Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says a FETUS is the same as a BRAIN-DEAD Person.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The technical definition of low-income are households who make up to 200% the Federal Poverty Level. Households are only eligible (in states that expanded Medicaid) for Medicaid if they make below 133% the FPL.

That leaves a lot of low-income households that aren't eligible for Medicaid.

So, now your arguement is that Medicaid got the shaft with Obamacare?

I agree 100%.

Democrats should have left our world renown healthcare system alone and simply raised the federal Medicaid threshold instead of creating the Obamacare nightmare.

That IS what my side was arguing for.

No pity for you.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Do you???

I once asked the question on ATS that went like this...
If your spouse, wife or husband, came up to you one day and said...
Ya know, we already have more kids than we can handle I am just gonna abstain from sex now till menopause.
What would be your response...
Some said divorce. Some pointed to the many methods of birth control. Some brought up rectal or oral sex. Not many at that time bought into the idea of abstinence as a solution...
Just wondering... what would your answer be.

Every. Single. Word.

I got a vasectomy after deciding I was too old to properly raise any more children through adulthood.

Not my problem.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

You are aware that some abortions are because the child is not viable (will not live outside the womb even if carried to full term) and also present a risk to the mother's life, right?

You did know that?

That's dying of natural causes. You claim all abortions should be penalized in accordance with present law. So what's the penalty when a family member dies of natural causes?

I signed the DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order for my mother when she was dying of natural causes. Medical science could have kept her technically alive longer (and cost a few million dollars we didn't have, as well as prolonging her agony). I guess I escaped prosecution somehow. What should have been my penalty for that heinous act? I'm curious.

I also hope the statute of limitations has run out...

TheRedneck

Can you read? Already addressed that. There is no law anywhere that will be made that forces a mother to die. Total straw man that has nothing to do with anything.that is still covered by our current laws, self defense. And there will be those that choose to sacrifice themselves instead of killing their baby. Also if they are dead in the womb you can’t kill a dead person. Don’t be obtuse.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The abortion rate among low-income individuals actually dropped by 26% (25% overall) following Obamacare getting passed. Which would seem to indicate that when birth control is made more accessible abortion rates decline.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

So low-income women are just lying when they say that things like cost and lack of access have led to them inconsistently taking birth control?

The studies are lying when they show that hospitals and doctors' offices are closing primarily in low-income areas.

I guess the only explanations for why low-income women are getting pregnant way more often is because they're too stupid or lazy to use birth control.

so if w pass a law making any and all birth control legal and provide adoption to qualified homes can we agree no more abortions?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The abortion rate among low-income individuals actually dropped by 26% (25% overall) following Obamacare getting passed. Which would seem to indicate that when birth control is made more accessible abortion rates decline.

Was already dropping before Obamacare.

Nice attempt to take credit for it though.

And again, has been free to low income folks through Medicaid for half a century.

Are you reading off last October's national democrat talking points?

Page 16, paragraph 2?

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

No. First off such an absolute statement means abortions would not be allowed in matters of life & death, pregnancies that are a product of rape or incest, etc.

Secondly, birth control is not 100% effective. What about women who are not prepared to have a child, do everything right, and still become pregnant.

Are you also going to pay for their medical expenses both during and after the pregnancy, including any long term health conditions that may arise, reimburse them for any work missed, including recovery time, therapy, if they develop post-partum depression or any other number of mental disorder, and countless other expenses that come from being pregnant?

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

I was addressing your comment that any doctor who performed an abortion should be executed. I am in agreement that abortions should not be used as birth control, but your statement seemed pretty excessive.

Extreme arguments from one side will lead to extreme actions from the other side.

There is no law anywhere that will be made that forces a mother to die.

Are you in politics? I'm curious how you can guarantee that. There seems to be a difference of opinion on the Texas law before the Supreme Court.

And I'm not taking sides on that... I have not read the Texas law, so I do not know.

And there will be those that choose to sacrifice themselves instead of killing their baby.

I have no disagreement with that statement. During the Kyle Rittenhouse issue, his first victim told a man with a gun who he was attacking to "Shoot me, MFer!" Stupid exists, and you can't fix it.

if they are dead in the womb you can’t kill a dead person.

I believe I specifically said "not viable," not "dead." That was something you made up. An unborn child can be "not viable" and still alive inside the womb. It simply won't be alive after it exists the womb.

Ever hear of a "tubular pregnancy"? Thats when the fetus attaches too close to, or even inside, the Fallopian tubes. It's still alive, but it won't be for long. If not aborted, it will kill the mother long before it is able to survive without her. It will outlast the mother, however.

It's actually not an uncommon occurrence. Should the doctor who performs that abortion be executed for murder?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

No. First off such an absolute statement means abortions would not be allowed in matters of life & death, pregnancies that are a product of rape or incest, etc.

Secondly, birth control is not 100% effective. What about women who are not prepared to have a child, do everything right, and still become pregnant.

Are you also going to pay for their medical expenses both during and after the pregnancy, including any long term health conditions that may arise, reimburse them for any work missed, including recovery time, therapy, if they develop post-partum depression or any other number of mental disorder, and countless other expenses that come from being pregnant?

Living is also very expensive.

Are you willing to pay all of my expenses for the next couple decades?


Did you really think this would be an effective argument?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Are you also going to pay for their medical expenses both during and after the pregnancy, including any long term health conditions that may arise, reimburse them for any work missed, including recovery time, therapy, if they develop post-partum depression or any other number of mental disorder, and countless other expenses that come from being pregnant?

Just curious... if I do all that, then do I get to experience the endorphine rush that the woman did when she got pregnant?

Just seems fair...

(Gotta run guys... be back later, but I can't let a warm day in December go to waste!)

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Are you also going to pay for their medical expenses both during and after the pregnancy, including any long term health conditions that may arise, reimburse them for any work missed, including recovery time, therapy, if they develop post-partum depression or any other number of mental disorder, and countless other expenses that come from being pregnant?

Just curious... if I do all that, then do I get to experience the endorphine rush that the woman did when she got pregnant?

Just seems fair...

(Gotta run guys... be back later, but I can't let a warm day in December go to waste!)

TheRedneck

Mid 70s in Arizona.

Probably every day in December.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

They aren't even 100% effective...and, maybe the spouse wants to make dang sure they don't get pregnant.. by the way, this part of the discussion is about my experience when I was having my kids, in tx back in the day when the social safety net was just for single moms... there wasn't gonna be any tubal litigation if there was no money to pay for them and we were having enough fun paying for the maternity care, my husband was doing side work for our pediatrician to pay down that bill...

But ya know what... I am at the point where I think we should go with it... I mean I am in a state where abortion rights are granted by the law, let the states do whatever they want.... even when they say that if a women didn't want the kid she should have the sex...
I say ok, ladies let's give it to them...
But, I am also one who will say you made your bed, now sleep in it.. these states want to pass these laws, ok, when it blows up in their faces... lol... they can deal with it. Don't bring your mistresses or wives here for abortions, don't hit me with a bunch of save the poor orphans in tx ads... don't think I am gonna give up my social security to solve a mess yous created. I slept in my bed, I raised my kids to adulthood, I worked my arse off doing it...

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

I'm just saying, if the state is going to require a woman to carry to term even if she did everything right to prevent a pregnancy then the state should foot the bill for all the costs associated with carrying the child to term.

I don't think that sounds unreasonable.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Mid 70s here today... just not every day. Not even close.

Show-off.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcalibur254

What about Dad? Oh yeah, heks a bum so he state will try to get the money out of him.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

If she did "everything possible" she wouldn't be pregnant. "Everything possible" includes not having sex. How many immaculate conceptions do you know of? And most people make exceptions for true cases of rape, incest, and actual medical need.

By having consensual sex, no matter how protected, you allow there is a chance of pregnancy.

a reply to: ketsuko

One additional issue that your post made me think of... if only rape or incest cases are allowed, that means any woman can get an abortion... if she accuses her boyfriend of rape! Even if she gets the abortion and then drops the charges, her boyfriend is now a registered sex offender with a criminal arrest record. His life is pretty much ruined. And yes, that does and has happened.

So she would be taking one life and destroying another, all for a romp in the hay. Is there a limit to what we will accept in the name of recreational sex?

Another reason to compromise. It's clear women who falsely accuse men of rape will not be prosecuted... it's not politically correct.

TheRedneck

a reply to: BrujaRebooted

In the crazy, absolutist, scenario dreamed up by iwanttobelieve, the woman is putting the child up for adoption.

But you go do your whole men's rights thing.

a reply to: ketsuko

So sex should only be for procreation and if you don't want a child then pregnancy is your punishment if you don't eat too live a life of celibacy?

What a puritanical mind you have.

a reply to: TheRedneck

So now we should also prohibit abortions in the case of rape due to some far out scenario you dreamt up?