[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

The justification for banning or not comes down to moral/ethical issues based on "killing". And the issue can be debated ad nauseam, since there is no agreed upon definition of "human life" - and it is illegal to kill another human, but without agreement on what is a human (or when it becomes human) there is no way to resolve the debate.

As an atheist banning abortion appears to be a religious issue to me, and I am concerned with letting religion into the basis for laws. So, my position is this is a moral issue. An issue that has to be resolved between the woman (and the father?) and her/their doctor.

It seems most polls indicate a significant majority of the country (65% to 75%) disagree with overturning Roe v Wade. I expect this decision will have significant impacts on upcoming elections as women (and some men) become highly motivated to vote that otherwise would have stayed home.

To put it into a metaphor, "Now that the dog has caught the car, what is it going to do with it".

I agree with this post. We have a situation here where less than 25% of the country is telling the 75% of the country how they SHOULD LIVE. that does NOT sound like a free country to me. America says that problem with Russia and China is that the FEW are controlling the MANY. Yet America seems to be acting like Russia and China. America is going to be CONTROLLED detrimentally by the LUCK of a death of a Supreme court member (RBG) and a PATHETIC stalling of the chance to put a highly qualified person on the court (Merrick Garland) during the Obama administration.
.......So, how could we stop disasters like this (rule by less than 25%)? I would suggest the use of term limits for, in this case the members of the Supreme Court (lifetime RULE is crazy stupid). I would suggest something like 8 years for Supreme Court Justices (anywhere between 6 and 12 years would be an improvement over a lifetime term.
.........And, of course, I feel the same that Senators and the House should have 2 terms maximum.
..........Why limit the President to 2 terms (which is a good idea) and NOT have limits on Congress. Most all of the out-and-out HATRED of WASHINGTON develops as politicians FIGHT to make their job a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. Term limits would significantly stop the corruption and lack of cooperation that has become synonymous with WAHINGTON!

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I agree with this post. We have a situation here where less than 25% of the country is telling the 75% of the country how they SHOULD LIVE. that does NOT sound like a free country to me. America says that problem with Russia and China is that the FEW are controlling the MANY. Yet America seems to be acting like Russia and China. America is going to be CONTROLLED detrimentally by the LUCK of a death of a Supreme court member (RBG) and a PATHETIC stalling of the chance to put a highly qualified person on the court (Merrick Garland) during the Obama administration.
.......So, how could we stop disasters like this (rule by less than 25%)? I would suggest the use of term limits for, in this case the members of the Supreme Court (lifetime RULE is crazy stupid). I would suggest something like 8 years for Supreme Court Justices (anywhere between 6 and 12 years would be an improvement over a lifetime term.
.........And, of course, I feel the same that Senators and the House should have 2 terms maximum.
..........Why limit the President to 2 terms (which is a good idea) and NOT have limits on Congress. Most all of the out-and-out HATRED of WASHINGTON develops as politicians FIGHT to make their job a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. Term limits would significantly stop the corruption and lack of cooperation that has become synonymous with WAHINGTON!

IMO you have that backwards the 25% telling the 75%…

[Love2Swim]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Birth control is covered by just about every insurance company. Even Medicaid...

OTOH, "Medicare generally does not cover Viagra or other medications for ED treatment. Under Medicare guidelines for coverage, these medications are not considered medically necessary"...


It would help if you had your facts straight.

Thanks friendly villager for the usual TOTV snark. I knew there was a reason i normally avoid posting here. But if you look carefully you will see I referred to "publicly funded insurance" and Medicare coverage for generic versions of Viagara which are covered under some Medicare plans.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

My take is a little different. I oppose abortion except in cases where the choice is either - or: either the fetus is aborted or the mother dies.

Think about it.

Thought about it. Some say "save the mother ". But, some mothers would sacrifice their lives that their child might have a chance at life. My feeling is that men can share their feelings on this, but it should ultimately be the woman's choice. This will never be a trivial choice, so whatever the woman decides, she should be supported.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

The justification for banning or not comes down to moral/ethical issues based on "killing". And the issue can be debated ad nauseam, since there is no agreed upon definition of "human life" - and it is illegal to kill another human, but without agreement on what is a human (or when it becomes human) there is no way to resolve the debate.

As an atheist banning abortion appears to be a religious issue to me, and I am concerned with letting religion into the basis for laws. So, my position is this is a moral issue. An issue that has to be resolved between the woman (and the father?) and her/their doctor.

It seems most polls indicate a significant majority of the country (65% to 75%) disagree with overturning Roe v Wade. I expect this decision will have significant impacts on upcoming elections as women (and some men) become highly motivated to vote that otherwise would have stayed home.

To put it into a metaphor, "Now that the dog has caught the car, what is it going to do with it".

It is a strange LOGIC that proclaims "right to life" while REALLY meaning FORCED unwanted BIRTHS. What about proclaiming a right to a QUALITY of life for the pregnant woman. Those that want to pass laws to FORCE unwanted BIRTHS should be THEMSELVES FORCED to adopt these unwanted children.
.........I ask myself, " How can increased UNWANTED CHILDREN make a country stronger". it takes years of LOVE and devotion to turn a child into a PRODUCTIVE adult and thus have a stronger country. It is basically UNPATRIOTIC to require more UNWANTED children to be forced onto society. And at a time when the world is suffering from overpopulation problems like GLOBAL WARMING, species decline and extinction, forest destruction, and even the beginning phase of a GLOBAL world war.
............I wonder if OTHER COUNTRIES like Norway, Japan, Australia, and others allow 25% of their population
(consisting of CRAZY church ladies) to drive their countries destiny like here in the US of A?

[JMintzer]

One problem with abortion is that it is so secret that the horror of unwanted pregnancy go unspoken.[/QUOTE]

Not any more. Some now wear having one as a badge of honor...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by tvbound

Exactly. What's next, some state's deciding that they're fine with "separate but equal" (not covered in original COTUS/BOR), and hard-earned equality for minorities - is now left up to individual states? A whole lot of racists/bigots/white supremacists, are licking their chops thinking about this huge slippery slope.

That's today's common "scare tactic" that has ZERO basis in reality...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I agree with this post. We have a situation here where less than 25% of the country is telling the 75% of the country how they SHOULD LIVE. that does NOT sound like a free country to me. America says that problem with Russia and China is that the FEW are controlling the MANY. Yet America seems to be acting like Russia and China. America is going to be CONTROLLED detrimentally by the LUCK of a death of a Supreme court member (RBG) and a PATHETIC stalling of the chance to put a highly qualified person on the court (Merrick Garland) during the Obama administration.
.......So, how could we stop disasters like this (rule by less than 25%)? I would suggest the use of term limits for, in this case the members of the Supreme Court (lifetime RULE is crazy stupid). I would suggest something like 8 years for Supreme Court Justices (anywhere between 6 and 12 years would be an improvement over a lifetime term.
.........And, of course, I feel the same that Senators and the House should have 2 terms maximum.
..........Why limit the President to 2 terms (which is a good idea) and NOT have limits on Congress. Most all of the out-and-out HATRED of WASHINGTON develops as politicians FIGHT to make their job a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. Term limits would significantly stop the corruption and lack of cooperation that has become synonymous with WAHINGTON!

RGB stated the Roe V Wade was a poor decision and Garland has shown himself to be a lousy AG. What makes you think he would have been a good SC Justice?

And your 75% number is a red herring... That number is not "abortion on demand", it is abortion with set limitations, which is what we have in every State right now.

That said, there is (and should be) debate as to what those limitations should be...

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

Surely such a sensitive and emotive subject should be taken by a national/state referendum?
Seems to big and powerful a subject, to be decided by nine people.
Even to an outsider like myself, it wasn't rocket science to understand how the SC would vote, and what decision they would arrive at, given the political bias of the court.
Most opinion polls show a large majority in favor of Pro Choice.

Agreed about the NATIONAL referendum. This and many more issues should be decided by a national referendum. And I would like a 100% mandatory vote every 2 years. The US is SO important to the world that we should do our best to get our elections RIGHT. Something that we have not gotten right in the past!

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Love2Swim

Thanks friendly villager for the usual TOTV snark. I knew there was a reason i normally avoid posting here. But if you look carefully you will see I referred to "publicly funded insurance" and Medicare coverage for generic versions of Viagara which are covered under some Medicare plans.

I fail to see the snark in pointing out you were factually wrong. And you STILL are factually wrong.

Yes, there are now generic versions of Viagra. BUT... Those are not covered by Medicare, either...

Now, coverage by your Medicare Supplemental Plan is an entirely different thing...

And since Medicaid run on a state by state basis, the answer there is "sometimes"

Birth control, otoh, IS covered by "publicly funded insurance"...

From HHS: "All FDA-approved contraceptive methods, products and devices, including long acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as IUDs (Intrauterine Devices) are covered."

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Agreed about the NATIONAL referendum. This and many more issues should be decided by a national referendum. And I would like a 100% mandatory vote every 2 years. The US is SO important to the world that we should do our best to get our elections RIGHT. Something that we have not gotten right in the past!

"Mandatory vote???"

Not voting is just as much of a right as voting...

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Taurus510

You would be correct. IF the vaccine worked. Now that it is a fact that the vaccines don’t work it is a starter. ( I kinda like being able to declare that an argument is a starter or a non starter. Kinda gives me a God like authority…)

Covid vaccines work! Only in the dark web of disinformation do they not work! Disinformation started in Russia to split apart Americans. NOt very patriotic!

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Covid vaccines work! Only in the dark web of disinformation do they not work! Disinformation started in Russia to split apart Americans. NOt very patriotic!

Not the way they were advertised, they don't...

And questioning authority is one of the most American things you can do...

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Taurus510

We’ll, you see, here’s the thing. Not only are many of my co-workers hospital workers, I too am a hospital worker. And yes, I am involved in patient medical care, so do you have any other suggestions?
EDIT: In the interest of transparency, I am retired. I should’ve said that I worked in the hospital. Retired at the end of last year. But, still I will await further instructions.

Further instructions........please avoid the dark web at all costs. Use traditional sources like mainstream TV NEWS.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

According to one prolific poster, we have too many people so yes, it is...

I feel so PROLIFIC, so pretty, so witty, and so wise. They can put PROLIFIC on my tombstone.