Boxerism

Boxer compares denying women abortion coverage to denying men Viagra...

They are not exactly analogous but are related.

Is a penis-hardening drug an essential medication? Not really, yet it is usually covered, unlike the Pill, which is sometimes NOT covered under some private plans.

Throw in abortion regulation, and you are giving men FAR more control over their reproductive organs than women.

Not very fair, is it.

TerryRC wrote:They are not exactly analogous but are related.

Is a penis-hardening drug an essential medication? Not really, yet it is usually covered, unlike the Pill, which is sometimes NOT covered under some private plans.

Throw in abortion regulation, and you are giving men FAR more control over their reproductive organs than women.

Not very fair, is it.

Terry Mason states, "I posit that it is more difficult for an orifice to become dysfunctional--hence, medical coverage for ED."

You can't laugh it off.

Address the point.

TerryRC,

Abortion should not be covered, and neither should viagra.

But just because the one is doesn't mean that the other one should be. One mistake does not call for two mistakes.

TerryRC,

Abortion should not be covered, and neither should viagra.

But just because the one is doesn't mean that the other one should be. One mistake does not call for two mistakes.

Pregnancy poses more risk to personal health than impotence does.

Look at it this way - you oppose abortion for religious reasons so you think it shouldn't be covered.

Christian Scientists are opposed to all surgeries based upon religious reasons and (presumably) think none of them should be covered.

I think both positions are extreme. Reproductive (and other) health care should be covered for males and females.

I also have a religious belief against murder. Should that also be thrown out for this reason?

TerryRC,

Pregnancy threatens a woman's health, but so too does having post-partum children.

I also have a religious belief against murder. Should that also be thrown out for this reason?

It depends. Some people need killing.

You can only murder a PERSON, however. There is not agreement as to when an embryo actually becomes one.

Pregnancy threatens a woman's health, but so too does having post-partum children.

Having two ragamuffins of my own, I quite agree.

It depends. Some people need killing.

So the innocent unborn "need killing"? What will we do with their remains, Herr Mengele?

You can only murder a PERSON, however. There is not agreement as to when an embryo actually becomes one.

Does this mean you acknowlege a fetus to be a person? If so, that's a major step forward towards the truth. Perhaps you'll get there yet.

Stephanie wrote:

You can only murder a PERSON, however. There is not agreement as to when an embryo actually becomes one.

Does this mean you acknowlege a fetus to be a person? If so, that's a major step forward towards the truth. Perhaps you'll get there yet.

If it isn't a baby, the woman is not pregnant.

They will have to prove she cut the umbilical cord before she smothered it.

So the innocent unborn "need killing"? What will we do with their remains, Herr Mengele?

Mike was referring to murder and religious beliefs and it seemed clear, to me at least, he was referring to the born (in comparison to the unborn).

Don't you think a Jim Jones or a Hitler or a Stalin would be a person that needed killing?

Does this mean you acknowlege a fetus to be a person? If so, that's a major step forward towards the truth. Perhaps you'll get there yet.

A major step toweards YOUR truth, I think you mean.

I believe a fetus to be a person when it can live outside of the womb and not be brain damaged because of it.

That is my belief. I am aware that there are different schools of thought on the matter.

If it isn't a baby, the woman is not pregnant.

"Babies" are post-partum, as in "I'm going to have a baby...".

Your attempt at a witty observation is bankrupt.

So you define personhood as the ability to live independently?

So then did kids on iron lungs cease to be persons?

Or how about anybody who requires a ventilator? I mean, if drawing breath for yourself is the criterea, why not?

Stephanie wrote:Or how about anybody who requires a ventilator? I mean, if drawing breath for yourself is the criterea, why not?

Why is Condor egg addling a crime?

Why are unhatched birds more valuable than unborn people?

Stephanie wrote:Why are unhatched birds more valuable than unborn people?

Exactly.

Legal to kill newborn baby in Virginia if still attached to mother

Disturbing, calculating, and beyond comprehension - did you know a legal loophole exists in the state of Virginia which prevents charging a woman who kills her newborn baby as long as that baby is still attached to her body by placenta or umbilical cord? Believe it or not, it's legal to
kill a newborn baby any means the mother wants - as long as the baby isn't detached from her body.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2510065/legal_loophole_in_state_of_virginia.html?cat=17

I don't understand why we don't let these babies live until they are teenagers, and THEN if they "need a good killing,"............

SheikBen wrote:I don't understand why we don't let these babies live until they are teenagers, and THEN if they "need a good killing,"............

Mark Twain said that when they become a teenager brick them up in a closet--except for one brick; then when they turn 19, put in the last brick.

So then did kids on iron lungs cease to be persons?

You know what I mean. Most state governments agree. There is a viability clause in most states, usually ranging between mid second trimester to early third trimester. Anything after that needs a medical reason.

I'm sorry, early embryos have gill slits. Is that an attribute of a PERSON? Undifferentiated cells, as we all start, does not a person make.

Why are unhatched birds more valuable than unborn people?

Strawman.

Bullshit.