Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
      2. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Ascer

Obamacare

Recommended Posts

Ascer

In Italy health cares are free for everyone, even if they cost millions, the State pays them (with taxes money of course).

I don't think it's fair that someone has to die just because he cannot afford an assicuration.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

I do.

 

 

 

 

 

oh, should I explain a bit more? OK. Where do you think those taxes come from? Maybe the government is more efficient over there in Italy, but if I need to get a new drivers license, or pay a parking ticket, I might as well take off half a day, cause that's how long I'll have to stand in line. Throw health care into the mix, and you see why people over here are a bit suspicious.

 

Also, why do europeans (and canadians) come here for health care? Does it have anything to do with rationing of services? Not that I like the insurance companies any better, going through my own battle right now grrrrr, but they are at least better than some dude in DC deciding if my family lives or dies. If you wanted to get all Glen Beck crazy, then you could say that nationalized healthcare is an intrusion on liberty. Banning alcohol because it causes liver damage for example. Though I'm not on that crazy train just yet.

 

And this is coming from someone who doesn't have healthcare insurance at the moment. So if anything I'd be the first to benefit from universal health care. Too bad they want to force me into the government option, and if I refuse it's like a $3,000-$4,000 fine! Screw that!

Edited by Spaghetti Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

Please tell me you recognize the need for massive reform though right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

Oh for sure...

 

Like I said, I'm going through the reamer right now with the insurance company. Would love to go into detail but I'l wait a bit till it settles. IMO it would be 1,000,000 worse with the government in charge of it all. Just enforce fair laws, across the board, and the the consumer decide what they like or don't like. With the government in charge you don't have a choice. I forget what bill it was in, but they were going to charge people like me several thousand dollars if we don't sign up with the "government option". Like it was an option it the first place. If I can't afford insurance through a private company, what makes you think I can a fee, or tax, or dumb-ass surcharge, whatever you want to call it.

 

Now if it was about health care instead of health insurance then I'm all on board. If the government wants to increase funding for free/low income clinics, I'm there. If they want to help reduce the cost or R&D of helpfull drugs (no boner pills), I'm there. If the government wants to help reduce the cost of vaccinations and preventative care, I'm there. If they want to help people with dental or other specialty fields, I'm down. If the government wants to help some of our young doctors or nurses, either reducing college tuition, or coming out of med school, I'm totally down. If the government wants to finally get serious and take care of our wounded vets, man I am so there. But this is all about insurance, which is total BS in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Is it true that in the USA you're not allowed to buy insurance over state lines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

 

In Italy health cares are free for everyone, even if they cost millions, the State pays them (with taxes money of course).

I don't think it's fair that someone has to die just because he cannot afford an assicuration.

Well, for one, and ignoring that taxes aren't "free," the plan which will probably pass the Senate apparently doesn't make it free. Instead they're going to make you buy insurance (presumably from the "eeeevil insurance companies" who will make tons of money from their new, captive customers). And fine you if you don't. And send men with guns to kidnap and/or kill you if you don't pay the fine.

 

Two, you don't die here without insurance, because there's already laws forcing hospitals to provide care to people even if they don't have insurance. Part of the reason care is more expensive here is because providers raise the price on everyone else to pay for the free riders.

 

And, three, life isn't fair. tounge.gif

 

 

Is it true that in the USA you're not allowed to buy insurance over state lines?

Generally speaking, yes. A Federal law (McCarran-Ferguson Act) passed in the '40s mostly exempts insurance from Federal regulation and allows the several States to remain in control of it. In theory, the States could change their regulation to allow insurance to be purchased from another State. However, once insurance enters interstate commerce, the companies would lose this exemption and end up being destroyed by Federal regulation.

 

 

But this is all about insurance, which is total BS in my opinion.

This x923897638763298623

 

Insurance itself is one of the primary drivers of cost since it totally disconnects the end user from the price. If we treated car insurance like we do health insurance and bought fuel with it as we do prescription meds, fuel prices would shoot through the roof since nobody would care what the price at the pump was. Gas stations would have no reason to lower prices to compete with the shop across the street if nobody looked at the price. If we had food insurance, people would eat lobster every night because, hey, insurance will pay for it. If we used home insurance to buy houses, why get anything short of a mansion?

 

Insurance, by definition, is supposed to be a hedge against uncertain contingencies. Using it to pay for certainties (doctor checkup, getting old, pre-existing condition, etc..) and expecting it to be cheaper is utterly insane. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Anybody who tells you differently is either lying or a fool.

Edited by illspirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Breaking Bohan

While reform may be necessary - people should be suspicious of the Govt cobbling together a 2000 page bill (that nobody reads) and then try to pass it through Congress without having a long debate about the merits of the Final Proposed Bill.

 

They need to decide on the final bill they want to vote on, then give the public a few weeks to study it, and then vote on it.

 

But taxes will certainly have to go way up to pay for this --- no way around it.

 

----

@ Illspirit:

. Nice comments illspirit - you seem to be quite informed. I especially appreciated your analogy to fuel prices. Medical insurance can be a real tool for abuse when it insulates the consumer from the actual prices of services as you mentioned.

 

I fear that the country will just go broke if they assume all these additional health care liabilities without fixing the underlying problem of increasing medical care costs.

Edited by Breaking Bohan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartant15

I was in support of it until they added that anti-abortion thing in it. That's a huge step backwards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
I was in support of it until they added that anti-abortion thing in it. That's a huge step backwards

Why should the government fund abortions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

 

I was in support of it until they added that anti-abortion thing in it. That's a huge step backwards

Why should the government fund abortions?

Yeah. I fail to see how not killing unborn babies is "backwards".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose
I was in support of it until they added that anti-abortion thing in it. That's a huge step backwards

Why should the government fund abortions?

Yeah. I fail to see how not killing unborn babies is "backwards".

My view on abortions is this:

 

If life is at risk of death or serious injury, then abortions are justified. After around 20 weeks (or may be a week or two less, don't know the exact number), abortions for other reasons: no. Abortions for things like rape, poverty, whatever, should be done before that.

 

Abortions for "rape, maternal life, health, mental health, socioeconomic factors, and/or fetal defects" are the only abortions I think should be government supported, and limits put on most of them and other options being encouraged. Abortions on request should not be funded, if they are legal at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip
I was in support of it until they added that anti-abortion thing in it. That's a huge step backwards

Why should the government fund abortions?

Yeah. I fail to see how not killing unborn babies is "backwards".

Hm... good thing you can't be pregnant, huh?

 

Imagine the following: A woman (or worse; girl) ends up pregnant, she knows she cannot support the child if/when it comes. Neither can she afford the pregnancy (she might be studying and whatnot). Unfortunately, she cannot afford the abortion either way?

 

Is it tough luck, then? Let her have the baby, and then she can do herself the work to find someone to adopt it (despite being in a completely fragile mental state, where dealing with bureaucracy and whatnot is perhaps not your first thing to consider)?

 

I am glad I live in a civilised society, where our government will help women in need of an abortion.

 

And I say this out of respect for the woman, whose life would be otherwise ruined and the child, whose life would be pretty grim - and at worst, not worth living.

 

But hey, I am just a godless baby-killer, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

 

I was in support of it until they added that anti-abortion thing in it. That's a huge step backwards

Why should the government fund abortions?

Yeah. I fail to see how not killing unborn babies is "backwards".

Hm... good thing you can't be pregnant, huh?

 

Imagine the following: A woman (or worse; girl) ends up pregnant, she knows she cannot support the child if/when it comes. Neither can she afford the pregnancy (she might be studying and whatnot). Unfortunately, she cannot afford the abortion either way?

 

Is it tough luck, then? Let her have the baby, and then she can do herself the work to find someone to adopt it (despite being in a completely fragile mental state, where dealing with bureaucracy and whatnot is perhaps not your first thing to consider)?

 

I am glad I live in a civilised society, where our government will help women in need of an abortion.

 

And I say this out of respect for the woman, whose life would be otherwise ruined and the child, whose life would be pretty grim - and at worst, not worth living.

 

But hey, I am just a godless baby-killer, eh?

I never said I think abortion is completely wrong in all circumstances. I just don't think the government NOT providing abortion in most cases (with the exception of things like rape etc) is backwards.

 

As for your example - I don't believe someone in that situation should have their abortion payed for by the government. Yeah I know it's hard but unfortunately life is tough.

 

"the child, whose life would be pretty grim - and at worst, not worth living."

 

Who are we to decide whether a child's life is worth living or not? There have been lots of people who have grown up in harsh economic conditions and made something of themselves.

 

Godless? Where does religion come into this? We're talking about abortion here, not religion.

Edited by Mad Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

 

I never said I think abortion is completely wrong in all circumstances. I just don't think the government NOT providing abortion in most cases (with the exception of things like rape etc) is backwards.

 

I think government taking issues like abortion serious and financing it - when needed - is moving forward into a more modern society.

 

 

"the child, whose life would be pretty grim - and at worst, not worth living."

 

Who are we to decide whether a child's life is worth living or not? There have been lots of people who have grown up in harsh economic conditions and made something of themselves.

 

It is all about weighing in. Usually, parents (not leaving single mothers alone) should decide in unison to get a child, because they are ready for one, because they want to care of one. This situation calls for ignoring, annoyance and downright abandonment.

 

I would not want to put any child through that.

 

 

Godless? Where does religion come into this? We're talking about abortion here, not religion.

 

Religion is an often motivation for these opinions, even if it is actually just a strange concept of human life and ethical issues, that leads to take a position, which often tends to ignore the consequences of their views, because it is 'wrong'.

 

I am not saying you are taking this stance (you are clearly not), but unfortunately, I have heard this argument way too often in these types of debate.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

 

I was in support of it until they added that anti-abortion thing in it. That's a huge step backwards

Why should the government fund abortions?

Yeah. I fail to see how not killing unborn babies is "backwards".

You misunderstand me, I love abortions (the effect on crime alone is worth it) but I don't think the government should fund them. The system as it is works pretty well, the cost of getting an abortion is minimal compared to the cost of raising a schild, and almost everyone can get one if they need one. A lot of private groups actually do cover the cost of abortions to those who can't afford them too. Realistically there would be few people stuck in the kind of situation where they actually can't get an abortion.

 

As much as I disagree with the pro-life people, you have to somewhat respect their beliefs. By this I mean do not force them to pay for something that they think is murder. Ultimately it isn't The Government's responsibility to help out a small group of people who can't afford abortions, it isn't life threatening issue. It may make sense in a country where 60% of your income bleeds into ridiculous social programs (which is starting to looks like everywhere), but every tiny problem, like some women who can't afford an abortion, does not merit a government solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

 

I think government taking issues like abortion serious and financing it - when needed - is moving forward into a more modern society.

Why? Abortion is a very gray issue and it's not something like inter-racial marriage. Yeah, I know you didn't even mention that but a country or state not allowing inter-racial marriage is backwards. Abortion? As I said, it's a gray issue. In my eyes there are certain topics where it would be completely backwards to take a certain view on it (like opposing inter-racial marriage for example) but abortion is one of those things I think there is a lot of room for debate.

 

 

It is all about weighing in.  Usually, parents (not leaving single mothers alone) should decide in unison to get a child, because they are ready for one, because they want to care of one.  This situation calls for ignoring, annoyance and downright abandonment.

 

I would not want to put any child through that.

But some people are brought up terribly and yet still manage to lead successful lives. I don't believe we should deny a child its life just because it might have a hard childhood and thus might have a hard life when it can be the exact opposite.

 

 

Religion is an often motivation for these opinions, even if it is actually just a strange concept of human life and ethical issues, that leads to take a position, which often tends to ignore the consequences of their views, because it is 'wrong'.

 

I am not saying you are taking this stance (you are clearly not), but unfortunately, I have heard this argument way too often in these types of debate.

Oh I agree, it often is but you were presuming that I held this position on abortion because of my religion when really it has little if anything to do with it.

Edited by Mad Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango
I am glad I live in a civilised society, where our government will help women in need of an abortion.

Scientifically, I think remains equivocal whether or not foetuses are human. As such, the government shouldn't be supporting or railing against abortion. Please don't give me the sob story that "pregnancy is hard", the mother (and the father - babies tend to have fathers who can help find adoptive parents as well, I'm sure they'd prefer that to paying child support or looking after the kid) knows what she's getting into when she chooses to have unprotected sex. But I'm glad we live in a civilised society where people can screw up all they like, and other people have to fit the bill, amirite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip
I am glad I live in a civilised society, where our government will help women in need of an abortion.

Scientifically, I think remains equivocal whether or not foetuses are human. As such, the government shouldn't be supporting or railing against abortion. Please don't give me the sob story that "pregnancy is hard", the mother (and the father - babies tend to have fathers who can help find adoptive parents as well, I'm sure they'd prefer that to paying child support or looking after the kid) knows what she's getting into when she chooses to have unprotected sex. But I'm glad we live in a civilised society where people can screw up all they like, and other people have to fit the bill, amirite?

You are right, that pregnancy is hard. But you are often not correct in that the mother knows what she is doing when she has unprotected sex.

 

And, hold on, sometimes, even with protection, you get unlucky.

 

However, I like how you come from a sound argument, and then twist it into a straw man argument.

 

You think that government paying for abortion of women who want it is allowing people to 'screw up all they want'? The government paying for her abortion may seem 'free', but in fact, it is genuinely not. If you keep coming back, the government will eventually give you something to avoid it in the future, or deny you the coverage.

 

These things are on logs, my friend.

 

And who exactly are you talking about that needs to 'fit the bill'? The civilised society I am talking about may not be the same as yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
buffalosoulj4h20

It's amazing that the same people who do not support abortion are the same people who do not want poor, unfortunate people recieving any government assistance or healthcare. Do they not see the vicious cycle that plays? Imagine a world without abortions. Without it, the world would be even more over-populated than it is now and mothers who wanted the abortion in the first place have to rely on government ssistance to support the child because group homes and adoption agencies have no more room for unwanted children. It's like, ''No, it's a baby not a fetus!'' , to, ''So what if you need health care? You government relying scum!'', when the baby is older. The abhorrent cycle continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Goose

Yeah. And banning abortions, like banning alcohol, will just force people who feel they need it (or want it) to go to backalley clinics. Do we really want women having abortions with coat hangers again? Is that the so-called "modern" world we want to live in? Instead of guns and drugs, gangs and mafias will begin offering abortion services to women of all situations and classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

 

Yeah. And banning abortions, like banning alcohol, will just force people who feel they need it (or want it) to go to backalley clinics. Do we really want women having abortions with coat hangers again? Is that the so-called "modern" world we want to live in? Instead of guns and drugs, gangs and mafias will begin offering abortion services to women of all situations and classes.

Banning abortion would be a little different from banning alcohol. I don't agree with banning either, but they're two completely different things. Most people enjoy drinking alcohol from time to time (I don't drink myself but that's besides the point). Abortions however most people try and avoid having, and when they do have them more often than not it's not exactly a pleasant thing for the person getting the abortion. Of course banning abortions would create an underground market for it, but not on the same scale as prohibition did in the 20s and 30s.

 

Nobody here is even suggesting banning abortion outright (I'm certainly not). We're just saying that it shouldn't be government funded. Fortunately, this bill states that abortion should only be government funded if the mother's life is in danger or in cases of rape (or at least that's what I read somewhere).

 

Just to clarify, I'm more against abortion than I am for it, but I think it should be allowed in extreme circumstances (rape or if the mother's life is in danger).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

Aye, the last two posters before Tony seem to have completely missed the point. It's a funding issue, I'm strongly in favor of abortion rights but not in funding for it by the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

It's a red herring. If you are one side of the abortion debate or the other, this amendment distracts from the real issue at hand. It's a bad bill.

 

Case in point: Link

 

^Basically the plan being planed will not cover the people it is supposed to cover. This is what gets lost when people are busy pointing fingers at one another. I think we can all agree the this bill is bad, it will cost far more that what the government projects. The focus is all on insurance when it should be a plan on national health care.

 

 

 

/my 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
buffalosoulj4h20
Aye, the last two posters before Tony seem to have completely missed the point. It's a funding issue, I'm strongly in favor of abortion rights but not in funding for it by the government.

No I think you missed the point. I didn't name anyone on here, it's that I notice this way too often with pro-life and anti-obamacare freaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit
Aye, the last two posters before Tony seem to have completely missed the point. It's a funding issue, I'm strongly in favor of abortion rights but not in funding for it by the government.

No I think you missed the point. I didn't name anyone on here, it's that I notice this way too often with pro-life and anti-obamacare freaks.

So, in other words, you totally ignored the point and choose to argue with straw men instead? rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
buffalosoulj4h20
Aye, the last two posters before Tony seem to have completely missed the point. It's a funding issue, I'm strongly in favor of abortion rights but not in funding for it by the government.

No I think you missed the point. I didn't name anyone on here, it's that I notice this way too often with pro-life and anti-obamacare freaks.

So, in other words, you totally ignored the point and choose to argue with straw men instead? rolleyes.gif

Strawmen? whatsthat.gif . What point was I ignoring? I wasn't debating with anyone, I was just showing how the pro-life mentality conflicts with people's views on government assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

 

Aye, the last two posters before Tony seem to have completely missed the point. It's a funding issue, I'm strongly in favor of abortion rights but not in funding for it by the government.

No I think you missed the point. I didn't name anyone on here, it's that I notice this way too often with pro-life and anti-obamacare freaks.

So, in other words, you totally ignored the point and choose to argue with straw men instead? rolleyes.gif

Strawmen? whatsthat.gif . What point was I ignoring? I wasn't debating with anyone, I was just showing how the pro-life mentality conflicts with people's views on government assistance.

Right. You weren't arguing with anybody in this topic. Only some anonymous "they" who exist elsewhere (possibly in your imagination..), then conflating the view with people here opposed to the so-called reform.

 

As for the conflict, well, like Ayn Rand was fond of saying: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

 

Given my antipathy towards the whole concept of state or it having a power to ban anything, I'm not exactly what one would usually consider "pro-life." However, I do agree with them that it is a rather barbaric practice when it's not a medical necessity or carried out on a pregnancy resulting from rape or something. As such, I choose not to partake in it. This obviously includes not wanting to pay for it.

 

Whether this means more people will want more government handouts is beside the point. I don't want to pay for that either. Unless they can provide some service or goods in a voluntary exchange for what they want, "the poor" can starve in the streets for all I care.

 

Where is the conflict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
buffalosoulj4h20
Aye, the last two posters before Tony seem to have completely missed the point. It's a funding issue, I'm strongly in favor of abortion rights but not in funding for it by the government.

No I think you missed the point. I didn't name anyone on here, it's that I notice this way too often with pro-life and anti-obamacare freaks.

So, in other words, you totally ignored the point and choose to argue with straw men instead? rolleyes.gif

Strawmen? whatsthat.gif . What point was I ignoring? I wasn't debating with anyone, I was just showing how the pro-life mentality conflicts with people's views on government assistance.

Right. You weren't arguing with anybody in this topic. Only some anonymous "they" who exist elsewhere (possibly in your imagination..), then conflating the view with people here opposed to the so-called reform.

 

As for the conflict, well, like Ayn Rand was fond of saying: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

 

Given my antipathy towards the whole concept of state or it having a power to ban anything, I'm not exactly what one would usually consider "pro-life." However, I do agree with them that it is a rather barbaric practice when it's not a medical necessity or carried out on a pregnancy resulting from rape or something. As such, I choose not to partake in it. This obviously includes not wanting to pay for it.

 

Whether this means more people will want more government handouts is beside the point. I don't want to pay for that either. Unless they can provide some service or goods in a voluntary exchange for what they want, "the poor" can starve in the streets for all I care.

 

Where is the conflict?

Imaginative people? You need to check the world around you. There's a lot of right-wing people who do not believe in abortion, not even in the circumstnce of rape, incest, or in a case of a life threatening situation to the mother or child. At the sametime they still oppose anyone who relies on any government assistance. If you do not see that you're either a f*cking tool or you choose not to admit that, however thats on you to decide.

 

Personally, I don't care what that person you quoted about said, but for the sake of argument, contradictions don't exist right? But hypocrits do. Idiots who don't see the cycle contradict themselves all the time.

 

On that note, I never agreed that people should fund abortions of any kind. I said this way before I saw abortion coming into play in this topic. However, people could have abortions all they want in my opinion. The world is too f*cking overpopulated anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

 

Aye, the last two posters before Tony seem to have completely missed the point. It's a funding issue, I'm strongly in favor of abortion rights but not in funding for it by the government.

No I think you missed the point. I didn't name anyone on here, it's that I notice this way too often with pro-life and anti-obamacare freaks.

So, in other words, you totally ignored the point and choose to argue with straw men instead? rolleyes.gif

Strawmen? whatsthat.gif . What point was I ignoring? I wasn't debating with anyone, I was just showing how the pro-life mentality conflicts with people's views on government assistance.

Right. You weren't arguing with anybody in this topic. Only some anonymous "they" who exist elsewhere (possibly in your imagination..), then conflating the view with people here opposed to the so-called reform.

 

As for the conflict, well, like Ayn Rand was fond of saying: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

 

Given my antipathy towards the whole concept of state or it having a power to ban anything, I'm not exactly what one would usually consider "pro-life." However, I do agree with them that it is a rather barbaric practice when it's not a medical necessity or carried out on a pregnancy resulting from rape or something. As such, I choose not to partake in it. This obviously includes not wanting to pay for it.

 

Whether this means more people will want more government handouts is beside the point. I don't want to pay for that either. Unless they can provide some service or goods in a voluntary exchange for what they want, "the poor" can starve in the streets for all I care.

 

Where is the conflict?

Imaginative people? You need to check the world around you. There's a lot of right-wing people who do not believe in abortion, not even in the circumstnce of rape, incest, or in a case of a life threatening situation to the mother or child. At the sametime they still oppose anyone who relies on any government assistance. If you do not see that you're either a f*cking tool or you choose not to admit that, however thats on you to decide.

 

Personally, I don't care what that person you quoted about said, but for the sake of argument, contradictions don't exist right? But hypocrits do. Idiots who don't see the cycle contradict themselves all the time.

 

On that note, I never agreed that people should fund abortions of any kind. I said this way before I saw abortion coming into play in this topic. However, people could have abortions all they want in my opinion. The world is too f*cking overpopulated anyway.

Yes. People who oppose abortion exist. As do people, such as myself, who don't really care if you want to abort yourself out of the gene pool with your own money.

 

And, yes, people who fit into the above categories who also oppose government handouts exist. I thought I admitted as much in my last post.. rolleyes.gif

 

None of the combination of the above, however, accept paying for abortions with government handouts as a solution for stopping.. government handouts. Our solution is to simply stop government handouts. All of them. Full stop.

 

There is nothing hypocritical about this. Vicious, cynical, and selfish maybe? Sure. I can live with that. Both positions are entirely consistent though. Brutally so.

 

The flaw in your premise is that you assume that we share your world view that we, collectively, and at the point of a government gun, must do "something" to "help" "the poor." We don't. And unless you can separate the two world views, you might find yourself arguing with how you would rationalize a position in your head instead of what your opponent is actually saying. wink.gif

 

As for whether you think we should pay for them, sorry if it sounded like I meant you wanted us to. I was just trying (apparently in vain) to make my position clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilikensrs

Why single out abortions though? I gather as a libertarian you're opposed to all aspects of government funded healthcare. If you're (you in the general sense of the observer of this post, not the specific sense of the individual known in this instance as illspirit) prepared to compromise your principles and pay for healthcare, why baulk at this one specific medical procedure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.