Now I remember why I was an independent all those years.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I mean, at least convenience isn't a commonly used justification for war.

 

Nope - usually they say it's the "only option," which to me can mean the same thing a lot of the time. Same thing for abortions, maybe.

 

I don't care what people do with their health plans now, so why should I care in the future? As someone who goes to the doctor for an annual check-up and maybe - MAYBE - an illness once a year, I'm really not getting back what I put in to my plan, but I don't care. Maybe one day I will, and I'll be grateful as heck.

 

If Suzie Hypochondriac, also on my health plan, goes to the doctor for unnecessary procedures about once a month ("Is it a sinus infection? OMIGOD I think I'm pregnant! I don't have a prostate?!") I'm footing at least a portion of the bill, in the global scheme of things. I don't agree with her personal health care at all, but that's not my call.

[ikol]

But there's a difference between merely disagreeing with someone's personal healthcare choices and believing that they are using their healthcare to destroy a human life.

[Guest Speed Racer]

But there's a difference between merely disagreeing with someone's personal healthcare choices and believing that they are using their healthcare to destroy a human life.

 

To you. I've got my own thoughts on reproductive health, you've got yours, and I don't care what you or Sally Teenagesex do with your health care.

[Tweedling]

Precisely.

[Good Old Neon]

You really don't see the difference there? Regardless of whether you support a given war, can't you admit that reasonable arguments can be made in favor of war? Going to war is a decision made by a democratically-elected government that is meant to benefit all citizens through ensuring their protection. Arguments of whether any given war lives up to this aside, ensuring common defense is explicitly the main purpose of government. Even if you favor abortion on demand, an abortion is a personal choice made by an individual with no input from voters (kinda the whole purpose of "pro-choice") and meant mainly to benefit that individual. What possible argument could you make that tax money should fund this, especially when even most pro-choicers "personally oppose abortion"? I mean, at least convenience isn't a commonly used justification for war.

 

I agree that reasonable arguments can be (and have been) made in favor of going to and/or waging war. However, my point, is that rabid pro-lifers seem much less interested in preserving the lives of innocent civilians who have a much greater purchase on life, and thus, much more to lose than a developing fetus. True - war is often waged to secure resources, both financial in nature and to control access to natural resources for the betterment of the war wagers, or so we’re told. So, in that sense, abortion could be considered a woman’s self defense against a future she doesn’t want and/or didn’t ask for, i.e. - to secure a better future not only herself, but also other preexisting children she may have. Since we’ve already established that many low-income single moms rely, at least in part, on public assistance programs, we’ve already decided that we will have to pay for that child one way or another, now or in the future. Which of course brings to mind another contradiction, the folks who fret and fuss over the life of a fetus, often appear much less interested in the health and well being of that fetus once it has reached maturity, enters the world, and starts demanding resources. The focus quickly shifts from, “abortion is murder” to “well, tough shit, you shouldn’t have had a child you cannot provide for, you’re not going to use my hard earned money to…” – the same child who, if they had their way, a woman would be forced to give birth to. And yes, adoption is certainly an option, however, some people cannot bring themselves to give birth to a child, only to give it away. That decision also comes fraught with tons of emotional baggage. And yes, so does seeking an abortion – but to suggest that undergoing an abortion is simply a matter of “convenience”, well, I find it cruel, insensitive and demeaning.

 

There are tons of things I’d rather not have to pay for, however, access to abortion is not one of them. Your resistance appears to be religious in nature, and that’s fine, and I respect that, however, outlawing abortion to assuage an individual’s religious concerns crosses another line, the separation of church and state. Which, like national defense, is one of the other fundamental pillars upon which our democracy was founded.

[Atticus]

Which of course brings to mind another contradiction, the folks who fret and fuss over the life of a fetus, often appear much less interested in the health and well being of that fetus once it has reached maturity, enters the world, and starts demanding resources

 

I think this stems from the people you're speaking of not agreeing with the choices that the matured fetuses have made for themselves.

 

 

You’re resistance appears to be religious in nature, and that’s fine, and I respect that

 

woah, woah, woah, woah. hold on a minute. who are you and what have you done with good old neon?

[Good Old Neon]

I think this stems from the people you're speaking of not agreeing with the choices that the matured fetuses have made for themselves.

 

Ok, but they often express a similar sentiment even in cases where a pregnancy results from rape.

 

 

woah, woah, woah, woah. hold on a minute. who are you and what have you done with good old neon?

 

I’m trying Poongoogler, I’m really trying…(you have to read that using the voice of Jules, the real Jules from Pulp Fiction, not that other dude)

[Guest Speed Racer]

I think this stems from the people you're speaking of not agreeing with the choices that the matured fetuses have made for themselves.

 

I think he means matured fetus as in, infant in need of resources. Not matured young adults.

[Good Old Neon]

I think he means matured fetus as in, infant in need of resources. Not matured young adults.

 

Correct.

 

(you get full credit for the assist )

[Edie]

Which of course brings to mind another contradiction, the folks who fret and fuss over the life of a fetus, often appear much less interested in the health and well being of that fetus once it has reached maturity, enters the world, and starts demanding resources. The focus quickly shifts from, “abortion is murder” to “well, tough shit, you shouldn’t have had a child you cannot provide for, you’re not going to use my hard earned money to…” – the same child who, if they had their way, a woman would be forced to give birth to. And yes, adoption is certainly an option, however, some people cannot bring themselves to give birth to a child, only to give it away. That decision also comes fraught with tons of emotional baggage. And yes, so does seeking an abortion – but to suggest that undergoing an abortion is simply a matter of “convenience”, well, I find it cruel, insensitive and demeaning.

 

This does really get to the heart of the argument. These are also the people that want to limit access to birth control (pre-conception), and insist that kids under 18 talk to their parents about it first. I think that while kids (and adults) need to better understand the possible consequences of their actions - meaning unplanned pregnancy - the reality is that the moment often overtakes good decision making. Then the really ugly decision comes up: what to do with an unplanned baby.

[Good Old Neon]

This does really get to the heart of the argument. These are also the people that want to limit access to birth control (pre-conception), and insist that kids under 18 talk to their parents about it first. I think that while kids (and adults) need to better understand the possible consequences of their actions - meaning unplanned pregnancy - the reality is that the moment often overtakes good decision making. Then the really ugly decision comes up: what to do with an unplanned baby.

 

And therein lies my main problem with religion, it robs us of what defines us as humans; independent thought. Putting aside religious dogma entirely, I cannot help but believe that most adults would agree that sometimes, abortion serves an important function, and that it makes sense to provide contraceptives to teens, and that we should educate our children with regards to sex, early and often. The urge to have sex is one of our most basic, rudimentary impulses, yet, it is a subject that we often force adolescents to navigate alone, without our guidance – often for religious reasons.

 

Now, we can hope and strive to elevate ourselves above the station of intelligent mammal, and it could be argued that we should, but our biological impulses, crafted and refined over millions of years, will never relinquish their grip entirely.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Then the really ugly decision comes up: what to do with an unplanned baby.

 

Legally speaking, the first ugly decision is: what to do with an unplanned pregnancy. Of course, if what you wrote about was the heart of the argument, "pregnancy/fetus v. baby" would be the liver. Maybe the lungs?

 

We spend so much time right up until children reach puberty (and even through puberty, counting driver's ed, nutrition, sports training, etc.) teaching children how to control instincts, manage insticts, and navigate instincts safely, but freeze up at the one instinct that actually forces a child to create a life or terminate a potential life.

 

My high school was fortunate enough to have a giant bowlful of condoms, free for the taking, in the nurse's office - on her desk. Needless to say, not a soul was shocked when her youngest daughter, a student at my high school, became pregnant.

 

***

 

Back on topic, I really hope the health care reform allows pregnant women - regardless of age, income, race or current health situation - the ability to choose the safest, best outcome for themselves, their lives and their families.

[Guest Jules]

I'm more worried about the people who do plan pregnancies but really shouldn't. For example, idiots, people with no money, ugly people, etc. etc.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I'm more worried about the people who do plan pregnancies but really shouldn't. For example, idiots, people with no money, ugly people, etc. etc.

 

And this is exactly why we need to engage children and young adults in active, open, honest sex education programs early and often.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

To prevent the reproduction of ugly and poor people?

[Guest Speed Racer]

To prevent the reproduction of ugly and poor people?

 

And people who don't read sarcasm very well, too - can't forget them.

[Atticus]

I’m trying Poongoogler, I’m really trying…(you have to read that using the voice of Jules, the real Jules from Pulp Fiction, not that other dude)

 

[ikol]

I agree that reasonable arguments can be (and have been) made in favor of going to and/or waging war. However, my point, is that rabid pro-lifers seem much less interested in preserving the lives of innocent civilians who have a much greater purchase on life, and thus, much more to lose than a developing fetus.

 

So your objection is not to the argument being made, but instead to who is making the argument?

 

True - war is often waged to secure resources, both financial in nature and to control access to natural resources for the betterment of the war wagers, or so we’re told. So, in that sense, abortion could be considered a woman’s self defense against a future she doesn’t want and/or didn’t ask for, i.e. - to secure a better future not only herself, but also other preexisting children she may have.

 

That's a fair enough argument in favor of an individual's decision to have an abortion, but it still doesn't explain why taxpayers should have to fund it. Again, an abortion only benefits the person having the abortion, whereas national defense benefits everyone.

 

Since we’ve already established that many low-income single moms rely, at least in part, on public assistance programs, we’ve already decided that we will have to pay for that child one way or another, now or in the future.

 

So using tax money to fund abortions saves money down the line? That gives me some ideas for Social Security/Medicare reform.

 

Which of course brings to mind another contradiction, the folks who fret and fuss over the life of a fetus, often appear much less interested in the health and well being of that fetus once it has reached maturity, enters the world, and starts demanding resources. The focus quickly shifts from, “abortion is murder” to “well, tough shit, you shouldn’t have had a child you cannot provide for, you’re not going to use my hard earned money to…” – the same child who, if they had their way, a woman would be forced to give birth to.

 

So are people that oppose murder but also oppose universal healthcare for would-be murder victims also guilty of contradictions?

 

And yes, adoption is certainly an option, however, some people cannot bring themselves to give birth to a child, only to give it away. That decision also comes fraught with tons of emotional baggage.

 

Some people think that having to pay taxes that fund abortions is also fraught with tons of emotional baggage.

 

Your resistance appears to be religious in nature, and that’s fine, and I respect that, however, outlawing abortion to assuage an individual’s religious concerns crosses another line, the separation of church and state. Which, like national defense, is one of the other fundamental pillars upon which our democracy was founded.

 

Is this based on all the theological points and Bible verses that I've posted in this discussion? For someone that does a lot of posting of others' thoughts, you sure do like to dismiss other people's opinions. And once again, this is not about outlawing abortion but using tax funds to pay for them. A popular argument used by pro-choicers is "if you're against abortion, don't have one." By using tax funds to pay for abortions, you're saying that pro-lifers don't even have the option to not participate in them.

[Atticus]

So using tax money to fund abortions saves money down the line? That gives me some ideas for Social Security/Medicare reform.

 

you are so pro-death panel. I'm going to facebook about it.

 

 

So are people that oppose murder but also oppose universal healthcare for would-be murder victims also guilty of contradictions?

 

[Edie]

And once again, this is not about outlawing abortion but using tax funds to pay for them. A popular argument used by pro-choicers is "if you're against abortion, don't have one." By using tax funds to pay for abortions, you're saying that pro-lifers don't even have the option to not participate in them.

 

Interestingly, right now the Supreme Court is considering arguments on whether or not to allow corporations to contribute to political campaigns by using the first amendment right of free speech as the basis. My 401K and investments (which are considered by most to be a necessity - not a luxury - to retire) are poured into these very same corporations who can then "choose" to put money behind politicians or PACs whose opinions I may not wish to have my money behind. I have no choice in the matter there either. I guess I could just decide not to put money into them, just as you could decide not to pay taxes.

[Atticus]

I guess I could just decide not to put money into them, just as you could decide not to pay taxes.

 

not paying taxes is a crime. not putting money into a particular mutual fund or stock is a legal choice.

[Edie]

True enough. However, the analogy holds.

[bjorn_skurj]

Mutual funds are the ones that hold stock in corporations; I wonder of Fidelity et al. get any shit for investing in companies their 401(k) holders disapprove of?

 

In other news, I just got back from the local "tea party" protest. Anti-Obama/health care/government types outnumbered their counterprotesting foes by about 10-1. Everybody was pretty well-behaved, though there were some f-words and flipped birds. Pics to follow after I get some wonton soup.

[bjorn_skurj]

 

 

 

 

[calvino]

I walked past a tea party going on at Millennium Park (Downtown, Chicago) this afternoon. Around hundred people or so. No protesters, or at least I did not notice any.

 

They had a little stage set up and I did over hear a lady who was giving a speech to the crowd: while talking about Chicago, she stated that we all were in the "belly of the devil".