Obamacare: Eugenics

[GenSeneca]

I find it odd that someone who has the answer for everything has ignored this question 4 times.

Because it's a pointless theoretical question with no bearing on the scientific realities that currently exist.

How do you know we will not have the ability to do a fetal transplant by then so that abortions will be obsolete?
How do you know there will not be a medicine that prevents miscarriages?
How do you know there will not be a medicine that counteracts the effects of drugs, alcohol and tobacco on the unborn?

How many times will you refuse to answer my question, which deals with a reality that we could soon be facing:

Should taxpayers be forced to pay for abortions?

 

[PLC1]

They have not attached themselves to the uteran wall and therefore would die as a natural consequence which is the fault of no one.

Now, that was an unexpected position for you to take. Does life begin, then, not at conception but when the zygote attaches to the wall of the uterus?

Their death is the fault of no one, yet they were created knowing that they would die.

BTW, I'll answer for TVoff:

No! Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortions!

There. Unless he counters with his own answer, I'll assume he agrees with mine.

 

[GenSeneca]

Now, that was an unexpected position for you to take.

It shouldn't be unexpected... I am against the use of force to violate an individuals rights. There is no element of force present when a zygote fails to naturally adhere to the uterine wall. Yes, it's still alive, it is an individual, and it is human... just won't be alive for long.

BTW, I'll answer for TVoff:

No! Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortions!

There. Unless he counters with his own answer, I'll assume he agrees with mine.

Somehow I think his real answer would be the exact opposite.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Because it's a pointless theoretical question with no bearing on the scientific realities that currently exist.

How do you know we will not have the ability to do a fetal transplant by then so that abortions will be obsolete?
How do you know there will not be a medicine that prevents miscarriages?
How do you know there will not be a medicine that counteracts the effects of drugs, alcohol and tobacco on the unborn?

How many times will you refuse to answer my question, which deals with a reality that we could soon be facing:

Should taxpayers be forced to pay for abortions?

yes, its a theoretical question that should be discussed when considering the implication of giving individual rights to cellular life. What if a woman drinks too much and falls down the stairs and the fetus dies... same as drunk driving, she should be charged with murder right?

Many theoretical questions should be posed and discussed thoroughly on the subject. I for one don't think saying, "it's got human DNA...Scientifically it's human, end of story" is nearly enough.

You don't think taxpayer's should be forced to pay for anything...accept war and defending the country... so I fail to see the point of your question. Ideologically, is there is anything different in your mind between taxpayers "being forced" to pay for medicare or infrastructure or abortions or social security or education? Isn't it all the same to you? You don't think tax payers should "be forced" to pay for anything. It's about the "being forced" part, not WHAT is being forced.

I don't care about abortion enough to have an opinion. If I was told that we could have universal health care, by "forcing" everyone to pay for it through taxes (rather then mandating people buy from private corporations) and instituting a gov run health insurance plan BUT that abortion would not be covered in any way... i'd be more then happy.

 

[Sihouette]

So ask a question that's related to the topic of forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions.

In a rare moment I actually agree with GenSeneca.

Instead of allowing one red cent to go to abortions, the only reproductive health language that should be included in the Bill should be extra earmarked funds [born by the taxpayers] for world class top notch maternity care, postpartum care and naturally premie-intensive care for those babies that will most certainly be born addicted to the drugs their mothers were using at the time they became pregnant...in many of the cases of unwanted pregnancy.

Then of course, funds to ensure that each and every baby born must have top notch childcare because after all, technically, that fetus isn't totally developed until it reaches adulthood. At any point before that, it's death or illness would be an abortion of developing life or endangerment of developing life.

So yeah. No money for abortions at all but TONS AND TONS of money for all the unwanted pregnancies to develop fully to adulthood. Anything less would be immoral and criminal. In most states it's a crime to neglect a child at any stage of its life.

 

[Sihouette]

In a rare moment I actually agree with GenSeneca.

Instead of allowing one red cent to go to abortions, the only reproductive health language that should be included in the Bill should be extra earmarked funds [born by the taxpayers] for world class top notch maternity care, postpartum care and naturally premie-intensive care for those babies that will most certainly be born addicted to the drugs their mothers were using at the time they became pregnant...in many of the cases of unwanted pregnancy.

Then of course, funds to ensure that each and every baby born must have top notch childcare because after all, technically, that fetus isn't totally developed until it reaches adulthood. At any point before that, it's death or illness would be an abortion of developing life or endangerment of developing life.

So yeah. No money for abortions at all but TONS AND TONS of money for all the unwanted pregnancies to develop fully to adulthood. Anything less would be immoral and criminal. In most states it's a crime to neglect a child at any stage of its life.

Anyone have any ideas on how we can word the anti-abortion/pro-child language?

 

[Sihouette]

OK, let me ask this then, at what age do we decide to financially [via medical assistance] turn our backs on a developing child? Do we make abortion illegal but refuse to provide prenatal care? Do we provide prenatal care but refuse intensive care for premies? Do we provide support for the mother [and hence the still growing child] through programs like WIC until the child reaches age five say? Is five the magic age when that precious fetus stops being important?

Should we follow that fetus along until it is 12 to make sure its teeth don't rot and cause disease or that its spine grows normally, speech progresses well or issue of correctable lameness are covered? If not, why not? Which age is the magical age to turn our backs on these fetuses?

And if we turn our back$ on them, aren't we guilty of "late term" abortion if they die as a result? I mean if their deaths were preventable and not an act of God?

How would God view our insistence on bringing them to life but not giving one damn to assist these babes once life is started?

Just some questions I'd like GenSeneca and anyone else in the neocon crowd to answer.

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, let me ask this then, at what age do we decide to financially [via medical assistance] turn our backs on a developing child?

By volitional consent, never. Individuals should be free to offer assistance at any time before, during, and after, to anyone, for any amount, and for any length of time.

However, when you use the force of government to take from one individual in order to provide for another, that is a government sanctioned violation of rights - The forced redistribution of wealth.

Just some questions I'd like GenSeneca and anyone else in the neocon crowd to answer.

So now I'm a neocon...

Neocons are Right Wing Progressives and there isn't a Progressive fiber in my being.

If you want cradle to grave government handouts, paid for through the forced redistribution of wealth, join the CPUSA.

 

[Sihouette]

By volitional consent, never. Individuals should be free to offer assistance at any time before, during, and after, to anyone, for any amount, and for any length of time.

However, when you use the force of government to take from one individual in order to provide for another, that is a government sanctioned violation of rights - The forced redistribution of wealth.

So then logically you are against the bank bailouts, forced funding for the military [some taxpayers would choose not to fund it], forced funding for police protection, fire suppression and road building and maintenance too?

Those, under your capitalistic utopia, would all be funded by donations?

Be careful, I'm going to hold you to any socialist program you support for any reason. Word your answer deftly [I know you will ]

You still haven't answered when it is you consider the death of a developing child an unforgiveable tragedy. Is it because this is all about bottom lines and none about morality? Do please give the details on how, if abortions may not be funded and so therefore the poor must bear unwanted children while the rich continue to receive abortions, you will provide for those unwanted fetuses to survive to adulthood. This is the bottom-line of abortion politics.

 

[GenSeneca]

You still haven't answered when it is you consider the death of a developing child an unforgiveable tragedy.

When it's the result of the use of force.

Do you have any other questions that in some way relate to the topic of forcing taxpayers to fund abortions?

 

[always]

OK, let me ask this then, at what age do we decide to financially [via medical assistance] turn our backs on a developing child? Do we make abortion illegal but refuse to provide prenatal care? Do we provide prenatal care but refuse intensive care for premies? Do we provide support for the mother [and hence the still growing child] through programs like WIC until the child reaches age five say? Is five the magic age when that precious fetus stops being important?

Should we follow that fetus along until it is 12 to make sure its teeth don't rot and cause disease or that its spine grows normally, speech progresses well or issue of correctable lameness are covered? If not, why not? Which age is the magical age to turn our backs on these fetuses?

And if we turn our back$ on them, aren't we guilty of "late term" abortion if they die as a result? I mean if their deaths were preventable and not an act of God?

How would God view our insistence on bringing them to life but not giving one damn to assist these babes once life is started?

Just some questions I'd like GenSeneca and anyone else in the neocon crowd to answer.

Oh Yes, The continuing problem! ,Once you allow Government to have to power over LIFE, how is it controlled? Hmmmm, For those who do not believe in GOD there is no answer.These Robots look for Government to FUND and ANSWER all their qustions and personal needs, while they sit in front of their Government furnished T.V. and watch game shows!!
Government , all Government will take from you all that you will allow!!
Government will KILL your UNBORN if you allow, Government will KILL your AGED family members if you allow.Government will Enforce "RETROACTIVE ABORTION" on any human being the Government does not approve of , if you allow.Government has the ability to hide and mask their crimes against humanity as past history has shown us.
Today , America faces its own worst enemy, an enemy that is ruthless, sneaky, and trying to take COMPLETE CONTROL over the INDIVIDUAL through a Federal Government Health Care Control Scam! This scam will give the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL over every aspect of our lives.
President Obama is rushing to put this power in place NOW, he cares less about the DAMAGE to our Nation, He knows the MAJORITY, by a wide margain , DO NOT WANT HIS SCAM to control us.
He has used and continues to use , Bribery, Threats, Judgeships, any and all things of vaule to BUY the votes needed to ENSLAVE us citizens.
Obama knows his time is running out, his lies are known , his trust is not TRUSTWORTHY. His only hope is to CRAM HIS EVIL DOWN OUR THROATS while he has his corrupt Congress Members in power. Come this November we will ELECT a MORAL MAJORITY to replace his Evil Misfits.
AMERICA faces a GRAVE DANGER, A DANGER we can eliminate come next November at our Ballot Box.
NOW is a CRITICAL TIME , if he BUYS enough votes in our current Congress to pass his Health Care Scam , America and YOU are DEAD!! Dead politically, DEAD Economically,and DEAD as a FREE PEOPLE!!
IT is REALLY UP TO US!! Let us NOT MESS UP as we did in November 2008!
Our Poor Judgement then may bring America to her knees!!

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Because it's a pointless theoretical question with no bearing on the scientific realities that currently exist.

How do you know we will not have the ability to do a fetal transplant by then so that abortions will be obsolete?
How do you know there will not be a medicine that prevents miscarriages?
How do you know there will not be a medicine that counteracts the effects of drugs, alcohol and tobacco on the unborn?

How many times will you refuse to answer my question, which deals with a reality that we could soon be facing:

Should taxpayers be forced to pay for abortions?

No. Taxpayers should not pay for abortions. My position regarding your core issue in this thread.

Your series of questions is interesting. The question posed by TVONBRAINOFF is nothing more than one of the SOP's used by liberals: utilizing the "what if" arguments. Facts be damned, truth be ignored - just keep asking "what if..?"

In the smaller scope of taxpayer funding abortion, it is inevitable to have related discussions arise. Yet all it has proven, once again, is the inability of some to address the true issue at hand.

 

[Sihouette]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sihouette
You still haven't answered when it is you consider the death of a developing child an unforgiveable tragedy.

When it's the result of the use of force.~Gen

So forced poverty by the lobbyists' elected suits legislating no vital-need mandates [incuding domestic jobs] for those poor who will be forced to bear the unwanted child, and unwanted child dying from resulting poverty/harrowing conditions is OK. And this often slow and excruciating torturous death for years is fine.

Check.

Just as long as it isn't a quick and compassionate end to life while the babe still knows nothing of the wickedness and cruelty of the world.

OK.

 

[GenSeneca]

forced poverty

Provide an example of forced poverty.

legislating no vital-need mandates [incuding domestic jobs]

Against my better judgement I will ask anyway.... What on earth are you talking about? What is a "no vital-need mandate"? Are you suggesting that government can mandate private sector domestic jobs into existence?

 

[Sihouette]

a vital-need mandate not a "no" vital-need mandate.

Like Social Security...Medicare..food subsidies. You do believe we should assist those in society with diminished ability to compete in the shrinking job market don't you? Or should they rely on the charitable donations of an ever-shriking percentage of philanthropists in this country as the poor outweigh those able to help them..?

Are you going to argue that pure capitalists are big on donations to the needy? Good luck..

An example of forced-poverty? How about Detroit? Their overlords decided it would be better to take gravy money from BigOil and produce the Hummer in the face of a future that didn't include big guzzlers and scrapped the Volt in 2000 that with improvements would've been the car to beat by now...

That type of malignant capitalism that forces poverty...good enough for ya?