jerk

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...ir_libido.html

[OldDog]

http://www.thelocal.no/20140123/next-us-ambassador

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...ir_libido.html

I'm starting to suspect he's actually a plant for the Democrats.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm starting to suspect he's actually a plant for the Democrats.

It would be nice if both parties could finally agree a woman has absolute, sole power over her individual body and decisions concerning it while also agreeing a woman has absolute and sole responsibility to pay for it, make a lover pay for it or make sure she purchases insurance that does.

Be great for women to not only be responsible for their own health decisions but also their own health expenses.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm starting to suspect he's actually a plant for the Democrats.

he could be! lol

i would like to ask people railing against the bc mandate if they know that the gubmint isn't paying, so tax payers aren't paying, for this coverage?
it's funny, when the government put regulations on...car buyers for example, i don't recall anyone (except maybe car makers) fussing and saying keep the government out of our vehicles.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

http://www.thelocal.no/20140123/next-us-ambassador

good lord.

yeah, maybe they should re-think him being ambassador?

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm starting to suspect he's actually a plant for the Democrats.

R U kiddin..a Fox news host shillin for the dems...no way

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

R U kiddin..a Fox news host shillin for the dems...no way

not shilling...just making the dems look better by comparison.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Danzig

not shilling...just making the dems look better by comparison.

And he's doing a good job at that

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

It would be nice if both parties could finally agree a woman has absolute, sole power over her individual body and decisions concerning it while also agreeing a woman has absolute and sole responsibility to pay for it, make a lover pay for it or make sure she purchases insurance that does.

Be great for women to not only be responsible for their own health decisions but also their own health expenses.

The hole in this argument is that once a child is born, regardless of whether either or both or neither of the parents wanted it, the child exists as a separate individual (one capable of surviving without being connected by a placenta to the woman). It's a totally different matter.

If a man doesn't want to run the risk of being financially responsible for a child, he can elect to keep his legs crossed, or to employ birth control in a consistent and responsible way. You know, like Obamacare is trying to make possible for women to do.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

. If a man doesn't want to run the risk of being financially responsible for a child, he can elect to keep his legs crossed, or to employ birth control in a consistent and responsible way..

This is true. It would also be nice if women kept track of what's cuming in to prevent a game of DNA roulette once the baby is born.

Why does an image of Rev. Jesse Jackson keep popping up in my head as I write this?

Also if I and society will be needed to support an unborn baby maybe 'we' should have some say on whether to terminate the pregnancy.

Freedom and choice is great until someone else has to pay for it.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

This is true. It would also be nice if women kept track of what's cuming in to prevent a game of DNA roulette once the baby is born.

Why does an image of Rev. Jesse Jackson keep popping up in my head as I write this?

Also if I and society will be needed to support an unborn baby maybe 'we' should have some say on whether to terminate the pregnancy.

Freedom and choice is great until someone else has to pay for it.

If men were the ones taking on the health risks of pregnancy and child-birth (which, as I've seen, can be life-threatening), then sure, they could get a say. But men are at no risk of health complications as a result of gestating a fetus. Take it up with evolution. I can assure you, I have no opinion about treatments for the prostate. And trust me, between the health risks of pregnancy and the health risks of a prostate, men got the better end of the deal. By far.

So, you're saying, that if you don't get to have a say about abortion, you are content watching babies starve to death? I'm just trying to clarify your position about children after they are born.

For what it's worth, I'd take the GOP position on the morality of abortion more seriously if they weren't so vociferously opposed to women getting access to birth control (hi, Mike Huckabee!). But when a party's position is no birth control access and no abortion, it's pretty clear its concern is not the life of future Americans, it's about controlling the freedom of a large swath of Americans already here. Female ones. The GOP is saying that it is appropriate for a government to force women to reproduce.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The hole in this argument is that once a child is born, regardless of whether either or both or neither of the parents wanted it, the child exists as a separate individual (one capable of surviving without being connected by a placenta to the woman). It's a totally different matter.

If a man doesn't want to run the risk of being financially responsible for a child, he can elect to keep his legs crossed, or to employ birth control in a consistent and responsible way. You know, like Obamacare is trying to make possible for women to do.

i wonder why people think that because health insurers provide prescription birth control that 'everyone pays for it'? do they realize that it's only the basic, cheap, generic pill that's free, while any name brand or higher price isn't free?
do people up in arms about the inclusion of basic birth control rail at any of the myriad other things they 'pay for' since health insurance, like other insurance, is a pool of people all paying so that when some have something occur, the money is there to pay for it? do they rail about paying for the expense of delivering a child? after all, the woman didn't keep her 'legs crossed', and why should anyone else have to pay for her having had sex?
what next, do we demand we don't pay for other peoples' carelessness who have gotten high blood pressure, or diabetes due to their unhealthy eating habits? do we demand not to pay for lung cancer or emphysema treatments for smokers?
my suggestion to anyone not wanting to pay for these things is that they self insure. let me know how that works out for you.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So, you're saying, that if you don't get to have a say about abortion, you are content watching babies starve to death? I'm just trying to clarify your position about children after they are born.

To the contrary. If (taxpayers the ones who will support the baby) get a say, abortion is the only way to go. For the sake of the mother, baby and society.

A great litmus test would be if you're too young or poor to own, maintain and insure a vehicle (whether you own one or not)you're not even close to being able to feed, house and insure a baby.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

To the contrary. If (taxpayers the ones who will support the baby) get a say, abortion is the only way to go. For the sake of the mother, baby and society.

A great litmus test would be if you're too young or poor to own, maintain and insure a vehicle (whether you own one or not)you're not even close to being able to feed, house and insure a baby.

Then why is the GOP working so hard to simultaneously make abortion harder to obtain and cutting food and support to little kids? It figures a short life of starvation is preferable to abortion before being able to feel pain? Why is it fighting so hard against poor women having access to birth control?

Hell, it's even working to gestate nonviable fetuses in brain-dead women:

http://jezebel.com/texas-woman-force...s-n-1508045921

How about for people who suffer a serious illness or accident after having their kids that ends their ability to support their families (which they could previously do)? Do you support starvation of those children because their parent or parents took a bad step on the ice? What's your position, Del? That's what happened to the couple in Kansas (the one in which the sperm donor is now obligated to pay child support because he and the women involved didn't follow state law when they did the artificial insemination).

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

what next, do we demand we don't pay for other peoples' carelessness who have gotten high blood pressure, or diabetes due to their unhealthy eating habits? do we demand not to pay for lung cancer or emphysema treatments for smokers?
my suggestion to anyone not wanting to pay for these things is that they self insure. let me know how that works out for you.

Well, according to Del, fat people should all be taxed. Also, too.

Seriously Del, TV show. You need. Glen Beck is repenting, and that means there's a vacancy at the top.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Well, according to Del, fat people should all be taxed. Also, too.

Seriously Del, TV show. You need. Glen Beck is repenting, and that means there's a vacancy at the top.

but all fat people aren't to blame for being fat. perhaps he is suggesting that we hire people to do detailed assessments of every person, to see who has underlying health issues that are causing their obesity?
or...or, maybe he is conceding that we should do everything necessary to make sure everyone gets a healthy diet, so as to fight this pernicious medical issue that costs everyone so much? nah, can't be that....poor people are fat because we give them too much money, and they overeat. it has nothing to do with them buying the cheapest foods to stretch their dollar
i haven't seen his blather in a while (which has helped my blood pressure) but i'm sure he still thinks the same completely rational things as before.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Then why is the GOP working so hard to simultaneously make abortion harder to obtain and cutting food and support to little kids? It figures a short life of starvation is preferable to abortion before being able to feel pain? Why is it fighting so hard against poor women having access to birth control?

Hell, it's even working to gestate nonviable fetuses in brain-dead women:

http://jezebel.com/texas-woman-force...s-n-1508045921

How about for people who suffer a serious illness or accident after having their kids that ends their ability to support their families (which they could previously do)? Do you support starvation of those children because their parent or parents took a bad step on the ice? What's your position, Del? That's what happened to the couple in Kansas (the one in which the sperm donor is now obligated to pay child support because he and the women involved didn't follow state law when they did the artificial insemination).

i think it's called 'nonsensical'.
see, the gop is all about life-only for those not yet alive. once you're here, well..you're on your own.
you'd think people like huck would be all for the very things that have lead to lower abortion and pregnancy rates-but they fight birth control tooth and nail. and that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! why would you be against the very thing you KNOW will prevent pregnancy?
but, hey, once that kid's born, too bad if mom is poor. she shouldn't have had that kid she couldn't afford. altho 'they' do say if you're pregnant you should absolutely have it, because life is sacred-unless it's poor life i guess.

[dellinger63]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-scribes-pub/

Jerks!

[dellinger63]

GenuineRisk;962210]Then why is the GOP working so hard to simultaneously make abortion harder to obtain and cutting food and support to little kids? It figures a short life of starvation is preferable to abortion before being able to feel pain? Why is it fighting so hard against poor women having access to birth control?

I obviously don't agree with the GOP and that was my point.

How about for people who suffer a serious illness or accident after having their kids that ends their ability to support their families (which they could previously do)? Do you support starvation of those children because their parent or parents took a bad step on the ice? What's your position, Del?

They surely need support, just as we support victims of natural disasters. 15-16 year olds or those that can't support from the start is whom I was referring.

That's what happened to the couple in Kansas (the one in which the sperm donor is now obligated to pay child support because he and the women involved didn't follow state law when they did the artificial insemination).

What happened to ignorantia juris non excusat? Or like other laws does that only apply to certain people?