Forcing People to Pay for The Contraception and Abortion of Women is a Right for Women?

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.

A lot of IFS in your argument.

IFS doesn't make FACT sorry to say.

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)

Originally posted by Grimpachi
...
So what exactly is your argument?

Again, that money was paid to you for having YOUR health insurance which YOU had been paying...

If another person who didn't buy health insurance from your PRIVATE Healthcare provider had tried to demand for his/her bill to be paid, would it have been paid the old way?...

My argument has ALWAYS been that YOU paid for YOUR insurance. Your private healthcare insurance didn't pay for people lacking your insurance.

As to how they were able to make money and pay for the extra costs?... Insurance companies would use the money you paid to invest and make more money. Some of which would be used to pay for your medical bills, and the rest which would be used as profit if their investments were profitable.

If such investments that the insurance company made were not successful, such company would go bankrupt.

My beef is with people like you thinking it is alright to FORCE others to pay for the contraceptives and abortion of some women, and thinking this is their right...

what about the rights of the millions of Americans who don't agree with your view?... Their rights don't matter huh?...

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)

"Learn science"?... Do you even know how ridiculous that sounds?... Not to mention that the mandate INCLUDES ABORTIONS, and yes abortions do kill human fetus/babies that are developing...

FACT..you dear OP have en effiable chip on your shoulder and touting sites and links isn't going to change the FACT that if I choose to get contraceptives on the new healthplan??? There isn't a darn thing you can do about it as of yet...so yes!!! I guess you could say I am laughing Good day Sir, I refuse to feed your ego any longer

and just for good measure OP...my Signature is for people JUST LIKE YOU!!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


IF MEN COULD MENSTRUATE, BY GLORIA STEINEM:

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!"
www.haverford.edu...

You know it's true!

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by riverwild

 

How is a woman using her personal, private insurance to get birth control being irresponsible?

That is the responsible thing to do.

I was trying to make a point with the other poster in suggesting her statement did not make sense in reverse.

reply to post by windword


Oh yeah sure, if us men were women everyone could grow wings and fly as well...

OPINIONS/AKA OP/ED do not make fact... They are OPINIONS...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

My argument has ALWAYS been that YOU paid for YOUR insurance. Your private healthcare insurance didn't pay for people lacking your insurance.

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.

reply to post by rockhndr


Oh wow... That's it!!!, that's the BEST counter-argument I have EVER read...

Now I am the one laughing...

I want to know how well you will laugh in the next stage when your masters implement another policy, and this time something YOU are against...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Yep, and you're posting a bunch of your own opinions as well.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


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.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Not everyone is like you OP...it's kind of called minding ones own business...there are plenty of things I do not agree with in the world...but I am not in the mentality of telling others how to live or what they can choose for themselves...and I definitely wouldn't try to take anothers free will or free choice from them...Live and let live... and as a reminder? I STILL respect your OPINION on the matter at hand...I have not tried to dissuade your morals or values-you do not have to use the services provided if you CHOOSE not to-but you don't have the right to tell others what services should be provided for them as well...and BTW? You still have not explained exactly how anything in the new healthplan is different from WHAT WE ALREADY DO with our Medicare and OASDI...

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.

WRONG... Those bills from hospitals are not passed to PRIVATE healthcare insurance companies... They are passed unto the GOVERNMENT who have paid these bills through taxes.

Oh yes, SOME of the taxpayer's money had been used to pay for people who were uninsured, but until now this money was not used for contraceptives, or for abortions. This was the reason for the Hyde Amendment which prohibited Federal money from being used to pay for abortions.

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...

personally - the U.S. gubberment needs to get out of the doliing biz.
ya kaint pay ya kaint play.
stop the genocide.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Wrong...contraceptives and abortions ARE covered under Medicare if medically necessary...and let me explain to you as a woman...there are very FEW Dr.s who would NOT find a way to make these things available if the woman asked and discussed responsibly with her Dr...when was the last time YOU had a discussion on BC with an OB/GYN????

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...

The implication is the very HEART of this thread that YOU created...

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.

Using your logic then a baby that has been already born isn't a person... It isn't fully developed after all... Heck even children are not fully developed beings, and in fact we all develope throughout our lives, and change our thinking and views, so we are a CONSTANTLY EVOLVING BEINGS... But according to your logic this is an excuse to MURDER human fetus/babies, children and people of all ages huh?...

You obviously agree with the OTHER LIBERAL point of view...

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.”
...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

And as I said before, it is a lie that they are now claiming that they "only" want to do this for disabled or malformed babies, which is still morally wrong. But in fact they want to make it legal so taht parents can kill their newborn babies even if he/she has no health problems or is not disabled...

The following is directly from the paper wich is found in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini1,2,
Francesca Minerva3

+ 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; [email protected]

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


Abstract

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.
...

jme.bmj.com...


Get ready because that is the next stage of things to come, and many, if not the mayority of the "pro-choice" crowd will eventually agree with this view because once again they will be brainwashed into thinking that "it is necessary for x reason"...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


The costs of treating uninsured patients are passed on through higher prices for services across the board. Yes, your premiums reflect unpaid hospital and emergency room services of the uninsured.

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.[6] 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."[7] 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.
en.wikipedia.org...