primitive assails the biggest sacred cow on Skins's island

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6959731

Oh my.

Talk about stirring up the primitives.

The primitives are angry.

thesquanderer (378 posts)        Sun Nov-08-09 09:53 AM
Original message
 
Why I'm okay with the abortion restriction

First, I'm pro-choice.

And yes, I bet I'm about to make yet another unpopular post, but consider this...

--- the abortion restrictions were probably necessary to get passage of the bill

--- in exchange for giving up insurance coverage for abortion procedures which typically run in the hundreds of dollars, many people will now be able to get coverage for the many, many medical procedures that can run into the thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. I'm talking about people who could not afford insurance before, as well as people who could not get insurance at any price due to pre-existing conditions.

The biggest boon of the health care overhaul is that people will be able to get medical services they would otherwise not be able to afford. Abortion is *relatively* affordable. Unlike many medical procedures, most people could manage to afford one without bankrupting themselves or putting themselves into massive debt. An abortion is typically less than the cost of a year's car insurance (well, at least in New York), and not much more than the cost of a television. So the need for insurance to cover the cost is not tremendous, relatively speaking, from a financial burden point of view.

Yes, of course, there are poor people for whom even the hundreds of dollars needed for an abortion is unaffordable. And there can be solutions for that, as there are clinics today, and pro-choice organizations can raise money to help pay for abortions for people who can't afford them. Remember that while the bill is greatly impacting the ability to get abortions covered under any insurance, abortions will still be available.

And the people who can't afford the hundreds of dollars for an abortion today also can't afford insurance today, so they're not losing anything here. Giving them access to insurance that doesn't cover abortion is far better than what they have now, no insurance at all. Sure, I'd rather they had abortions covered, but that "missing" coverage is actually relatively small, compared to what they will be getting. And the poor will certainly be far better off, able to go to the doctor at the first sign of trouble, instead of avoiding the possible expense and hoping the problem goes away, a common situation that often later lands people in the emergency room too. So the poor are still better off with this plan, and the non-poor can reasonably afford abortions anyway.

Obviously, there are many "imperfections" in the health care plan, this is just one of them. But if this is what it took to get the bill passed, I don't think it was the most terrible price to pay. I understand that just mentioning the word "abortion" is an emotional trigger for many people (on both sides), but pragmatically, looking at the overall balance of burdens and benefits, I don't think this is so awful a compromise.

The primitives are really angry, because abortion's more important to the primitives than a cure for cancer or something like that.

It's a big bonfire; a few comments, selected at random:

The sparkling husband primitive:

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Sun Nov-08-09 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
 
1. So when do we get back to "the girls" and tell them they have their rights restored?

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE ****ING MONEY

I K&R your thread to keep the concept you espouse in everyone's faces.

Ms. Ed, the unappellated eohippus:

Horse with no Name  (1000+ posts)        Sun Nov-08-09 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #7
 
13. Who gets to approve or deny the exceptions?

Do you see the slippery slope we are creating here?

Horse with no Name  (1000+ posts)        Sun Nov-08-09 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
 
11. Have you EVER been poor?

Seriously?

$300 bucks may be NOTHING to you, but it might be the difference of being homeless to someone else.

If you have a woman that is already supporting a family and living on a limited income--regardless of whether it is state supported or not--that $300 might be a difference in whether her family is able to hang on--or not.

There was NO good reason to include that in this bill. It didn't HAVE to be there.
None.

But it threw bones to the zealots and allowed the Democrats to take one more position that is more in line with their fascist co-conspirators across the aisle and one more inch to a nose-dive to the squishy middle.

Horse with no Name  (1000+ posts)        Sun Nov-08-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #51
 
52. No. There is not.

Please provide some "proof" of your assertions.

I am sure I will wait a long time for this.

Those programs do NOT exist strictly BECAUSE of people like you who want to impose THEIR "morality" on others.

Horse with no Name  (1000+ posts)        Sun Nov-08-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #54
 
55. I'm flat gobsmacked at what DU has turned into.

The libertine terrorist primitive:

Tierra_y_Libertad  (1000+ posts)        Sun Nov-08-09 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
 
15. This bill has improved the fine art of caving in to the right and calling it "compromise".

Odin's left hand:

Odin2005  (1000+ posts)        Mon Nov-09-09 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
 
60. Yeah, **** women, we need the bill passed!

[GOBUCKS]

And the people who can't afford the hundreds of dollars for an abortion today also can't afford insurance today

Hundreds of dollars may be true for run-of-the-mill babykilling, but the DUmp never mentions that Killer Tiller charged $5000 upfront to kill a near full-term infant. Maybe that's one of the reasons so many DUmmies have thousands in credit card debt.

[Carl]

Nothing proves more that all the DUmmies want out of "health care" and life is to be able to do anything they wish without expense or responsibility.
That is the obsession with having abortions provided free of charge.

[tuolumnejim]

Wow I always thought if someone didnt want to get a medical procedure (no I dont like saying that word), they could always keep their legs closed. 

[BlueStateSaint]

Wow I always thought if someone didnt want to get a medical procedure (no I dont like saying that word), they could always keep their legs closed. 

They think with their penises and vaginas.  Kinda tough to "keep their legs closed" when said organs take over.

[thundley4]

Tierra_y_Libertad  (1000+ posts)        Sun Nov-08-09 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
 
15. This bill has improved the fine art of caving in to the right and calling it "compromise".

This was not giving in to the right.  The right doesn't want any part of this ruinous bill.  This was giving in to the more moderate and sane DimRats that know the tide is rising against abortions of convenience.

[USA4ME]

No further proof needed.  If they could get universal free healthcare, and somehow it could all be magically paid for by taxing the rich and corps, with the exception being that abortions and sex change operations were not part of the deal, they had rather have people not have any insurance at all and to die from no medical care rather than to give up their sacred cows.

Liberals have no care or compassion for anyone.  Once again, this isn't about helping people at all, this is about wanting to have power over people's lives.

.

[JohnnyReb]

Hundreds of dollars may be true for run-of-the-mill babykilling, but the DUmp never mentions that Killer Tiller charged $5000 upfront to kill a near full-term infant. Maybe that's one of the reasons so many DUmmies have thousands in credit card debt.

The bigger the baby the more alcohol it takes to numb your soul.

[tuolumnejim]

The bigger the baby the more alcohol it takes to numb your soul.

But you forget, libs have no soul.

[GOBUCKS]

No further proof needed.  If they could get universal free healthcare, and somehow it could all be magically paid for by taxing the rich and corps, with the exception being that abortions and sex change operations were not part of the deal, they had rather have people not have any insurance at all and to die from no medical care rather than to give up their sacred cows.

Liberals have no care or compassion for anyone.  Once again, this isn't about helping people at all, this is about wanting to have power over people's lives.

They do not care at all about healthcare for themselves or their families. They arready get it. That isn't what this is about. They only want to drag the rest of us down to their level.

[MrsSmith]

But you forget, libs have no soul.

Yeah, they do.  And someday, they'll realize it.  For many, it'll be when they're facing Judgement.

[AllosaursRus]

I have a suggestion, DUmbasses! Don't **** without protection if you don't want a child! Amazing how something so simple can be overlooked on Skins paradise for the mentally challenged.

[Carl]

I have a suggestion, DUmbasses! Don't **** without protection if you don't want a child! Amazing how something so simple can be overlooked on Skins paradise for the mentally challenged.

What you suggest however requires forethought and responsibility.
Those are qualities that come with maturity which no matter the physical age is something DUmmies never achieve.
Heck,they go out of their way to resist it.

[thundley4]

After seeing member of the Island in their photo threads, and seeing many pro-death/pro-abortion protesters, I have to wonder how they would ever get pregnant , unless they were to force a man to have sex with them.  Getting pregnant is probably the last thing they have to worry about.

[BlueStateSaint]

After seeing member of the Island in their photo threads, and seeing many pro-death/pro-abortion protesters, I have to wonder how they would ever get pregnant , unless they were to force a man to have sex with them.  Getting pregnant is probably the last thing they have to worry about.

Doesn't AA say that alcohol is "cunning, baffling, powerful?"

There's an answer . . .

[Alpha Mare]

I notice they never mention the fathers' rights.  It may be her body, but it takes two to create a life and should take two to end it.  In every lawsuit I've read about a father trying to stop the unwanted abortion of his child, he lost.  Yet if he didn't want a child and she does, she has the child, sues him for child support AND WINS. Where is HIS right not to be a parent? Why can the woman number one get an abortion over the father's objections yet the woman in number two can force the father to pay support for a child he never wanted?

[thundley4]

I notice they never mention the fathers' rights.  It may be her body, but it takes two to create a life and should take two to end it.  In every lawsuit I've read about a father trying to stop the unwanted abortion of his child, he lost.  Yet if he didn't want a child and she does, she has the child, sues him for child support AND WINS. Where is HIS right not to be a parent? Why can the woman number one get an abortion over the father's objections yet the woman in number two can force the father to pay support for a child he never wanted?

I agree. As long as the woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy against the father's wishes, then the man should have the right to not support a child he doesn't want. When all is said and done, it's a woman's body and her responsibility to keep from getting pregnant.

[Traveshamockery]

The DUmmies are forgetting the fact that abortion would be considered an elective surgical procedure under ObamaCare.  By the time all the red tape is cut to approve the procedure, the kid will be 5 years old. 


 

[GOBUCKS]

After seeing member of the Island in their photo threads, and seeing many pro-death/pro-abortion protesters, I have to wonder how they would ever get pregnant , unless they were to force a man to have sex with them.  Getting pregnant is probably the last thing they have to worry about.

I think someone is severely underestimating the power of beer goggles.