Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is it murder if you kick a fetus out of your body that is the result of making a poor decision about contraception, but not murder if you kick a comatose person out of your hospital because you made a poor financial decision in admitting them. In the end they both die. Why are you willing to let a business off the hook for a poor decision, but not a woman?
It's an issue of responsibility. People who are against free health care believe that each individual is responsible for themselves and their children (fetuses included since they believe fetuses are people). They do not believe that citizens are responsible to other citizens to which they have no relations.
You could argue that they are cold hearted bastards, but not hypocrites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
Again the business certainly contributed to the circumstances that created the need for care as much as a woman did. Just like pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of having sex. Taking a risk on whether a client will be able to pay is a foreseeable risk of taking them on as a client.
And now you've lost me. If I run a hospital, how did I cause a random person down the street to fall into a coma? How on earth was that a foreseeable consequence for me just by my existence?
Democrats tend to favor greater social freedom, and government regulation of the economy. Republicans tend to favor greater economic freedom and stricter regulation of what people do on their own time.
Thus why Republicans tend to oppose gay marriage, gambling, legalization of pot, abortion etc. while they think Wall street and business should be free to do whatever while democrats tend to think all of the above are not as big problems as having social safety nets and business regulation.
The only people who tend to favor both social and economic freedom are libertarians. With that said however a bunch of old social conservative Republican types have tried the re-brand themselves as "Libertarian" even though they still have the same possitions. The trick to telling them apart is to ask about sodomy, porn and gay marriage. Almost all real libertarians will tell you the government has no business there, while most Republicans who re-brand themselves as Libertarians will strongly oppose a least 1 or more of those.
Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.
- Zechariah Chafee
There is no freedom without accountability.
Liberals love freedom as long as someone else gets the bill, but that bill deprives the person stuck paying it of their freedom.
Both conservatives and libertarians believe freedom and accountability are inseparable.
As long as an individual is required to pay for the bad choices of another person, he or she is not free.
Of the issues you listed, homosexual marriage (sodomy), pornography, gambling and legalized drugs should be state issues since the enumerated powers and Tenth Amendment are clear that these areas are beyond Congress's authority.
Abortion is a case in which the accountability that goes along with freedom is ignored. No child conceived by a couple idiots should be murdered because the idiots in question refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. They knew when they copulated a child might be conceived, so they are responsible for caring for the child they created.
It's an issue of responsibility. People who are against free health care believe that each individual is responsible for themselves and their children (fetuses included since they believe fetuses are people). They do not believe that citizens are responsible to other citizens to which they have no relations.
You could argue that they are cold hearted bastards, but not hypocrites.
If each individual is responsible for themselves why shouldn't each corporation be responsible? You are willing to hold a woman responsible for having sex and accidentally getting pregnant, but you are not going to hold a business responsible if they take on a client who could not pay, but whose life depends on their services for a term of a few months.
And now you've lost me. If I run a hospital, how did I cause a random person down the street to fall into a coma? How on earth was that a foreseeable consequence for me just by my existence?
Very simple, you didn't, but if you own a hospital and you admit someone who cannot pay in the heat of the moment, why should you be given a break to cut them loose, when a woman who accidentally got pregnant in the heat of passion is forced to carry the fetus.
If each individual is responsible for themselves why shouldn't each corporation be responsible?
Do you know what the word "themselves" means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
Very simple, you didn't, but if you own a hospital and you admit someone who cannot pay in the heat of the moment, why should you be given a break to cut them loose, when a woman who accidentally got pregnant in the heat of passion is forced to carry the fetus.
That's just not valid Mr. Student. To someone who disagrees with UHC, there is zero responsibility to random citizens. Essentially what you're saying is that if a hospital supports any amount of charity (the initial hospital admission), they must support unlimited charity (complete and total care regardless of cost).
By and large the Republican Party is patriarchal. The patriarchs must keep women suppressed and under the control of their fathers, husbands or the State. Women must never be able to control their fecundity.
When the Republicans speak of rights they are referring to the rights of the rich, the white and the males. They do not consider women to be real people. At least if the woman is poor and black.
It all comes down to accountability.
I would hold an adult responsible for his or her actions.
A child I would not.
I consider an adult woman to be my equal, and as such, responsible for her own actions.
A poor black woman is also my equal and also responsible for her actions.
If you believe in equality of the sexes, why would you not hold a female to the same standard of accountability as a male?
Do you think they are too stupid to keep themselves from getting knocked up?
Obviously when Roe was decided, the condescending sexists who gave women authority to kill their babies at will did so as a practical matter because they viewed women as unintelligent and inherently irresponsible.
Liberals proclaim equality but their actions tell a different story.
Freedom to a liberal means someone else pays the bill and the innocent are punished for someone else's irresponsible actions.
That's just not valid Mr. Student. To someone who disagrees with UHC, there is zero responsibility to random citizens. Essentially what you're saying is that if a hospital supports any amount of charity (the initial hospital admission), they must support unlimited charity (complete and total care regardless of cost).
It is totally valid. Why don't you consider a woman allowing a fetus to stay in her womb for a few weeks before getting an abortion charity then? Why do women have responsibility to random unwanted embryos and fetuses? Why do you insist the woman be unlimitedly charitable, (short of death or serious injury) regardless of the toll on the woman's body, career, and life, following a bad choice, while not requiring it of businesses.
I can explain my positions without such double standards. I believe that fetuses are not people and women have a fundamental right to exert control over their own bodies. I also believe that a good government in promoting the general welfare should set up safety nets so that 20 year olds, or any legal citizen, doesn't die for making a stupid mistake and that they should partner with hospitals and insure hospitals receive compensation.
Rightwingers on the other hand have this murky double standard that creates two classes of people in terms of having the government force people to care for others without compensation...Pregnant women/everyone else.
It is totally valid. Why don't you consider a woman allowing a fetus to stay in her womb for a few weeks before getting an abortion charity then? Why do you insist the woman be unlimitedly charitable, while not requiring it of businesses.
It's not about charity for a mother. She created the baby. How can you equate charity to strangers with taking care of your own child? That's just crazy.
Let me ask you this. Do you think that women should not be more responsible for their children than they should be for strangers? Is that what you're saying here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
I can explain my positions without such double standards. I believe that fetuses are not people and women have a fundamental right to exert control over their own bodies. I also believe that a good government in promoting the general welfare should set up safety nets so that 20 year olds, or any legal citizen, doesn't die for making a stupid mistake and that they should partner with hospitals and insure hospitals receive compensation.
The two are completely unrelated. You're bringing up the UHC and safety net debate which is a perfectly good debate but the issue here is whether or not you can kill a human being (because pro-lifers consider fetuses to be human beings) that you are responsible for because you created it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
Rightwingers on the other hand have this murky double standard that creates to classes of people in terms of having the government force people to care for others without compensation...Pregnant women/everyone else.
Again, right wingers believe that mothers are responsible for their children;s life and health (fetuses included). They simply do not believe that they are responsible for other peoples' life and health.
Personal freedom is inseparable from personal responsibility.
One cannot be truly free if he or she is made responsible for another's choices, and no free person should ever be deprived of life, liberty or property to mitigate the impact of the poor choices or misdeeds of another.
I have been made responsible for other people's poor choices since the day I started paying taxes. The money I have earned is my property....and I shouldn't be deprived of it to mitigate the impact of the poor choices or misdeeds of others. Why should a fetus have more freedom than I do?
This is not the Republican position. It is the conservative position and the libertarian position. That the Republican Party supports these positions is a reflection of conservatives and libertarians being involved with the Party.
Abortion is the greatest example of punishing the innocent for the irresponsible actions of others. Abortion imposes a death sentence on an innocent person for no other reasons than they were unfortunate enough to have been conceived by a couple too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions.
This only holds true if you believe a fetus is a person.
This is the reason the rationalizations of liberals seeking to make excuses for an act which is unspeakable go nowhere. There is no excuse for taking a child's life.
Again, only true if you believe a fetus is a child.
The act of copulating always precedes conception and everyone knows this, so there is no excuse for both parties to not be held responsible for the wellbeing of the child they have created through this voluntary action. It's called an assumed responsibility.
When conception results from BC failure.....NO ONE has assumed responsibilty for a child. The conception was NOT voluntary. It is nothing more than an accident, an accident that can be mitigated through abortion if that is how the woman decides to deal with it. Abortion IS taking responsibility.
As for the legalization of drugs, gay marriage and other issues not addressed by the Constitution, the states should decide these matters. This was the intent of the Founders when they wrote and ratified the Constitution. No one should be forced to live with something they find intolerable and the nation is still large enough to provide breathing room for those at odds with others.
What was that saying? Oh yeah. "A nation divided shall soon fall."
Oh, and might I point out.....many women feel that carrying a pregnancy and giving birth is intolerable.....yet you support state governmnet forcing her to do so. Too poor to travel to another state, can't get the time off of work to travel to another state....too bad for you. Only lucky/rich women get a choice. Personal freedom is a crap shoot in your scenario.
The enumerated powers provide a limit to what the Congress may do. I see nothing in this list about marriage, the use of drugs or most of the other things Congress has involved itself with.
The federal government needs to protect the right to life, liberty and property rights, fight our wars, seal or borders, deliver the mail, print our money and those other things which it is specifically authorized to do then stay out of our personal affairs and the various state's business.
The right to life, liberty and property rights.....wouldn't that include protecting a woman's liberty to make her own reproductive decisions?
Liberty, wouldn't that include a gay person's right to benefit from the state of marriage.....are they not citizens like everyone else?
Deliver the mail? Really? If the Republican constitutionalists believe delivering the mail is the government's responsibility,.....why are they actively trying to dismantle the USPS and turn mail delivery over to private corporations?
You really shouldn't be disingenuous. A person in a coma doesn't choose to be in a coma either.
What I don't understand is the double standard rightwingers use. When the burden falls upon a hospital, or corporation, because they admitted a person who was in a coma and couldn't pay, rightwingers are all "let him die...Yeah" a hospital shouldn't have to pay, or bear responsibility. On the other hand when a person gets pregnant the right says oh we have this sanctity of life and the government needs to ardently protect life no matter what the burden on the woman.
If you believe that corporations are people and that both the fetus and the 20 are people the two positions seem totally contradictory save one hurts a business and the other hurts a woman.
At what point did adult humans get excused from the consequences of their decisions?
If the woman doesn't want to be burdened, she should take the initiative to not ****. However, if she decides she does in fact wish to copulate, there is no reason mentally sound adults should not be required to care for the life they (both parties) created.
A pre-born human has made no choices so as to be accountable for them.
A person who goes through life without so much as a low-cost high-deductible catastrophic care package knows they are rolling the dice. If they get caught, they should not be refused care, but they should also have their assets liquidated to pay their medical bills and let them work off the rest. Why can't a bankruptcy court order restitution in the form of hospital grounds maintenance or housekeeping? When the word gets out that the emergency room isn't a free medical clinic anymore, people will line up to get major medical coverage.
It all comes down to accountability.
I would hold an adult responsible for his or her actions.
A child I would not.
I consider an adult woman to be my equal, and as such, responsible for her own actions.
A poor black woman is also my equal and also responsible for her actions.
If you believe in equality of the sexes, why would you not hold a female to the same standard of accountability as a male?
Do you think they are too stupid to keep themselves from getting knocked up?
Obviously when Roe was decided, the condescending sexists who gave women authority to kill their babies at will did so as a practical matter because they viewed women as unintelligent and inherently irresponsible.
Liberals proclaim equality but their actions tell a different story.
Freedom to a liberal means someone else pays the bill and the innocent are punished for someone else's irresponsible actions.
Apparently men and women are equally ignorant.....as neither sex has come up with a totally infallible method of birth control.
When Roe v Wade was decided, women were given the same freedom men have always had.....the freedom to walk away from an unintended pregnancy unscathed.
And......if men are so GD intelligent, how come so many of them allow themselves to be caught in the "parent trap"? Hmmmm? Why are they so irresponsible as to allow a woman access to their sperm in the first place? Hmmmm?
PS: Women were never given the authority to kill babies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
