Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oooo, Oooo, Stem cell research!!!Anywho..looks like the debate has run it's course..prolly time for something new. What shall we discuss hmmmmm?
I know IWS and hugo are against bigger government (as am I,) but one of the duties that I see government being responsible for is the protection of it's citizens. The military, securing our borders, keeping folks from murdering each other, and other things fall into this category.
I just happen to want to afford that same protection to those citizens that are not yet born.
So to answer emkay's question:
Yes, I would be fine with my tax dollars paying for this. In fact, that would make me much happier than my tax dollars now paying for things like Planned Parenthood to advise women to have abortions...
Awww there you go! See...I knew you all would buy into socialized health care at some point You'd be against putting money in for cancer treatment but you'll buy an irresponsible twit an ultrasound....you guys make no sense whatsoever.
Why should/shouldn't an ultrasound be added to the process of abortion? Who should pay for the abortion?
I think that an ultrasound should be added. She can look away if she doesn't want to see the baby moving or breathing or it's heart beating... But it is something that should happen.
Who is it that wants the abortion? If they are going to be getting one they should be paying for it. And the price of the ultra sound should be included in the price of the abortion. Why should insurance or the government be paying for an elective procedure? Bottom line, it shouldn't. The prohibitive cost alone could be a deterrent.
The issue is that it is forced Snaf! I get the choice when I am pregnant to have an ultrasound or not...why is this not the same for someone having an abortion. The article even states that they may opt for a more invasive procedure (vaginal ultrasound) at their discretion. What is the purpose? It's punishment plain and simple. I can choose to not look at the ultrasound and listen to music I don't have to watch..but the second someone rams something up my hooha when I say "NO FUKKING WAY"...well..then I have an issue.
What if the overweight were subject to forcible rectal exam at every visit? No difference..someone with a grudge against fat people is making it a punishment and veiling it as an attempt to illustrate the damages to colon as a result of their eating habits. Perhaps the soda tax...penalizing people for eating poorly. Opening this door is allowing persecution on so many levels. It's wrong..whatever your moral standpoint.
My point with the topic was not abortion at all. It was about basic human rights...and whether you felt it was a violation. The difference is that some people can't separate the two or be willing to acknowledge that this is wrong. I'm not an avid supporter of abortion, but geeze I don't like where this could lead..for everyone. Okaying one forcible procedure makes it okay for other controversial procedures too. The debate for or against abortion is never ending and we'll never change each others minds but I thought this was one area we'd be unified. I was wrong lol.
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed†before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,†I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.†— Barry Goldwater
There was a time when conservatives respected the Constitution.
I know IWS and hugo are against bigger government (as am I,) but one of the duties that I see government being responsible for is the protection of it's citizens. The military, securing our borders, keeping folks from murdering each other, and other things fall into this category.
I just happen to want to afford that same protection to those citizens that are not yet born.
14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed†before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible
The only sure way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is no sex.
Thanks for lumping us into a "category" and trying to get a rise out of us, WezJoke...RaE, eddo, snafu, TJ = faux conservatives who want Big Government to intrude as long as it fits their agenda. Might as well cheer for Obamacare.
What if the overweight were subject to forcible rectal exam at every visit? No difference..someone with a grudge against fat people is making it a punishment and veiling it as an attempt to illustrate the damages to colon as a result of their eating habits. Perhaps the soda tax...penalizing people for eating poorly. Opening this door is allowing persecution on so many levels. It's wrong..whatever your moral standpoint.
Anna, the real shame is you wasted all the words in the first two sentences just to give you an excuse to take a shot at me.
Of course you don't offer any substance to the discussion yourself or try to point out what is wrong in your opinion about anything I said and even emkay very reluctantly admitted I made some good points, hell even eddo agreed with one of my points so obviously I was not that bad. I don't hate women, I don't even hate women who kill their children, in all honesty I feel sorry for them because in my opinion most women get abortions because society and more importantly abortion clinic workers make women feel like that is their only choice and that choice is no big deal. Just because I speak what I feel and I am not afraid to face difficult topics like this without being politically correct, that does not mean I an against all women. In reality you would find it very hard to find a man would would respect and want to protect women more than me. Rolling over and blindly accepting any belief just because the PC crowd demands it is not showing women respect in the slightest. It is actually hurting all women to do so.
If you have to turn to personal attacks, your the one with the problem.
Fell free to do something more than point your finger and call names Anna.
It's not an attack when I'm pointing out the obvious: you're a misogynist. If you don't like that title, stop blaming women for every part of the abortion process.
The fact remains that women would not experience unwanted pregnancies if men were able to keep their penises in their pants.
The fact remains that men are often the ones who want and push for the abortions.
The fact remains that women all over the world are (statistically) better parental figures than men.
Heartless baby-killers?You can see these women as heartless baby-killers all you want, but it doesn't change reality, and if you share your feelings, people like me will continue to point out your misogyny.
Hmmm...forcible rectal exam. No human rights violation there...they were just doing what absolutely NEEDED to be done. Hope none of you boys have a sore back in the near future. I wonder if he will have to pay for his "procedure"?
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/forced-rectal-exam-stirs-ethics-questions/
RaE, eddo, snafu, TJ = faux conservatives who want Big Government to intrude as long as it fits their agenda. Might as well cheer for Obamacare.
The issue is that it is forced Snaf! I get the choice when I am pregnant to have an ultrasound or not...why is this not the same for someone having an abortion.
The article even states that they may opt for a more invasive procedure (vaginal ultrasound) at their discretion. What is the purpose? It's punishment plain and simple. I can choose to not look at the ultrasound and listen to music I don't have to watch..but the second someone rams something up my hooha when I say "NO FUKKING WAY"...well..then I have an issue.
What if the overweight were subject to forcible rectal exam at every visit? No difference..someone with a grudge against fat people is making it a punishment and veiling it as an attempt to illustrate the damages to colon as a result of their eating habits. Perhaps the soda tax...penalizing people for eating poorly. Opening this door is allowing persecution on so many levels. It's wrong..whatever your moral standpoint.
You may say your not an avid supporter of abortion but anything done to try and change things you attack........My point with the topic was not abortion at all. It was about basic human rights...and whether you felt it was a violation. The difference is that some people can't separate the two or be willing to acknowledge that this is wrong. I'm not an avid supporter of abortion, but geeze I don't like where this could lead..for everyone. Okaying one forcible procedure makes it okay for other controversial procedures too. The debate for or against abortion is never ending and we'll never change each others minds but I thought this was one area we'd be unified. I was wrong lol.
Sorry eddo.. not true..Slight difference as the fat person is only harming themselves, not an innocent, albeit, unborn baby.
Costing more money and killing a life are not comparable Wez. Life is priceless.Sorry eddo.. not true..
These patients, in the end, cost more to treat than non-obese patients.
Hurting the entire "community".. Forced Liposuction?
Hmmm...forcible rectal exam. No human rights violation there...they were just doing what absolutely NEEDED to be done. Hope none of you boys have a sore back in the near future. I wonder if he will have to pay for his "procedure"? :lol:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/forced-rectal-exam-stirs-ethics-questions/