Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 2/6/2019 1:54:00 PM (view original):
i agree with the supreme court about viability.
i agree that the mother's life comes first.
i believe that the mother can decide to have a late term abortion if her life is in danger or she will suffer significant life changing problems.
i believe the mother should be able to have late term abortion if the baby will have horrible defects.
i dont belive a fetus is a human life until viability.

For a change, I agree with Dino here.

I also think that 1st trimester non-health-related abortions should include Norplant installation. If you don't want this baby, you shouldn't be able to get pregnant for a few years.

Hey, three of us in agreement. I think we have a quorum.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Charities will never be an effective stand in for a social safety net.

Programs like social security and medicare are universally popular. The ACA is universally popular. People want to know that they aren't one bad step away from complete ruin. It's an essential function of government.

You're delusional if you think these are "universally popular". They're popular among the recipients. ACA is NOT universally popular. If you think it is, you're blind to reality.

We HAD to contribute to Social Security and Medicare, and, for the most part, IT'S OUR MONEY that we're "allowed" to reclaim once we get to ta certain age. I would've preferred to have the option to manage my own funds rather than have the government hang onto my money in a modified pyramid scheme. Of course, now that I'm old(er), I'm hoping I'm getting MY MONEY back as a supplementary income.

In CA, Social Security is only a useful nest egg if you already own your house. If you're still paying for a mortgage or rent in CA, you're basically screwed if your only income is from the government.

Look at the polling data. There's a reason no politicians push to cut social security or medicare. And if the ACA was so unpopular, the GOP could have wiped it out through reconciliation anytime in the last two years. But they didn't because people like have pre-existing coverage protection. If anything, health care is going to move FARTHER left.

Polling data and political gyrations do NOT = Universally popular (your words)

This is why people have trouble taking you or your debating skills seriously.

I think the last gallup poll I saw showed something like 80% of the population wanted medicare preserved or expanded. That's about as universally popular as anything gets.

Posted by The Taint on 2/6/2019 2:06:00 PM (view original):
You realize it's the opposite also.


Once the baby is born, conservatives give zero ***** about it getting proper schooling, proper nourishment, proper health care....etc.


10 year old cancer survivor used as a Donald Trump prop last night.....over 20 times the GOP in the room voted to take away her health care. So much compassion.

You are right and wrong. True conservatives do care. Republicans don't give a ****. The majority of republicans are not true conservatives. They are heartless bastards that only care about their bottom line.

Bah, you're overgeneralizing. I'm a social moderate and a fiscal conservative.

And a Republican.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 2/6/2019 1:54:00 PM (view original):
i agree with the supreme court about viability.
i agree that the mother's life comes first.
i believe that the mother can decide to have a late term abortion if her life is in danger or she will suffer significant life changing problems.
i believe the mother should be able to have late term abortion if the baby will have horrible defects.
i dont belive a fetus is a human life until viability.

For a change, I agree with Dino here.

I also think that 1st trimester non-health-related abortions should include Norplant installation. If you don't want this baby, you shouldn't be able to get pregnant for a few years.

That's quite the invasion of privacy. You can't mandate hormonal birth control on someone. There are side effects beyond pregnancy prevention.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Charities will never be an effective stand in for a social safety net.

Programs like social security and medicare are universally popular. The ACA is universally popular. People want to know that they aren't one bad step away from complete ruin. It's an essential function of government.

You're delusional if you think these are "universally popular". They're popular among the recipients. ACA is NOT universally popular. If you think it is, you're blind to reality.

We HAD to contribute to Social Security and Medicare, and, for the most part, IT'S OUR MONEY that we're "allowed" to reclaim once we get to ta certain age. I would've preferred to have the option to manage my own funds rather than have the government hang onto my money in a modified pyramid scheme. Of course, now that I'm old(er), I'm hoping I'm getting MY MONEY back as a supplementary income.

In CA, Social Security is only a useful nest egg if you already own your house. If you're still paying for a mortgage or rent in CA, you're basically screwed if your only income is from the government.

Look at the polling data. There's a reason no politicians push to cut social security or medicare. And if the ACA was so unpopular, the GOP could have wiped it out through reconciliation anytime in the last two years. But they didn't because people like have pre-existing coverage protection. If anything, health care is going to move FARTHER left.

Polling data and political gyrations do NOT = Universally popular (your words)

This is why people have trouble taking you or your debating skills seriously.

I think the last gallup poll I saw showed something like 80% of the population wanted medicare preserved or expanded. That's about as universally popular as anything gets.

Now you're parsing your OWN words. You claimed ACA was "universally popular" and it's not even close to that (it's closer to 50-50 than 90-10)

The only reason people want SS or Medicare preserved is THAT WE ALREADY PAID FOR IT, AND WE WANT OUR FREAKIN' MONEY BACK!

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 2/6/2019 1:54:00 PM (view original):
i agree with the supreme court about viability.
i agree that the mother's life comes first.
i believe that the mother can decide to have a late term abortion if her life is in danger or she will suffer significant life changing problems.
i believe the mother should be able to have late term abortion if the baby will have horrible defects.
i dont belive a fetus is a human life until viability.

For a change, I agree with Dino here.

I also think that 1st trimester non-health-related abortions should include Norplant installation. If you don't want this baby, you shouldn't be able to get pregnant for a few years.

That's quite the invasion of privacy. You can't mandate hormonal birth control on someone. There are side effects beyond pregnancy prevention.

If you're literally KILLING a baby voluntarily, there should be some consequences beyond having to negotiate a ride home.

They can keep what i've already paid into SS. Just let me keep and invest the rest of my money as I see fit going forward.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Charities will never be an effective stand in for a social safety net.

Programs like social security and medicare are universally popular. The ACA is universally popular. People want to know that they aren't one bad step away from complete ruin. It's an essential function of government.

You're delusional if you think these are "universally popular". They're popular among the recipients. ACA is NOT universally popular. If you think it is, you're blind to reality.

We HAD to contribute to Social Security and Medicare, and, for the most part, IT'S OUR MONEY that we're "allowed" to reclaim once we get to ta certain age. I would've preferred to have the option to manage my own funds rather than have the government hang onto my money in a modified pyramid scheme. Of course, now that I'm old(er), I'm hoping I'm getting MY MONEY back as a supplementary income.

In CA, Social Security is only a useful nest egg if you already own your house. If you're still paying for a mortgage or rent in CA, you're basically screwed if your only income is from the government.

Look at the polling data. There's a reason no politicians push to cut social security or medicare. And if the ACA was so unpopular, the GOP could have wiped it out through reconciliation anytime in the last two years. But they didn't because people like have pre-existing coverage protection. If anything, health care is going to move FARTHER left.

Polling data and political gyrations do NOT = Universally popular (your words)

This is why people have trouble taking you or your debating skills seriously.

I think the last gallup poll I saw showed something like 80% of the population wanted medicare preserved or expanded. That's about as universally popular as anything gets.

Now you're parsing your OWN words. You claimed ACA was "universally popular" and it's not even close to that (it's closer to 50-50 than 90-10)

The only reason people want SS or Medicare preserved is THAT WE ALREADY PAID FOR IT, AND WE WANT OUR FREAKIN' MONEY BACK!

The ACA was 33-33-33 when it passed. That's 33 percent in favor, 33 percent against, and 33 percent wishing it went further.

The approve/disapprove binary polling is misleading because of that third 33 percent. They want medicare for all or a public option. They certainly don't want a return to pre-ACA law.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 2/6/2019 1:54:00 PM (view original):
i agree with the supreme court about viability.
i agree that the mother's life comes first.
i believe that the mother can decide to have a late term abortion if her life is in danger or she will suffer significant life changing problems.
i believe the mother should be able to have late term abortion if the baby will have horrible defects.
i dont belive a fetus is a human life until viability.

For a change, I agree with Dino here.

I also think that 1st trimester non-health-related abortions should include Norplant installation. If you don't want this baby, you shouldn't be able to get pregnant for a few years.

That's quite the invasion of privacy. You can't mandate hormonal birth control on someone. There are side effects beyond pregnancy prevention.

If you're literally KILLING a baby voluntarily, there should be some consequences beyond having to negotiate a ride home.

You're going through a legal medical procedure. There should be zero consequences.

Posted by laramiebob on 2/6/2019 12:28:00 PM (view original):
Slavery? Really??

Owning another person like cattle (or chattel), being able to mistreat them (if desired), breed them (fatten them) and sell them as "property" is hardly the same as a (potential) Mother making an informed, knowledgeable, and loving determination whether carrying a fetus to term and delivering the fetus to live as a "baby" is the right choice for both Her life AND the Fetus. Others don't get to jump into HER life and determine what's best as they don't KNOW what she knows. THEY don't have all the info. Hopefully, the woman understands the concept of pregnancy and childbirth and GETS the gravity and importance of her decision. IT IS, and I grant you this, it IS (potentially) a life. Assuming the fetus is healthy I (personally)--- for my own self, not speaking for anyone else---- would agree that there should be some fair and appropriate term limit (based on tri-mester or weeks?) to prohibit the KNOWING termination of a healthy fetus. IN short--- you shouldn't be able to abort a (healthy) fetus during delivery (or after!). Just MY opinion. It has NO bearing on what you do in Georgia.

P.S. (edited to add)
Heck I've seen Deliverance. What y'all do in Georgia is clearly y'all's business.
We's all looking for deliverance from something but in AZ we kinda keeps it private like.

bob, I think Deliverance was based on the state that borders the cradle of blackface and shares a part of its name.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 2/6/2019 1:54:00 PM (view original):
i agree with the supreme court about viability.
i agree that the mother's life comes first.
i believe that the mother can decide to have a late term abortion if her life is in danger or she will suffer significant life changing problems.
i believe the mother should be able to have late term abortion if the baby will have horrible defects.
i dont belive a fetus is a human life until viability.

For a change, I agree with Dino here.

I also think that 1st trimester non-health-related abortions should include Norplant installation. If you don't want this baby, you shouldn't be able to get pregnant for a few years.

That's quite the invasion of privacy. You can't mandate hormonal birth control on someone. There are side effects beyond pregnancy prevention.

If you're literally KILLING a baby voluntarily, there should be some consequences beyond having to negotiate a ride home.

You're going through a legal medical procedure. There should be zero consequences.

WRONG. Every choice has consequences. You're totally delusional if you don't know that.

But I guess I knew that.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Bah, you're overgeneralizing. I'm a social moderate and a fiscal conservative.

And a Republican.

Maybe. I just have little faith in either party to do the right thing. I'm not saying that everyone in that party are bad people. Hell, I think Dino and B_L are good people and they are as far from me on the political spectrum as they come. I don't think supporting abortion makes them bad people. I think that view is bad, but I don't think they are bad people. Just like I think George Washington was a good man despite the fact that he owned slaves which was bad.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 2/6/2019 1:54:00 PM (view original):
i agree with the supreme court about viability.
i agree that the mother's life comes first.
i believe that the mother can decide to have a late term abortion if her life is in danger or she will suffer significant life changing problems.
i believe the mother should be able to have late term abortion if the baby will have horrible defects.
i dont belive a fetus is a human life until viability.

For a change, I agree with Dino here.

I also think that 1st trimester non-health-related abortions should include Norplant installation. If you don't want this baby, you shouldn't be able to get pregnant for a few years.

That's quite the invasion of privacy. You can't mandate hormonal birth control on someone. There are side effects beyond pregnancy prevention.

If you're literally KILLING a baby voluntarily, there should be some consequences beyond having to negotiate a ride home.

You're going through a legal medical procedure. There should be zero consequences.

WRONG. Every choice has consequences. You're totally delusional if you don't know that.

But I guess I knew that.

Every choice has consequences but I'm saying that we shouldn't apply additional consequences just because. It's a legal procedure. You don't get punished by the government for legal procedures.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 2:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 2/6/2019 1:54:00 PM (view original):
i agree with the supreme court about viability.
i agree that the mother's life comes first.
i believe that the mother can decide to have a late term abortion if her life is in danger or she will suffer significant life changing problems.
i believe the mother should be able to have late term abortion if the baby will have horrible defects.
i dont belive a fetus is a human life until viability.

For a change, I agree with Dino here.

I also think that 1st trimester non-health-related abortions should include Norplant installation. If you don't want this baby, you shouldn't be able to get pregnant for a few years.

That's quite the invasion of privacy. You can't mandate hormonal birth control on someone. There are side effects beyond pregnancy prevention.

If you're literally KILLING a baby voluntarily, there should be some consequences beyond having to negotiate a ride home.

You're going through a legal medical procedure. There should be zero consequences.

WRONG. Every choice has consequences. You're totally delusional if you don't know that.

But I guess I knew that.

Every choice has consequences but I'm saying that we shouldn't apply additional consequences just because. It's a legal procedure. You don't get punished by the government for legal procedures.

I agree with bad_luck. Either the procedure is legal or it is illegal. What you guys are suggesting is punitive.