Who Blinked? Obama to Delays Individual Mandate

[Ms Tree]

Including killing the baby's body which is inside but separate from the mother's?

Yep.   Woman's body, woman's rules.
 
I am curious.  If the right succeeds in banning abortions will they pay for all the prenatal care and hospital costs, adoption costs..... etc?  Are we going to raise taxes for that or just cut other social programs to pay for it?

 

[delldude]

 
Yes.  House rules.  You come in my house I can kick you out at an time of my choosing. 

 
 
Oh, really?
Always get your way I bet.

 

[eolesen]

House rules, eh?  If I'm in your house, does that give you the right to cut me up into pieces and clean up the mess with a shop vac?...
 
Does it give you the right to kick out your minor children, too, and leave them to fend for themselves?...

 

[Ms Tree]

House rules, eh?  If I'm in your house, does that give you the right to cut me up into pieces and clean up the mess with a shop vac?...
 
Does it give you the right to kick out your minor children, too, and leave them to fend for themselves?...

 
Actually here in Texas I have the right to blow your ass to kingdom come if you are in my house with out permission.   I believe parants are permitted to disown their children.  I know they can be given up for adoption or foster care.
 
 

Abortion?  Please, can you actually identify a Tea Party conservative who is trying to outlaw abortion?....  
 
It's a convenient lightning rod issue to bring up, but being opposed to something on moral grounds, and trying to outlaw it are mutually exclusive.

 
BTW, how is this fantacy of your coming along?  Are you truly that ignorant of the party you support?

 

[traderjake]

If the right succeeds in banning abortions will they pay for all the prenatal care and hospital costs, adoption costs..... etc?  Are we going to raise taxes for that or just cut other social programs to pay for it?

No one is going to take away your precious abortions.

Ending the war in Afganistan and pulling our military out of Germany and Japan should more than cover those costs.

 

[Ms Tree]

I agree that Roe v Wade is unlikely to be overturned how ever many states have made the laws so stringent as to make abortions nearly impossible.  Some of the states have had their laws blocked by the courts such as TX and MS but that has not stopped the state legislatures from forcing their religious beliefs on others.
 
That is ironic coming from you.  Take money from two unfunded wars that have contributed to the debt and use that money to take care of women's prenatal and hospital costs.  Yes I am sure the conservatives will love to spend the money on unwed mothers who should have kept their knees shut.

 

[Keroseneuser]

So let me get this straight.   Liberals want more restrictions on gun ownership,  want expanded background checks, want limits on how many rounds can be loaded into a clip,  They want all cars to be able to get 50 MPG in next 10 years and want to apply tax penalties to people who own what they define as gas guzzlers,  they want to limit what size soft drink a person can buy, they want to ban smoking, they want to stop all drilling of oil,  they want to tell people what they can and cannot do with their private land, they get all bent out of shape if somebody kicks a puppy dog,  and they want to remove God from all publically funded organizations.  .....but they want unfettered and restriction free tax payer funded access to abortions and are mortified that somebody might have even the slightest moral objection to making it easier to terminate an unborn child than it is to purchase a hunting rifle.         
 
If I am not mistaken it is also the liberals stance that if someone murders a pregnant mother they support the perpetrator being charged with double murder,  one for the mother and one for the unborn child.    
 
What a strange view of the world.
 
The main stream conservatives don't want to ban abortion,  they just want sensible restrictions.  (No late term abortions, no "drive through abortions" etc)          Oh..but I guess "sensible restrictions" only applies when you are talking about buying a rifle or pistol,  not terminating a fetus.   

 

[delldude]

 
Actually here in Texas I have the right to blow your ass to kingdom come if you are in my house with out permission.   I believe parants are permitted to disown their children.  I know they can be given up for adoption or foster care.
 

 
 
Actually, you tell me to leave and I say no....you got no right to blow me away.

 

[Ms Tree]

So let me get this straight.   Liberals want more restrictions on gun ownership,  want expanded background checks, want limits on how many rounds can be loaded into a clip,  They want all cars to be able to get 50 MPG in next 10 years and want to apply tax penalties to people who own what they define as gas guzzlers,  they want to limit what size soft drink a person can buy, they want to ban smoking, they want to stop all drilling of oil,  they want to tell people what they can and cannot do with their private land, they get all bent out of shape if somebody kicks a puppy dog,  and they want to remove God from all publically funded organizations.  .....but they want unfettered and restriction free tax payer funded access to abortions and are mortified that somebody might have even the slightest moral objection to making it easier to terminate an unborn child than it is to purchase a hunting rifle.         
 
If I am not mistaken it is also the liberals stance that if someone murders a pregnant mother they support the perpetrator being charged with double murder,  one for the mother and one for the unborn child.    
 
What a strange view of the world.
 
The main stream conservatives don't want to ban abortion,  they just want sensible restrictions.  (No late term abortions, no "drive through abortions" etc)          Oh..but I guess "sensible restrictions" only applies when you are talking about buying a rifle or pistol,  not terminating a fetus.   

 
 
First of all, the stuff you mention has nothing to do with freedom of choice and control over ones body.  The same things can be said of conservatives who want to control every aspect of a persons personal life from who they can love and marry, to what forms of sex are permissible between consenting adults, they want to control what substances are OK and which are not but god forbid someone try and bring some sensible (I think that's the term you used) restrictions to gun ownership.
 
Please spare me the platitudes.  The restrictions that the conservatives are placing on abortions are about as sensible as the ones the liberals are placing on guns.
 
Right now liberals are not seeking federal or state funds for abortions, they just want to have access to them.  TX passed a law requiring a long list of requirements none of which are needed for the safety of the woman.  They are only doing this to shut down the clinics.  Federal court placed a stay on portions of the law.  
 
Do conservatives not support the idea of the murderer of a pregnant women being charged with a double homicide?  I was not aware that is only a liberal POV.  Do have any sources that show this is a liberal idea?  By the way, I do not agree with that law and I do not know how it is legal.  
 
The removal of god thing is a COTUS issue, not a liberal issue.  Not like you want to have Zeus, Buddha or a few Wiccan or Pagan gods in school right?  How about teaching about about satanism?  Again, please spare me 'we want freedom of religious' speech as I think it is clear that the conservative right is only concerned about christianity, the rest of the religions can go pound sand.
 
Just to be clear about something.  The conservatives do want to shut down abortion.  The "Sanctity of Life Act" was not just semantics or window dressing.  It was a act that would clearly redefine the definition of life.  Please do not insult our intelligence by claiming that conservatives do not want to stop all abortions.  I am sure can probably find a hand full of conservatives who believe in it but I think you will be quite hard pressed.  And you know damn well it is not a widely held belief. 

 

[southwind]

If you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep your current healthcare plan......................I just won't mention the fine print on one of the 300,000 pages !

 

[delldude]

I don't think there are any HC policies prior to Jan 1, 2014 that meet the new Obamascare reg's.
This makes an interesting diorama for union and nonunion HC policies.
 
Who is going to cover the cost increases ?
 
I see some interesting union negotiating coming up plus a move by corporations to gut the traditional 'cadillac' policies unions and nonunion are used to.
 
Guy in his mid forties paying some $5000/yr in premiums plus and out of pocket $7000, spends $12000 before he has any coverage?
 
This what we want?
 
Family is worse.