I Say, Let Any Right-Winger Opt Out of the Affordable Care Act

No, it doesn't matter to you. You're not a woman and you said that it's not a decision you'll ever have to make. You said you're content to leave it up to those who are faced with it. So, be true to your word and leave it up them. At this point, you really don't have an argument to make.

 

I'd like to compare Obama's healthcare plan with the Republican's healthcare plan to see the differences, or what could have been, or what might have been changed. Then I realized the Republicans didn't have a health care plan to refer to. So, it seems either they wish to simply deny health care to the majority of Americans, or they're just upset they couldn't come up with something better on their own and so can do nothing more than complain about what we do have. Typical.

 

Au contraire mon frere...
http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/solutions/rsc-betterway.htm

 

No, as usual you don't or, more probably, choose not to get it.

You know as well as I do that I am defending the right of women to make a choice concerning abortion. The fact that I will never have to make that choice myself in regard to my own body, health, and circumstances, does not mean that I can't defend the right of those who might. That I believe that a woman should have that choice should tell you all you need to know about my personal and somewhat ambiguous views regarding the nature of the unborn.

You are trying hard to confuse that issue. You want to focus on when I think a fetus becomes a baby or when the rights of the unborn, to the extent that I feel they exist at all, might trump those of actual people. Sorry, but even people personally and directly involved will come up with different answers to that question. Unlike you, I'm not going to try to dictate to them or take away their options based on what I think. I'm not in their shoes.

Sometimes you will approve of their decision, sometimes you won't. Unless of course your side triumphs in this debate and then women will not have a chance to make a decision regarding abortion at all. You will have made it for them. It will be your decision, not theirs. That's what I object to, and you understand the concept as well as I do.

 

You ignored the first part of the post. I'm really interested in how you are able to get inside the minds of women you have never met and know what has caused them to consider having an abortion

 

I think that this would make an interesting thread on its own. If it's something you'd like to talk about, why not expand on it a little and start a new conversation? In this thread I think it will just get buried in the mess.

 

I think you are the one confusing the issue. No one has ever said that abortion isn't or shouldn't be a health option afforded women...no one. The question is whether or not an unborn baby has Human Rights and to what extent those Human Rights may be abridged in defense of the Mother.

It's clear by your quote (bolded above), that an unborn baby may not have ANY Human Rights and that a baby must be actually delivered to be considered "an actual person". You personally may not even feel that a newly born baby is an "actual person" because he/she can't provide for themselves. However, that point is settled law...in America, anyway.

So the question is whether or not unborn babies have any legal Human Rights at all. Criminals are charged with murder if their actions result in the death of an unborn baby...that's law. There are also laws which outlaw actions by a Mother that puts an unborn baby at risk. For instance, in the State of Colorado, if a baby is exposed to illegal substances during pregnancy, the Mother can be arrested, charged with neglect, and the baby remanded to child services upon birth.

To suggest that unborn babies are completely without Human Rights isn't supported by current law. So...to what extend, and under what conditions, does a Mother's Human Rights take priority over those of the unborn baby? That's the question that needs to be answered and our laws should reflect that answer. Perhaps they already do.

Personally, I wish there were no laws restricting abortion at all; I wish Mothers would instinctively know the right thing to do. Unfortunately they don't in every case...and that's when it's the duty of society to step in and defend the defenseless innocents.

Just two (2) years earlier...this would have been called "Healthcare"

 

Contrary to your statement that it's not your decision and one you'll never have to make, you're very persistent in your desire to interject yourself into the debate even when you don't have a dog in the hunt.

If you're going to try to argue a point, we need to know where you stand. In this case, it's very important to know if you think a human being exists at the moment of conception, at the moment of birth or somewhere in between. It has to be one of the three, so please tell us your opinion. Let's start with that. I've already given my opinion so you know where I stand.

Also, who said anything about "dictating to them to take away their options"? I've previously stated that the law should allow some abortions.

 

There's the back-up!

 

It's not a question of getting inside anyone's mind. It's a question of respecting the Human Rights of the unborn when those of the Mother are not threatened. Laws that don't defend the Human Rights of unborn children should be reviewed and modified.

 

Here's the bill that yakpoo referenced. Read it and let us know what you think.

http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill_american_health_care_reform_act.pdf

 

This baby gives you "two thumbs up" for that one, yakpoo:

View attachment 2104

 

Au contrair, mon ami! They do have a health care plan. It starts off with step 1. Don't get sick. Step 2. If you do get sick, just die.

I don't know why you think they had no plan. Hum?

 

For once, you're correct: http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill_american_health_care_reform_act.pdf

 

Okay so then under what circumstances would you make the choice for women and under what circumstances would you not?

And according to you, you don't have a dog in the marriage equality debate, yet you are clear in your support of giving same-sex couples the option to marry if they so choose. And your vote counts on this issue. How is this different in principal than my participation and vote on the abortion rights issue?

 

Which would be what? You seem a lot more confident of your ability than I am in mine to decide what is right and what is wrong in each of the multitude of situations and scenarios in which abortion might be considered.

 

Yeah...it sucks to be you.

 

Okay. First of all, you are starting with the assumption that fetuses have human rights. Like it or not, some people would say that they don't. Others, I would guess the majority, view them as being deserving of some sort of protection and special consideration but don't see them as fully human or having human rights in the sense that someone who has been born is seen as fully human.

You seem to think that abortion should be allowed only if the woman's health might suffer or life might be in danger. I think that this is what you think, anyway. Don't let me put words in your mouth. If this is the case, you're not alone. Some people think that the woman has no right to abortion at all, since humanhood (?), in their view, begins at conception. At the other end, there are people who think that a woman's right to chose an abortion is absolute right up until the baby is born. Again, most people are probably in the broad middle and hope that it's situation that they are never confronted with.

So how do we bring all these strongly held views together? I don't think we can. The only solution I can think of is for the person directly involved to decide for herself. And to have the options available to her that will actually give her something to decide about. Women do have views on the issue and they cover the same wide area of ground that those of men do. But it's not our call. It's theirs.

 

Hmmm... Maybe you're more perceptive than I've given you credit for.

 

I agree with your assessment and tried (as best I can) to address them in Post #36 (Page #2). Since this is a question of opinion, I refer to related law and societal morays of acceptable treatment of the unborn to give some focus to the question.

The abortion issue always seems to come down to a woman's "intentions". If she intends to carry the pregnancy to term, there are one set of expected behaviors (e.g. prenatal care, etc). If she intends to abort the pregnancy, there's another.

I would suggest that even unborn babies have at least some limited Human Rights that ought to be respected independent of the Mother's "intentions".

Take the case where, in spite of precautions, a woman becomes pregnant. She's not married, is a model or actress and doesn't have the time for a child and doesn't want the stress of child birth on her body. She clearly doesn't want, and has no intention to care for, the baby.

Is abortion justified under these conditions? Many would say "Yes". Certainly the Mother would want to seek an abortion.

The question is whether or not the unborn baby has any rights at this point...or at what point does the baby accrue any rights. Clearly, the baby has full human rights upon delivery. Are any of these rights "accrued" throughout the pregnancy...as the fetus develops into a child?