Michelle Obama rumor- October surprise

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I think a lot of people would disagree with that.

But I think you're right about what Barack has said on taxation. Cuts for people under 75k, no new cuts for people over 75k, and increases for the top 1%.

Regarding personal freedoms, are you pointing toward patriot act stuff, or a host of things? A lot of liberals assert similar concerns, but aren't bothered by personal freedom infringement when it comes to the 1st amendment (campaign finance), 2nd amendment (increased gun control), mandatory health care, decreased financial autonomy (taxation), etc.

By personal freedoms, it's somewhat the patriot act, but moreso the legislating of values... abortion, gay marriage, the whole moral majority type of thing.

I don't see how ensuring that everybody has access to affordable health care is infringing on personal freedom. In fact, I see it as quite the opposite.

Doesn't it make you a little sick when you hear how much money is spent on financing these campaigns when there are people who can't afford their chemotherapy medications, food, housing, etc? The health care system I work for is giving away more than $100 million annually in care to the indigent and who ends up paying? The employees who don't get raises, who get laid off because there are no funds, whose corporate offices run out of trash bags and toilet paper because the funds are so tight. They've removed half the light bulbs from our light fixtures and shut off our escalator to save every penny they can. I'm very thankful to have a job, but the working conditions are getting pretty scary. They can't cut things like that at the hospitals, but they are cutting costs everywhere they can trying to keep their heads above water as more and more people need care but don't have insurance.

But, as I said, the personal freedoms have more to do with legislating morality/values that have nothing to do with "harm to others" or "infringing on others rights", especially when the reasons behind it are religious. I do think McCain is less dangerous with this stuff than some of the other candidates were.

I guess we won't know for sure about Iraq until we're actually gone.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by AGDee

By personal freedoms, it's somewhat the patriot act, but moreso the legislating of values... abortion, gay marriage, the whole moral majority type of thing.

I don't see how ensuring that everybody has access to affordable health care is infringing on personal freedom. In fact, I see it as quite the opposite.

Doesn't it make you a little sick when you hear how much money is spent on financing these campaigns when there are people who can't afford their chemotherapy medications, food, housing, etc? The health care system I work for is giving away more than $100 million annually in care to the indigent and who ends up paying? The employees who don't get raises, who get laid off because there are no funds, whose corporate offices run out of trash bags and toilet paper because the funds are so tight. They've removed half the light bulbs from our light fixtures and shut off our escalator to save every penny they can. I'm very thankful to have a job, but the working conditions are getting pretty scary. They can't cut things like that at the hospitals, but they are cutting costs everywhere they can trying to keep their heads above water as more and more people need care but don't have insurance.

But, as I said, the personal freedoms have more to do with legislating morality/values that have nothing to do with "harm to others" or "infringing on others rights", especially when the reasons behind it are religious. I do think McCain is less dangerous with this stuff than some of the other candidates were.

I guess we won't know for sure about Iraq until we're actually gone.

I agree, I'm not in favor of telling gay people they can't be gay. However, I am in favor of telling women they can't get an abortion in most situations, as the massive majority of abortions in America are used for birth control. I think it affects another life, and thus, no, it isn't merely a personal decision.

As for healthcare, I think telling Americans that they have to subscribe to a particular healthcare plan is absolutely an infringement. How is it not? They take your earned income and buy something for you that you could purchase on your own.

Sure it makes me a little sick. A lot of things do. That doesn't mean I'm interested in the government taking it over because they know "whats best" to do with those resources. That, to me, is much more frightening.

[UGAalum94]

Doesn't gay marriage legislate morality; it's just a different kind of morality? The government still remains in the business of sanctioning sexual unions. I think the gov't just ought to get out of the marriage game all together. Civil union benefits could exist for couples with children and everything else could be set up with separate contracts. I don't know for sure this is really necessary, but it seems flawed to view expansion of marriage as somehow a value neutral proposition which respects individual rights.

I agree with Shinerbock that I think abortion is a more complicated issue than just a political right for the woman because at some point in the pregnancy you have a second person there. I don't think most people really believe that this happens at conception (look at what we're into as far as fertility treatments) in regards to protecting that new "life", but I don't think that some of the reforms particularly that addressed procedures in the third trimester really can be classified neatly as wrongly restricting the mother's individual freedoms. Sure, banning them may restrict what she wants to do, but we'd recognize and accept that after birth she faces similar restrictions. I don't think the average American really believes that legally protected life begins at birth anymore than I really believe this average American believes legally protected life starts at conception.

I think that because we may rightly need to view the being in the womb as a legal person sometime before birth, there's no clean case to be made about deferring to the legal rights of the mother simply as a matter of principle or again as a clear matter of respecting individual rights.

And I think anyone who is presently insured will lose personal freedom with many of the potential solutions to the health care issue. Sure it will address the issue of who shoulders the cost of the uninsured, but it's going to come at a price to someone else. If you contrast systems of health care internationally, the cost of universal coverage is often choice and control over treatment.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't think the average American really believes that legally protected life begins at birth anymore than I really believe this average American believes legally protected life starts at conception.

It would be nice if we could decide what we want to do though. Other nations have set a limit. Personally, I believe that life begins at the moment of conception. However, I do not believe that life at an early stage is self-sustaining (obviously). I think abortion is murder at any stage, but I will always vote to allow abortion up to the end of the 19th week. From week 20 to delivery, I think that labor should be induced and the child given the opportunity to live. If it dies, at least it wasn't because its skull was crushed and body torn apart. Why not give the child the hint of a chance?

I've personally had to make the abortion choice twice in my life and elected against it both times. I would rather die myself than murder my child.

[RU OX Alum]

I think that life starts with breath. If you can't breathe for yourself, you can't live for yourself.

I say this as someone with asthma/severe allergies. It's the Breath of Life, not the "ultrasound which I think I can see the hands" of life.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

I think that life starts with breath. If you can't breathe for yourself, you can't live for yourself.

I say this as someone with asthma/severe allergies. It's the Breath of Life, not the "ultrasound which I think I can see the hands" of life.

When might that take place? The lungs are the last body part to be prepared for birth.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

When might that take place? The lungs are the last body part to be prepared for birth.

I'm not exactly sure, but whenever it happens, then the person/thing/whatever you call it (baby) has life.

I feel this way about death. My lungs have closed up before to the point where I thought I was checking out. Luckily I had my inhaler. I would not want to be put on any form of breathing machine at the hospital, especially if I couldn't speak/communicate on my own. It's scary to not be able to breath, because we need breath. You can for about 12 days or so with no food, about 2 or 3 with no water and only at most 2 minutes without oxygen/air (breath). So to me, it just makes sense to start life with breath.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

When might that take place? The lungs are the last body part to be prepared for birth.

If one accepts the breath=life correlation, wouldn't it begin when the child starts to breath on its own, or is capable of doing so?

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

From week 20 to delivery, I think that labor should be induced and the child given the opportunity to live.

Not to sound crass and heartless, but who pays for that incredibly expensive health care for the remaining 20+ weeks of the normal gestational period that the baby will spend in an incubator then probably months of continued aftercare in the NIICU? And the most likely long-term debilitations the baby/child might have for the rest of his or her life? What if the mother-to-be is 19, unsupported by family or a husband and works at an hourly job that doesn't provide comprehensive health care?

ETA: SEC, I'd love your answer on this, too

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Not to sound crass and heartless, but who pays for that incredibly expensive health care for the remaining 20+ weeks of the normal gestational period that the baby will spend in an incubator then probably months of continued aftercare in the NIICU? And the most likely long-term debilitations the baby/child might have for the rest of his or her life? What if the mother-to-be is 19, unsupported by family or a husband and works at an hourly job that doesn't provide comprehensive health care?

Why would the 19 year old mother-to-be wait until 20+ weeks to abort? Either abort before 20 weeks or take it to term.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Why would the 19 year old mother-to-be wait until 20+ weeks to abort? Either abort before 20 weeks or take it to term.

That's a whole 'nother level to the debate, I am just going off the reasoning you put out there. Regardless of the age or situation of the mother, you're saying that if gestation hits 20 weeks, a mother should be induced and the baby "given the chance to live". And I'm just asking how that will be a guaranteed option for every woman when (a) the immediate costs are astronomical and (b) there will likely be a lot of children with long-term disabilities that will need care and support their entire lives.

I always find this contradiction in the abortion argument. I personally get conflicted on the issue -- anyone who has ever TRIED to conceive and understands how wickedly, crazily complicated it actually is has to come out the other side with a much different view on the process -- but ultimately, cannot imagine forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she is not ready for, mentally, financially, whatever way. But when people argue against abortion and typically morality or religion or whatever come in, there's this expectation that every pregnancy should go to term, but in the next breath, they're arguing against social programs, sex education to prevent pregnancies in the first place, sufficient health care across the board, etc., etc., etc.

So I'm not going to argue "when" abortion is or is not ok, that is just TOO deep and involving a topic that I just can't deal with right now. But I am just curious that when you put out a statement like you did, that across the board, a pregnancy that hits 20 weeks should be delivered rather than aborted (for whatever range of reasons there may be), I am curious as to how you then propose those mothers and children are cared for and their health care paid for. Because until you can answer that, you can't impose it.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

I always forget to follow the threads I've already posted in.
If the liberals continue to overrun our country, we'll be paying takes like Sweden at about 70% so we can all share in the payments for the sexually irresponsible individual. In short, the government will have to pay.
If we had it my way, all abortions would be outlawed unless the pregnancy posed imminent danger to the mother, eliminating some of those expenses.


Back to the main topic: I'll be content with a dirty election as long as it keeps Obama out of the white house.

And if "dirty election"/"dirty politics" for what ever the reason or cause keeps John out (Obama wins) , just how would you feel?
As I posted before, when one says something about one side, it also holds true for the other.

[DaemonSeid]

pay attention to the caption...not the clip.....


I am cracking up over here!

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...baby_mama.html