Obama Administration: We Can and Will Force Christians to Act Against Their Faith

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Every living thing has DNA. A fertilized egg is a single cell. One cell! Not a person! Every human cell has DNA! There are more cells and DNA in one of your eye lashes, than there are in a zygote. Still not a person.

Get a grip. A woman is a person.

A woman can use oral contraception or an IUD without being called a murderer. Do you realize that what you're saying is that she is a murderer?

If such methods don't stop fertilization, and only stop implantation, then those methods kill a human being. For many years, those pushing such methods didn't even tell people that was the case, and claimed they prevented fertilization at all. Thus, a lot of women used those methods, not knowing they could be killing a child. An unborn child is a person, too. An eyelash won't ever develop into a grown human being. A "zygote" is no less a human being than a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a child, a teenager, an adult, an elderly person. A term to describe a stage of development doesn't make one less a person. The DNA in that "zygote" is NOT the DNA of the mother, but of a totally new human being.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


A single celled fertilized MAY have the potential to develop into a human being, but it is no more human than any other cell in ones body. It is no more autonomous than any other cell of ones body and certainly no more holy, sacred or valuable than any other human cell living that ones body produces.

A chemical reaction that provides the means for transformation through the encoded instructions of DNA is no more a person than a cookbook and the ingredients in your cupboard and fridge are a cake. A lot of stuff has to happen first, before the title of person can be bestowed on genetic material.

Originally posted by grey580
I, for one, am not for abortion as birth control. But that decision is not mine to make. So I won't interfere with a woman's right to choose. I have an issue with late term abortions though.

I am not for them for any reason. I once knew a young woman who had a child as a result of a rape, and kept that child. She stated that she didn't feel it would have been right to punish the child for the crime of the father. That was a beautiful, sweet, loving little girl, a joy to the family.

Originally posted by grey580
However with that out of the way. I would argue that a baby is not a person unless it can survive on it's own.
Until that point the completely dependent on the mother for it's existence. Sure you will eventually have a unique person but just not for some time yet to come.

Above, you stated that you have an issue with late term abortions. Surely you are aware that the excuse those in favor give is that the baby can't survive on its own. No newborn can survive on its own. Every single one needs someone to take care of it. Does that mean those newborns are not people? They are completely dependent. Maybe not on the mother, but on someone. Helpless doesn't mean "less than human". The same argument has been used by those pushing for euthanasia laws for the disabled and elderly, too. You are, as is clear from other threads and posts, a reasonable person. Think about that.

Are we animals that dispose of the weakest, or are we people, that care for even the most helpless among us?

Originally posted by grey580
Personally I wish that science could figure out a way to gestate a baby outside a womb so that we'd never lose more kids to abortions. But that's still science fiction.

That would be nice, wouldn't it? Those not wanting a baby could have it moved, and then that child could be adopted.

Originally posted by grey580
But we are going off topic aren't we.

Simply put the law isn't forcing christians to act against their faith. It's protecting the rights of those who may not share christian beliefs.

edit on 7-1-2013 by grey580 because: (no reason given)

Not really off topic, as the issue of abortion is a key one in this discussion.

As for the law, what the law is doing is requiring an employer to pay for something that is totally against their beliefs. A person can get an abortion, or a morning after pill, without their employer paying for it, so no rights of the person wanting that pill are violated, if the employer doesn't pay for it. Insurance should not be something an employer is forced to provide at all. Certainly, an employer should not be forced to pay for a pill that aborts an unborn child. Such a thing is elective, no matter what one's opinion is on the issue. No one's life is threatened by conception alone. Someone choosing to use such a pill does so out of personal choice, not medical necessity. Nothing of that sort should be paid by an employer-provided insurance policy, unless the employer chooses to offer it. Isn't the argument form the other side all about choice?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by grey580

 

Personally I wish that science could figure out a way to gestate a baby outside a womb so that we'd never lose more kids to abortions. But that's still science fiction.

It's coming!

Making Abortion Obsolete

edit on 7-1-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Wow.......that would solve a lot of problems. Might cause a few, though. I could see the debate....some claiming that a person born outside a human mother was somehow less human.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Yes, it opens the door to a whole new set of ethical questions and concerns. But, with time and with the support of the Pro-Life community, a potentially aborted fetus could be saved and adopted by a willing family, after growing to full term in an artificial womb

Win/Win.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Yes, it opens the door to a whole new set of ethical questions and concerns. But, with time and with the support of the Pro-Life community, a potentially aborted fetus could be saved and adopted by a willing family, after growing to full term in an artificial womb

Win/Win.

That would be a good thing, for certain! Too many millions have been lost.

It would help if those seeking an abortion were required to view an ultrasound. At 5-6 weeks, you can actually see the heart beating. Been there, done that. At 11-12 weeks, you can see SO much more. Arms, legs, hands, feet, fingers and toes. Profile, even. Done that, too. One of mine, the placenta was lo, and we did some early ultrasounds to be sure all was still working. At about 5 weeks, we could see her heart beating. Best Christmas present I ever got (was the day after), save His coming. At 11.5 weeks, we could see her so perfectly formed, including her profile, which you could ID as hers even today, many years later. No one will ever convince me that isn't a child. I have seen the reality. The thought of someone aborting a baby that small, in such a horrific fashion, is a terrible thing. Helpless doesn't mean non-human. A tiny separate life, entrusted to a mother for those months, should be protected. The emotional issues abortion raises for the mothers are well documented, also.

An artificial womb.....not ideal, but better than the alternative! Nice find, there.

As for the law, what the law is doing is requiring an employer to pay for something that is totally against their beliefs. A person can get an abortion, or a morning after pill, without their employer paying for it, so no rights of the person wanting that pill are violated, if the employer doesn't pay for it. Insurance should not be something an employer is forced to provide at all. Certainly, an employer should not be forced to pay for a pill that aborts an unborn child. Such a thing is elective, no matter what one's opinion is on the issue. No one's life is threatened by conception alone. Someone choosing to use such a pill does so out of personal choice, not medical necessity. Nothing of that sort should be paid by an employer-provided insurance policy, unless the employer chooses to offer it. Isn't the argument form the other side all about choice?

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


well, I do agree that the gov't shouldn't be forcing anyone to buy insurance..but well, the govt and courts seem to disagree with that.
you can get treatment for cancer without the employer providing insurance that covers is also, can't you??
I have met quite a few people who have had doctors warn them of the dangers a pregnancy would bring. I have also met a few who had to take this med or that one to stay functional where the pills would have very adverse effects on a developing fetus.

Maternal deaths were a much more common tragedy long ago. Nearly one in every 100 live births resulted in a mother’s death as recently as 90 years ago. www.msnbc.msn.com...

you can possibly thank modern day medicine for bringing that number down, but maybe, just maybe, you can also thank the birth control being available for those women out there who, regardless of you claims, would risk death if they conceived and carrying the baby full term... I imagine both can claim some credit.
although, I have to point out....
the death rate has doubled over the pass 20 years. and the increasing rate of c-sections seems to be gaining credit for that one.
www.minnpost.com...

and, I believe that late term abortions are done mainly to prevent harm to the mother. think about it, with abortion so readily available, why would someone who really didn't want to have the baby wait that long? they wouldn't, something must have happened between the time that they first learned of the pregnancy and the time that the abortion was done, something that would have given a big push towards that decision. I've had three kids, and well, I was quite attached to them before those last months of pregnancy....it would have been like killing my kid!! a few cells, that might be growing in my body, not such a big deal. and with the morning after pill and birth control bills, that is all it is, a few cells, the MIGHT be growing in the body.

again, if a employee can pay for insurance coverage for your high blood pressure pills that MIGHT kill you a few years or decades down the road without any moral hangups, they can pay for the insurance that covers a pill that can prevent a pregnancy that a doctor has told a women that she MIGHT OR WILL DIE if comes to fruitation with no moral hangups, or should be able to!! bet they would be able to if it was their daughter who was trying to prevent the pregnancy under those circimstances!!!

Originally posted by dawnstar
well, I do agree that the gov't shouldn't be forcing anyone to buy insurance..but well, the govt and courts seem to disagree with that.
you can get treatment for cancer without the employer providing insurance that covers is also, can't you??

The government isn't supposed to make decisions that the people don't want, or that infringe on the rights of the people. This health care business isn't wanted by a LOT of people, and it does infringe. I am all for some regulations of costs, so more could afford health care, but I am not for forcing one person to pay for it for another person. If insurance companies were required to keep costs low, and the medical industry wasn't so greedy, people could afford the health care.

Originally posted by dawnstar
I have met quite a few people who have had doctors warn them of the dangers a pregnancy would bring. I have also met a few who had to take this med or that one to stay functional where the pills would have very adverse effects on a developing fetus.

There are, according to many OB doctors, VERY few things that would make a pregnancy dangerous for the mother. Most abortions, and most morning after pills, are not for cases like that.

Originally posted by dawnstar
and, I believe that late term abortions are done mainly to prevent harm to the mother. think about it, with abortion so readily available, why would someone who really didn't want to have the baby wait that long? they wouldn't, something must have happened between the time that they first learned of the pregnancy and the time that the abortion was done, something that would have given a big push towards that decision. I've had three kids, and well, I was quite attached to them before those last months of pregnancy....it would have been like killing my kid!! a few cells, that might be growing in my body, not such a big deal. and with the morning after pill and birth control bills, that is all it is, a few cells, the MIGHT be growing in the body.

Cases like that are typically resolved, easily, by a c-section. Those are, regardless of the scare tactics some use, pretty safe. I have had THREE. One because the baby was sideways. The second because labor would not start, and it wasn't safe to induce. Third because there was NO WAY labor was safe. All without a hitch, very healthy babies. Late term abortions are horrible. I can't understand why anyone would do that, ever. At any time, if it was my life, or that of one of my children, I would give mine for them.

Originally posted by dawnstar
again, if a employee can pay for insurance coverage for your high blood pressure pills that MIGHT kill you a few years or decades down the road without any moral hangups, they can pay for the insurance that covers a pill that can prevent a pregnancy that a doctor has told a women that she MIGHT OR WILL DIE if comes to fruitation with no moral hangups, or should be able to!! bet they would be able to if it was their daughter who was trying to prevent the pregnancy under those circimstances!!!

Prevention and termination aren't the same thing, though. Many pills, unlike what they used to tell people, don't prevent conception all the time. They keep a pregnancy from lasting. IUD's are always an "after the fact" method. That wasn't told way back when, either. I have no issues at all with a method that stops fertilization from occurring. Those are good methods. They are typically far safer, too, because there aren't any issues with the hormones. Blood clots, life threatening blood clots, are a very real risk. Then there are other issues:

pills harm the environment

IUDs, even the so-called "safe" ones, cause problems, too. Severe bleeding, serious cramps, etc. are common. Both methods can cause problems later, if someone wants to have children. Barrier methods are far safer, and actually prevent pregnancies most of the time, especially if used with a spermicide.

Plus, there is a huge difference in paying for a treatment for someone, and paying to kill someone. High blood pressure treatment isn't killing another human being. A morning after pill will, if the woman is pregnant when she uses it. Comparing the two doesn't work.

As for early pregnancies not being a baby? Simply not true.



That's at 12 weeks, well within the usual time frame for an abortion. I have seen an ultrasound that early (11.5 weeks, in my case). That's the real deal. That's a human being, who deserves as much protection as those walking around.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


that's weird, I knew how birth control pills worked when I first started taking them, and that was the late 70.s or early 80;s...

and quite frankly, I don't really care if it's just one women out of 1000 that would be in danger, that is one person. out of 1000 that you seem to want to take that choice from..... a choice that involves their life.

and what are you gonna do about those women who've been told that the drugs they have to take....(the one women I knew it was antipsychotic drugs) would make developing a normal healthy fetus impossible. I am pretty sure that the effects of the drug was severe, since a NY state court ordered the abortion against the mother's desires! if the rights of the child trumps the rights of the mother in such a case, I guess we would either have to take such a person off the meds and either put up with a psychotic person roaming the streets or force her into an institution. and since what a women does months before conception even will affect the fetus, I guess we can put up with a whole bunch a psychotics roaming our streets, right???

like it or not, I think society is gonna have to accept the fact that the best medical treatment for some is birth control, of which the pills seem to be more effective than many other types that don't involve invasive surgery.

I've had three kids and no sonagrams. my doctor saw no needs for them and advised me not to, this was back in the 80's and her reason for advising me against them was that she could see how they could pose a risk to the baby. they were all pretty much natural births, no c-sections, again the doctor considered them to be too risky to just go ahead and do for no reason. they were induced though, my first one was well into it's 10'th month when I had him, and the water had broke, so well, there was no choice.

and well, like one of the articles I posted pointed out, the number of childbirth deaths has about doubled since the time I had my kids. and they are looking at the increase in c-sections as a possible culprit.

so, here we are now, trying to force women to have sonagrams, citing c-sections as making childbirth safer, and on and on...but harrdly ever do I hear any pro-life person actually acknowledge that yes, the childbirth process can be dangerous to the mother....and oh, ya, they would gladly give their life up for the unborn child that they carry...
any women who chooses that, well, I can find respect for, it was a choice she made, and she chose to sacrifice...
any women who is force to have make such a sacrifice, when there is doctors supporting the fact that it's quite dangerous to her, well, I consider that murder, and well, if it was a case of rape that caused the pregnancy, I would consider that one attempted murder!

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

that's weird, I knew how birth control pills worked when I first started taking them, and that was the late 70.s or early 80;s...

Well, when I was looking into them, in the early 90's, that wasn't what was stated. Wasn't what I was told about IUD's in the 80's, either. I know a lot of other people that were not told how they actually work. Glad you were, but some of us were lied to.

Most people are not in danger from pregnancy. Plus, this isn't about just regular birth control, but specifically about the "morning after" pill. Regular birth control pills do mostly prevent conception, but those others don't. They always end it. It also isn't about taking their choice; it's about not forcing someone that thinks that choice is murder to pay for it. If the woman gets a choice, should the employer not also? Choice is choice, isn't it? Or is it only a choice for those that agree with abortion?

Originally posted by dawnstar
and what are you gonna do about those women who've been told that the drugs they have to take....(the one women I knew it was antipsychotic drugs) would make developing a normal healthy fetus impossible.*snip*I guess we can put up with a whole bunch a psychotics roaming our streets, right???

Are you really trying to defend abortion pills because of mind-altering prescription drugs, that most of us realize are a very real problem? People that are taking "anti depression drugs" end up suicidal as a result. Other people become violent on many of those drugs, or wander around in a daze all the time. We already HAVE crazy people wandering the streets, too, because it was decided that having them in a place they could be cared for was somehow "wrong". Wow....drug to mess you up, and a drug to kill the child the first drug they give you would mess up. Some system. No, I don't think anyone should pay for that!

Originally posted by dawnstar
like it or not, I think society is gonna have to accept the fact that the best medical treatment for some is birth control, of which the pills seem to be more effective than many other types that don't involve invasive surgery.

There are a lot of methods that don't involve surgery, or drugs! A simple diaphragm, for example. Effective, easy to use, no hormones to cause life-threatening clots, no side effects. Nah, toss that out, and just give morning after pills, right? Killing a human being isn't a "treatment".

Originally posted by dawnstar
I've had three kids and no sonagrams. my doctor saw no needs for them and advised me not to, this was back in the 80's and her reason for advising me against them was that she could see how they could pose a risk to the baby. they were all pretty much natural births, no c-sections, again the doctor considered them to be too risky to just go ahead and do for no reason. they were induced though, my first one was well into it's 10'th month when I had him, and the water had broke, so well, there was no choice.

How, exactly, was a sonogram supposed to pose a risk? NEVER heard that, and my baby doc is one that has a book out on women's health. I think he would know..... All a sonogram does is use sound to see if there is a problem. Had I not had one, with my third, I would have died in childbirth. Literally. She was sideways. I can barely push out an average baby the normal way. Came close to major issues with the second, who was a little over 8 lbs. That's why there was a c-section, not just "because". The second was because you cannot induce after one, since the extreme contractions can rupture the uterus. Same for the third. First two were natural, which is better, if possible.

Originally posted by dawnstar
and well, like one of the articles I posted pointed out, the number of childbirth deaths has about doubled since the time I had my kids. and they are looking at the increase in c-sections as a possible culprit.

Unless the increase is all c-section births, that isn't the case. More likely a lot not getting proper care.

Originally posted by dawnstar
*snip*...but harrdly ever do I hear any pro-life person actually acknowledge that yes, the childbirth process can be dangerous to the mother....and oh, ya, they would gladly give their life up for the unborn child that they carry...

I stated that I would. I also discussed a rape victim I knew, that kept her baby. Young, unmarried. Most such victims are not at risk of death from a birth. Most women aren't, given proper care. People refusing to get care is what causes the increase. People like someone I knew that decided all medical care was bad, and sought "alternatives".

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

That's at 12 weeks, well within the usual time frame for an abortion. I have seen an ultrasound that early (11.5 weeks, in my case). That's the real deal. That's a human being, who deserves as much protection as those walking around.

I'm sorry, LadyGE, but I'm calling BS on that picture. This is bad propaganda produced by the radical pro-life movement, that attempts to appeal to emotions, rather than facts. Where's that baby's umbilical cord? Is that a dead fetus or a plastic model, because that baby, at 12 weeks of fetal development would be able to breath! If it's a real baby, why isn't in an incubator, on a fetal respirator?

Pseudoglandular Phase Until about the 17th week of gestational age, well into the fetal period of development, lungs are in the pseudoglandular phase. The Brown University publication “Introduction to Fetal Medicine” notes that this phase is characterized by further branching of the original lung buds into smaller and more numerous areas. Each bud eventually becomes an independent respiratory unit, served by a bronchiole—a small branch off the trachea—and surrounded by capillary vessels that will bring blood to the lungs for oxygen. Read more: www.livestrong.com...

At 9-16 Weeks
The developing lung resembles an endocrine gland at this time. By the end of this period, all of the major lung elements, except those required for gas exchange (e.g. alveoli), have appeared. Respiration is not possible during this phase, and fetuses born during this period are unable to survive.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


but, since our fine gov't decided to stick their noses into our healthcare, this is about picking what should and shouldn't be included in their "minimal healthcare policy", which, more than likely will probably end up being the norm for most of us...

you cite proper care as being a cause for some of that doubling of the deaths...okay....
you are talking to someone who it took a danged call from a state legislature to get the "proper care" for a danged broken bone when she didn't have insurance or a few thousand stashed for a down payment...
many times, financial reasons are behind people not getting "proper care"!!!

and ya, sound waves.....you do realize that they play with gene splicing with vibrations, don't you?? what is sound...oh ya, vibrations!! I think that is what she was thinking about.

and the women who the state forced an abortion on?? this was way back in the late 80's, before they really started drugging our kids that much....sometimes, people do need that medication, and well, like you said, they don't want to pay for the people to be put into institutions and in many cases their treatment, so they are kind of left to their own devices.

and, I am sorry, but I kind of see women who are raped as in lesser need for an abortion than those who face extreme risks...one more than likely will survive the other might not,or might face permanent disability.

I don't care how rare it is now, with our great healthcare system, if one can only have the funds to pay for, for some it is a real risk! and well, for those some, effective ways of birth control should be covered by insurance, and the birth control pill should be one of those ways! we all have faiths and beliefs, and many of them are not acknowledge by the laws....it's crazy to think that this one, which is discriminatory against women really if you look at the rest of the faith, should be treated as so holy as to endanger another person.

rape a women who has no way afterward to prevent pregnancy, and she dies because of the childbirth complications, and well, like it your not, you are guilty of murder.
force someone to carry a pregnancy that is known to carry such a risk by actively making it imjpossible to obtain a birth control method, and she dies, you are guilty of negligent homicide!

the risks are there, no matter how much you want to downplay them...

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

That's at 12 weeks, well within the usual time frame for an abortion. I have seen an ultrasound that early (11.5 weeks, in my case). That's the real deal. That's a human being, who deserves as much protection as those walking around.

I'm sorry, LadyGE, but I'm calling BS on that picture. This is bad propaganda produced by the radical pro-life movement, that attempts to appeal to emotions, rather than facts. Where's that baby's umbilical cord? Is that a dead fetus or a plastic model, because that baby, at 12 weeks of fetal development would be able to breath! If it's a real baby, why isn't in an incubator, on a fetal respirator?

*snip*

edit on 10-1-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

I said that's what a baby looks like at that stage. Whether it's a model or not, the representation is accurate. Nowhere did I claim that was a live baby. I have SEEN an ultrasound a little earlier than 12 weeks (which fact you seem to want to ignore), and that's accurate. Hands, feet, fingers and toes, just like that, and face, too. What that is, is something to show people the truth. A baby, at 12 weeks of development, is clearly a human being. If that bothers you, regarding the abortion issue, well, it should. I know it's accurate, because of personal experience. Plus, at 12 weeks, a baby would not be able to survive out of the womb. 7 months is about the earliest they can survive, as a rule (though there could be exceptions).

Originally posted by dawnstar
you cite proper care as being a cause for some of that doubling of the deaths...okay....
you are talking to someone who it took a danged call from a state legislature to get the "proper care" for a danged broken bone when she didn't have insurance or a few thousand stashed for a down payment...
many times, financial reasons are behind people not getting "proper care"!!!

I am well aware of the financial limitations. I went without insurance for a LONG time. Everything was paid out of pocket. However, there are already programs in place for that, for those with no means to pay. A broken bone would be treated in an emergency room, and any arrangements could be made later. That such a thing would cost "a few thousand" is the reason I stated that cost control is what is needed, instead of forcing insurance on all.

Originally posted by dawnstar
and ya, sound waves.....you do realize that they play with gene splicing with vibrations, don't you?? what is sound...oh ya, vibrations!! I think that is what she was thinking about.

Do you know of any evidence that there is harm from an ultrasound? I have never seen such a thing. They even use ultrasounds for other abdominal issues, and I have never heard of any risk at all. Even a fanatical "medical conspiracy" ex-friend of mine never mentioned a danger with those, and that person talked about things that aren't even real. Plus, as I stated, with my third, I would have had a life-threatening delivery, were it not for an ultrasound.

Originally posted by dawnstar
and the women who the state forced an abortion on?? this was way back in the late 80's, before they really started drugging our kids that much....sometimes, people do need that medication, and well, like you said, they don't want to pay for the people to be put into institutions and in many cases their treatment, so they are kind of left to their own devices.

If that happened, then that was a gross violation of her rights. Forced abortions, legal? I would need to see evidence of that. She should own those responsible.

Originally posted by dawnstar
and, I am sorry, but I kind of see women who are raped as in lesser need for an abortion than those who face extreme risks...one more than likely will survive the other might not,or might face permanent disability.

I would agree.

Originally posted by dawnstar
I don't care how rare it is now, with our great healthcare system, if one can only have the funds to pay for, for some it is a real risk! and well, for those some, effective ways of birth control should be covered by insurance, and the birth control pill should be one of those ways! we all have faiths and beliefs, and many of them are not acknowledge by the laws....it's crazy to think that this one, which is discriminatory against women really if you look at the rest of the faith, should be treated as so holy as to endanger another person.

Whether insurance covers such a thing isn't the issue. Whether ALL insurance should is, and who should pay for that insurance. Insurance plans do not have to be the same. People should be able to choose the coverage they receive, and have that be affordable, without employers being forced to foot the bill. That is the crux of the issue.

Originally posted by dawnstar
rape a women who has no way afterward to prevent pregnancy, and she dies because of the childbirth complications, and well, like it your not, you are guilty of murder.

Agreed. Same as someone killing an unborn child by committing violence against the mother.

Originally posted by dawnstar
force someone to carry a pregnancy that is known to carry such a risk by actively making it imjpossible to obtain a birth control method, and she dies, you are guilty of negligent homicide!

You are not forcing someone to carry a child by refusing to pay for their abortion. Claiming such is like trying to hold your neighbor responsible for the burglary to your home, because they didn't pay for an alarm system for you.

Oh, I did find something on forced abortions. How does this fit in with that freedom to choose? this is what "choice" supports

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


If you take the dna out of an eye lash and put it in an egg it will grow into a person.

This is how cloning works...

i forgot, if its not in the bible its not important.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

If you take the dna out of an eye lash and put it in an egg it will grow into a person.

This is how cloning works...

i forgot, if its not in the bible its not important.

That doesn't make the eyelash a person. Now you are being deliberately obtuse. Or maybe not.....

This isn't about cloning; it's about killing unborn human beings.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


the broken bone cost in total, over $20,000 I now have plates and pins holding my foot together, no, it was treated completely in the emercency room, all they did was slap a splint on it and send me home...

actually I believe that our employers should step out of the insurance business. they are just another middle man between us and our healthcare providers. and well, there are many doctors who are ditching the insurance comanies also, they are finding that the savings that it gives them through not having to process the claims is enough to pass that savings down to their customers and thus make the healthcare more affordable for them.

I think we can both agree that in reality, the answer would be to bring the healthcare cost down enough so the majority of the people can pay for it from their own earnings. the problem is how to get there???
which, more than likely will be answered soon enough since those costs keep going up, obamacare is gonna be a complete failure probably, and well....the number of the unemployed will keep raising...
the real world will probably shake the daylights out of the healthcare system and force their costs down!! something like 70 or 80% of the healthcare costs in my little area is being paid by one or another gov't agency, either medicaid, medicare, chips, payroll, whatever..... soon, it will be closer to 100%.

and by the way, I as an employee, which I am not even that now, well...
I don't have any choice as to the type of insurance really, don't have one of those money trees growing out in my back yard!! I kind of get stuck with whatever my boss offers... this is true with most employees, of course many do take that other choice, and choose to be covered cause it costs so danged much.

but that is the fire that is backing so many problems like the one being discussed here.
the people can't afford what they need to have because the costs have risen far faster than their paychecks. they need help, some well, the gov't intervenes to help, but, when that happens, you might as well consider those people slaves to the gov't, since they are now at the whims of whatever rules the gov't decide to lay down....
rules like, oh, I don't know...
being dictated as to who can and cannot come to your home.
remember the story of the women who needed diapers for their child and asked a friend to deliver her some...and he was told he couldn't enter the apt complex???

ya, things like that...
I've been griping for years that we were heading down this road, on boards like these, to the gov't and well no one chose to listen....
sorry, I don't accept that the rights of a portion of the populaton now overrules the health and well being of over half the population. and I am talking about your everyday birth control methods, which, yes, often times will cause a fetilized egg to not be able to implant itself.. that is not abortion!! don't believe t he morning after pill is either.
but, if the right to life group finds one offensive, I have to assume that they find the other.
I can't pick and chose what is in my insurance, most people can't, why should I accept that this one small group should be able to especially since it only affects the health and well being of one gender?

the problem is that we got too many middlemen in our healthcare system, with more being added, driving up costs, gov't involvement providing that healthcare system with patients no matter how much it costs, thus they can raise their rates to however much and still have customers!! the taxpayers will pay it, even if they can't afford to be customers themselves.

come to think of it...
I can't afford solar panels either, why are taxes paying so other people can have them...
hybrid cars??
those nice hud qualified apartments??
and on and on!!!

that link that you posted, didn't read all of it, but kind of think that the state could force abortions on some women...
in the case of the women I mentions, more than likely, they made it out that she really didn't have the mental capability to know what is best, or something like that. the decision has to made for her, at least that is what I got out of the conversation with her. Actually, I was kind of horrified by the story, and it effected her deeply.
to me, it would be better to just give a person a pill and prevent the pregnancy than it would be to have it concieved, made known to her, then forced to abort it. that is just mean! she might not have fully comprehended what the results of those drugs would have on it, but she understood that the gov't killed it!

reply to post by dawnstar


Well, star for that one. As I suspected, we really don't disagree on much.

Regarding your foot, hope it's healed properly; sounds like a nasty break. All those little bones would add to cost, I am sure.

YES, decreasing costs would be the answer. I totally agree that employers should not have to offer insurance. I am not really a fan of the entire system of insurance. Costs are driven up as a result of it, and many times, the insurance companies find ways to not pay for something, after collecting premiums for years. The entire system is a joke. If the medical system was getting money straight from patients, costs would have to go down, dramatically, because most people could not afford the most basic treatments, if it was all out of pocket.

As for birth control, we can disagree on what is and isn't a good thing there, and that's a personal decision. For insurance coverage, I feel that if someone wants a coverage that is possibly abortive, they should not ask someone else to pay for it, that might be opposed on religious and/or moral grounds. If there must be such coverage, that should be between the person and the insurance company, not an employer. Of course, ditching the whole health insurance scheme would solve that issue as well. A system to help those that really could not afford care, even with drastically reduced costs, would be fine, and the rest on the people. Doctors were not always among the wealthiest people, and I see no reason they should be now. Becoming rich off the medical issues of others seems wrong to me.

Any fixes would have to, of course, address the out of control pharmaceutical companies.

www.foxnews.com...

probably the best answer I've heard yet...
the early chirstians faced being fed to the lions, are those of today willing to face some jail time??

Originally posted by dawnstar
www.foxnews.com...

probably the best answer I've heard yet...
the early chirstians faced being fed to the lions, are those of today willing to face some jail time??

Some claim they are. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.