while you have a point based on a technicality, that isn't what pro-life means.

Pro-life people don't care about you if you are already born. :P

Serraph105

I understand perfectly what pro-life means :P However my point is that their line of thought should extend to preserving a life as well but instead this is mostly an exploitative political wedge.

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

I don't necessarily disagree with how you are rationalizing this, but by having the current insuredHCsystem you are damning many people toavoidable fates. I don't see how you can say "people havebeen dying unjustly for billions of years" and then appeal to emotions with "allowance for a mother to kill her fetus". It's crocodile tears. You are stonecold in one breath yet all caring in the next.

Pro-lifers make the stand that life is precious but why is that scope just limited to abortion? All in all the abortion wedge is a baseless emotional appeal that helpselect people who would oppose things like Medicare (for the old)and Medicaid (for the poor and children) that help keep our loved ones ALIVE.

DivergeUnify

I hear ya. We are getting hung up about who has to pay for what, but, even ifI don't know if we can totally agree, for pro-lifers there has to be some sort of grey area on this, especially the pro-lifers that where theirreligion on their shoulder (charity to the poor, etc).

Depends...

If it is a small/medium business I would apply online and (drop off a resume/fill out a paper application)in person (looking spiffy of course ;) ). A larger corporation I'd apply online and wait.

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

[QUOTE="mariostar0001"] I'm not off-topic, within the grounds of debate (you can't make a statement like that and expect people to not disagree with you). But if on-topic requires agreeing with your topic, then maybe I am, and I don't care, I'll do it anyway. 8)mariostar0001

No I wasn't saying we were off topic because we disagreed about anything, webegan talking about UHC solely and strayed away from what the topic was about. Why the hell would I discuss something in that manner...

Oh. No, I like to debate forwardly, but in no way would I seek to force an opinion on somebody. That always just winds up working against whatever point you're making. No harm done.

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

But lets not get off topic, one can't be pro-life and then bitterly turn their cheek as people die due to fiscal hurdles.

mariostar0001

No I wasn't saying we were off topic because we disagreed about anything, webegan talking about UHC solely and strayed away from what the topic was about. Why the hell would I discuss something in that manner...

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]Aborting defenseless babies vs. not providing "free" healthcare for mostly-capable adultsDivergeUnify

A life is a life is it not? For all the moral (and for some religious)questions that surround these debates, how can you rationalize an adult's life and fetus's life are not the same? Why does saving the fetus come before preserving the adult?

Nobody's saying healthcare is free (which I alluded to in my earlier response, fiscal realities, etc). What about the people who haveunexpected accidents or ailments that they cannot afford in the current system? Why shouldn't the community want to ensure it has healthy citizens? Not only would UHC do much in the way of early detection (which SAVES money) of ailments, but you have a population that isn't spending so much time not working because they are much healthier.

1) Abortion is a personal decision. It is also a personal decision to do whatever is neccessary to maintain one's health to the best of one's ability. Some people get terribly sick. We're animals. It happens. Organisms have been dying "unjustly" for billions of years( and humans for thousands of years)

2) Abortion is an explicit action to kill a baby/fetus. Not providing universal healthcare is not an explicit death sentence to individuals. If it was, if it was even comparable, there would be no USA right now

Whether we should have UHC provided is a decent debate, but not having it isn't morally comparable to not allowing abortion

One is an allowance for a mother to kill her fetus. The other is simply not resting all medical responsibility on the government.

I don't necessarily disagree with how you are rationalizing this, but by having the current insuredHCsystem you are damning many people toavoidable fates. I don't see how you can say "people havebeen dying unjustly for billions of years" and then appeal to emotions with "allowance for a mother to kill her fetus". It's crocodile tears. You are stonecold in one breath yet all caring in the next.

Pro-lifers make the stand that life is precious but why is that scope just limited to abortion? All in all the abortion wedge is a baseless emotional appeal that helpselect people who would oppose things like Medicare (for the old)and Medicaid (for the poor and children) that help keep our loved ones ALIVE.

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

What about the people who haveunexpected accidents or ailments that they cannot afford in the current system?

mariostar0001

I totally agree that the ACA will eventually become single payer as long as a "third-way" Democrat never take the presidency. And I don't have too many issues with the rest of what you said either.

But lets not get off topic, one can't be pro-life and then bitterly turn their cheek as people die due to fiscal hurdles.

It could be worse, people could just not talk about it at all and let the government do whatever they want. :Pmariostar0001

Right, right. Without the discussion, people just vote mindlessly.

Aborting defenseless babies vs. not providing "free" healthcare for mostly-capable adultsDivergeUnify

A life is a life is it not? For all the moral (and for some religious)questions that surround these debates, how can you rationalize an adult's life and fetus's life are not the same? Why does saving the fetus come before preserving the adult?

Nobody's saying healthcare is free (which I alluded to in my earlier response, fiscal realities, etc). What about the people who haveunexpected accidents or ailments that they cannot afford in the current system? Why shouldn't the community want to ensure it has healthy citizens? Not only would UHC do much in the way of early detection (which SAVES money) of ailments, but you have a population that isn't spending so much time not working because they are much healthier.

I'm against the healthcare law because it actually harms more then it hurts. Before insurance companies came into the picture the poor actually got service for free, if you couldn't pay full price the doctors were more often then not willing to do it for less, or even free, because they could afford to. Then insurance came in and everyone had to have it to get into hospitals, and yet it usually does its best to avoid paying and the people don't have money any more so doctors have overall less money then before, and so benefits to those of lesser incomes as the people decided no longer exist. Universal healthcare is all that and then some, plus it's in no way free, it costs everyone even more then they were paying for insurance already.mariostar0001

In no way dd you contrast pro-life/anti-UHC. Regardless of the fiscal realities of paying for Healthcare, if people feel so strongly about being pro-life (as well as the value of caring for the poor) any fiscal cares should be trumped by the protection of life, right? The argument of babies not being asked to be conceived is made time and time again, what about the mother who's been healthy all her life that's been diagnosed with breastcancer? The grandfather that's had a life changing stroke?

Pro-lifers have all but aligned themselves with people who are determined to turn medicare into Vouchercare, which will pay for less care (more money spent out-of-pocket) and cover less people. Doesn't make senses.