• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

LuciferSam

Banned
Apr 26, 2008
4,749
1,069
Sowal


One could argue about whether wanting an atomic bomb in those days was irrational or totally evil. I definitely think there was ideology mixed in with the science. If one wants to blame the science, they should blame the math along with it. Was religion involved? Not sure. I'd have to look at the religious persuasion of the scientists who were essentially taking on the Nazis.
 

Mango

SoWal Insider
Apr 7, 2006
9,699
1,368
New York/ Santa Rosa Beach
In order to get this passed, and avoid widening the pro-life, pro-choice divide we currently have, is this really such a major issue? Plus, aren't abortions relatively cheap? If a couple feel they want to have an abortion, I would think forcing them to pay out of pocket for it would be a very good thing. Plus shouldn't federal law currently in place be upheld? I sense that the pro-choice crowd is up in arms over a very minor issue.

It is not a minor issue when a legal procedure that currently is available in the insurance open markets will be revoked and people not participating in the Federal Exchange are affected. It's government intervention in the free market and it's against the grain of Conservative principles. So, while we are at it, why not revoke Viagra? Do the Bishops believe that Viagra was put on this earth by God to make more babies? or how about putting in the Stupak amendment that insurance can not offer vasectomies?
 

30ashopper

SoWal Insider
Apr 30, 2008
6,845
3,471
59
Right here!
It is not a minor issue when a legal procedure that currently is available in the insurance open markets will be revoked and people not participating in the Federal Exchange are affected. It's government intervention in the free market and it's against the grain of Conservative principles. So, while we are at it, why not revoke Viagra? Do the Bishops believe that Viagra was put on this earth by God to make more babies? or how about putting in the Stupak amendment that insurance can not offer vasectomies?

Sure, and sure, I could care less! If people need either of these they should pay out of pocket for them.

Irony alert: If we weren't considering socializing the medical insurance industry, we wouldn't be having this discussion, so please step off that free market soap box. ;-)
 
Last edited:

BeachSiO2

Beach Fanatic
Jun 16, 2006
3,294
737
Sure, and sure, I could care less! If people need either of these they should pay out of pocket for them.

Irony alert: If we weren't considering socializing the medical insurance industry, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is exactly what I have been wondering. What would happen in a single payer system completely controlled by the government?

In the words of the Clash... "Would it stay or would it go now.. If it goes there might be trouble, if it stays it might be double..."
 

Mango

SoWal Insider
Apr 7, 2006
9,699
1,368
New York/ Santa Rosa Beach
Sure, and sure, I could care less! If people need either of these they should pay out of pocket for them.

Irony alert: If we weren't considering socializing the medical insurance industry, we wouldn't be having this discussion, so please step off that free market soap box. ;-)

I agree. There are plenty of men that I would personally pay for to go have a vasectomy. ;-)
 

Minnie

Beach Fanatic
Dec 30, 2006
4,328
829
Memphis
Irregardless of whether I agree or disagree with the Catholic church lobbying in this situation, how are they any different than any other organzied group that lobbys for something or against something that the group feels affects their membership. :dunno:

Either you allow all lobbying, including church based or you allow none. To pick and choose goes against the rights of the consitution. One does not have to support a group to understand they deserve the same rights as those you do support.
 
Last edited:
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter