2016 Election

[Rich]

That's something I've never understood.  Abortion is legal.

Abortion is also the epitome of something you have to do because you made a behavioral choice that had consequences and now you want to absolve yourself of the long-term responsibility (of course we exclude rape because that isn't a choice). With all of the contraceptives available and all the information, if you are still having unprotected sex and you get pregnant and your solution is to kill the unborn life, then you should be the only one that has to live with that decision. The rest of us shouldn't.

[Fau Teixeira]

Abortion is also the epitome of something you have to do because you made a behavioral choice that had consequences and now you want to absolve yourself of the long-term responsibility (of course we exclude rape because that isn't a choice). With all of the contraceptives available and all the information, if you are still having unprotected sex and you get pregnant and your solution is to kill the unborn life, then you should be the only one that has to live with that decision. The rest of us shouldn't.

Rubio is against a rape exception to anti-abortion laws .. as is Cruz. Trump .. meh .. i don't actually know what his views on it are.. and he's such an opportunistic lier that we won't ever know.

People make behavioral choices daily that have long term consequences that you and I pay for routinely. For example smoking .. that's a behavioral choice .. i don't see people advocating that we don't treat lung cancer because they somehow deserve it. And it should be their solitary responsibility and not the responsibility of the community at large.

[CF DolFan]

I find it bizarre that we have no problem with taxpayer money being spent on wars that people find morally objectionable, but when it comes to constitutionally-guaranteed rights somehow there is this newfound moral veto.

the Constitution gives us the right to free birth control, free std testing and free abortions? You may want to read it again or else do a reading comprehension class or two.

we spend federal money on Viagra prescriptions .. why wouldn't we spend money on funding HIV screenings ? or HPV vaccines

i don't understand the double standard.. Well .. I "understand" it .. kinda .. men .. privilege .. etc .. but i don't think it's fair, nor have i ever heard a talking point about it from the right.

We do not spend federal money on Viagra. Medicaid doesn't pay for it and neither does many insurances.

[CF DolFan]

Rubio is against a rape exception to anti-abortion laws .. as is Cruz. Trump .. meh .. i don't actually know what his views on it are.. and he's such an opportunistic lier that we won't ever know.

People make behavioral choices daily that have long term consequences that you and I pay for routinely. For example smoking .. that's a behavioral choice .. i don't see people advocating that we don't treat lung cancer because they somehow deserve it. And it should be their solitary responsibility and not the responsibility of the community at large.

I agree that we do pay for people's bad choices but people who do not have healthcare do not get treated for lung cancer. One of the pills my father took for his lung cancer cost almost $7,000 a month and his insurance or Medicaid didn't pay for it.

[Rich]

Rubio is against a rape exception to anti-abortion laws .. as is Cruz. Trump .. meh .. i don't actually know what his views on it are.. and he's such an opportunistic lier that we won't ever know.

You've hit the nail on the in regards to Cruz. The guy gives me the creeps.

As for Rubio, he's from my part of town. Really smart guy, but he was living it up at lavish parties with the local "leaders" when he was mayor of Westchester. He's the typical politician.

People make behavioral choices daily that have long term consequences that you and I pay for routinely. For example smoking .. that's a behavioral choice .. i don't see people advocating that we don't treat lung cancer because they somehow deserve it. And it should be their solitary responsibility and not the responsibility of the community at large.

Yep and I disagree with me paying for someone else who chose to smoke and fuck up their life. If we continue to cover up for people's personal mistakes, we'll continue moving more and more towards a society where personal responsibility does not matter.

There is, however, a bit of a distinction between smoking and having unprotected sex. There is scientific evidence of certain people having addictive predisposition and addiction running in the family. So the argument could be made that some people are born with more of a propensity to become addicted to certain substances.

There is no evidence that people have an addiction to deciding to not purchase a condom or using contraceptives. By the way, I support ease of access to birth control and the morning after pill. I don't support the elimination of a life form with a heart beat that is composed of human genes.

[Dave Gray]

The decision to make the argument for personal responsibility where government won't assist seems arbitrary with abortion.  There are plenty of things that I'm morally against that government pays for.  It's a legal medical procedure.

Also, people gets pregnant from lots of different ways.  Willful unprotected sex isn't the only way.

[Rich]

The decision to make the argument for personal responsibility where government won't assist seems arbitrary with abortion.  There are plenty of things that I'm morally against that government pays for.  It's a legal medical procedure.

I agree. I am an across the board type of guy on this.

Also, people gets pregnant from lots of different ways.  Willful unprotected sex isn't the only way.

I mentioned rape as an exception. Other than that and the condom breaking or the anomoly with birth control not working, what is this plethora of different ways?

[Tenshot13]

I agree. I am an across the board type of guy on this.

I mentioned rape as an exception. Other than that and the condom breaking or the anomoly with birth control not working, what is this plethora of different ways?

The ol' jizz on the toilet seat gag.  I knew a guy who knew a girl whose roommate got prego from a toilet seat...

[Dave Gray]

I mentioned rape as an exception. Other than that and the condom breaking or the anomoly with birth control not working, what is this plethora of different ways?

I think the "rape as an exception thing" shouldn't matter.  Are we in the business of making patients prove how they got pregnant?  Then, you're looking to coax false rape accusations out of desperate young girls. 

But you mentioned the ways...birth control is mostly effective.  But even if it's 99.9 percent, that's 1 out of every 1000 times there's sex, you get a child.  There's a lot of sex going on...not in my house, but around the country.

But I go back to the fact that this is a legal medical procedure.  It's legal.  It's been decided.

[Fau Teixeira]

I think in the end question of abortion isn't so much of taking a life, that part is tragic but ultimately irrelevant.

It's a question of liberty. Government can no more force a women to donate a kidney to a dying child than it can force her to carry a baby to term against her wishes.

Even if we stipulated that a fetus of any sort is a human being with full constitutional rights. No citizen has the right to force another citizen to use its body to keep it alive.

Ending a pregnancy is the choice of the person that is pregnant. That the fetus dies as a result, while tragic, is a side-effect.

[Rich]

I think the "rape as an exception thing" shouldn't matter.  Are we in the business of making patients prove how they got pregnant?  Then, you're looking to coax false rape accusations out of desperate young girls.

Forensics seem to have an easy time validating rape. Either there are physical injuries or narcotics involved. 

But you mentioned the ways...birth control is mostly effective.  But even if it's 99.9 percent, that's 1 out of every 1000 times there's sex, you get a child.  There's a lot of sex going on...not in my house, but around the country.

But I go back to the fact that this is a legal medical procedure.  It's legal.  It's been decided.

Great. It's legal. But it's illegal for the government to require taxpayers to pay for it.

[Dave Gray]

I just can't fathom rape-testing for a medical procedure.  Or drug testing.  Would people just take narcotics at that point?

[Spider-Dan]

the Constitution gives us the right to free birth control, free std testing and free abortions?

No, the Constitution gives us the right to access those things, and we have (separately) chosen to enact federal programs that pay for health services.  So if we are going to have government-run health services, why are these gov't-run health services prohibited from providing only certain legal procedures?

We do not spend federal money on Viagra. Medicaid doesn't pay for it and neither does many insurances.

Incorrect.

"This law requires, with a few limited statutory exceptions, that a State that chooses to include outpatient drugs within its Medicaid program must cover, for their medically accepted indications, all FDA approved prescription drugs of manufacturers that have entered into drug rebate agreements. The specific exceptions are contained in section 1927(d)(2) of the Act, which provides that a State may choose to exclude or restrict drugs or classes of drugs, or their medical uses for certain purposes. These exceptions include drugs when used: for anorexia, weightloss or weight gain; to promote fertility; for cosmetic purposes or hair growth; for the symptomatic relief of cough and colds; or to promote smoking cessation. States may also exclude prescription vitamins and mineral products (except prenatal vitamins and fluoride preparations); nonprescription drugs; drugs with respect to which the manufacturer seeks to condition the sale of the drug on a requirement that associated tests or monitoring devices be purchased exclusively from the manufacturer or its designee; barbiturates; and benzodiazepines.

The FDA has approved Viagra only to treat erectile dysfunction in men. Viagra does not fall within any of the allowable exclusions or restrictions listed in section 1927(d)(2), and section 1927(d)(3) of the Act provides for the Secretary to add a drug to that list only when she determines, based on data she has received from the States, that a drug is subject to clinical abuse or inappropriate use. Therefore, the law requires that a State's Medicaid program cover Viagra when medical necessity dictates such coverage for the drug's medically accepted indication."

Medicare Part D also covers Viagra.

[Rich]

I think in the end question of abortion isn't so much of taking a life, that part is tragic but ultimately irrelevant.

I've never heard the act of taking an innocent life as an irrelevant argument.

It's a question of liberty. Government can no more force a women to donate a kidney to a dying child than it can force her to carry a baby to term against her wishes.

Life is also a protected right, so in this case, life and liberty are at odds with each other. Also, with liberty comes the responsibility of your actions. If you took the liberty of having unprotected sex, ending an innocent life seems like a very irresponsible way to take responsibility for your actions. You should have been responsible upfront so you wouldn't need to be irresponsible in the back-end.

Even if we stipulated that a fetus of any sort is a human being with full constitutional rights. No citizen has the right to force another citizen to use its body to keep it alive.

But now a citizen has the right to take another citizen's life, but not in self defense?

Ending a pregnancy is the choice of the person that is pregnant. That the fetus dies as a result, while tragic, is a side-effect.

That's a stupid argument. A side effect of an abortion would be not being able to have children later on because you're ruined your womb. Killing an innocent unborn life is not a side effect. It is the direct result of the action.

I find it interesting how the same people who have no problem with an irresponsible person choosing to end an innocent life have a huge problem when an irresponsible person who ends other innocent lives has their life ended.

[Fau Teixeira]

It's a tragic circumstance, but the government can't tell me that i must use my body to keep another person alive. It doesn't matter who that person is. Everyone dies,  everyone has a right to life, but not at anyone else's expense.

I personally don't believe a fetus is "alive" until it can exist outside the womb on its own. But even conceding the much more liberal life at the moment of conception view. IT is still irrelevant to the discussion of personal liberty.

Government can no more force me to have a medical procedure to keep someone alive, than it can force a woman to keep providing a womb for a fetus against her will. Innocence has nothing to do with it.