Pet Peeve

[BSB]

Sirs, you wouldn't know what freedom was if it bit you in the ass. It's a shame so many good people died to protect your rights when you don't even know what those rights are.

BSB

[sirs]

Sorry, trying to pull the "I fought for this country, so you can't possibly know what freedom is" card, only works on the ignorant.  Here's a hint, its founded in what we call the constitution and rule of law.  You should check it out some time

[BT]

This isn't Saudi Arabia. We are a secular nation, governed by laws, we are not governed by beliefs such as abortion is equal to murder. Abortions are legal under the law. If you like Big Government, that meddles in your personal affairs, become a communist, or move to some Islamic country ruled by Sharia Law where women are shackled to a stove, can't drive a car, and have no reproductive freedom choice.

Again, you RINOs/pretend-conservatives don't get it. We open the door in this country, we let the fresh air in, we allow people to make tough personal decisions on their own. We don't make them for them. If the execution of their decision is legal, they're allowed to proceed undeterred. It shouldn't be any other way.


BSB

The only choice i am denying would be aborters is the option of having the government pay for it.

If they want an abortion, they can pay for it on their own.
If their insurance company pays for it, so be it.
If the father of the child chooses to pay for it, so be it.
If her friends and relatives want to chip in, so be it.

But i just don't see paying for elective surgery as a viable option for the federal, state or local governments. And my vote will not go to any legislator who thinks otherwise.

Just to be clear.

[BSB]

>>Sorry, trying to pull the "I fought for this country, so you can't possible know what freedom is" card.<<

Big mistake.

I didn't say a word about me. People who have never been in the service talk about those who died for our freedoms all the time. Serving isn't a pre-qualification. I didn't even imply that it was. Further, I understood freedom long before I went in the service. My parents lived it, and I watched them. 

That's why I ignore you, Sirs. You're a snivelling little liar, and a phoney, who post only to agitate.


BSB

[sirs]

No, YOUR mistake is to erroneoous claim someone doesn't have a clue what freedoms are, because they didn't fight for this country.  Here's a news flash, my Grandfather GAVE HIS LIFE for this country.  His sacrafice was the greatest one could give for our freedoms to exist and continue to do so.  So don't even try pulling the crap that just because someone dares to not agree with you, that they can't possibly know about the freedoms that our serveicement have fought for, and have DIED for, so that you and I can continue to argue about anything and everything that se see as wrong with this country

If there's any "BIG mistake, that'd be it

(here's a other hint that demonstrates how wrong you are...name 1 lie, much less some endless parade, you claim I perpetuate??  Where is this supposed "phonieness"??  Without any examples.....well, we'll leave the liar label for others to apply)

And ironically, the only one here caught posting to simply to agitate, is the one I'm responding to.

[BSB]

"No, YOUR mistake is to erroneous claim someone doesn't have a clue what freedoms are, because they didn't fight for this country."

There's a phoney lie right there. I never said anything about you serving or not serving. I never said anything about serving making you more aware of our freedoms. In fact the truth is you could have served for 20 years, Sirs, and still not understand freedom. It isn't in your DNA. You don't get it, period.

So, as you just proved again, you're a phony, a liar, and you post only to agitate.

[BSB]

The problem is BT, from my vantage point, is that if abortion, as a reproductive control, is legal, how can we say that if you can't afford it, you can't use it?

Now, I supose you can say that that is a reality of life. I can't afford to buy 10,000 acres in Montana to roam around on, have a heard of Buffalo on, build a cabin on. Hey, that's my tough luck. 


BSB

[BT]

BSB

I guess it boils down to whether a legal activity, by virtue of it's legality, requires that the government ( by way of tax dollars) pay for that activity, if one can not afford it.

I don't believe that is the case.

[Amianthus]

The problem is BT, from my vantage point, is that if abortion, as a reproductive control, is legal, how can we say that if you can't afford it, you can't use it?

Beer is legal. If I can't afford it, is the government required to keep me supplied?

[Plane]

Why is killing anyone equivelent to murder?

[sirs]

"No, YOUR mistake is to erroneous claim someone doesn't have a clue what freedoms are, because they didn't fight for this country."

There's a phoney lie right there. I never said anything about you serving or not serving. I never said anything about serving making you more aware of our freedoms. In fact the truth is you could have served for 20 years, Sirs, and still not understand freedom. It isn't in your DNA. You don't get it, period.

Which demonstrates how it wasn't a lie to begin with, as the implication was applied in how my "inability" to undestand freedom, made those who died for them as supposedly unfortunate.  Merely because I don't agree with your twisted vew of what are and aren't freedoms, doesn't preclude one from understanding what freedom is all about.  As I said, it starts with the Constitution.....OURS.....not Saudi Arabia's, or anyone else's. 

So, just because you DID serve, doesn't make you the expert on freedom vs not. or who does or doesn't understand what freedom is.  Left to you, our freedom to own firearms, guaranteed in the Constitution, would be suppressed, possibly to a point of outright banning from anyone owning a firearm, outside of law enforcement and/or military

Believe me, you won't win this fight on who supposedly does or doesn't grasp the point of freedom.  And hint, it's not a DNA thing

But thanks for contining to demonstrate no examples of these supposed lies or posting just to agitate, which again, the only one being caught doing so, and apparently given a "time out" for it, was the person to which I'm responding to.  Will let others discern where the "lie label" should be applied

[sirs]

The problem is BT, from my vantage point, is that if abortion, as a reproductive control, is legal, how can we say that if you can't afford it, you can't use it?

Beer is legal. If I can't afford it, is the government required to keep me supplied?

touche'

[BSB]

This is how I see it. The better off among the female half of our population were always able to get a reasonably safe, albeit illegal, abortion. There were well meaning, responsible, well trained, Harvard Medical School type, doctors who would perform the procedure, even at venerable institutions like The Mass General, before Roe vs Wade. The poorer among the female half of our population, however, often had to take far greater risks if they wanted the same procedure. Is that something we want to continue?

Now, yes, an abortion is elective, but so aren't most, if not all, medical procedures. Ted Kennedy died of a brain tumor. However, he prolonged his life by having a risky operation. While life saving, momentarily anyway, it was still elective. So, in my mind anyway, the electivity of a procedure doesn't minimize its importance.

As for the use of tax payer money, VA hospitals perform "elective" medical procedures, at tax payer expense, everyday. Many of the procedures having to do with correcting poor life style decisions such as smoking, obesity, alcohol abuse, and so forth.

I'm just not convinced that paying for an abortion, for those who truly can't afford one, puts an unfair, or unethical, burden on the tax payer. The question is more one of how many, and what kinds of, limitations should be applied?


BSB

[BT]

I'm just not convinced that paying for an abortion, for those who truly can't afford one, puts an unfair, or unethical, burden on the tax payer.The question is more one of how many, and what kinds of, limitations should be applied? 

If it is a proper role of government to pay for elective surgery, why put limits on it?

[Plane]

This is how I see it. The better off among the female half of our population were always able to get a reasonably safe, albeit illegal, abortion. There were well meaning, responsible, well trained, Harvard Medical School type, doctors who would perform the procedure, even at venerable institutions like The Mass General, before Roe vs Wade. .........
.......BSB

Perhaps that is the half that needs the work.

If the rich are getting a cancer that the poor are not getting , does fairness demand that there be more cancer engendering amoung the poor?