Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

Originally posted by Roadblockx
reply to post by ninecrimes

 

Ugh..... You kill me on this. You haven't changed one bit since the last time the thread became your battleground. RELAX. My goodness. There is no reason to get all wound up. It's a discussion. No one is going to be making any rules today that will govern the world.

Now, the rules/guidelines that I submitted was just to get feedback and suggestions. Your solution is to grip and rip on demand and everyone pays for it.

Way to close that mind up so tight.

Did you really say fascist? Hahahahaha.... Again, I see why it is so hard to have conversations on here. If you make suggestions or bring up topics that aren't popular, you're a fascist. This coming from the same people saying we should all get along.... Double-standards abound

I do not think government should provide abortions.

But I do think that people should be able to do what they want to their bodies. What you're saying is that you think only people that fall under your "formula" should be able to receive them, which is entirely moronic.

The reason I came back onto this thread was because of the way you're attacking people who are trying to discuss these things, whilst conveying your messages of totalitarian control over the populous. You say I need to calm down? You've been on this thread for two days attacking anyone who tries to discuss.

Oh, mister messiah, please do explain to us how you came to the decision of only allowing certain people do as they wish with the bodies they were born into.

Anyone who tries to control what other people do on their own time, with their own possessions, sickens me greatly.

Originally posted by Roadblockx
reply to post by ninecrimes

 

You should take your hate somewhere else. The name calling and topic hijacking has reached its limit.

Topic hijacking? My comments were all on topic.

Talk about deflection lol

Originally posted by Kords21
Thought I posted this earlier, but I can't see that post. Anyway, here's what Ron Paul has to say about it in an artcile he penned.

Robn Hood run amok
www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...

Thank You Good Sir

RP Strikes again!

Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I have introduced the Taxpayer’s Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.

The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds instead of protecting rights.

When government supercedes this very limited role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at the time, at the expense of the rights of others.

If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas.

Perfect!
Very well said Dr. Paul

Originally posted by ninecrimes
Leave it to a complete moron to propose

Dude, this is one of the biggest personal attacks i've read on ATS so far
Calm down man, take a pill or something

I haven't been a major fan of RP in recent years but the more I read about him, the more I become a fan of his. I don't know if he has the power to make a real run for the president's seat in 2012 but I sure hope he is involved some way.

Have you been following him long (by follow I mean watching his posts, reviewing what he says, not following like a sheep)? Know much about him?

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Roadblockx]

reply to post by Roadblockx


Following who, Ron Paul?
Yes I have for quite some time now

I've been keeping myself up to date on him for over a year now
He makes complete sense and never ever avoids a question.

reply to post by Roadblockx


You're right, cuz they already got the Ministry of Truth at the White House encouraging us to report each other. They are laebleing the HealthCare portesters " angry mobs".....

What's next? Will they be the new 'homegrown' terrorists too?

reply to post by Roadblockx


During the campaign I had no idea who he was, but I'd see his signs everywhere. I did a search on him and liked what I was reading. His book "The Revoluton: A Manifesto" is a good read about the gov't, some of it's history and his ideas on gov't.

He's said on multiple occasions lately that he's not planning on running in 2012, but who knows. I think he did what he needed to do in the 2008 election in "curing" a lot of people's apathy and get interest again in the whole voting process and getting people rethinking about the role of gov't.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Give me an overview of him please. I am always interested to see what someone else thinks. The more I read about him, the more I find that he is 179 degrees from the current prez and is very much for a smaller federal gov.

I'm all for free choice.. I believe it's a matter to be left to the States..

I am completely against the Federal Government PAYING for it though.. I am so disgusted that this could be true I don't even know what to say..

reply to post by Roadblockx


He's a Libertarian. Small gov, State rights and no .Gov BS being injected into our lives like this so called "health care reform". He understands anything the gov touches dies.

PS:

I don't know if he has the power to make a real run for the president's seat in 2012 but I sure hope he is involved some way.

Absolutely not. Not a chance in hell.

[edit on 8/6/2009 by Rockpuck]

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by Roadblockx

 

You're right, cuz they already got the Ministry of Truth at the White House encouraging us to report each other. They are laebleing the HealthCare portesters " angry mobs".....

What's next? Will they be the new 'homegrown' terrorists too?

There is a conversation going on here limiting speech that talks about how quickly those returning from war were put on the fed's "watch list" as possible terrorists (right-wing extremists). Good discussion so far under that thread.

Originally posted by Roadblockx

Originally posted by ninecrimes
It's just more crazies trying to force their opinions on everyone else... if a woman wants to abort her baby, she can do so with nothing more than a clothes hangar and a quick google search on "how to abort my baby at home". NOTHING you can do will change that.

Why can't people understand that just because you feel a certain way, does NOT mean everyone else does? And to go one step further, by forcing your opinions on anyone else (or even expecting them to blindly agree) is exactly what our great democratic nation fights against. By forcing your opinion, you are only exposing yourself as a self-righteous dingus and most intelligible people will swarm away from you as soon as you do.

Stop being so fascist and try to understand that you are not in a position to tell someone to, or not to, abort their baby. It's their body, it's their life, it's their time and resources- not yours. Stop trying to control other people and take a good long look in the mirror.

My point- stop trying to change the world with your self-righteous crusades and start by changing yourself.

If I could see any single one of you, I COULD have at least 10 things to change about you based on my own personal feelings... but that's not a good way to live life (judging people). It is when we learn to observe, rather than judge, that we may reach a true state of enlightenment. Observe other people, learn from them, don't make their mistakes. But do NOT try to change what you have no control over- it'll only turn into a power struggle.

STOP JUDGING, START OBSERVING. LET PEOPLE DO AS THEY WISH WITH THEIR BODIES AND LIVES.

Perhaps you can tell me then why ONLY the woman gets to decide the fate. It took more then her to get in that situation and if she decides to have it, the father will be responsible.

So go ahead, tell me how you would handle these two situations:
A. woman preg and wants to have baby, father wants abortion
B. woman preg and doesn't want baby, father does

I believe you already know the answer to that question, the woman is pregnant, not the man. And.... why did the man not take it upon himself to use birth control? Because men expect women to do this, but then some of them want the right to choose what to do with the woman's body if she happens to become pregnant. A woman has the right to choose what goes into her body. End of story.

Men love to "forget" that they have the right to choose to use birth control as well as women. A pill for men is(2006) available. www.msnbc.msn.com... But I have a feeling that most men, just like the one in the article, will complain about it.

he would not even consider taking a male hormonal contraceptive.

But.... I am sure he would expect the woman(women) he is with to. Just as men complain about condoms.

I do not believe I would ever be able to have an abortion, but I also believe a woman has the right to make that choice. If men were the ones who became pregnant and carried the baby, I would be advocating for their right to choose.

I also believe health insurance should assist with the cost of this. So flame on.

Peace

reply to post by Kords21


If he doesn't run, has he mentioned who he would recommend?? Figures I would find someone to get me interested or give me faith in politics only to find he won't run for pres. Perhaps he will be our leader after the 2012 revolution..

reply to post by Roadblockx


Well he's a non-interventionist
He tries his best, due to people's lack of understanding, to distance non-interventionism from isolationism.

He is against the FED, against FIAT money and wants to return to the gold standard. he also says that a gold standard helps keep govt. spending in check, which is very true if you think about it.

He is a former obgyn
In 1976 the govt. wanted to release a flu vaccine, two physicians in congressed were the only ones to oppose the vaccine.
Vaccine was release and many died because of the vaccine.

He said the war in Iraq was because there's 30Trillion dollars worth of Oil there.

He is against abortion but believes that decision, like many, deserves to be decided on the state level.

He strongly belives in limited govt. and belives the majority of what govt. does today is beyond the role of govt., and is all subsidized by the FED, another reason to end the fed. His favorite foreign president is the president of Switzerland because nobody knows who he is, and he believes that's how a president should be and that for this if he won the election he would take a pay cut.

He is against earmarks, but if there is earmark money he will take it because he says he represents people who want their money back, rather than leave it in the executive branch.

He's a strict constitutionalist, been married since forever to the same woman, has a formidable voting record and his son Rand Paul is running for senate now.

Originally posted by Roadblockx
If he doesn't run, has he mentioned who he would recommend?? Figures I would find someone to get me interested or give me faith in politics only to find he won't run for pres. Perhaps he will be our leader after the 2012 revolution..

For the most recent election, after losing, he endorsed 3rd party candidates.

Basically he was trying to make a point that voting for a republican or dem would almost be the same thing, and was angry that 3rd candidates weren't invited to the presidential debates.

He said they do this because after Ross Perot ran, the clintons freaked out and created some debate comission of some sort and they decide which parties to invite, they never invite 3rd parties.

Also, it does seem actually that he WILL run for 2012.

reply to post by amazed


Flame on?? Now I am hopeful that there won't be any more flaming. It's your opinion. Great. I respect that and you did it without any name calling. Exactly my point. It can be done. Thank you.

You stated in your response that the man didn't use bc. I respond with, if he did and it broke, does that change your response?

Also, I checked around for bc methods for men (pills and shots) and most seem to be a couple more years away. The effectiveness of those still hasn't been completely proven so I'm not so sure I would begin using that as a good "alternative method" yet. Condoms see like the only way to go.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Why can't more politicians see this as the message we want as citizens? I don't know of any plan the gov has implemented, created or managed that has become successful. I'm not saying that it has to make a huge profit as the gov is a non-profit org. I get that. But why don't more dems and reps start to see this and say, "wow, here is RP getting 2%+ in the election. Maybe if I change my tune, I will get even more votes.."

I don't get it. Are there so many other big businesses that would lose out if we did have someone in the white house that wasn't under their control?

Originally posted by Roadblockx

Wow, still on with the personal attacks. It's wonderful to see just what kind of people fit into the ardent pro-life camp (by the way, my comment still stands you just haven't figured out what I meant. Nice try, though). Insulting my intelligence won't get you anywhere and only, well, makes you look a little less than desirable to have on your side. By all means though, continue insulting me and then bravely proclaiming that you've alerted the mods on other member's behavior. Hypocrisy makes a cozy bedfellow, no?

So you're going to allow abortions for rape/incest/molestation after they've been proven in court? That's hilarious. Do you know how long it takes the justice system to go from arrest to conviction? Why in the world would you need to go to a trial for rape or incest when a simple blood test and rape kit would determine who the father was?

It's also funny how you say the mother's pregnancy is accountable for "her stupid decisions", as if having sex and a condom breaking is a "stupid decision". I think your ideology (dare I say religious fundamentalism) is starting to rear its head.

And where did you get the age 15? 14 just seems too young? So if a woman is 14 and 364 days she can have an abortion, but not the next day? That's some great logic there!


You still are unable to answer intelligently or respond to my reasoning.

If you believe abortion is wrong on the basis of murder and morality (and it's obvious that this is your reasoning), then the murder of an "innocent" human life is wrong and should be treated as such regardless of the situation.

You can't just pick and choose because a certain situation comes along that makes you uncomfortable or feel bad for the mother, because then it shows that your moral authority and judgement on the issue isn't applicable to life in general.

If you believe abortion is killing an innocent human being, then abortion is wrong in any situation because it will always be killing an innocent human being, regardless of the pain, heartbreak, emotional and physical suffering of the mother. That fact does not change. If you believe abortion is absolutely wrong, except in situations A, B, and C, then you're exposing the hypocrisy of saying it's an innocent human life on one hand but okay to murder it on the other.

That's the problem with judging abortion on the basis of morality and murder. It's not your choice to make. The fetus is 100% dependent on the mother, and it is her choice to do with it as she wishes.

Is it an awesome happy fun time choice to make? No, and by the way you yourself charactize mothers who get pregnant (they get pregnant by their stupid decisions, when they're "drunk, high, or whatever"), you seem to have a chip on your shoulder or a stereotype of who women are that receive abortions and how they personally take the matter.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Those kind of rules that prevent the citizens from having a debate with at least the leading majority 3rd party is a crime. Mr. change/hope/yeswecan/transperancy should open up the debate and invite those kind of ideas. Perhaps then, once the lights are on and cameras are rolling, can someone unplug the teleprompter and have an on-the-fly debate.

Let's get it on!

Originally posted by Roadblockx
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

Why can't more politicians see this as the message we want as citizens? I don't know of any plan the gov has implemented, created or managed that has become successful. I'm not saying that it has to make a huge profit as the gov is a non-profit org. I get that. But why don't more dems and reps start to see this and say, "wow, here is RP getting 2%+ in the election. Maybe if I change my tune, I will get even more votes.."

I don't get it. Are there so many other big businesses that would lose out if we did have someone in the white house that wasn't under their control?

I am not naive enough to assume the majority of American are aligned with Libertarian ideologies.. these are, for the most part, radical right-wing beliefs (even though most of our social choices are Liberal, for instance, I am pro-choice)

When you take into account the sheer number of Liberal Socialist and Republican Fascist.. everyone seems to WANT a Government to take care of them, and dictate their lives. Paul would never garner more than 5% of the vote.