More Americans are Pro-life than Pro-choice.

[Niels Bohr 72]

woops...i forgot what i wanted to say

Was eating food!

Edited May 17, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[Niels Bohr 72]

Forget what I said about the Gaussian Normal Distribution. I was thinking something along the lines of Random Variables.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

I hope this is the result of more information being available regarding partial birth abortions and fetal development, coming from an open and honest discussion about FOCA

Saludos,

Caro

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

i hope obama can do something about this once he takes office.

Hey Chuck, you need to pick up a newspaper every once in awhile. He has taken office.

sarcasm escapes you, eh? that's a kaydeeism

[AlHayatZween 2]

Something i can't understand on a separate, but tangentially related issue is:

How can you be pro-life, but against universal heath care coverage?

Please note, not FREE health coverage for everyone, but just the ability for everyone to be able to afford going to the doctor without having to declare bankruptcy.

i'm thinking of women out there, who AREN'T on welfare, who aren't on Medicaid, but in employment situations that offer either no or minimal insurance.

So pro-life for the fetus, but not pro-health for the person carrying the baby?

[Peikko 1,575]

Misunderstanding. Being pro choice is not advocating abortion (although that seems to be the current trend, to label pro choice as people who relish abortion and want every woman to have one as some kind of status symbol) . The best thing that everyone can do is to try to prevent accidental pregnancy that would necessarily reduce the incidence of abortion. It would also be helpful if affordable health/welfare care was available to everyone pregnant with a fetus that is going to be born with physical and/or mental disability (before and after birth) and society as a whole affords these people a cherished place not consign them to a peripheral existence.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[The_Dude 1,142]

Here's my stance. No one's personal religious beliefs should dictate the choices and options for others. If someone doesn't believe in abortion then they shouldn't have one. If someone considers it a form of BC, by all means have at 'er. Because in the end, the only one who has to live with the consequences is the person making the decision.

Spoken like a true Libertarian

[Danno 1,228]

Something i can't understand on a separate, but tangentially related issue is:

How can you be pro-life, but against universal heath care coverage?

Please note, not FREE health coverage for everyone, but just the ability for everyone to be able to afford going to the doctor without having to declare bankruptcy.

i'm thinking of women out there, who AREN'T on welfare, who aren't on Medicaid, but in employment situations that offer either no or minimal insurance.

So pro-life for the fetus, but not pro-health for the person carrying the baby?

YOUR logic is weak on several points.

1. Everywhere I have lived there are gov't health programs specifically for having babies, I know people who have used them.

2. In almost every place there also exists, Pro-life Organizations which will gladly pay rather than see a woman destroy her fetus.

3. In nearly every newspaper one picks up, one can find Couples willing to pay all expenses if a expecting mother wishes to put up for adoption the child.

- I wonder if this concept of "one must be for socialized medicine to be prolife" is applicable in other areas of life?

What about laws which protect endangered species ... and their off spring?

Must I agree to total control of natural resources to be a protector of wildlife?

A good case might be made to prove a big part of the expense of even going to the doctor IS THE GOVT and their laws concerning healthcare.

[AlHayatZween 2]

Misunderstanding. Being pro choice is not advocating abortion (although that seems to be the current trend, to label pro choice as people who relish abortion and want every woman to have one as some kind of status symbol) . The best thing that everyone can do is to try to prevent accidental pregnancy that would necessarily reduce the incidence of abortion. It would also be helpful if affordable health/welfare care was available to everyone pregnant with a fetus that is going to be born with physical and/or mental disability (before and after birth) and society as a whole affords these people a cherished place not consign them to a peripheral existence.

Agreed on all points.

Except, i also feel that affordable health care should be available to all moms-to-be... not just those who can foresee physical/mental disabilities. As of right now, pregnancy is considered "an illness" or a "pre-existing condition," which is really terrible in the event that one might be changing jobs, lost a job, starting a small business, shopping around for individual coverage, etc....

Realizing that the abortion debate and the healthcare debate are two different issues, i find it interesting that no one is recognizing the connection between the two, in terms of "rights".

[AlHayatZween 2]

Something i can't understand on a separate, but tangentially related issue is:

How can you be pro-life, but against universal heath care coverage?

Please note, not FREE health coverage for everyone, but just the ability for everyone to be able to afford going to the doctor without having to declare bankruptcy.

i'm thinking of women out there, who AREN'T on welfare, who aren't on Medicaid, but in employment situations that offer either no or minimal insurance.

So pro-life for the fetus, but not pro-health for the person carrying the baby?

YOUR logic is weak on several points.

1. Everywhere I have lived there are gov't health programs specifically for having babies, I know people who have used them.

2. In almost every place there also exists, Pro-life Organizations which will gladly pay rather than see a woman destroy her fetus.

3. In nearly every newspaper one picks up, one can find Couples willing to pay all expenses if a expecting mother wishes to put up for adoption the child.

- I wonder if this concept of "one must be for socialized medicine to be prolife" is applicable in other areas of life?

What about laws which protect endangered species ... and their off spring?

Must I agree to total control of natural resources to be a protector of wildlife?

A good case might be made to prove a big part of the expense of even going to the doctor IS THE GOVT and their laws concerning healthcare.

Just to be clear:

1) i don't know of any government program that will cover you if you are just above the poverty-level or working poor. You have to qualify for Medicaid. If you don't, and you don't have insurance, or you have limited insurance, you have to foot all the expenses yourself... which can be economically catastophic if a woman needs a Caesarean or a longer hospital stay, ICU, etc...

2 & 3) i'm not talking about women who are considering adoption, but women who want to keep their babies, but fear they may not be able a) to afford to have them because of health care situation or B) afford to give them a good quality of life due to their own economic situations.

[Danno 1,228]

Something i can't understand on a separate, but tangentially related issue is:

How can you be pro-life, but against universal heath care coverage?

Please note, not FREE health coverage for everyone, but just the ability for everyone to be able to afford going to the doctor without having to declare bankruptcy.

i'm thinking of women out there, who AREN'T on welfare, who aren't on Medicaid, but in employment situations that offer either no or minimal insurance.

So pro-life for the fetus, but not pro-health for the person carrying the baby?

YOUR logic is weak on several points.

1. Everywhere I have lived there are gov't health programs specifically for having babies, I know people who have used them.

2. In almost every place there also exists, Pro-life Organizations which will gladly pay rather than see a woman destroy her fetus.

3. In nearly every newspaper one picks up, one can find Couples willing to pay all expenses if a expecting mother wishes to put up for adoption the child.

- I wonder if this concept of "one must be for socialized medicine to be prolife" is applicable in other areas of life?

What about laws which protect endangered species ... and their off spring?

Must I agree to total control of natural resources to be a protector of wildlife?

A good case might be made to prove a big part of the expense of even going to the doctor IS THE GOVT and their laws concerning healthcare.

Just to be clear:

1) i don't know of any government program that will cover you if you are just above the poverty-level or working poor. You have to qualify for Medicaid. If you don't, and you don't have insurance, or you have limited insurance, you have to foot all the expenses yourself... which can be economically catastophic if a woman needs a Caesarean or a longer hospital stay, ICU, etc...

2 & 3) i'm not talking about women who are considering adoption, but women who want to keep their babies, but fear they may not be able a) to afford to have them because of health care situation or B) afford to give them a good quality of life due to their own economic situations.

You make one good point, with no insurance a hospital stay would cost a fortune for anyone who did not qualify for the various programs offered.

I am not sure what the latest programs offered are and I am sure each state/city has their own, but as I recall one paid like $500 and that was it.

After that it was W.I.C and a number of other programs as well.

But any way, many prolife people believe the unborn child has a RiGHT to Life just as any of us do and the reluctance of the mother to run up a hospital debt is meaningless to this principle.

[scandal 951]

Just to be clear:

1) i don't know of any government program that will cover you if you are just above the poverty-level or working poor. You have to qualify for Medicaid. If you don't, and you don't have insurance, or you have limited insurance, you have to foot all the expenses yourself... which can be economically catastophic if a woman needs a Caesarean or a longer hospital stay, ICU, etc...

You may be interested in this Bill (HR 3192) proposed by Lincoln Davis (D - TN).

http://www.statesurge.com/bills/17441-hr3192-federal

The bill would extend SCHIP coverage to pregnant women and cover unborn fetuses. The intent of the legislation would be to reduce abortions through guaranteed healthcare throughout pregnancy and childbirth for all women.

Here's a Wikipedia writeup of the legislation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnant_Women_Support_Act

The bill was introduced in the last Congress, so it appears to have died there. I don't know if there are plans to reintroduce it in this session.

PS - I find it very hard to read your tiny green font. Why do you do that?

[AlHayatZween 2]

You may be interested in this Bill (HR 3192) proposed by Lincoln Davis (D - TN).

http://www.statesurge.com/bills/17441-hr3192-federal

The bill would extend SCHIP coverage to pregnant women and cover unborn fetuses. The intent of the legislation would be to reduce abortions through guaranteed healthcare throughout pregnancy and childbirth for all women.

Here's a Wikipedia writeup of the legislation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnant_Women_Support_Act

The bill was introduced in the last Congress, so it appears to have died there. I don't know if there are plans to reintroduce it in this session.

PS - I find it very hard to read your tiny green font. Why do you do that?

This is good to know... and a step in the right direction... Although, it doesn't look available in every state.

A link for those interested:

http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/women%20and%20schip.pdf

Example income stipulations... i think from Texas... i cannot get the image to upload.

http://www.chipmedicaid.com/english/chart_..._guidelines.htm

Also, i like green.

[Chamy and Gatita 3]

Out of curiosity, you mean from conception? For example, are you against the morning after pill?

To many, "abortion" of a 72-hour old blastomere is a very different thing than the partial-birth abortion of a 24 week old fetus who is potentially viable in an incubator. I personally have some qualms about the latter, but none really about the former.

Just to clarify, by preventing the egg from implanting, the morning after pill prevents pregnancy, which is different from having an abortion. The morning after pill is not an abortion.

My favorite quote on abortion (this may not be verbatim) is:

Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. -William Jefferson Clinton

That being said, this is all my opinion and anyone is perfectly entitled to disagree with it, albeit in a civilized, objective manner in the privacy of their diary. Now I'm going for a nice cup of tea.

[scandal 951]

Out of curiosity, you mean from conception? For example, are you against the morning after pill?

To many, "abortion" of a 72-hour old blastomere is a very different thing than the partial-birth abortion of a 24 week old fetus who is potentially viable in an incubator. I personally have some qualms about the latter, but none really about the former.

Just to clarify, by preventing the egg from implanting, the morning after pill prevents pregnancy, which is different from having an abortion. The morning after pill is not an abortion.

My favorite quote on abortion (this may not be verbatim) is:

Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. -William Jefferson Clinton

That being said, this is all my opinion and anyone is perfectly entitled to disagree with it, albeit in a civilized, objective manner in the privacy of their diary. Now I'm going for a nice cup of tea.

Well put. Note that I intentionally used quotation marks: To many, "abortion" of a 72-hour old blastomere to indicate that some consider this abortion but not all do. For those who believe that a human life exists at the very moment of conception when sperm implants egg, then there is an act of taking a human life as soon as anything is done to disrupt that fertilized egg from progressing to a normal pregnancy. That would include preventing the attachment of the zygote to the uterine wall. And hence to such people (though not me) the morning after pill constitutes taking of a human life, even if technically not abortion.

To me, personally, only from the point in which actual cellular differentiation has occurred, and distinct human features, tissues and organs are recognizable, is it even possible to talk about a "human". Prior to that point it's a clump of cells just like a scraping of my skin is a clump of cells.

I'm pleasantly surprised that the discussion here has been so very civil. We've had a range of opinions on an extremely controversial subject. Given how VJ discussions often descend to flamefests over little to no provocation, this thread has been (so far) excellent. Congratulations to all participants.