It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Thunder heart woman
If a man could get pregnant, not only would contraceptives be free, you would be able to buy the pills OTC right off the shelves without a script in this country. And a man would not have to jump through the hoops that some women have to in order to get an abortion. They would be granted one immediately. That's how it would be.
Originally posted by Grimpachi
So what exactly is your argument?
Originally posted by mac420
Well, think of it this way, I don't support these wars, killing innocent civilians, children or whatever. So why do I have to fund that? We all pay for things we don't like, at least a woman's contraceptive rights won't harm anybody. (And if you say it will harm the baby, learn science)
So what would happen if suddenly, magically, men could menstruate and women could not?
Clearly, menstruation would become an enviable, worthy, masculine event:
Men would brag about how long and how much.
Young boys would talk about it as the envied beginning of manhood. Gifts, religious ceremonies, family dinners, and stag parties would mark the day.
To prevent monthly work loss among the powerful, Congress would fund a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea. Doctors would research little about heart attacks, from which men would be hormonally protected, but everything about cramps.
Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. Of course, some men would still pay for the prestige of such commercial brands as Paul Newman Tampons, Muhammad Ali's Rope-a-Dope Pads, John Wayne Maxi Pads, and Joe Namath Jock Shields- "For Those Light Bachelor Days."
Statistical surveys would show that men did better in sports and won more Olympic medals during their periods.
Generals, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation ("men-struation") as proof that only men could serve God and country in combat ("You have to give blood to take blood"), occupy high political office ("Can women be properly fierce without a monthly cycle governed by the planet Mars?"), be priests, ministers, God Himself ("He gave this blood for our sins"), or rabbis ("Without a monthly purge of impurities, women are unclean").
Male liberals and radicals, however, would insist that women are equal, just different; and that any woman could join their ranks if only she were willing to recognize the primacy of menstrual rights ("Everything else is a single issue") or self-inflict a major wound every month ("You must give blood for the revolution").
Street guys would invent slang ("He's a three-pad man") and "give fives" on the corner with some exchenge like, "Man you lookin' good!"
"Yeah, man, I'm on the rag!"
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by riverwild
How is a woman using her personal, private insurance to get birth control being irresponsible?
My argument has ALWAYS been that YOU paid for YOUR insurance. Your private healthcare insurance didn't pay for people lacking your insurance.
Originally posted by windword
Wrong! Your premiums reflect unpaid services. Why do you think there is such an uproar over uninsured people using the emergency rooms? Not because it's cheaper, but because they are mandated to treat uninsured people.
The cost of treating these uninsured patients at emergency rooms is passed on to all of us.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by rockhndr
And tell me, where did I write or imply that others must do as I say?...
In fact it is people like you who want to do this, who want to FORCE those who don't agree with you into accepting your views...
I have made myself clearly on this issue PLENTY of times...
Originally posted by mac420
Key word 'developing' not developed. A sperm isn't a person, an egg isn't a person, a sperm/egg at up to 8 weeks isn't a person. The brain is what makes us human, and that doesn't fully develop until about week 6-9. And 'learn science' was a throw away line. A joke if you will. I could fully explain myself, but then that would make me care about your limited opinion, which i do not.
Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
+ Author Affiliations
1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; firstname.lastname@example.org
Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.
Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate. Similarly, it has attracted controversy for its impacts on hospitals, and in particular, for its possible contributions to an emergency medical system that is "overburdened, underfunded and highly fragmented." Charity Care or care provided to the uninsured represent an industry average of 20% of total cost of care provided.
There is debate about the extent to which EMTALA has led to cost-shifting and higher rates for insured or paying hospital patients, thereby contributing to the high overall rate of medical inflation in the U.S.