Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    01 Mar '12 02:57 / 1 edit
    http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/womens-health-care-offers-new-wrinkle-in-texas-2208239.html

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion_will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason.html

    In the last 30+ years or so, the mantra of the GOP has been "smaller government". Why then do GOP lawmakers want to involve the "government" so much in womens health issues?? Texas, Virginia and many other conservative leaning states seem to be doing everything they can to see that Federal and State governments decide weather a woman can get an abortion, or even have access to cancer screening. I'd like to point out that the majority of voters (especially women) don't see eye to eye with the GOP on this issue. In 2012 the GOP has a golden opportunity to win control of both houses of Congress. I'll predict however, if the GOP does not get off the "womens health" bandwagon, they risk losing this opportunity, since they are clearly on the wrong side of public opinion on this issue.
  2. 01 Mar '12 06:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/womens-health-care-offers-new-wrinkle-in-texas-2208239.html

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion_will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason.html

    In the last 30+ years or so, the mantra of the GOP has been "smaller government". Why th opportunity, since they are clearly on the wrong side of public opinion on this issue.
    So the GOP does not want government to have tax payers to pay for rubbers and contraceptive medicine and abortions and it is the GOP who want more government involvement?

    Um.....er.....right.
  3. 01 Mar '12 13:20
    Originally posted by whodey
    So the GOP does not want government to have tax payers to pay for rubbers and contraceptive medicine and abortions and it is the GOP who want more government involvement?

    Um.....er.....right.
    That is stupid.

    No one is asking the the taxpayers to pay for anything. When I pay for my medical insurance it comes from my money not from yours. If I am paying for that insurance I expect it to cover me based on my conscience and religion and to ignore my employer's religion or conscience because medical decisions should be made by me and my doctor in the exam room. I don't need Church Death Panels telling me how my doctor should provide my health care. If you want a bunch of pedophile-shielding clerics to dictate your life to you then you are free to do so. What you don't get to do is tell me how to live.
  4. 01 Mar '12 13:41
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    That is stupid.

    No one is asking the the taxpayers to pay for anything. When I pay for my medical insurance it comes from my money not from yours. If I am paying for that insurance I expect it to cover me based on my conscience and religion and to ignore my employer's religion or conscience because medical decisions should be made by me and my doctor ...[text shortened]... your life to you then you are free to do so. What you don't get to do is tell me how to live.
    Church death panels? And the bodies keep piling up in the streets.

    Mwahahahahah!

    You kids crack me up.

    BTW: In case you did not know, if insurance companies are forced to pay for something then everyone who buys such insurance pays more. Ain't noth'in free in this world except in the mind of a liberal, so buy your own rubbers!!
  5. 01 Mar '12 14:17
    Originally posted by whodey
    Church death panels? And the bodies keep piling up in the streets.

    Mwahahahahah!

    You kids crack me up.

    BTW: In case you did not know, if insurance companies are forced to pay for something then everyone who buys such insurance pays more. Ain't noth'in free in this world except in the mind of a liberal, so buy your own rubbers!!
    That is even more stupid.

    We are buying our own! Why don't you listen for once instead of just being a parrot for Fox and Limbaugh. You are so ill-informed that the village idiots are afraid you're going to apply for their job (and Rick, Ron and Mitt like their work.)
  6. 02 Mar '12 04:48
    Why is the quality of this conversation so juvenile? Because everyone is talking right past the other persons remarks. it's pathetic!
  7. 02 Mar '12 13:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    That is stupid.

    No one is asking the the taxpayers to pay for anything. When I pay for my medical insurance it comes from my money not from yours. If I am paying for that insurance I expect it to cover me based on my conscience and religion and to ignore my employer's religion or conscience because medical decisions should be made by me and my doctor your life to you then you are free to do so. What you don't get to do is tell me how to live.
    As usual whody is completely clueless about the issues.
  8. 02 Mar '12 14:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    Church death panels? And the bodies keep piling up in the streets.

    Mwahahahahah!

    You kids crack me up.

    BTW: In case you did not know, if insurance companies are forced to pay for something then everyone who buys such insurance pays more. Ain't noth'in free in this world except in the mind of a liberal, so buy your own rubbers!!
    So in other words if the church gets their way and people start having unwanted babies, everyone will pay more because the costs involved with prenatal care, birthing the child and postnatal care.

    Thanks for clearing that up.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 Mar '12 14:01
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    That is stupid.

    No one is asking the the taxpayers to pay for anything. When I pay for my medical insurance it comes from my money not from yours. If I am paying for that insurance I expect it to cover me based on my conscience and religion and to ignore my employer's religion or conscience because medical decisions should be made by me and my doctor ...[text shortened]... your life to you then you are free to do so. What you don't get to do is tell me how to live.
    While I agree with your fundamental point that all people should be held to the same standard regardless of your religion, in this case it is the government dictating what employer must pay for. Therefore, the privacy-based argument you're making kind of falls flat.
  10. 02 Mar '12 14:10 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    While I agree with your fundamental point that all people should be held to the same standard regardless of your religion, in this case it is the government dictating what employer must pay for. Therefore, the privacy-based argument you're making kind of falls flat.
    No, it's dictating a basic minimum level of insurance coverage. If you're against things like minimum wage and minimum basic benefits that's fine. But this is NOT a "freedom of religion" issue.

    Employees and employee benefits are expenditures of the companies, and despite what your Republican buddies want to believe corporations are not people. The building you work in does not have a religion. Medical insurance is part of the total compensation package that the company provides. Complaining that the insurance provider covers contraception is just as retarded as complaining that the employee can use her own money for contraception.

    "It's infringing on my religious rights having to pay my employees! They might use that money to buy porn!"
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 Mar '12 14:20
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    No, it's dictating a basic minimum level of insurance coverage. If you're against things like minimum wage and minimum basic benefits that's fine. But this is NOT a "freedom of religion" issue.

    Employees and employee benefits are expenditures of the companies, and despite what your Republican buddies want to believe corporations are not ...[text shortened]... my religious rights having to pay my employees! They might use that money to buy porn!"
    I specifically agreed that it was not a freedom of religion issue. I really thought I made that point as clear as I could, so I don't have any idea what you're first point is about.

    My point is that to argue that "Because of my right to privacy, the government should force my employer to pay for my birth control" is bizarre.

    You want to argue that it's good policy to force employers to pay for birth control? Fine. Maybe you're right. But what you're arguing for is not privacy. On the contrary, you're arguing that (for a good reason, perhaps), the government should infringe on privacy.
  12. 02 Mar '12 17:37
    Originally posted by sh76
    I specifically agreed that it was not a freedom of religion issue. I really thought I made that point as clear as I could, so I don't have any idea what you're first point is about.

    My point is that to argue that "Because of my right to privacy, the government should force my employer to pay for my birth control" is bizarre.

    You want to argue that it's go ...[text shortened]... re arguing that (for a good reason, perhaps), the government should infringe on privacy.
    firstly I must admit to being pretty ignorant of a lot of the political issues that have been posted on this forum since the republican primaries kicked off but this argument seems to be not very far from the employer based insurance paying for abortions thread that caused a kerfuffle quite recently. What is surprising is that the same people (religious republicans) seem opposed to a measure i.e employer insurance paying for contraception; which could/should reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies/abortions. Furthermore the economic benefits to the State/ Fed govt, employers and insurance companies from reducing unwanted prenancies and in the case of barrier contraception or "rubbers" a myriad of S.T.Ds such as aids, hepatitis and chlamidea should be obvious. So could those opposed please give their real heart felt objections whereby this ignorant thread reader can gain enlightenment.
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 Mar '12 17:51
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    firstly I must admit to being pretty ignorant of a lot of the political issues that have been posted on this forum since the republican primaries kicked off but this argument seems to be not very far from the employer based insurance paying for abortions thread that caused a kerfuffle quite recently. What is surprising is that the same people (religious rep ...[text shortened]... their real heart felt objections whereby this ignorant thread reader can gain enlightenment.
    Personally, I think funding contraception is fine. In fact, it's probably a good idea.

    But being against contraception and being against abortion is not inconsistent. I'm sure someone who is against both on whatever grounds would simply tell you that they support a third option: abstinence.

    Now, you or I may think that's silly or unrealistic. But being against contraception and against abortion are not mutually exclusive positions.
  14. 02 Mar '12 18:25
    Originally posted by sh76
    Personally, I think funding contraception is fine. In fact, it's probably a good idea.

    But being against contraception and being against abortion is not inconsistent. I'm sure someone who is against both on whatever grounds would simply tell you that they support a third option: abstinence.

    Now, you or I may think that's silly or unrealistic. But being against contraception and against abortion are not mutually exclusive positions.
    Neither is being against fire and fire retardant materials.
  15. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    03 Mar '12 05:57
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    No, it's dictating a basic minimum level of insurance coverage. If you're against things like minimum wage and minimum basic benefits that's fine. But this is NOT a "freedom of religion" issue.

    Employees and employee benefits are expenditures of the companies, and despite what your Republican buddies want to believe corporations are not ...[text shortened]... my religious rights having to pay my employees! They might use that money to buy porn!"
    Why would't be a freedom of religion if religion wants no part of that process
    and yet it is being forced to be a part of it? Why doesn't it send chills up your
    spine that without so much as a how you do the president just says we will
    make the insurance companies pay for it? Where does he get off saying that?

    I think you are failing to see the big picture here.

    If it goes against people's religion's than it should be to bad govenment, if you
    are going to let the government be the total power that can say and do
    whatever it wants to anyone, then you have lost all your freedoms period. No
    religion in this discussion is forcing its views upon everyone the govenment is,
    the churchs and schools have setup rules of faith that only apply to
    themselves. You do not want to go by those rules do not work there, you want
    to avoid the govenment rules, well good luck with that!
    Kelly