Wayne Stollings wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
I believe the stupidity was in the Republicans pushing such a fringe position that the only real choice was the one the country made.
Then again, we have the fringe position of no abortion for anyone for any reason, when the most likely change scenario is having it prohibited except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life. God forbid we take away someone's right to an elective
medical procedure. Males should have some comparable right without having to pay for it out of pocket. How much more acceptable, to everyone, do you think vasectomies would be? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Except that the push is to prevent abortions no mater WHO pays for them.
If you prevent them, there's nothing for which to pay.
In fact, there are several restrictions placed on what funds can be used in such a case. Some of the cases are far from elective surgery too, which is why I called it a fringe position.
If it's not elective, no one should have a problem with it. It doesn't matter what the push is. There will be compromise if there is to be change.
Cases of rape, incest, and where the woman's life is in danger is not comparable to your example.
Rape and incest would certainly be elective if the mother's health wasn't endangered.
Of course we can't leave out gays becoming "third class" citizens because they're not allowed to marry
. A bit of an extreme take on the matter considering gays could still function and do what they will as if they were
married, regardless. If we want to bitch about benefits and what-not, then single folks are just as "third class" as gays.
You mean they could function as a single person without being single?[/quote]
I mean they do
function as single folks if their marriage isn't recognized.
That would be the definition of discrimination.
Not unless we're discriminating against single folks simultaneously. I don't hear anyone bitching about that.
If you were prevented from making health decisions for your wife or even prohibited from visiting her in the hospital because you were not legally tied to her, would not be the same as a single person not having the same rights for some stranger they did not know.
No, it wouldn't, but then marriage isn't required for health care power of attorney, is it?
Please resume distracting your mind with BS while circling the drain. We're doomed no matter who's in the white house.
Discussions with those with opposing views is not that much of a distraction.