danger to the mom and she terminates
I agree that its ok its at a zygote stage but at a fetus stage is barbaric and its a real shame its referred to as a parasite. Theres a head and body and at that point i feel its human. Just because its being carried around doesnt mean that it shouldnt be protected. At a certain point it should be criminal if there is no danger to the mom and she terminates
Which point?
|
|
letting more people die off would save us loads in the long run. sometimes it is better to focus on right and wrong.And the loss of a few dollars to you is such a wrong that forcing rape victims to go to have their rapists baby because they can't afford an abortion becomes the right thing?
Those are some messed up priorities.
Theft is wrong. They want help and people are willing to give then hey great. but theft is wrong, theft by gov is wrong. YOU pay for what you want, pay for every abortion yo can afford if you want. the thing you socialists do not get is that no one is stopping you from helping each other with every penny you have. we just do not want you stealing from us to do it. Ask and we may give generously, but thieves we are tired of
Eh if you have no issue killing it 5 months into the pregnancy why care about killing it days after it is born?
...because that's the same thing really...
/sarcasm.
|
|
When the father has to take the physical labor and risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth, get back to me on that.The only problem I have with the whole "woman's choice" thing at the moment is: if the father wants to have the baby and the mother doesn't, she aborts, no big deal (except for the father). If the father wants to abort, and the mother doesn't, pop is liable for child support.
Of course, my solution to this little bit of hypocrisy is state support for all indigent children...and workers revolution.
Well, I forgot to add in something to the effect that it doesn't bother me all that much. But your response doesn't really make sense in the situation I described. Pops is saying "I don't want you to go through the physical labor and risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth" and she wants to anyway and then he's on the hook financially for the next 18 years.
And even the Bolsheviks wavered on that one.
"The new marriage and divorce laws were very popular. However, given women’s traditional responsibilities for children and their greater difficulties in finding and maintaining employment, for them divorce often proved more problematic than for men. For this reason the alimony provision was established for the disabled poor of both sexes, necessary due to the inability of the state at that time to guarantee jobs for all. The 1918 Code eliminated the distinction between 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' children, using instead the carefully considered wording 'children of parents who are not in a registered marriage.' Thus, women could claim child support from men to whom they were not married.
"The Code also established the right of all children to parental support until age 18 and the right of each spouse to his or her own property. In implementing the Code’s measures, judges were biased in favor of women and children, on the grounds that establishing support for the child took priority over protecting the...
Better yet if you cannot name the father because you are sleeping around it is your fault pay for it yourself. #^$% this crap men do have rights dammit
|
|
Eh if you have no issue killing it 5 months into the pregnancy why care about killing it days after it is born?...because that's the same thing really...
/sarcasm.
In all honesty WHAT is the difference? 5 month fetus? 8? born an hour ago? WHAT is the moral difference here? Are you killing it less internally then external? Does the moment of birth make it suddenly alive and valuable?
#^$% this crap men do have rights dammit
"For this reason the alimony provision was established for the disabled poor of both sexes....The Code also established the right of all children to parental support until age 18 and the right of each spouse to his or her own property..."
Why am I not surprised that the guy who thought the Michigan Rape Insurance bill was a springboard to talking about nosejobs and Obamacare suffers another reading comprehension fail?
In other news, of possible interest to Comrade Barrister:
Few abortions covered with insurance in Michigan as lawmakers consider restrictions
It's weird, because that Rebecca Kiessling looks a lot like Laura Dern (at least in that picture) who, of course, starred in the abortion comedy Citizen Ruth.
No, it was for the child's benefit. Alas, if wikipedia is to be believed, they didn't have even blood-type paternity testing until the '20s.
As for the Rape Insurance bill (it's a fun name, like Obamacare), yes, it's motivated by anti-Obamacare sentiment, and yet, out of the 148 plans that are going to be offered on the Michigan exchanges, only three were going to offer covering abortions. I'm not enough of a policy wonk to know whether the small business plans are state-subsidized.
"So the initiative will have a bigger practical effect on private plans sold outside the exchange." Which aren't funded by stealing from you.
|
|
No, it was for the child's benefit. Alas, if wikipedia is to be believed, they didn't have even blood-type paternity testing until the '20s.
As for the Rape Insurance bill (it's a fun name, like Obamacare), yes, it's motivated by anti-Obamacare sentiment, and yet, out of the 148 plans that are going to be offered on the Michigan exchanges, only three were going to offer covering abortions. I'm not enough of a policy wonk to know whether the small business plans are state-subsidized.
"So the initiative will have a bigger practical effect on private plans sold outside the exchange." Which aren't funded by stealing from you.
Yeah the "think of the children" excuse.
I believe it is really more motivated by an anti abortion sentiment. Personally i have very mixed feelings about abortion but i do understand those that think it is about morally on par with what the nazis did so they do not want the gov, and tax dollars, involved in it.