a human embryo

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by blunt_trauma

^^ i look at that and i see limbs, a head, eyes.
but i don't see a person.
it's brain is incomplete. it's thoughts and emotions are no more complex than those of a fish.
i can't pinpoint the moment where that little creature becomes a person though. somewhere between conception and birth f'sure.
looking at that stage, i find it hard to understand the passion of the antiabortionists.

FWIW, it's probably not his fault.

[richard_daily]

Originally Posted by blunt_trauma

how do control freak, overly civilised wasps compare to an ancient, nomadic tribal culture?

that makes no sense at all...

Overly civilized?

You've obviously never been to Mississippi.

[richard_daily]

Originally Posted by Kybele

OK, I have completely missed something. We aren't talking about Dick's pretty awful faux pas that is oppressive to a group of disabled people and/or potentially racist?

I honestly wasn't familiar with the usage of it a a pejorative towards people with downs...

That said, I can see how it would be taken as racist, and I'm willing to own up to that, but that's not how I intended it to be taken.

Originally Posted by richard_daily

I honestly wasn't familiar with the usage of it a a pejorative towards people with downs...

That said, I can see how it would be taken as racist, and I'm willing to own up to that, but that's not how I intended it to be taken.

you should educate yourself a bit more.

[girlsmiley]

Originally Posted by richard_daily

An american state filled with lots of mongoloids...

but still, the state amendment got shut down.

Originally Posted by richard_daily

Resembling a mongol, aka, a fucking barbarian.

I think the state Richard is referring to is Mississippi. The personhood amendment? I heard they were trying to say that the moment an egg is fetilised it would be considered a person. Abortion would be illegal, the morning after pill. I'm just repeating what I was told. Some ridiculous shit. Apparently it was rejected by 55% anyho.

You are not comparing Genghis Khan and the Mongols to the people of Mississippi, Richard. LOL Mongoloids is the old school name for people with down's. Everybody knows that.

[richard_daily]

Originally Posted by Kybele

you should educate yourself a bit more.

I appreciate your calling me out on it.

Again, the word doesn't carry the connotation to me, that it obviously does to you, and others, but I'm not going to sit and make excuses for it...

I don't ask for free passes.

So I humbly and wholeheartedly apologize, and ask for your understanding and forgiveness.

Originally Posted by richard_daily

I appreciate your calling me out on it.

Again, the word doesn't carry the connotation to me, that it obviously does to you, and others, but I'm not going to sit and make excuses for it...

I don't ask for free passes.

So I humbly and wholeheartedly apologize, and ask for your understanding and forgiveness.

send me self porn for total absolution.

[richard_daily]

Originally Posted by Kybele

send me self porn for total absolution.

Only if you wear that nun outfit.

Originally Posted by richard_daily

Only if you wear that nun outfit.

you want the nun-type knickers or for me to go commando?

[1sickbastard]

Originally Posted by Kybele

well, as a society, america kinda does that by withholding access to medical treatment to all but the wealthy.

Factually untrue.

The debate has been couched in the posistion of who can aford access, but the reality is that everyone in the USA has access to medical treatment. The question is whether said treatment will wipe out one's personal assets (in which case, the individual goes on medicade/medicare and welfare) or not.

Regardless where you live, the wealthy will always have superior access to available healthcare...

Originally Posted by 1sickbastard

Factually untrue.

The debate has been couched in the posistion of who can aford access, but the reality is that everyone in the USA has access to medical treatment. The question is whether said treatment will wipe out one's personal assets (in which case, the individual goes on medicade/medicare and welfare) or not.

Regardless where you live, the wealthy will always have superior access to available healthcare...

all you need to do is look at the health outcomes and access to healthcare for disabled people and people with intellectual impairments and then compare them to the rest of the population.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Kybele

all you need to do is look at the health outcomes and access to healthcare for disabled people and people with intellectual impairments and then compare them to the rest of the population.

You're moving the goalposts here. You claimed that there's a positive correlation between wealth and access to health care. When that point was disputed you claimed instead that there's a negative correlation between physical/mental disability and access.

Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump

Should we, by that standard begin euthanizing the retarded?




Two days in a coma and you're outta here?

Originally Posted by John Doe

You're moving the goalposts here. You claimed that there's a positive correlation between wealth and access to health care. When that point was disputed you claimed instead that there's a negative correlation between physical/mental disability and access.

the above post was the one I responded to. see?

But if you can demonstrate that poor people have the same access to healthcare as rich people, I'd be really interested

[1sickbastard]

Originally Posted by Kybele

the above post was the one I responded to. see?

But if you can demonstrate that poor people have the same access to healthcare as rich people, I'd be really interested

Differential access because of wealth is NOT the same as withholding treatment.
Again, you're changing the terms of the debate.

Originally Posted by 1sickbastard

Differential access because of wealth is NOT the same as withholding treatment.
Again, you're changing the terms of the debate.

please explain how not giving a poor person the same access to life saving treatment is different to withholding it from them because they are too poor to pay for it?

[1sickbastard]

Originally Posted by Kybele

please explain how not giving a poor person the same access to life saving treatment is different to withholding it from them because they are too poor to pay for it?

No one is withheld life-saving treatment. The difference is being able to afford regular check-ups, preventative care, or optional, non-necessary medical attention (like laser-optic surgery).

In America, once a person loses the ability to pay out-of-pocket, he/she goes on Medicare & SSDI.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Kybele

the above post was the one I responded to. see?

Irrelevant to my point.

But if you can demonstrate that poor people have the same access to healthcare as rich people, I'd be really interested

That's a chickenshit argument. You can't make a claim then expect others to refute it for you, especially on the GB. If you want people to accept it you have to support it yourself.

Anyway, how do you define health care access?

[HeyItsDani]

Originally Posted by 1sickbastard

In America, once a person loses the ability to pay out-of-pocket, he/she goes on Medicare & SSDI.

Not unless they meet certain requirements. You're pretty naive about this stuff, aren't you?

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Kybele

please explain how not giving a poor person the same access to life saving treatment is different to withholding it from them because they are too poor to pay for it?

It's illegal for US hospitals who participate in Medicare (which is most of them) to deny emergency care to anyone on the basis of ability (or lack thereof) to pay.

[1sickbastard]

Originally Posted by HeyItsDani

Not unless they meet certain requirements. You're pretty naive about this stuff, aren't you?

Hey, nice av!

I just had a friend go through 2 years of colon cancer treatment w/o health insurance. He spent most of his waking, non-treatment time filling out forms and chasing down beurocrats to make sure he got his gov't benefits.

Name me some instances where an individual was deniied life saving treatment due to inability to pay.


Maybe this shoud be a seperate thread. This particular thread is about human embryos & abortion, neh?

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by 1sickbastard

Hey, nice av!

I just had a friend go through 2 years of colon cancer treatment w/o health insurance. He spent most of his waking, non-treatment time filling out forms and chasing down beurocrats to make sure he got his gov't benefits.

Name me some instances where an individual was deniied life saving treatment due to inability to pay.


Maybe this shoud be a seperate thread. This particular thread is about human embryos & abortion, neh?

There have already been separate threads for this issue.

[1sickbastard]

Originally Posted by John Doe

There have already been separate threads for this issue.

I'm certain.

And each thread resulted in the usual suspects taking predictable positions and eventually resulted in a name-calling contest, I'll bet...

[HeyItsDani]

Originally Posted by 1sickbastard

Hey, nice av!

Thanks.

Name me some instances where an individual was deniied life saving treatment due to inability to pay.

I don't keep track of every single instance of medical treatment in the country, so I am unable to do it. I'm always hearing on the news about people denied care for condition or another because they can't afford. You'd have to be blind and deaf to not be aware of it. It happens all the time.

[1sickbastard]

Originally Posted by HeyItsDani

Thanks.
You're Welcome!


I don't keep track of every single instance of medical treatment in the country, so I am unable to do it. I'm always hearing on the news about people denied care for condition or another because they can't afford. You'd have to be blind and deaf to not be aware of it. It happens all the time.

the system is set up so they can get necessary treatment, but slogging through the paperwork and following up is a very trying, time consuming effort. It doesn't mean they CAN'T get the treatment, it means they don't take advantage of the system that's in place.

Don't get me wrong. I'd prefer a health system that was more focused on making people well vs. a system that is solely for profit. Each kind of system has particular advantages and disadvantages & no system is perfect, but in the US, the debate is not couched in a straight up terms. To much of the health care debate, like nearly every other political discussion, is to driven by ideology.

[Ishmael]

Originally Posted by HeyItsDani

Funny how you can claim to “acknowledge the core of the debate,” yet be too dense to understand the difference between an 8-week old fetus and a 2 year old child.



Actually, the first question is just what makes you think a woman is nothing more than an incubator, merely a vessel that is of such low status that she should be forced to give up her rights as a full member of the human species and be forced to endure a pregnancy that she does not wish to carry. Where do you get the idea that she should be forced to endure the several months of life-endangering conditions that a pregnancy involves if she does not wish to do so? What makes you think that the growing fetus’ rights should trump her rights, or even be coequal to them? To assert that a woman loses her right to make these fundamental decisions about her own being is inherently misogynistic.

And who are you to decide what moral framework this individual should live by when it comes to these kinds of decisions? Morality is hardly the black and white issue you make it out to be. Your basic problem is that you believe your morals should apply and that you should be allowed to make these decisions for her or determine her destiny, rather than her making those decisions for herself. Of all the arrogance.



Many do argue exactly that. And as Kybele pointed out, in most places, prostitution isn’t illegal. But my question to you is, are you really so ignorant that you cannot see the fundamental difference between this and the issues associated with the right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy? Really?

Well, your diatribe is right out of the NOW playbook. That's fine and represents one side of the debate.

I've been here for 10 years and as this subject comes up with regularity it should present no problem for you to research my posts and find out that I have been consistently pro choice. I have also consistently held that abortion is murder. And while those two positions may seem to be at odds with one another, my reasoning is based on the fact that women have been practicing contraception and abortion for all of recorded history. And if Jane Auel's research and writings have any validity, women have been doing so thousands of years back in pre-history. Given that historical context I can find no sound reason to criminalize something that women are going to do anyway. I just can't see where criminalizing the act would serve any useful purpose.

Ishmael