If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, it wouldn’t ban abortion

[AUDub 11,131]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Do you considering any reasoning to be "spin"? 

It made a lot of sense to me.  And it certainly didn't seem to be distorted or slanted for a political purpose.

Thought it was pretty self evident.

If we, as a society, are going to force a woman to carry a child to term, then we do bear some responsibility to ensure that child is well cared for. I'm happy to take a callous attitude towards adults who can't support themselves, but kids don't have much say in the matter. I'd rather see my taxes go up than see them suffer because of circumstances beyond their control.

Paid maternity/paternity leave, massive expansion of programs like SNAP and medicaid, free childcare, etc. Doing this would do more to prevent abortion than any law banning the practice ever could.

[AUatHeart 624]

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Being "pro-life" imposes an obligation to support healthcare to whomever needs it, however it is provided (which is a different question.)  If you are "pro-life" regarding a fetus, then you must necessarily be "pro-life" to those who are born.

The hypocrisy of your position is self-evident to any thinking objective person, even if you are blind to it.

Kinda like pro-choice folks demanding free healthcare, and contraceptives?  If you are pro-choice wouldn't you want to have a choice in where and how you get healthcare?

You did display a nice case of the pot calling the kettle black though.

[homersapien 11,354]

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I disagree you. It’s absurd to assert that a pro-lifer undermines their position on abortion by opposing a government healthcare program. Hell, why can’t they disagree with the implementation, among other considerations, without “undermining” their stance on abortion? 

What you propose, that pro lifers-by virtue of their beliefs on abortion-impose upon themselves an obligation to support universal healthcare, is illogical. 

That is more disingenuous BS. 

Who is offering alternatives to government programs that will do a better job of providing healthcare for everyone?  

"Pro-lifers" - if they were genuine - would naturally support efforts to provide everyone healthcare as a human right.  It doesn't have to be ACA - or any other program in particular - as long as it realistically addresses the problem. (Personally, I can't imagine a non-government program that could be effective, but I have an open mind.)

The only "pro-life" person on this forum who has acknowledged the inherent implications of a "pro-life" position by suggesting we need a universal, comprehensive healthcare program, is Titan.  And he didn't restrict himself by specifying exactly how that program should work. Nor was it necessary for the purposes of this debate. 

If you cannot bring yourself to accept - even in principle - that proposition, then your "pro-life" position is hypocrisy.

(But then, you admittedly  don't recognize the reality of "white privilege" nor do you seem have a realistic concept of the burdens of poverty, so I am not entirely gob-smacked by your not getting this.  At least you have the advantage of a full lifetime ahead of you to "get woked".  I sincerely hope you do so. I'd pray for you if I thought it would really help.  Hell, I'll pray for you if you think it would help.)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

44 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Sister Chittiser reflects my own view pretty effectively here.

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

I don’t know many pro-lifers that are against those things.I do know many, including myself, would rather donate directly than entrust and enlarge the government with more tax dollars, especially in light of how they’ve spent our money for years. But if it’s insisted that taxes are the route, let’s start keeping the ones spending said taxes accountable.

 

[homersapien 11,354]

4 hours ago, AUatHeart said:

Kinda like pro-choice folks demanding free healthcare, and contraceptives? 

If you are pro-choice wouldn't you want to have a choice in where and how you get healthcare?

You did display a nice case of the pot calling the kettle black though.

What do you mean by "pro-choice folks demanding free healthcare and contraceptives"?  I don't get this at all.  

Sure I would.  But what does that have do with the discussion?

You'll have to help me out on identifying my hypocrisy.  Not saying it cannot be true, but I sincerely don't know what you are referring to.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That is more disingenuous BS. 

Who is offering alternatives to government programs that will do a better job of providing healthcare for everyone?  

"Pro-lifers" - if they were genuine - would naturally support efforts to provide everyone healthcare as a human right.  It doesn't have to be ACA - or any other program in particular - as long as it realistically addresses the problem. (Personally, I can't imagine a non-government program that could be effective, but I have an open mind.)

The only "pro-life person on this forum who has acknowledged the inherent implications of a "pro-life" position by suggesting we need a universal, comprehensive healthcare program is Titan.  And he didn't restrict himself by specifying exactly how that program should work, nor was it necessary.

Like I said, to any thinking, objective person, the hypocrisy of being pro-life for fetuses but not supporting healthcare for people already born is self-evident.

 

Qualify “healthcare” and I can choose whether or not I would support it. There’s thousands of healthcare systems in the world. You’re using the term like a millennial at a Bernie rally. How much would it cost and what are the implementation specifics? If you’re qualified to call pro lifers hypocrites if they don’t support socialized healthcare, then you better be qualified enough to articulate what it is. It’s quite comprehensive. 

Again, I don’t see how in the world this undermines a pro-lifer. You’d have them accept a government run healthcare program by default it seems, in order for them to be consistent in their position. 

[homersapien 11,354]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Qualify “healthcare” and I can choose whether or not I would support it. There’s thousands of healthcare systems in the world. You’re using the term like a millennial at a Bernie rally. How much would it cost and what are the implementation specifics? If you’re qualified to call pro lifers hypocrites if they don’t support socialized healthcare, then you better qualified enough to articulate what it is. It’s quite comprehensive. 

Do you want to change the discussion to potential healthcare systems? That's fine with me, but it deserves another thread.  Otherwise, it's just diversionary.

And you are still being disingenuous with your "spinning" of my comments (see bold above).  Do you really think readers are blind to such "spinning"?  It's insulting to both of us.

Let me try once more:

Speaking in principle (presumably - since you are educated - you understand what a discussion in principle means and why it's useful), if you are a "pro-lifer" for all the stated reasons, you must also support providing life saving healthcare to those already born.

If you are pro-life for the fetus, then you must - by definition - be pro-life for the child.  The latter requires you to support the resulting child with critical healthcare in the case it's mother or parents cannot, or will not.  If this is not true, then you are a hypocrite.

I understand the devil is in the details.  That's always true.  It will be true even if Roe v. Wade is repealed.  But addressing the details of how the subject healthcare is provided is a different discussion.

If you cannot accept the above statement in principle, the details don't matter anyway.  Likewise, your rationale for being "pro-life" doesn't matter, because it's false. It's not really true.

This may be difficult to accept, but it's not really complicated.  Stop trying to make it so.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Do you want to change the discussion to potential healthcare systems? That's fine with me, but it deserves another thread.  Otherwise is comes across as being diversionary.

And you are still being disingenuous with your "spinning" of my comments (see bold above).  Do you really think readers are blind to such "spinning"?  It's insulting to both of us.

Let me try once more:

Speaking in principle (presumably - since you are educated - you understand what a discussion in principle means and why it's useful), if you are a "pro-lifer" for all the stated reasons, you must also support providing life saving healthcare to those already born.

If you are pro-life for the fetus, then you must - by definition - be pro-life for the child.  The latter requires you to support the resulting child with critical healthcare in the case it's mother or parents cannot, or will not.  If this is not true, then you are a hypocrite.

I understand the devil is in the details.  That's always true.  It will be true even if Roe v. Wade is repealed.  But addressing the details of how the subject healthcare is provided is a different discussion.

If you cannot accept the above statement in principle, the details don't matter anyway.  Likewise, your rationale for being "pro-life" doesn't matter, because it's false. It's not really true.

This may be difficult to accept, but it's not really complicated.  Stop trying to make it so.

 

You’re changing the discussion. 

If you’re prolife, you’re not self-imposed with the obligation to support government-run healthcare. If you oppose government run healthcare, that doesn’t mean you disregard a child’s health. It could mean you don’t trust the government, you don’t trust the universal healthcare system becuase you’ve seen it fail, you don’t agree with the policy, you prefer private healthcare, you don’t want to grow the government, and many many many many many many many more reasons. To insinuate hypocrisy in this matter is gross error. There are a multitude of reasons one can oppose government run/universal healthcare. 

Arguing back and forth about healthcare and one’s justification in opposing or supporting particular universal policies (that haven’t been expounded upon, notably) doesn’t strengthen or weaken one’s position on abortion. It doesn’t make one a hypocrite.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

27 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If you are pro-life for the fetus, then you must - by definition - be pro-life for the child.  The latter requires you to support the resulting child with critical healthcare in the case it's mother or parents cannot, or will not.  If this is not tru

Pro-lifers are pro-life for children. My point is that they aren’t hypocrites for opposing government-run healthcare programs.

That’s why we open places like this, and I was honored to volunteer in its newest location: https://www.bchsnola.org/

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But it’s not hypocritical. Those issues don’t speak to actively and deliberately killing a baby inside of the womb. 

You mean universal healthcare? What type of policy are you referring to? How would it be implemented? Why can’t a decision about opposing/not opposing a program be made after considering he specifics of the policy?

No, pro lifers aren’t obligated to support any ol’ healthcare program written up by the government. Hell, what would be the point in reading it?

 

 

I wasn’t aware that my views required me to write a universal healthcare policy for America. But we did have an Affordable Care Act and the pro life party is hell bent on destroying it. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not but some babies, toddlers, children, young adults and adults actually depend on medication to survive. The pro life party tells me through their actions that a fetus is more important than my child. I didn’t abort my child but this administration is determined to make it as difficult and as costly as possible for my child to live. So I’m sorry if it offends you but a fetus isn’t more important than my living breathing child. And I don’t expect the government to pay for the child that I brought into this world but I do expect my government to not create policies that increases the cost of my child’s survival while preaching on the evils of abortion. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I wasn’t aware that my views required me to write a universal healthcare policy for America. But we did have an Affordable Care Act and the pro life party is hell bent on destroying it. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not but some babies, toddlers, children, young adults and adults actually depend on medication to survive. The pro life party tells me through their actions that a fetus is more important than my child. I didn’t abort my child but this administration is determined to make it as difficult and as costly as possible for my child to live. So I’m sorry if it offends you but a fetus isn’t more important than my living breathing child. And I don’t expect the government to pay for the child that I brought into this world but I do expect my government to not create policies that increases the cost of my child’s survival while preaching on the evils of abortion. 

https://www.bchsnola.org/

some of us prefer this way. Why are we hypocrites elle? 

Haha so now pro lifers are hypocrites for opposing the ACA? Goodness gracious.

You mean the “fetus” is less important in the womb than outside it? Got it. I say value attaches at conception 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

https://www.bchsnola.org/

some of us prefer this way. Why are we hypocrites elle? 

Haha so now pro lifers are hypocrites for opposing the ACA? Goodness gracious 

Saying you’re pro life then endorsing policies that make it difficult for children to live is hypocrisy. But it’s evident to me that your empathy doesn’t  extend past birth. You want children brought into the world but you oppose them being taken care of. The fetus is more important. Spoken like a true Republican. You guys are some effed up people. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Saying you’re pro life then endorsing policies that make it difficult for children to live is hypocrisy. But it’s evident to me that your empathy doesn’t  extend past birth. You want children brought into the world but you oppose them being taken care of. The fetus is more important. Spoken like a true Republican. You guys are some effed up people. 

I oppose government run healthcare for a vast array of reasons. What do you not understand about that?

So what’s the extension of your logic? If you are pro life and republican, until the Republican Party endorses government-run healthcare for all, you’re a hypocrite? That’s laughable.

[AUDub 11,131]

28 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

https://www.bchsnola.org/

some of us prefer this way. Why are we hypocrites elle? 

Haha so now pro lifers are hypocrites for opposing the ACA? Goodness gracious.

You mean the “fetus” is less important in the womb than outside it? Got it. I say value attaches at conception 

For crying out loud, dude, I work at a non profit myself

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I oppose government run healthcare for a vast array of reasons. What do you not understand about that?

So what’s the extension of your logic? If you are pro life and republican, until the Republican Party endorses government-run healthcare for all, you’re a hypocrite? That’s laughable.

I understand what you’re saying. And no I’m not saying you have to endorse government run healthcare. But why oppose affordable healthcare? Why do away with pre existing conditions coverage? I hope you never have to live with the fear that your child could die because of the excessive cost of a drug needed to survive or because pre existing conditions may be denied coverage. But it’s a fear I live with daily. 

I no longer expect you to exhibit empathy. You’re locked in to your beliefs and nothing I say will change that. Fetuses are more important than living breathing children and a donation to a charity makes denying children food and healthcare ok. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

For crying out loud, dude, I work at a non profit myself

 

That’s great. The center has made an immense impact in New Orleans 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I understand what you’re saying. And no I’m not saying you have to endorse government run healthcare. But why oppose affordable healthcare? Why do away with pre existing conditions. I hope you never have to live with the fear that your child could die because of the excessive cost of a drug needed to survive or because pre existing conditions may be denied coverage. But it’s a fear I live with daily. 

I no longer expect you to whibit empathy. You’re locked in to your beliefs and nothing I say will change that.

You’re saying I am a hypocrite if I’m pro life and republican.

But ok.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

14 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You’re saying I am a hypocrite if I’m pro life and republican.

But ok.

No. I’m saying you’re a hypocrite because your pro life stance ends at the birth of a child. If you don’t care about the well being of children outside the womb but care for them inside the womb, you’re a hypocrite. If that pair of shoes fits you then wear them.

[AUFAN78 3,890]

Roe v Wade not getting overturned. What are we doing?

If Pluto hits the moon, what are our chances?

[augolf1716 21,096]

6 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

I don’t mind that. I know you adore me. And this is a smack talk forum. But at least through a little meat in with the insults. Back up the insults. ?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

No. I’m saying you’re a hypocrite because your pro life stance ends at the birth of a child. If you don’t care about the well being of children outside the womb but care for them inside the womb, you’re a hypocrite. If that pair of shoes fits you then wear them.

Who said my pro life stance “ends at birth?” Becuase I’m republican? That’s the only support you have for your accusation and it doesn’t hold water AT ALL. Does my support of private clinics (including the specific example I provided) count for anything? 

Here’s the answer - The basis of your absurd assertion is grounded in the fact that I am a Republican. This is truly ignorant on your part. I have illuminated the outrageousness of your position and you know it. 

[augolf1716 21,096]

Good discussion have enjoyed it greatly. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

Good discussion have enjoyed it greatly. 

You’re welcome, but don’t give me all the credit. Someone has to hold up the paper for me to shoot holes through it. Thank them too

[AUFAN78 3,890]

Good grief, I am having another pour.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

Good grief, I am having another pour.

If you’re prolife and republican, you’re a hypocrite becuase republicans don’t endorse universal health care