RE: Women's Rights! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Aylee -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 7:39:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt

OK, but here's the thing. Pregnancy is a medical condition.


I thought that it was classed as a "disability." 



slvemike4u -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 7:39:45 PM)

See when someone says elective surgery...I think of a tummy tuck or a nose job.Certainly not the termination of a pregnancy...while one "elects" to do so,the reasons are not as ,at least I would not think they are,shallow as what might lead to a tummy tuck.They are for the most part heart wrenching decisions...hardly what one thinks of when they think of "elective".



WyldHrt -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 7:41:31 PM)

quote:

I thought that it was classed as a "disability." 

Not completely sure, Aylee, but it doesn't change the situation.



WyldHrt -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 7:43:00 PM)

quote:

This is why we call her smaht kewkie.

[:D][:D][:D]



ShaharThorne -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 7:43:26 PM)

Depends which side of the coin it is.  Some women had to sustain bedrest, especially if the mother is prone to miscarriages, is carrying twins or other multiples  and so forth.  With Lizard, I started my maternity leave 3 weeks before she was due because I had some light bleeding.



slvemike4u -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 7:45:54 PM)

Well I'm confused....classifying something as a "disability" would not preclude it from being a "medical condition"...would it?.Could it be that the "disability" classification is used  due to the temporary nature of a pregnancy?



thompsonx -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 7:46:27 PM)

And there's quite a bit more beyond the direct quotes but the gist is - revere that which is holy and destroy that which is sinful. "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is a command against hypocrisy, not a command for tolerance.

So my take on that is any one who actually believes that shit I need to shoot as soon as they are within range.



thompsonx -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 7:49:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella




You're cute and I like you because of that.

[sm=cute.gif]


Bitch: don't you ever call me shallow again[;)]



Elisabella -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 7:50:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt

OK, but here's the thing. Pregnancy is a medical condition. All pregnancies end, be it by birth, miscarriage, or abortion. The end of a pregnancy, no matter which of the 3, requires medical care. How can you support 2 of those being covered and the other not being covered, especially when the cost of the excluded procedure to the system is a small fraction of the cost of a covered one?


I see your point, it makes a lot more sense to say "both childbirth and abortion are choices on how to medically deal with pregnancy" than it is to say the procedure itself is medically necessary in the case of a healthy pregnancy and framed in that context I can't see any fault with it.

I will say though it's treading dangerous ground to promote the financial aspect, especially because public health gives government a power it doesn't have with private healthcare.



ShaharThorne -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 7:53:01 PM)

http://www.dpa.ca.gov/benefits/health/workcomp/pubs/Disability/page8.shtm

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/tdi/worker/state/sp_pregnancy.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/pregnancy-disability-and-maternity-leaves

Hopefully these sites clear up things with y'all.



WyldHrt -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 7:54:57 PM)

quote:

I will say though it's treading dangerous ground to promote the financial aspect, especially because public health gives government a power it doesn't have with private healthcare.

I agree, but certain proponents of excluding abortion complain about the cost, which makes no sense when the cost of a full term pregnancy is so much higher.



Arpig -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 8:00:21 PM)

Thanks for answering my question re the topic Elisabella. You make a valid point about it being medically unnecesary in most cases. It isn't really on the same level as a boob job, but still optional. However an equally good arguement can be made vis-a-vis the social costs of unwanted children...a conundrum indeed.

I would still come down in favour of it being covered by whatever insurance system is in place, but that is because I do not view it as a moral issue (in fact I believe it is an issue for women alone, none of any man's business) so it is just a question of whether having a unwanted child is the same as having small boobs or an overly large nose. Its my opinion (based on my experience as a parent of 3 wanted children) that child rearing is by far and away a much bigger comitment than wearing glasses or a b-cup, in fact its such an enormous commitment and so very important a job that I feel the issue is a unique one. Given the enormity of the results of not having an abortion, and the really dismal performance of the "adoption" option, I think that abortion should be an available option for all women, not just rich women.

Well I am somewhat rambling here, so I will end this post by asking Willbuer (if he is still reading this thread) to send me his sauce recipe as well....mine is somewhat lacking in umph.



ShaharThorne -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 8:02:55 PM)

More basil, Arpig...and it has to be fresh and chopped.



WyldHrt -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 8:10:33 PM)

quote:

Well I am somewhat rambling here, so I will end this post by asking Willbuer (if he is still reading this thread) to send me his sauce recipe as well....mine is somewhat lacking in umph.

I keep getting sidetracked and forgetting to add my name to the mailing request list. [8D]



Arpig -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 8:20:03 PM)

Thanks Shahar, I will seek out fresh basil[:)]



cloudboy -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 8:24:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

With all this talk about abortion funding in this health care bill, I'm wondering if the Republicans think a woman shouldn't have the right to do as she chooses with her own body?

Any opinions?


My wife often says, if Men could get pregnant, abortion rights would have been enshrined long ago.



ShaharThorne -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 8:29:36 PM)

I still see Arnold pregnant in Junior...



Aylee -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 9:35:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt

quote:

I thought that it was classed as a "disability." 

Not completely sure, Aylee, but it doesn't change the situation.



It speaks to the way we see and treat women who are pregnant. 

Is prenancy just a temporary disability to a woman or are women no more than a flower pot for the fetus to grow in?

The abortion debate centers on who has more rights, the fetus or the mother. 

As a general answer, since  the fetus is not considered a legal person, then there is no reason that abortions should be denied coverage. 



tazzygirl -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 10:37:16 PM)

As someone pointed out earlier... the leading cause of death among pregnant women is complications from the pregnancy and birth.

That indeed makes any pregnancy a health issue, not a social one.



slvemike4u -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/19/2010 10:38:33 PM)

Wait a minute,don't ruin it but I think I see where this one is going......



Page: <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125