quote:

not all abortions are medically necessary. It is an elective procedure in most cases. That would be my opinion.

quote:

A bunch of unhinged religious nuts want to impose their version of Sharia Law on y'all and you accept that shit?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

not all abortions are medically necessary. It is an elective procedure in most cases. That would be my opinion.

Why do you believe INSURANCE POLICIES are limited to 'medically necessary' procedures? It's a contract, and the contract terms are regulated by various state, federal, and local Authorities Having Jurisdiction. So, as long as the contract terms are legal, and abortion, regardless of 'medical necessity' **IS LEGAL**, I do not see any foundation for your apparent concern.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

Do they cover Lasik or breast augmentation? no,

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

quote:

A bunch of unhinged religious nuts want to impose their version of Sharia Law on y'all and you accept that shit?

Abortion is not strictly a religious issue. There are groups called Atheists for Life, for example.

If there is no God and this is the only life we have, why should anyone have the right to take that life away from another human being?

Slavery was once legal also, but that didn't make it moral or right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

quote:

A bunch of unhinged religious nuts want to impose their version of Sharia Law on y'all and you accept that shit?

Abortion is not strictly a religious issue. There are groups called Atheists for Life, for example.
If there is no God and this is the only life we have, why should anyone have the right to take that life away from another human being?
Slavery was once legal also, but that didn't make it moral or right.

So, you're going to enslave a woman to bear children on behalf of the State because of your BELIEF about only getting one life, or that a soul exists independently of divine provenance or some shit.
WHY DOES YOUR OPINION MATTER TO ANYONE ELSE???? And why should anyone's belief trump science? We "KNOW" there is no indivisible soul implanted at conception. Period. Otherwise twinning after conception would result in one of the twins not having a soul. That's what "pro-lifers' need to explain if they don't want ridicule and derision as nuts.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Isn't "CHOOSING TO BEAR A CHILD TO TERM" an elective medical procedure, in that case too?
I mean, no-one HAS TO, do they, and it's not MEDICALLY NECESSARY is it?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
For the same reason that you are forced to pay for the national azealea collection, and bloated military hardware contracts.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And we need to remove private insurance from the equation as the way of doing business, it is a drag on the country and the economy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
For the same reason that you are forced to pay for the national azealea collection, and bloated military hardware contracts.

Actually, there is a difference. While I don't think I'll notice the dying off of the National Azalea collection (or tree toad or what-the-fuck-ever it was in Pelosi's District), at least it's a National thing, like the military. Covering Jane Doe's abortion in Poughkeepsie isn't going to help me at all. Covering Jane Doe's abortion in Columbus, Ohio isn't going to help me, either.

And herein lies a problem with welfare programs. To limit the cost of program X, we need to covered procedure Y, or we have to have a new program Z. To cut the cost of medical care (by reducing the number of procedures required), we have to ban certain things. It simply accumulates until there it becomes necessary and proper to have damn near full autonomy taken over by the Federal Government. Fit people cost less, so everyone is mandated to take part in a physical fitness program and there will be a limit on the number of calories (and what types of calories) consumed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
For the same reason that you are forced to pay for the national azealea collection, and bloated military hardware contracts.

Actually, there is a difference. While I don't think I'll notice the dying off of the National Azalea collection (or tree toad or what-the-fuck-ever it was in Pelosi's District), at least it's a National thing, like the military. Covering Jane Doe's abortion in Poughkeepsie isn't going to help me at all. Covering Jane Doe's abortion in Columbus, Ohio isn't going to help me, either.
And herein lies a problem with welfare programs. To limit the cost of program X, we need to covered procedure Y, or we have to have a new program Z. To cut the cost of medical care (by reducing the number of procedures required), we have to ban certain things. It simply accumulates until there it becomes necessary and proper to have damn near full autonomy taken over by the Federal Government. Fit people cost less, so everyone is mandated to take part in a physical fitness program and there will be a limit on the number of calories (and what types of calories) consumed.

Poughkeepsee, NY and Columbus, OH and put a couple more together then its NATIONAL.   So. Based on the stuff that others have to pay for that they don't want to, nobody gives a fuck if you want or don't want to pay, goto fuckin jail...we ain't mad at ya.
Oh, yeah, and lookin at the debt, we ain't payin anyway, so I wouldn't get too wroth up about it.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
For the same reason that you are forced to pay for the national azealea collection, and bloated military hardware contracts.

Actually, there is a difference. While I don't think I'll notice the dying off of the National Azalea collection (or tree toad or what-the-fuck-ever it was in Pelosi's District), at least it's a National thing, like the military. Covering Jane Doe's abortion in Poughkeepsie isn't going to help me at all. Covering Jane Doe's abortion in Columbus, Ohio isn't going to help me, either.

And herein lies a problem with welfare programs. To limit the cost of program X, we need to covered procedure Y, or we have to have a new program Z. To cut the cost of medical care (by reducing the number of procedures required), we have to ban certain things. It simply accumulates until there it becomes necessary and proper to have damn near full autonomy taken over by the Federal Government. Fit people cost less, so everyone is mandated to take part in a physical fitness program and there will be a limit on the number of calories (and what types of calories) consumed.