Stanek weekend question: Do Americans still value born life?
Our weekend question today comes from moderator Tyler, who writes:
I am astonished why so many people fail to appreciate that four Americans were killed in Libya. I believe this is a pro-life issue. The respect for the lives of these Americans seems to be lost on the MSM, and even the general/world wide public.
The question is: Do Americans still value born life?
Check out this video of John McCain. Why does he have answer such questions and emphasize the loss of life that has taken place in Benghazi? Why doesn’t the MSM appreciate the seriousness of what happened?
Video intro, from YouTube: “After being asked whether the Petraeus scandal was a bigger national security threat than the Benghazi consulate attack, John McCain coldly tells a reporter, ‘That’s one of the dumbest questions I’ve ever heard.'”…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiccOeBvAT0&sns=em[/youtube]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Well, Obama acknowledged that the deaths of those four Americans were “not optimal”, so there’s that.
I think plenty of Americans, including Obama, expressed sadness at the oversees attack.
I do think in this country, the general rhetoric these days, places less value on life. I’ve had people legitimately argue with me that if people can’t afford health insurance, they should be allowed to die. That wasn’t an argument you would here 10 years back.
No, Ex. Obama called the incident “A bump in the road…..Pass me some more of that champagne, Jay-Z.” He also has no problem with an abortion survivor being denied any medical care.
Back away slowly from the crack pipe.
This is such a tragedy for the parents, families, and friends of these individuals. The lives of these four individuals have been severely disrespected.
If the question of the day is “How can we make fun of Obama today”, then just say it and I’ll unsubscribe and bounce off this thread.
If the question is “Do Americans still value born life” – I would say “yes”, but “not as much as we used to”.
We’ve had multiple mass shootings this year, and thousands of murders – yet the focus is typically political right after they happen.
We have people yelling in the audience of political debates to let somebody die if they don’t have insurance.
We have people who legitimately think that euthanasia is a good option.
We have drunk driving laws that have allowed people with 20+ convictions to roam free, while we bend over backwards in some states to lock up people who smoke a little pot.
Again though, if this is a bash Obama thread on the latest attack – let me know so I can unsubscribe.
Please Ex, unsubscribe. Because if you claim to be pro-life and you come here day after day to tell us what a swell fellow this charlatan of a man is whom we have as President, you are one of those who contribute to the inherent worthlessness of human life.
Social Justice BEGINS in the womb. If you don’t start there in any discussion of civil rights or human dignity., you simply cannot talk about them, period.
Courtnay – this thread is specifically NOT about preborn babies – did you read the title?
I massively care about the unborn – I just think that a lot of people are short-sighted in looking for their abortion victory through the Republican party.
Do Americans still value born life? Yes, they do. But you would never guess it from anonymous internet comments and the gossip and rhetoric that gets reported as news by the media.
Anytime there is a large scale tragedy (Sandy, Katrina, the Japan tsunami, the 2004 tsunami) Americans donate hundreds of millions of dollars to help the people in those regions. Americans travel to areas that are hurting and lend a helping hand to recover and rebuild, set up collection efforts to provide for material needs, food, water, etc. Americans are generous people with their time and their money. And this generosity happens closer to home as well. When the people in our lives are sick or are in need we babysit, provide meals, organize carpools, raise funds, lend a shoulder to cry on, etc, etc. There is true compassion and caring that happens every single day in every city. But that kind of news doesn’t sell papers or earn high ratings, so you’re not going to hear about it. Just look around. I’m sure we all see our family, neighbors, and friends doing wonderful things for others. When push comes to shove, Americans still value born life. But how they act on that caring is many times misguided. (Euthanasia, abortion, etc)
Ex-GOP, welcome to the Twilight Zone.
This episode, like the others, involves a bunch of political hacks who like to wrap themselves in American flags and hide behind bibles.
mp -
I feel like, and I’m guilty of it myself, that people like a politician for a few issues and then end up having to stand behind that party for everything. The two party system really makes it tough. For me – I believe that there must be a healthy balance between government and business – business must be in a situation where it can thrive, but regulation must exist because we’ve been burned too many times in the past. I believe taxes should be as low as we can get them while being responsible, but I also believe that welfare and unemployment need to come with strings attached – and greater help through educational opportunity. I believe that health care is very important and since everyone takes advantage, everyone should pay. It also seems like of new buildings being built, 90% of them are medical related, financial institutions, or education – so you can see where our money is going. If the GOP became the GOP of old again, I could get back on board. I just don’t get this new GOP – the ones that took a giant axe to hack “compassionate” out of the phrase “compassionate conservatives”.
On the Bible…I feel that mixing one’s political beliefs with their religious beliefs is both necessary and dangerous. The abolition movement and women’s suffrage movements had many Christians lined up and helping. Unfortunately, slavery was supported for years by well meaning Christians, and we see persecution of others today by those who pick and choose which verses to legislate. I believe in the Bible, and believe that I need to live my life according to the love of Christ. What I often disagree with others is what applies to the public square and not just personal life. For instance, gay marriage – I have no issue with gay marriage, and feel that Christians have really come out looking like hypocrites and hateful people on the whole issue – not with what they believe, but with how they’ve presented the argument.
Sorry for the long rambling – I guess I’m just tired of the stupid little political posts and games of those that simply repost the party lines of the day. The country is on the edge right now – and it is going to take solutions and compromise to move forward – or there is going to be a lot of hurting people out there.
Ex-GOP, you could be described as an Eisenhower Republican. I remember those days, as I was once a Republican myself.
I think reason will eventually return to the party, but not until it rids itself of the charlatans, those like Limbaugh and Beck, who are simply using people to advance their own personal ambitions, selling crazy books, gold, “survival seeds” and every other manner of crazy stuff.
The latest I’ve read about is Dick Morris and his crazy crap about “black helicopters” and seizing Americans’ guns. Oh well.
Anyway, I come here mainly to read you because you make sense, so I appreciate your response.
This is PRECISELY my point. There is a continuum that connects violence inside the womb and violence outside the womb. Ex, I absolutely read the title of the post, and I know its about whether we value born life. My point is this: day after day you come on this site and support a man who truly believes that killing a kind of human life is perfectly acceptable and he will cash in whatever political capital he has to to protect the right to kill. He is supposed to be our leader, yet he perceives abortion’s violence as acceptable. There is no reason to believe he would see any human life as valuable as it is divorced form the political gain it can afford him. This is YOUR guy. OWN HIM.
Hide behind my Bible??? You betcha. Because if all you’ve got is this milque toast man-child and a mainstream press who will defend anything single thing he does, then I will always win this one.
If you support the sanctity of life, there is NO WAY you can even say the words Barack Obama and not vomit.
I don’t think American’s value born life particularly much anymore. It seems like more and more people put forward death as a solution to a lot of things. When people tell me that someone dying of cancer because they can’t afford chemo is “just how life is”, and that drug addicts can die because “they did it to themselves”, I don’t think people are valuing life that much. One second though, maybe people are just losing their compassion and that’s why they stopped caring about people’s lives. I don’t know, but it is depressing.
Jack, all the best to you.
“When people tell me that someone dying of cancer because they can’t afford chemo is “just how life is”, and that drug addicts can die because “they did it to themselves”, I don’t think people are valuing life that much”
Stolen from the mouths of many “pro-life” conservatives who hate the idea that everybody should be able to access health care.
” Stolen from the mouths of many “pro-life” conservatives who hate the idea that everybody should be able to access health care.”
A lot of the conservatives have different ideas rather than a universal healthcare type of system. Which is fine, whether I agree with them or not. Most of them are decent people who would be horrified at the thought of someone dying because of lack of care, they just don’t think that universal is the way to take care of that.
There is this growing subset that worries me though. The whole “if you can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps, too bad” type of attitude. Those people freak me out.
Thanks mp
Ex-Gop bringing up homosexuality in his post made me think of my own position and even though it’s off-topic and certainly NOT the point of the post, I feel some people have misconceptions of some of us who are against the homosexual orientation/lifestyle/choices/marriage.
For the record, I am NOT trying to start ANYTHING. Not one bit. I just don’t think I’ve ever taken the time to outline this on any post, and Ex-Gop’s post made me think of it.
So please, bear with me, while I attempt to explain. Maybe my post won’t change anyone’s mind. Maybe not everyone will think I mean well, but I actually DO mean well.
Okay, so where we go:
As a devout Catholic I don’t condone mistreating anyone–no matter their sexual orientation. Yes, I disagree with the homosexual/bi sexual/transgender lifestyle choices, but that doesn’t mean I approve of treating them like sub-human organisms. I believe love and friendship isn’t about approving of EVERYTHING a person does, but of building up the human dignity in a person.
I had a homosexual friend (I say “had” because he died about 2 years ago. Unfortunately, I didn’t make it to his funeral, we were close years ago, and lost contact through going different directions and not having each other’s number, but then about a year before his death regained contact and picked up where we left off). He didn’t agree with my Catholic faith, and I didn’t agree with his homosexuality. But we cared about each other. In fact, one time when he had his heart broken he came to ME for comfort. I found that surprising given my position, but he knew I cared about him as a person. I did my best to be there for him, I wasn’t sure if I did a good job, but he seemed to appreciate whatever I could offer.
I didn’t have to support his homosexuality–I’m sure he wished I had, but it didn’t stop him from hanging out with me the times we did hang out (later in life our schedules made it impossible for us to see each other). I wish he had liked Catholicism because it’s such a core part of me, but, I can’t MAKE a person like that part of me. I do, however, appreciate the fact that he said “I never felt you weren’t a good friend to me.” In spite of everything we had one thing in common: We were both human beings and we both recognized that dignity in the other.
So you see…just because I have conservative values, just because I’m a devout Catholic and staunch pro-lifer doesn’t mean I don’t care about people. It just means there are things that are important to me and I must stand by those beliefs. It doesn’t mean I wish ill on people. I really don’t.
Sorry this post was so long! I shortened it a little (doesn’t look like it, I know, LOL).
I wish McCain had shown this passion when he ran for president. He had all the right to say, “Who is this guy?”
We were some of the few who knew Obama was willing to sacrifice the life of a post-birth to ensure the destruction of more pre-birth. And now all with eyes to see and ears to hear know he is willing to sacrifice four of his subordinates to preserve the “Al-qaeda is on the run” meme of his recent convention.
Keeping him in office shows too much of America cares little for human life of any kind.
Although, on second thought, my story might be an example of Americans valuing born life, so not completely off topic?
Numbers. It’s all about cost-benefit, how much, how many … Only FOUR people were killed in Libya after all. Many of us care very deeply about our family, friends, neighbors, that person with the sign that says “I’m hungry, please help” as we actually looked them in the eye. Everyone else – sure, we don’t want there to be human suffering. We have compassion in some vague sense. But can we be completely and equally empathetic to every person, as they are represented en masse over our TV or computer? We value born people. I am truly sorry for the unnecessary loss of those four brave men. It does sadden me and many if not most others. But I think we can all become numb to the feelings of people we don’t know, and we reduce that kind of life to numbers. The media lets us see things I am uncertain if we can process appropriately and respond to with the right emotions. This is one reason why community giving and volunteering are so much more meaningful than simply paying taxes. We are made to be social and connect with individuals, not just watch tragedies unfold on TV and go mail in a check.
Life, I think often of those 2 navy seals, defending their lives and compound as best they could, calling in for help, wondering when it was going to come. And then I wonder about that moment, when they looked at each other, and realized that no one was coming at all. I pray God gave them strength. Because we (and we’ll figure out who we is soon enough) abandoned them.
Jack: The problem is that we’re not hearing much in the way of a viable solution for healthcare reform from the right. Opposing Obamacare isn’t the same thing as having an actual plan that will prevent more people from suffering.
Courtnay – I do too. You nailed it – the wondering when someone was going to come help brings me to tears. I am glad we see faces with the names. I guess I don’t think I’m special because I can manage to be emotional about four people I don’t know. But I do think watching human suffering on the news every night, in combination with our sinful nature, makes some people numb and others feel hopeless. That does not excuse a lack of compassion and devaluing of human life. It is problematic to accurately talk about the collectivity of course, which is where some of my inconsistencies seem to be coming from.
mp – thanks for the props – I appreciate them, and I appreciate your fact checking and thoughts on this site.
I agree on the Limbaugh statement – there is too much political entertainment out there that is doing more harm than good. Much more harm than good. And it comes from both sides.
The GOP side sure has tapped into the paranoia of the American citizens. From taking away guns to the black helicopters to death panels – I tell you – it would be stressful to be a GOPer!
Whereas with the Democrats, willful ignorance is bliss. The time will come to pay the piper.
“Jack: The problem is that we’re not hearing much in the way of a viable solution for healthcare reform from the right. Opposing Obamacare isn’t the same thing as having an actual plan that will prevent more people from suffering.”
No, I get you. I actually do agree with this. I don’t know if it’s my intellectual limitations or what but my conversations with people who I know are really compassionate (so I know they aren’t the type to be all “oh whatever let them suffer and die”), I have trouble grasping what exactly they think will be an improvement. But a lot of them think that Obamacare will push us over the fiscal cliff and whatever, which will make things worse. I don’t know, I’m still reading stuff and trying to form my opinion on it.
Jack – one of the biggest issues of reform is that it relies on a radical shift of behavior from people.
Right now, we have a nation of emergency care – especially for those who can’t afford it. The general thought is that doctors are there for you in emergencies.
We need to get to a place of preventative care. It avoids emergencies and thus is much cheaper.
Getting people insured is one thing. Getting people to get regular care is another.
The right has nothing to complain about health care reform – it’s a conservative’s dream. I think it will hold off universal coverage for a while – but I think that is the future.
Jack,
Your humility is an impressive, attractive quality. I wish more religious people had it.
Ex-GOP,
We could have waited on health care until we were on firmer ground economically. With this shaky foundation, I’m afraid we’re boxed in financially. Obama would have been a lousy triage doctor, fixing the hangnail while others are bleeding out.
Yeah Ex, I really do understand your argument, you explain it well and you make a lot of sense. I don’t really understand the people who argue with you’s arguments. That’s what I’m trying to figure out. It seems their arguments have a lot to do with economics but nobody can point me to something that shows how much uninsured and underinsured people are costing the US right now, versus the projected costs of Obamacare.
Thank you Hans. :)
Hans – typically it seems like when folks have the numbers, they go after their token legislation and work hard to tie it to the economy – Walker did the same thing in Wisconsin – said that he had to do the fix to really take on the economy long term.
It did take up a lot of time in legislation – thought it was clear that nobody else was in the mood for more stimulus or even jobs bills – things that typically are used to attack the recession.
Will be interesting to see areas of focus after the fiscal cliff is addressed over the next few months. Immigration probably – that should be interesting after it bit the GOP so hard – will be very, very interested to see where people position themselves.
Jack – here’s an argument to address the cost:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-05-09-uninsured-unpaid-hospital-bills_n.htm
That puts it at about a half trillion a decade problem. The bigger problem, and why I don’t get the right’s hatred of the individual mandate and covering people – is that the half trillion a decade gets passed on to everyone else – some experts think through higher premiums, some through taxes. So the shift has to be from getting these folks into preventative care rather than emergency care.
Jack -
Another very interesting article. This one puts the tab at closer to $60 billion a year – but also tells some stories of how the uninsured have been treated through time, and some of the history of the GOP actually believing health insurance was for all.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/18/nation/la-na-emergency-care-20120619
Thank you for the link Ex, I appreciate it.
“Paul Winfree, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, disagreed, saying the study showed how Americans can exploit the system. “With ($88,000), families should be able to buy insurance,” he said. “They choose not to.””
This is a good an argument for the mandate if I have ever heard one. I have no idea what I would do with 88k a year, but I would probably have insurance lol. And if families making that much still only pay 37% of their hospital bills if they are uninsured, that’s a huge problem.
“Jack Hadley, senior health services researcher at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., pointed out that uninsured people are charged as much as two-thirds more than what insured people are charged because insurers are able to negotiate prices.”
And that kinda takes away the argument that third party payment is making prices balloon.
EGV,
Sure preventitive care is a great concept, but what if people won’t take the personal responsiblity for preventative care? Take them by the hand? Go door to door? EGV, personal responsiblity isn’t something magically conferred upon a person by a gov’t program.
Let’s try this analogy. You can have an outstanding Fire Department in your community, but it does little good if you do not take the personal responsiblity to protect your home from a fire. The Fire Dept. can only do so much. They can’t be your nursemaid. Neither can the health care system.
While we are talking costs, how many billions do you suppose are lost in insurance, medicaid, and medicare swindles? Who do you think those costs are passed on to? How many millions does the insurance company pay out on orders of idiot juries for absurdly ridiculous reasons? Who do you think that cost gets passed on to? People file lawsuits looking for easy money.
More gov’t involvement doesn’t mean more personal responsiblity. It means more opportunity for corruption and more billions lost.
BTW, FBI estimates for medicare losses through fraud for year 2011 alone are 15-17billion.
Part of the problem is that we have a constant influx of poor immigrants who use more in medical care than they can possible pay for. With US birthrates at just about exactly replacement levels, we have added 60 million people due to immigration since 1990. I think the reason there has been no push to raise the minimum wage is that politicians have figured out those people will not buy health insurance, so they would prefer to force employers pay them more in insurance benefits than in dollars that they would spend on what they want.
The big winners in all this are the insurers and hospitals.
Hey, would you lookie there, insurance and hospitals stocks are up.
Gonna be big big profits.
My husband has insurance through his job. A few weeks ago, he went to the Emergency Room because (while he was at work), he started having pain and urinating blood. We had no idea what was wrong. They did a urinalysis, and an ultrasound. They said he has kidney stones AND gallstones!
He went to a urologist who said he really should think about surgery to remove his gallbladder. We got a bill for the E.R. a couple of weeks ago:
$12,000!!! This was for ONE visit- ONE day! His insurance decided to pay for $5,000, leaving him to still pay $7,000.
He says there is NO WAY he can afford to pay for surgery/ hospitalization for his gallbladder, so he’ll just “put up with it”. We don’t even know how we’re going to pay the $7,000.
Medical expenses these days are just UNBELIEVABLE! :(
Pamela,
That’s just it. The costs were the problem to fix. Not getting rich Uncle Sam to help out. Where’s the incentive to keep expenses reasonable now that we poor saps have “loan shark” help to put it off for another day?
Mary -
Let’s just spare ourselves both a bunch of frustration and time typing and move on with our lives.
I hear you Pam – the costs are crazy. My understanding is that in reform, the out of pocket max is $5950 a year – but previous plans are grandfathered in (since it looks like you have something like a $6K deductible, 80/20 after).
Hans does bring up a good point – price controls need to be stronger, but that has typically been fought in a free market health care society.
Is that what you are arguing for Hans – government price controls?
No, I’m talking about a totally FREE market. Where we are free to choose the better-priced coverage and medical expenses. Stay away from the government slippery slope!
Hans – could you clarify?
Do you mean that somebody such as Pamela should have called around to medical facilities for the best price?
Or do you mean, by a free market, that the facility could have denied her family coverage if they didn’t pay up front?
What do you mean by a “totally free market”?
“ I guess I’m just tired of the stupid little political posts and games of those that simply repost the party lines of the day.”
Oh, irony…
EGV,
Good point. Why confuse this discussion with facts.
Hi Pamela,
Indeed expenses are unbelievable. Thank third party payment, either in the form of insurance or gov’t involvement. If not for third party payment, hospitals, doctors, and clinics would be forced to make their prices competitive.
Our cosmetic surgeons are forced to keep prices competitive since insurance does not cover cosmetic surgery. Our plastic surgeons are doing a booming business and where I live ain’t Beverly Hills or anything even close.
Ex-Sensible Voter,
Medicine is a service business. Let government enforce safety regulations, but not direct how they conduct the business THEY know. Capitalism over Socialism. Shoddy expensive service will be winnowed out by those pay attention.
But if it’s propped up and directed by Big Brother, health care will sink to uniform mediocrity. It’s two paths. I want to be able to choose the free path, not the path that claims to be “free” in cost.
“Capitalism over Socialism. Shoddy expensive service will be winnowed out by those pay attention.”
That is precisely what Alan Greenspan said about the financial services industry prior to its self-destruction in September 2008 due to fraudulent products and practices. Millions lost their savings, their homes, their futures.
Greenspan has since changed his views, testifying before Congress that his libertarianism was lacking.
Meanwhile, in the medical services industry, how many will die while so-called free market forces–the “invisible hand”– winnow out shoddy service providers?
This has nothing–absolutely nothing–to do with socialism.
Will you be paying attention when they haul you in to repair your crushed chest, Dr. Hans?
Jeez.
“We need to get to a place of preventative care. It avoids emergencies and thus is much cheaper.”
Logically you are wrong because people living longer means more expense over their lifetime. And eventually they are likely gonna have that stroke or heart attack anyway and if they don’t then the end-of-life care would be much more expensive then if they had died. I agree preventive care is a good thing thing. I am just saying that living longer means more expense not less.
The same people who kill the unborn for convenience would accept killing the born for convenience. There is no difference between the two. You either respect life or you don’t. And the liberals don’t. They wouldn’t even have passed health care if it had included Hyde like language. The liberals/democRATs only support universal health care cause they can use it to grow government and buy another voting bloc. They don’t fool me.
Perhaps the four don’t get that much attention because they are men. It is not a “man’s world” and never has been. People, at least in the West, have always valued the lives of women more than the lives of men.
Men are routinely executed in the United States. But there is inevitably a hoopla if a woman — or at least an attractive — is scheduled for execution. Everyone denied it but there would have been much less attention paid to a Karl than there was to a Karla Faye Tucker.
America is interesting in its application of the death penalty. We’ve got so many choices: gas chamber, electric chair, hanging, firing squad, and lethal injection. I don’t believe there is any other country that has so many choices in how to execute.
Of course we all value life but we also value personal responsibility, ie when you take a treacherous job overseas – you basically know what you are getting into. Chris Stevens was fully aware of how dangerous the job was, as I am sure the others did. All of this Obama bashing does nothing more than diminish the victims. As for most here being Pro-Life? That’s doubtful, the bulk of you support capital punishment and hate the fact of anyone having health care, so spare us. If you want to be Pro-Life – you need to go all the way….
Fair said: As for most here being Pro-Life? That’s doubtful, the bulk of you support capital punishment and hate the fact of anyone having health care, so spare us. If you want to be Pro-Life – you need to go all the way….
Fair, captial punishment is the cop-out argument pro-choicers use. I’m not saying capital punishment is a great way to deal with a situation. I am saying, however, others have said that an innocent baby is not the same as a grown person who intentionally murdered people.
I’m all for people having a fair trial. I’m also for there being real consequences. Whether or not death row is a proper consequence or not has nothing to do with abortion.
People don’t kill in-uteral babies because they’re criminals. An unborn child has NOT committed any crime. In fact, the only so-called crime he/she has committed is being conceived. Yet, they receive the punishment a guilty person receives–death. How does that make sense? How can any one say that a BABY is the same as a mass-murderer? That doesn’t make any sense either.
So the capital punishment argument has nothing to do with abortion. It’s not the same. Yes, life is in the balance, I get that, but you have to look at the matter itself. The motivations and who is involved. Is it a guilty person or is it an innocent? Given that I’ve yet to hear of a BABY (or, a Fetus, if you prefer) being an intentional criminal. Can a fetus INTENTIONALLY kill someone? I mean, I’ve heard of women dying from pregnancies/giving birth (extremely rare, though) but shoot, do you honestly believe the baby/fetus thought to itself “Let’s kill my mommy!”? If you do, then you must believe their decision-making process is way more developed than science and experience has proven. Babies/fetuses only understand ”I’m hungry, need food.” “I’ve wet myself, I need help.” “I’m sad, I need comfort.” “I’m hurting, I need help.”
Now I understand forgiveness, but I also get that any government has to have consequences for those who go around doing immoral things (such as murder). They can’t just be allowed to roam around free to keep up what they’re doing. The government has a responsibility to its citizens to protect them. Whether liberal or conservative, one could understand that, am I right?
However, how are we protecting the unborn child when it comes to abortion? We aren’t. Pro-choicers would argue we’re protecting the woman, but a good majority of pro-lifers (including myself) would say “Let’s do our best to protect BOTH!” As a pro-lifer I’m all about finding ways of protecting both the lives of the baby AND the mother.
I do applaud women who put their children ahead of themselves because that’s a very basic motherly instinct–to protect one’s child. I’m not saying every woman is good at that, it IS tough. But I am saying that to deny a woman that instinct and for a woman to deny it in herself shows a deeper problem, a deeper situation than the unborn child. The unborn child isn’t the main problem, it’s something that was there BEFORE the child was ever conceived. Maybe it’s the woman’s age. Maybe it’s having been raped. Maybe it’s not having money to support a child. Maybe it’s health. Who knows? What ever the reason, those circumstances have to be addressed and abortion does NOT address those issues. Furthermore, how was an unborn, innocent child THE problem? Did that child cause the rape? Was the child the one to blame for the woman being underage? Or on drugs? Or financially unstable? Or in a bad relationship? Or unwed? Or emotionally unable to care for a child? Or mentally unable to? No, the unborn child had nothing to do with that. He or she was just a natural result of a sexual intercourse. You can’t blame an unborn baby for something it didn’t do. That’s irresponsible.
As for health care, I’m all for people having health care. I think most pro-lifers would say it’s important for folks to get GOOD health care. But this HHS Mandate/Obamacare is far from the solution. Taking away conscience clause for doctors takes away their freedoms.
Besides which, why should taxpayers have to pay for someone else’s contraception? I’ve had a nurse even tell me that there are affordable contraception options out there and that it was unnecessary to make taxpayers pay for it when there were affordable options available. I can’t stop people from getting artificial hormones or whatever but why should I be forced to pay for it?
Especially since I don’t even USE contraception. I practice the Sympo-Thermal Method of Natural Family Planning (NFP). So the contraception portion of the Mandate/Obamacare offers me absolutely nothing I’d find useful in the way of healthcare. So why should I pay for something I’m not even going to use or want? It makes no sense. I don’t buy purple carpet because I don’t WANT or NEED purple carpet. I don’t buy a yacht because I don’t want a yacht. So why should I pay for the yacht if I’m not going to use it? Why should I pay for someone ELSE’s contraception especially when I’m not even going to use it or want it?
I’ve heard of some places even giving out condoms for free. I’ve heard Planned Parenthood has done that in some schools. Why then do we NEED taxpayers to pay for it when that’s going on?
Why not come up with a more USEFUL solution? This isn’t going to do anything except raise taxes even more, probably put some doctors who won’t be able to practice according to their conscious out of business and force folks like me to pay for something they don’t want to pay for.
Mary says:
EGV,
Good point. Why confuse this discussion with facts.
Ignorance is bliss. People would rather chase utopian rainbows and lollypops than face the hard fact that socialized medicine is always big on promise and short on what it delivers. Now that older people who have put into the system their entire lives will have their care options trimmed thanks to Medicare funding cuts and Obama care rationing, and younger people who do not want to purchase insurance will be forced to do so the winners will be the tens of thousands of bureaucrats and IRS agents hired to monitor and enforce the new regulations.
Mary, you can talk until you are blue in the face…it won’t accomplish a thing as long as what you say does not pierce the world view of those who hold that socialism and Obamaism contain the answers to all the world’s problems.
And you all would rather put your healthcare decisions in the hands of Insurance Companies based on profit?
What is good healthcare when an insurance company is telling you they will not pay?
That’s ridiculous…..
Watching Bobby Jindal right now on Fox saying Republicans have to be respectful of Pro-Choice voters…..
Mother In Texas says:
November 18, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Fair said: As for most here being Pro-Life? That’s doubtful, the bulk of you support capital punishment and hate the fact of anyone having health care, so spare us. If you want to be Pro-Life – you need to go all the way….
Fair, captial punishment is the cop-out argument pro-choicers use. I’m not saying capital punishment is a great way to deal with a situation. I am saying, however, others have said that an innocent baby is not the same as a grown person who intentionally murdered people.
(Denise) These two issues don’t have that much in common. At the present time, there is no reliable way to treat psychopathy. Dangerous people can only be killed or confined. They cannot be helped to become no longer dangerous although old age can make them infirm and therefore unlikely to continue harming others.
It may well be that research is laying the foundation for treatments that will work but they are awhile away.
Oh yes. We just hate it when people get health care to help them live and stuff. I mean, that has no tie-in with being Pro-LIFE. 9_9
Spare me. Creating a bloated, wasteful, deadly system to treat people who were already able to get treatment anyway is not seen by many here as a preferable alternative to what we currently have. That doesn’t mean we “hate it when people get health care”.
But thanks for letting me know about that Bobby Jindal thing. Now I know to oppose him if he tries to make the run in 2016. But, I’ve been meaning to eat a little crow and tell Sydney that she’s right and ask to join the Constitution party for a few days now:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/
Fair says:
November 18, 2012 at 2:29 pm
And you all would rather put your healthcare decisions in the hands of Insurance Companies based on profit?
What is good healthcare when an insurance company is telling you they will not pay?
That’s ridiculous…..
There’s got to be a better way than Obamacare of dealing with that problem.
Besides which, WHO is going to pay for ObamaCare/HHS Mandate? The taxpayers.
Would you rather see us taxed out of our minds rather than sacrifice your precious abortions and contraceptions? Heaven forbid anyone try to stand on their own two feet. I’m all for helping the poor and being chertiable but good golly, you really think free abortions and contraception are going to solve anything in the long run?
I don’t want to pay for these things. I don’t even USE contraception and I’m against abortions, so it means zip to me except higher taxes and possibly seeing good doctors go out of business because they don’t have the conscious clause anymore.
Oh and by the way…regarding socialized medicine…I know an ambulance driver in the UK. He told me years ago “You all do NOT want socialized medicine. Do NOT go that way.” Considering he works in the Healthcare industry in a place where they have socialized medicine, I figure he knows what he’s talking about.
“America is interesting in its application of the death penalty. We’ve got so many choices: gas chamber, electric chair, hanging, firing squad, and lethal injection. I don’t believe there is any other country that has so many choices in how to execute.”
Well, we are united states, literally. All other places the state is the country. Each state has its own criminal code. The United States of America is a federal system, and each state still has its own criminal code. We are not provinces of a country. We are states. Each state has provinces, usually called counties, but other terms are also used.
Mary (and Jerry I guess) -
You and I both know that if we start debating health care again, I’m going to pull out articles, stats, and economic position papers.
And then you will talk about how it was in the 1950s and how we need to do that again.
Quite frankly, its insulting. We need grown up solutions, not a continued bullet point list of talking points that haven’t worked before, and aren’t going to work in the future.
Then why have you rejected two grown-up presidential candidates in a row for the least-grown-up president in memory? A Disney World animatronic president would have done better than this man-child celebutant!
Honestly?
I liked McCain a lot – I LOVED McCain when he went up against Bush in the primaries years ago. Anyway, I was really on the fence on McCain vs Obama until McCain picked Palin. I felt that it was a slap in the face to everybody that loved this country. If he had picked Lieberman, I’m not sure who I would have voted for.
On Romney, there were two issues I ultimately had issues with on Romney. First, he wanted to repeal health care reform, and two, I didn’t know where he stood on his overall tax plan and how it would affect the country since he wouldn’t name the loopholes he would cut. I haven’t minded the Romney that existed up until two years ago – he’s always been a sensible moderate – put a nice model in place for health care reform. He flipped on so many issues though, he made John Kerry look like a straight shooter.
Mother In Texas says:
November 18, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Fair said: As for most here being Pro-Life? That’s doubtful, the bulk of you support capital punishment and hate the fact of anyone having health care, so spare us. If you want to be Pro-Life – you need to go all the way….
Fair, captial punishment is the cop-out argument pro-choicers use.
(Denise) With human beings, anything is possible. I’ve read that Jeffrey Dahmer was the result of a planned and wanted pregnancy. However, it’s a pretty good bet that most of those who get to death row are yesterday’s unwanted. They were usually raised in horrible circumstances. I’ve often mentioned the case of poor Lisa Coleman, the result of an incestuous rape, who is awaiting execution for the starvation death of her step-son. Someone said, “What is the point of keeping her alive? She’s known nothing but misery. She’s caused nothing but misery. It’s almost a form of euthanasia to just say the heck with it and kill someone like that.”
Indeed, serial murderer Ian Brady, the son of a young single mother who was shuffled between foster homes and relatives as a child (but claims to have “had a happy childhood”), believes that long-term prisoners should be allowed to apply for voluntary euthanasia.
EGV,
LOLLLL. I’m talking mainly about the 60’s before Medicare(1965) came into existence. It was around this time President Johnson declared on a war on poverty. Despite trillions spent, we still have poverty. And yes the indigent were cared for. My grandmother, may she rest in peace, wound up at the city hospital after one of her, um, binges with alcohol. Excellent care. In fact, a lot of people wound up there because of drugs, shootings, stabbings, and …alcohol, or because they were destitute. That’s before the city went down the crapper and actually had the means to provide care to those in need. However, I understand the hospital is still going strong though.
Anyway, I digress. As I said EGV, I won’t add to the confusion with facts.
Ha – yes Mary – don’t add facts to that confusion of a post! I agree 100%!
Fair,
I find it just as hypocritical that the pro abortion crowd supports the mass killing of the unborn for any reason but wants to spare a deranged murderer. Perhaps you could justify that dichotomy.
Sure I had no problem with Ted Bundy frying, because the guy escaped prison and went on a kiling rampage. Society has a right to protect itself. I’m all for gun ownership too, in case some crazed spawn of the devil breaks into my house. Concealed carry is another good idea. Never know when grandma might be packing a piece.
Hate anyone having health care? Please, spare us the theatrics.
EGV,
I’m not surprised you find it confusing.
EGV,
Sorry, I had to interupt my 6:17PM post to you. Since you are confused by my post, let me make it simple. What I am saying is that government involvement in anything only leads to wasted money, corruption, ineptness, disrupted lives, and ultimately only makes problems worse.
I am pointing out that people, however desperate their circumstances, and that included my own grandmother, got the care they needed without gov’t interference. Government and third party interference has only led to corruption and out of control expense.
Hopefully I have cleared up your confusion.
My only point is you keep saying you keep throwing out facts. Let’s break it down:
Facts:
“Sorry, I had to interupt my 6:17PM post to you.”
Opinions:
“What I am saying is that government involvement in anything only leads to wasted money, corruption, ineptness, disrupted lives, and ultimately only makes problems worse.”
“I am pointing out that people, however desperate their circumstances, and that included my own grandmother, got the care they needed without gov’t interference. Government and third party interference has only led to corruption and out of control expense.”
If you want to talk healthcare, you know I’m more than willing. But I can’t speak to the experiences of your grandmother years ago in any sort of meaningful context as it relates to health care today.
EGV,
I am talking health care! What I am pointing out is that as an indigent alcoholic, my OWN grandmother got the care she needed. So did people off the street. So did victims of violence. And the gov’t didn’t do squat. I am pointing out that people got care. With the onset of government involvement (Medicare 1965)(Medicaid 1965) we continue to see only corruption and billions wasted. According to FBI stats, 15-17billion in medicare fraud in 2011 alone. And that was only an estimate based on what was known. Government involvement doesn’t solve squat EGV, its got a dismal track record in every respect. That’s what I’m pointing out to you. And you want more of it? You think Obamacare is some panacea that is an exception to the rule?
Its a 2700 page boondoggle that congress passed without reading and that even Nancy Pelosi admitted had to be passed before we knew what was in it. You trust THESE people with your health care EGV?
I recommend everyone watch ‘Seat Team Six’. It is available on NetFlix.
Interspersed thru the film are audio cuts of the obamateur commenting on the mission well after the fact. More spiking of Osama bin Laden’s head in the end zone.
Then there are the still shots of the same cast of characters who turned deaf ears and blind eyes to the murder of 4 americans in Beghazi.
Remember this film was timed for release before the election and the producers of the film were granted access by b o and company to personel and classified information not available to the press or the general public.
When are we going to be treated to a film with still shots of b o, hillary, panetta and a host of other accomplices watching in real time as an United States ambassador Christopher Stevens, state department employee, Sean Smith, and state department sercurity contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty being murdered after making repeated calls for re-inforcements?
A long legged, ’on the down low’ mac daddy who could allow an infant to bet set aside to die is not likely to care much about adults half the world away when intervening to save their lives would expose the failure of ’his’ foreign policy 30 days before the election.
Ex-RINO says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm “For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: June 11, 2012 at 7:56 am“…at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote democrRAT…”
Ex-RINO says September 6, 2012 at 8:41pm “I’ve actually started to seriously think about not voting this election.”
Ex-RINO says September 9, 2012 at 8:27pm “I’ve far from decided what I’m going to do this election… I can’t vote for Romney. But beyond that, I’m still deciding.”
Ex-RINO says: September 16, 2012 at 10:08 am “And they [democrRATs] are winning.”
Ex-RINO says: November 18, 2012 at 5:07 pm “Quite frankly, its insulting. We need grown up solutions, not a continued bullet point list of talking points that haven’t worked before, and aren’t going to work in the future.”
Quite frankly Ex-RINO,
It is your willful ignorance, self deception and sickening manipulation that is insulting to mature, intellectually honest people.
History is repleat with examples of failed socialism, but some humans are so stupid, they refuse to learn the lesson.
There is no constitutional right to health care, child care, contraception, elective/cosmetic surgery, ‘obamaphones’, housing, food or transportation.
Most amercians still find a way to procure all these goods and services without demanding that the someone else provide it for them.
Most of these whiners who will not provide for themselves are just plain lazy.
I am sure in the 47% who pay no taxes there are some retired folks who managed their money well in their productive years and they can survive on the Social Security and Medicare that they invested in all their productive years and I bet most of this small percentage of the 47% did not vote for the obamateur in either election.
“I am sure in the 47% who pay no taxes there are some retired folks who managed their money well in their productive years and they can survive on the Social Security and Medicare that they invested in all their productive years and I bet most of this small percentage of the 47% did not vote for the obamateur in either election.”
Okay, Romney. I haven’t ever paid federal taxes and I didn’t vote for Obama. But you guy’s absolute disdain for people who fall under the poverty line is losing you votes, make no mistake about it.
Other than personal pride and integrity, which I think we all agree not all folks posses, what incentive is there for providers to provide good health care when they get paid whether they do a good job or not? When you pay directly, better providers make more and it is a virtuous circle. When the gov’t will still pay the doctors, nurses, clerks, etc, no matter how much you complain, then they are emboldened to slack off if they are the sort to slack off, or they just get worked to death while they watch the incompetent and uncaring collect the same salaries, until they get fed up and quit. So the system punishes the good docs and rewards the bums.
Mary -
And I’ll just point out that I’ve known people who have had good medical outcomes in this country and others, and have had bad medical outcomes in this country and others – and those singular cases don’t prove squat about the overall health care of that nation.
If fraud is truly your concern then, you should love the health care reform act – here’s some info for you on ways it will fight fraud:
http://www.healthreform.gov/affordablecareact_summary.html
Ken -
But there are provisions that the legislative body in this country can pass laws.
Which they did.
And that law was ruled constitutional.
And you can yell and scream all day long about it, and about how insulted you are that poor people can get medical coverage, and wealthy people can’t work the system.
But at the end of the day, the law is still passed.
File your claim on constitutional grounds if you’d like. It’s been settled. I don’t know what else to tell you.
Hippie – and you just brought out one of the greatest reasons to support this health care overhaul.
Previously, we’ve always paid for services. Rack up services, rack up payments.
The new health care law transitions to payment for outcomes. If a hospital botches care and somebody comes back in because of that, the facility won’t be racking up charges. Here is some information if you actually care about this issue:
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/10/29/early-evidence-suggests-medicare-advantage-pay-for-performance-may-be-getting-results/
“The new health care law transitions to payment for outcomes. If a hospital botches care and somebody comes back in because of that, the facility won’t be racking up charges.”
It still is only accountable to some agency that cannot possibly be as interested in the outcomes as the patients themselves. It is not a market, rather a bureaucracy of semi-interested to non-interested assessors.
The FDA used to be a high functioning organization until the revolving door developed whereby pharmaceutical company employees left the company to work for a while at the FDA and then back to the company. The people themselves built relationships with the supposed regulators who were their former and future bosses or employees. Now the FDA will approve anything. It is all cronyised. Health care will end up the same way.
Honestly, I think it will end up a two tiered system. One with be the system for most people and the other will be for the rich and those who want to pay cash. The most talented will gravitate to the cash tier.
EGV 9:17PM
First of all the link didn’t work. Not a problem, happens to me enough.
Let’s face it EGV, the gov’t has a dismal track record when it comes to running much of anything. When hasn’t there been fraud and corruption when people see what is to them an easy and endless source of money? You really believe Obamacare will be an exception? I’m telling you here and now it won’t be.
I’ll ask again. Are the people who wrote that 2700 page boondoggle, who don’t even themselves know what’s in it, and admit that the bill has to pass to know what’s in it, the ones you want running your health care?
Mary -
You know what else has fraud and doesn’t run very well? Private health care insurance. So should we throw that out?
The short answer to your question is ‘yes’.
The health care industry is massively broken. A bill that covers medicare, medicaid, and properly overhauls the industry should be more than a position paper. There’s a lot of things in life that are lengthy and still valid – I don’t think we should throw something out just because it covers the basis.
Will there be issues? Yes. Will there be things that need correcting? Certainly.
I have a friend that had a rare form of cancer in college. She couldn’t get health care coverage after she was cleared because of the previous condition. What the insurance companies were doing – denying her coverage, was 100% legal. If it takes 2700 pages to change that, then I’m all for it.
I have a friend that had a rare form of cancer in college. She couldn’t get health care coverage after she was cleared because of the previous condition. What the insurance companies were doing – denying her coverage, was 100% legal. If it takes 2700 pages to change that, then I’m all for it.
WORD.
EGV 11:05PM
It makes my point. Third party payment, government and insurance, only gives more opportunity for fraud and greed. It increases prices. Our “broken” system is the result. Do you honestly think more gov’t involvement will solve this problem? Look to Medicare fraud for your answer.
That is very tragic about your friend and I am very sorry for her. The father of my aunt’s Canadian therapist was put on a waiting list for treatment in Canada when he had cancer. Thankfully she could use her medical connections to bring him to the U.S.
However, since we have no clue as to what is in the 2700 page bill, no surprise since the people who wrote it don’t either, what makes you so certain your friend would have been helped? You didn’t answer my question either EGV, are these the people you want managing your health care?
Mary -
What makes your point?
And on the Canada story – again, what point are you making? The US isn’t embarking on a system like Canada has – much different. Thinking we are putting in place a Canadian system is foolish.
I did answer your question on the 2700 pages – I’ll answer it for a second time:
“The short answer to your question is ‘yes’.
The health care industry is massively broken. A bill that covers medicare, medicaid, and properly overhauls the industry should be more than a position paper. There’s a lot of things in life that are lengthy and still valid – I don’t think we should throw something out just because it covers the basis.
Will there be issues? Yes. Will there be things that need correcting? Certainly.”
Quite frankly, it’s not even the right question to ask – in 2014, I’ll still be insured by my employer – there’s not a shift of people going from private plans to government plans – that just isn’t happening. We’ll still very much be in control of the private insurance industry.
Why in the world would we value born life when we do not value preborn life??
We pick and choose what stage of human life we value.
Too young? Kill. Too old? Kill. Too sick? Kill. Too weak? Kill.
Unwanted? Kill.
“I have a friend that had a rare form of cancer in college. She couldn’t get health care coverage after she was cleared because of the previous condition. What the insurance companies were doing – denying her coverage, was 100% legal. If it takes 2700 pages to change that, then I’m all for it.”
that makes no sense, you know. That is like insisting that you be able to buy a lottery ticket after the winning numbers are picked. Everyone will just pick the winning numbers. Insurers calculate person’s risk of some event. If it has already occurred then there is nothing to calculate. You can’t get fire insurance after your house burns down either.
Oh wow that’s cold hippie.
It’s interesting that Californians didn’t get enough votes to abolish its death penalty. Abortion advocates are quite fond of trying to find a ‘hypocrisy’ in people being pro-life but not anti-death penalty. Though many pro-lifers do oppose the death penalty, abortionists hold a myth that we are all hypocrites.
So, I wonder. Do abortionists think that they are NOT hypocrites because a) they support the death penalty, or b) because they don’t support the death penalty because large humans deserve to live and very small humans do not.
Or: “We’re better than you because we’re not hypocrites because we think it’s ok to kill small people but not grown up people.”
or “We’re better than you because we’re not hypocrites because we don’t oppose the death penalty at all so our pro-death views are consistent.”
I know that some will hide behind “embryos aren’t people” but that’s scientifically inaccurate so I’m not going to engage a faulty argument based on emotions (“We don’t want to believe embryos are small people. W can’t agree on when people are big enough to be people, but we insist that our emotionally driven belief is correct thought it is not based on human biology”).
Is that an apt assessment of pro-abortion views?
^ cold but true; insurance works for eventts that are rare but costly, if you can get most everyone at risk to have to join in.
our health care system is not like this.
covering birth control pills just doesn’t make sense. the expense is known: $30 a month or whatever. if you get a job that has ins with a $5 copay, then you pay the $5 to the pharmacy,, and your employer pays $25 to the health insurance company that will eventually go to the pharmacy for teir portion of your pills.
there is no risk spread a cross a lot of ppl.
for those cases where someone is recognized as high likelihood of remergence of a costly condition, plain ol’ health ins doesn’t make sense. it does if everyone has to pay in, as they do with car ins, and then there are two things for the eventual high cost cases: they stay covered out of premiums from the healthy, or that is the point where the govt steps in and picks up the cost.
but is is ridiculous to sell a community-rated health ins plan to a cancer survivor when not all citizens are paying in.
ninek says:
November 19, 2012 at 2:17 pm
It’s interesting that Californians didn’t get enough votes to abolish its death penalty. Abortion advocates are quite fond of trying to find a ‘hypocrisy’ in people being pro-life but not anti-death penalty. Though many pro-lifers do oppose the death penalty, abortionists hold a myth that we are all hypocrites.
So, I wonder. Do abortionists think that they are NOT hypocrites because a) they support the death penalty, or b) because they don’t support the death penalty because large humans deserve to live and very small humans do not.
Or: “We’re better than you because we’re not hypocrites because we think it’s ok to kill small people but not grown up people.”
or “We’re better than you because we’re not hypocrites because we don’t oppose the death penalty at all so our pro-death views are consistent.”
(Denise) It has to do with what the human embryo or fetus requires to survive. I was not being facetious when I suggested that adoption would be much more likely to be successful if humans laid eggs. Similarly, this issue would change a great deal if wombs were artificial. If you had a factory in which embryos and fetuses were grown in artificial wombs it would be considerably different. The problem is not size. The problem is what is necessary for survival is the body of the pregnant girl or woman.
Regarding the death penalty: it does arouse a great deal of passion. However, it should be put in perspective. If a man (it is overwhelmingly likely to be a man) is sentenced to death in most states of the US, it can take about 2 decades to exhaust his appeals. The chances are very good that he will die of natural causes because he can be executed. If he doesn’t die of natural causes, it is about as likely that he has been murdered by a fellow denizen of death row as put to death by the state.
hippie, it isn’t always that simple. A very good friend of mine had insurance – he’d had it for 7 years, paying over $600/month (this was back before it got as expensive as it is now) all those years, by the time he developed a tumor on his spine. It was benign but still in a threatening location, and his doctors treated it via non-surgical methods. Once he was done with treatment and the tumor was no longer an issue, his insurance company wrote him to inform him that they were terminating the relationship. Apparently they can do that. Apparently if you actually get sick and NEED your insurance, they can a) hope that you die, and b) if you live, drop you. Not for later-discovered pre-existing conditions but for conditions that developed while you HAD INSURANCE.
YOU try finding new insurance 2 months out of over a year of monthly MRIs and bad prognosis-warnings.
A newborn is completely dependent on larger humans for his survival. A gestating human-34-moths-after conception is very similar. A criminal is dependent on his keepers to feed and water him. Throwing in the ‘bodily autonomy’ doesn’t negate these facts. ‘Bodily autonomy’ is not what I’m asking: it’s faulty to throw it in there. However, by throwing in the emotional bodily autonomy element, you reveal that you don’t understand the question. We don’t kill criminals because nobody is willing to feed them.
We kill embryos and 34 weeks-after-conception-olds, and we do so because they have no legal representation and their parents can bully them out of the womb (to death) expressly because they are too small and fragile to fight back. We kill adult criminals after a lengthy number of legal proceedings wherein the adult criminal has legal representation.
So, my question still stands, unanswered. Would any actual proud abortionist answer the question? My question is: why do abortionists consider pro-lifers hypocrites, but not themselves:
is it because they feel they are consistent because they advocate both the death penalty for pre-borns and the death penalty for adults, or is it because they consider pre-born humans as property, as lifeless chattel?
ninek: We don’t kill criminals because nobody is willing to feed them.
(Denise) We don’t have the ability to reliably change dangerous people to harmless people. To protect society, we either destroy them or confine them.
Hold your shoes, people!
We need a reply from an abortion advocate, who actually believes pro-lifers are hypocrites. (Both pro-lifers and abortionists can agree that violent criminals who are likely to kill again are dangerous.) With all due respect, the person responding to me is not a typical abortionist. I want to hear from someone who advocates for abortion and believes that pro-lifers are a big herd of hypocrites.
What makes pro-lifers hypocrites, as asked above? Are we hypocrites because we defend property from destruction (if abortionists consider very small pre-born humans to be property and not living human beings) but not people?
Or are we hypocrites because large people must never be killed, but small people may be killed, on demand and without apology?
Mistress Velvet, care to tackle this one? Reality? Joan?
ninek says:
November 19, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Hold your shoes, people!
We need a reply from an abortion advocate, who actually believes pro-lifers are hypocrites. (Both pro-lifers and abortionists can agree that violent criminals who are likely to kill again are dangerous.) With all due respect, the person responding to me is not a typical abortionist. I want to hear from someone who advocates for abortion and believes that pro-lifers are a big herd of hypocrites.
(Denise) Sorry, ninek. However, you’re correct. I see no automatic contradiction between believing abortion should be outlawed and supporting the death penalty. The issues are quite different.
As far as people who believe abortion should be criminalized being hypocrites in general, I don’t see any necessary reason they are more prone to hypocrisy than anyone else.
In summary, I have two burning questions for our abortionists:
Why are death-penalty-opposing pro-lifers hypocrites?
and
Why do abortion advocates think that they themselves enjoy sex more than pro-lifers? Can abortion advocates support their position with science/biology?
These questions are important because the memes of “pro-lifers are hypocrites” and ”pro-lifers hate sex” are extremely popular on the internet, in the media, and we see them frequently here in the comments of Jill’s blog. Tell me, abortion advocates, because inquiring minds want to know.
Mary (and ex):
There are credible estimates that Obamacare will cost 1.8 to 1.9 Trillion per year. We will have some 150 new agencies and tens of thousands of new federal employees hired to implement and monitor its implementation. Obamacare is 2700 pages long and will be perpetually rewritten by committees and fiat granted under the law as written, much the same as the EPA does by issuing new “guidelines”. It will be perpetually challenged in the courts, thus adding uncertainty and contributing to even more angst among all of the stakeholders.
For half the price and in a one paragraph piece of legislation we could provide better health care coverage to every man, woman, and child currently un-insured. We could provide them with premium coverage policies purchased at a cost of 20 thousand dollars per year. One trillion dollars buys 50 million insurance policies.
With Obamacare we still leave millions uninsured. If the goal were to simply insure people there are many easier and cheaper ways of doing it. Obamacare is something far more than an effort to insure people—it is an effort to impose government control on people.
So, if I read correctly, Yuri is pro-choice and doesn’t like recreational sex. That puts his views outside those of pro-choicers who think that pro-lifers are all repressed.
Would any abortion advocate actually have the cojones to admit that deep down, they don’t really have an opinion, but just throw the accusation of sex-hating out there because they’re frustrated and have quickly run out of things to say?
And, would any abortion advocate have the cojones to admit that they don’t really care about the fate of death row inmates, but they run out of names to call us and “hypocrite!” rolls easily off their tongues???
I’ve met more pro-lifers who are anti-capital punishment than pro-choicers, honestly. I think it’s because a lot of Catholics tend to be very anti-abortion and be opposed to the death penalty in most cases.
EGV,
My point about Canada is that gov’t run health care means waiting lists. It means some people will be told tough luck. People like your friend who the gov’t could determine will just cost too much and put on a waiting list. And if you think what Obama has in mind is any different from Canada, you can hear what the Dear Leader himself has to say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
See EGV, Obama will do this gradually. He’ll convince you and millions of others that the gov’t can contain costs, that you can keep your insurance, that everyone will be covered and have equal access to care. And you and others will be gulllible enough to sucker for it too.
You see, Jerry and I have seen it before. Medicare was a panacea, the War on Poverty. Costs would be contained! We’ve also seen the devastation of gov’t involvement. Corruption, greed, ineptness, billions wasted and devastated lives. Great black conservatives like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams blame the War on Poverty for the destruction of the black family.
You honestly trust that collection of clowns in the congress that put together 2700 pages that they don’t even know of what with your health care?
This might give you some more insight as to what Obama truly plans for this country.
http://humanevents.com/2010/07/07/top-10-things-obama-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-donald-berwick/
Hi Jerry,
In our extended lifetimes, I think you and I have heard “credible estimates” before. They’re usually nothing more than wishful thinking and costs that spiral out of control. What will those new agencies and federal employees cost?
You’re right, Mary. Obamacare isn’t a real fix. The only solution is to do away with third party payers entirely. With the lack of pricing transparency, monopolies on entire regions of the country and very little in the way of consumer choice, health insurance is about as anticapitalist as you can get. Not that free market solutions are the way to provide healthcare to an entire country in the most just, equitable fashion :)
For people griping about Canada, it turns out that life expectancy in Canada is two years longer in Canada as in the US and infant mortality is 25% lower. And we spend $752 per capita more on health care administration in the US.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMsa022033
What are you getting on about, ninek? Still whining about the plight of six-week-old embryos? Ho-hum.
“With the lack of pricing transparency, monopolies on entire regions of the country and very little in the way of consumer choice, health insurance is about as anticapitalist as you can get. Not that free market solutions are the way to provide healthcare to an entire country in the most just, equitable fashion ”
Lol Mary argues against the idea of health insurance at all, she does this a lot. Keep up!
“What are you getting on about, ninek? Still whining about the plight of six-week-old embryos? Ho-hum.”
Someone mentioned embryos on a pro-life blog? How astounding.
Blue Velvet,
Infant mortality rate is lower in Canada? Could it be that women there take more responsiblity to get prenatal care, do not engage in drug and alcohol abuse on a wide scale, and are not morbidly obese? I’ve told the story before of the doctor in a low income community near me who offered free prenatal care to any woman that wanted it. Not one woman showed up. The doctor was especially concerned as there was a high rate of drug and alcohol abuse, obesity, and cigarette smoking among pregnant women. No government mandate will ever force anyone to be personally responsible for their health.
Speaking of Canada, are you aware the Canadian gov’t contracts with American border hospitals to care for Canadian citizens? Goodness, with their great health care system, I can’t imagine why they would need any help from us.
I would support insurance reform. Give people options to have minimum or maximum coverage, allow medical savings accounts to accumulate any amount with no taxes, generous tax deductions for personal pay. Also tort reform would be a great step as well. Who do you think foots the bill for all these frivolous lawsuits? Bingo.
JackBorsch,
Your memory isn’t serving you well Jack. I have not argued against insurance. I have argued ways to improve insurance. Insurance and gov’t payments are third party and contribute to the high cost of health care. Live with it. That doesn’t mean there can’t be reforms.
“Your memory isn’t serving you well Jack. I have not argued against insurance. I have argued ways to improve insurance. Insurance and gov’t payments are third party and contribute to the high cost of health care. Live with it. That doesn’t mean there can’t be reforms.”
I was referring to you talking about how when insurance was only catastrophic prices were forced to be competitive. I just thought it was funny that Blue Velvet was making some argument like he/she was putting one over on you, when I’ve seen you argue that point many times.
Well, this article from Health Affairs seems to point to the opposite: that surprisingly few Canadians travel to the US for health care: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/3/19.long
Also, your piece about how irresponsible Americans are is truly becoming tiresome, especially since you seem to think that one second-hand anecdote can stand in for a true sociological analysis.
Also mary, i’ve noticed that all your griping seems to have a crypto-racial element.
Jack,
At one time insurance was only catastrophic, people had to pay, and prices had to be competitive. If I misunderstood the point your post, my apologies.
BV,
Well, this article suggests otherwise.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/Canadians-visit-U-S-to-get-health-care
It begs the question as to why Canadians must use our facilities at all. Can’t the Canadian gov’t provide for their citizens?
I never suggested that what I’ve observed in 40 years in the medical area can stand in for a sociological analysis. I can say I have seen plenty of irresponsible behavior, people taking stupid risks, pregnant women on drugs, morbid obesity and its complications, neglected and battered children, Fixed the rotten teeth of chlidren who’s parents can’t be bothered to brush their child’s teeth, and people determined to destroy themselves to say with some authority that there are people who take no personal responsiblity for their health or that of their children.
BV,
LOLLLLLL. “A crypto-racial element”? You liberals are hilarious. Unless you can directly quote me saying something racist or even making a reference to race, and I challenge you to do so, then I can only conclude that you assume all irresponsible and low income people must be non-white and you are projecting your own racist mentality onto me.
Mary – what is disappointing is we had this SAME ARGUMENT LAST WEEK, and I posted a great column by the AARP in regards to myths about the Canadian health care system. Here it AGAIN.
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html
Furthermore, the US is NOT implementing Canada’s health care system. The US is relying much more on insurance companies.
hippie –
So are you of the opinion then that insurance companies should simply be able to deny whomever they wish, and if that person gets sick, then they are just on their own?
ninek says:
November 19, 2012 at 8:10 pm
So, if I read correctly, Yuri is pro-choice and doesn’t like recreational sex. That puts his views outside those of pro-choicers who think that pro-lifers are all repressed.
(Denise) Yuri is against romantic love. He is against ALL sexuality except the minimal sexual expression necessary to maintain population. He hopes that eventually human will be able to reproduce without sex through cloning or other artificial means.
He believes abortion should be legal in the first three months of pregnancy. When I told him about the Gianna Jessen case, he was appalled that any women would abort so late in the pregnancy.
Most of the pro-lifers here are already well educated on human development. “Embryos” have a heartbeat less than six weeks from conception. Even embryos that grow up to loathe and destroy other embryos. As a grown up embryo myself, I’m proud to fight for their right to keep on living. :>) And as a bonus, I’ve made some great new friends since I became active and got off my couch. Our local 40 Days group grew 120% in the last year. :>) One of the embryos I helped to save has conversations with me now. She’s the most adorable embryo-turned toddler evah!!
Mary,
‘crypto-racial’. Is that another way of accusing you of blowing the racist dog whistle?
I have never read a single thing you have written that could be construed as ‘racist’.
Next thing you know one of our resident trolls is going to accuse you of being a latent
ms ogynist.
I do admire your persistence in the face so such blatant and intransigent stupidity.
Just remember to cease from your labor at least one day out of seven.
EGV,
You did hear what the Dear Leader said, did you not? He wants a single payer system. Straight from the horse’s a….ah mouth.
He’s already gotten the ball rolling in that direction EGV, it will be gradual and unsuspecting souls such as yourself are all part of the plan.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/proof-obamacare-is-a-trojan-horse-for-a-single-payer-system/
The AARP are huge Obama and Obamacare supporters. Do a little googling.
Also the facts are what they are EGV. In the article I posted it mentioned the Canadian gov’t contracting with 13 American hospitals, 5 in Michigan alone, to provide services for Canadian citizens. Bariatric surgery is quite popular as waiting lists in Canada for bariatric surgery can span five years. Again EGV, begs the question, why must the Canadian gov’t contract with our hospitals if their gov’t run system provides the services their citizens need?
Hi Ken,
Thank you for the support. I had to laugh as well at ”crypto-racial”. First I ever heard that one. I still await BV directly quoting me making any kind of racial comment.
The great liberal thinker, Chris Matthews, who babbles about Bill Clinton going to Mars, knowing how to commune with Martians, and having sex with Martian babes(Now THAT I would believe), has now decreed that “apartment”, ”Chicago” and “urban” are racist since black people live in apartments and Chicago. Apparently black people don’t have buy homes or live outside of cities. And white people don’t live in apartments in cities. Then there was that other MSNBC moron who suggested that Tea Party people put black participants in front of TV cameras!
Honestly Ken, I am sometimes actually embarassed for these people.
I’m convinced these people project their own racist mentality, which they are completely oblvious to as they presume themselves to be bastions of tolerance and racial enlightenment, onto others. They are the ones with the racist stereotypes of black people living in apartments, in cities, and being low income and irresponsible. I got great satisfaction from finally calling one of them out on it.