You Don't Own Me

[buckeye45_73]

I dont want to have to pay for a fat person diabetes medication, but most insurances cover it already.

My wife who had her tubes tied can still use Birth control to regulate her period.
We are done for right now having kids and she Still has a use for it. This idea its for stopping abortion is nothing more than crap.

Trust me i want my wife on Birth control if its gets bad, because im the one who has to be around that if its really bad, Not you, not anyone else.

I don't think a lot of people have a grasp on the full context of what the issue is.

Then find an insurance company that does not cover obesity.

That is really all the church is looking for the right to do, buy insurance policies for their employees that do not cover birth control. They should be allowed to do so.

No one is asking the government to forbid insurance companies from offering coverage of birth control. They are asking for the right to purchase insurance that does not offer it. The left on the other hand is seeking to force all insurance policies to cover it, just like they want to force all insurance companies to cover the ultimate form of birth control: abortion.

The left speaks a lot about their belief in "choice", but when you get right down to it, they do not come close to defending any other choice except abortion.

Immie

I have zero issue if they dont want a plan that covers BC, they just in my view get zero federal or state aid.

thats my deal. You agree?

I'd rather nothing gets federal aid......but why should the government make a value choice like that? Suprising from libocrat

 

[Dr Grump]

Not half as much as you trying to convince yourself that killing babies is not murder tickles me



Do you really believe you can draw attention away from your major gaffe of acknowledging that an embryo is, in fact, a human by babbling on?



Your swallowing load after load of sperm is not "murder" because sperm is not a human life. However, a fetus/embryo/etc. is unquestionably human life.

I seem to have upset you. When you stop hyperventilating, let me know.

Good. I love the fact that my views piss off both the right and the left, and I'm not even a racist.

Honestly, I'm not the least bit pissed. In fact, I think it's quite the oppposite. I think you tripped up when you acknowledged an embryo was a HUMAN and now you're trying to avoid just admitting I was right. That's ok, dance all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you were wrong and I was right...

You have never been right..

 

[Trajan]

Does anyone here support sex selective abortion?

 

[Dr Grump]

Does anyone here support sex selective abortion?

No...

 

[MHunterB]

No.

 

[Si modo]

Does anyone here support sex selective abortion?

No, I don't, but it's a great question. How does that reconcile with folks getting an abortion because they found out the fetus has Down syndrome?

I don't like either idea, tbh. But, there are plenty of laws I don't like (ie. the death penalty).

Odd, huh?

 

[koshergrl]

When one is proposing forcible, physically altering surgical procedures, one might want to carefully consider how one single thing can be *ok* in one scenario, and *heinous* in another.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You mean demands by 36 year old coeds that Obama's fascist care mandate the Catholic church pay for contraceptives and abortions or face prison?

That is really all the church is looking for the right to do, buy insurance policies for their employees that do not cover birth control. They should be allowed to do so.

1. Churches are already exempt from the contraceptive requirements of the law.

2. In reference to the "Coeds", you realize that at the time Georgetown University was ALREADY offering contraceptive coverage for employees.

3. There are already 28 states that require contraceptive coverage, some exempt only the Church themselves - are there no Catholic Universities and Hospitals in those states?



[DISCLAIMER: I'm a Republican and want ObamaCare repealed. The argument shouldn't whether Churches should be exempt (they should), the argument ought to be that whats included or excluded should be between the insurance carrier and the individual owner of the policy (in the vast majority of cases that being employer who contracts for the policy and pays the vast majority of premiums).]



>>>>

1. According to the IRS, Georgetown is a church. According to Obamacare, it isn't. The government cannot define what is, and is not, a church according to how it wants to treat the organization.
2. That is the first time I ever heard that claim. Even if it is true, so what? Should a college be required to supply students with the same insurance coverage it supplies its employees? Does any college anywhere in America actually do that, or do they all limit their liability for student medical coverage?
3. As has been pointed out more than once by me, none of those coverage requirements are as onerous as the federal regulation DHS proposed. I recall specifically going over this with you, and you bugging out like a scalded puppy.

As for your disclaimer, since you can't stick to actual facts, I don;t believe it.

 

[Trajan]

Does anyone here support sex selective abortion?

No, I don't, but it's a great question. How does that reconcile with folks getting an abortion because they found out the fetus has Down syndrome?

I don't like either idea, tbh. But, there are plenty of laws I don't like (ie. the death penalty).

Odd, huh?

thx Si, yes it is curious and posits a conundrum too, in that IF one says no , they there by acknowledge, there is a restriction on the 'use of their bodies' and, I think it follows, the restriction would have to come from the gov......


also, how about;

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites?

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites? | Practical Ethics

 

[LibertyLemming]

Meanwhile, in the USA, Americans can now by locked up indefinitely without charges by their own government.

 

[Plasmaball]

Then find an insurance company that does not cover obesity.

That is really all the church is looking for the right to do, buy insurance policies for their employees that do not cover birth control. They should be allowed to do so.

No one is asking the government to forbid insurance companies from offering coverage of birth control. They are asking for the right to purchase insurance that does not offer it. The left on the other hand is seeking to force all insurance policies to cover it, just like they want to force all insurance companies to cover the ultimate form of birth control: abortion.

The left speaks a lot about their belief in "choice", but when you get right down to it, they do not come close to defending any other choice except abortion.

Immie

I have zero issue if they dont want a plan that covers BC, they just in my view get zero federal or state aid.

thats my deal. You agree?

I'd rather nothing gets federal aid......but why should the government make a value choice like that? Suprising from libocrat

Yeah but you are a tard so who cares?

Why because its like anything with money. You want it,then follow the rules with it. Don't want to abide by the rules? Ok don't take the money....no forcing no anything, it would be a choice..

 

[jillian]

Does anyone here support sex selective abortion?

No, I don't, but it's a great question. How does that reconcile with folks getting an abortion because they found out the fetus has Down syndrome?

I don't like either idea, tbh. But, there are plenty of laws I don't like (ie. the death penalty).

Odd, huh?

thx Si, yes it is curious and posits a conundrum too, in that IF one says no , they there by acknowledge, there is a restriction on the 'use of their bodies' and, I think it follows, the restriction would have to come from the gov......


also, how about;

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites?

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites? | Practical Ethics

Not agreeing with someone's choice does not equate with justifying government intervention in prohibiting it.

I have no problem with someone making the decision about bringing a child into the world who will always need help. I also have no problem with someone making the opposite decision.

Mostly, I think it's none of government's business.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Winner^

 

[Si modo]

No, I don't, but it's a great question. How does that reconcile with folks getting an abortion because they found out the fetus has Down syndrome?

I don't like either idea, tbh. But, there are plenty of laws I don't like (ie. the death penalty).

Odd, huh?

thx Si, yes it is curious and posits a conundrum too, in that IF one says no , they there by acknowledge, there is a restriction on the 'use of their bodies' and, I think it follows, the restriction would have to come from the gov......


also, how about;

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites?

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites? | Practical Ethics

Not agreeing with someone's choice does not equate with justifying government intervention in prohibiting it.

I have no problem with someone making the decision about bringing a child into the world who will always need help. I also have no problem with someone making the opposite decision.

Mostly, I think it's none of government's business.

I agree that it is none of government's business. So, why would I want a way to let government into such a decision by supporting a government controlled health care system, for example?

That seems contradictory.

 

[Bigfoot]

Does anyone here support sex selective abortion?

Another good question is if people are born gay as some claim, will abortions be chosen by sexual orientation when DNA testing becomes capable of determining a fetuse's sexual orientation while still in the womb. Why bring a gay kid into the world when a potentially healthier child can be had with the next pregnancy.

 

[Obamanation]

No, I don't, but it's a great question. How does that reconcile with folks getting an abortion because they found out the fetus has Down syndrome?

I don't like either idea, tbh. But, there are plenty of laws I don't like (ie. the death penalty).

Odd, huh?

thx Si, yes it is curious and posits a conundrum too, in that IF one says no , they there by acknowledge, there is a restriction on the 'use of their bodies' and, I think it follows, the restriction would have to come from the gov......


also, how about;

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites?

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites? | Practical Ethics

Not agreeing with someone's choice does not equate with justifying government intervention in prohibiting it.

I have no problem with someone making the decision about bringing a child into the world who will always need help. I also have no problem with someone making the opposite decision.

Mostly, I think it's none of government's business.

So now murder is not the business of the gov't?

So what happens when a woman has a baby and then loses her job -- is it OK to decide that waiting to have a baby until her life is more settled? I mean, she never would have had the baby at all if she knew she would be unemployed. Obvious solution is to kill the baby.

Or, how about a baby, not previously known by the parents, born with down syndrome. Must be ok to kill them after their born - it was OK to kill them a week earlier.

Come to think of it, what about an 80 y/o with terminal CA. Not much sense in keeping them alive they are just a burden on their children. Why should they give up their job to care for the old lady? Just go ahead and kill her off.

The left is just a voice for those who can't speak... yea right!

 

[koshergrl]

Mostly the left is okay with that sort of stuff.

 

[P@triot]

Mostly, I think it's none of government's business.

And yet you still can't seem to comprehend that when you demand that they pay for it, you're making it their business.

It's truly astounding the you believe they owe it to you to pay for everything, but not ask questions or make decisions. I'd love to know what in the hell kind of household you grew up in. You just told daddy to fork over the cash like he was an ATM machine while you would just makes all of a the decisions?!? Is that how it worked?!?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Does anyone here support sex selective abortion?

No, I don't, but it's a great question. How does that reconcile with folks getting an abortion because they found out the fetus has Down syndrome?

I don't like either idea, tbh. But, there are plenty of laws I don't like (ie. the death penalty).

Odd, huh?

thx Si, yes it is curious and posits a conundrum too, in that IF one says no , they there by acknowledge, there is a restriction on the 'use of their bodies' and, I think it follows, the restriction would have to come from the gov......


also, how about;

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites?

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites? | Practical Ethics

There is a difference between supporting abortion and supporting individual choice.

 

[Inthemiddle]

thx Si, yes it is curious and posits a conundrum too, in that IF one says no , they there by acknowledge, there is a restriction on the 'use of their bodies' and, I think it follows, the restriction would have to come from the gov......


also, how about;

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites?

Is it Wrong to Deliberately Select Embryos which will have Disabiltites? | Practical Ethics

Not agreeing with someone's choice does not equate with justifying government intervention in prohibiting it.

I have no problem with someone making the decision about bringing a child into the world who will always need help. I also have no problem with someone making the opposite decision.

Mostly, I think it's none of government's business.

I agree that it is none of government's business. So, why would I want a way to let government into such a decision by supporting a government controlled health care system, for example?

That seems contradictory.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a slippery synaptic slope.