You guys are all, each and every one of you, missing a huge point here. And that point is that the issue as to when life begins (Delivery? Viability? Conception? Ejaculation?) is 100% entirely a matter of opinion.

Midnight Rider said:

---

You guys are all, each and every one of you, missing a huge point here. And that point is that the issue as to when life begins (Delivery? Viability? Conception? Ejaculation?) is 100% entirely a matter of opinion.

---

People have differing opinions on that matter, but as a society and reasonable people, we should all be able to agree that it is a human some time after conception and before birth. Some on the pro-choice side don't even want to acknowledge that is it a human life in the moments before birth and in the most extreme cases, some on the pro-choice side think that an abortion is acceptable for a certain period of time after birth (this is a very small group on this extreme, but still there are some that hold this opinion).

Question for pro choice Christians.

Scenario:
You're in a room with a woman who is thinking about getting an abortion.
You tell the woman it's her choice if she wants an abortion or not because that's your stance.

What does Jesus think of you encouraging choice?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Question for pro choice Christians.

Scenario:
You're in a room with a woman who is thinking about getting an abortion.
You tell the woman it's her choice if she wants an abortion or not because that's your stance.

What does Jesus think of you encouraging choice?

---

Very true. Here is another example of the flash of light.

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Socialists are murderers and presently democrat party has become infested with socialists unfortunately

---

It's just lamentable that a universal truth such as let's not kill babies has gone away.

If liberals actually knew their history, they'd see many of their heroes (they would I guess now disavow) were champions of the sanctity of human life and it informed their liberalism.

You will not change any minds by confusing a fetus with a baby.

But you will cement your standing with the Red Team, and Florda will wave pompons for you.

---

---

Just because you're ignorant of Latin doesn't mean you have said anything intelligent.

fetus
/fds/
noun

[ol]

an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby.

[/ol]
Origin of fetus

13501400; Middle English < Latin ftus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, youngstill in the womb, equivalent to f- (v. base attested in L only in noun derivatives, as fmina woman, fcundusfecund, etc.; compare Greek thsthai to suck, milk, Old High German tan to suck, Old Irish denid (he) sucks)+ -tus suffix of v. action



Damn that dictionary definition, what a pesky thing.

No wonder liberalism has devolved into madness, compassion and humanity are semantics to you people.

Here you were given a concise and civil history of a legacy you betray and your response is to put an exclamation point on stupid.

---

If the dictionary makes you feel better, fine. I come from a legal background where those two words mean different things. But you already saw that in your dictionary where they put unborn before baby.

---

Please. That is a thin argument and I think you know it. Legal and dictionary definitions differ in numerous places but lets not pretend that jurists do not often consult other sources. Moreover the latest version of Blacks Law dictionary defines Fetus as "In medical jurisprudence. An unborn child. An infant in ventre sa mdre." Notice the limit to medical jurisprudence, e.g., malpractice, etc. Moreover, you and I both know that parties can, and often do, define their own terms in legal documents.

It seems disingenuous to claim that there is middle ground if only you would just occupy it when something as basic as language is still up for debate.

---

You can't have a debate until you agree on terms. A fetus is not a baby. As the dictionary notes.

---

Definitions are subjective and evolve and change, as I pointed out and this thread demonstrates. I even provided the most "legal" one available and widely agreed to. If the hold up on your part is over the "fetus" vs. "baby" distinction, then I doubt the strength of your subsequent arguments because it is largely a distinction without a difference, legal or otherwise, and there are numerous cases where baby, child, fetus, unborn are used interchangeably and with the same meaning. The fact remains, there is no set definition, even in legal circles, and to stand on a definition is a loser, even my somewhat recently barred ass knows that.

---

How postmodern of you.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Question for pro choice Christians.

Scenario:
You're in a room with a woman who is thinking about getting an abortion.
You tell the woman it's her choice if she wants an abortion or not because that's your stance.

What does Jesus think of you encouraging choice?

---

Why is a woman thinking about having an abortion having that conversation with me?

Had Stormy Daniels gotten pregnant by Trump would he have encouraged her to have the baby or have the abortion?

riflebear said:

---

---

Choice works.

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Socialists are murderers and presently democrat party has become infested with socialists unfortunately

---

It's just lamentable that a universal truth such as let's not kill babies has gone away.

If liberals actually knew their history, they'd see many of their heroes (they would I guess now disavow) were champions of the sanctity of human life and it informed their liberalism.

You will not change any minds by confusing a fetus with a baby.

But you will cement your standing with the Red Team, and Florda will wave pompons for you.

---

---

Just because you're ignorant of Latin doesn't mean you have said anything intelligent.

fetus
/fds/
noun

[ol]

an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby.

[/ol]
Origin of fetus

13501400; Middle English < Latin ftus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, youngstill in the womb, equivalent to f- (v. base attested in L only in noun derivatives, as fmina woman, fcundusfecund, etc.; compare Greek thsthai to suck, milk, Old High German tan to suck, Old Irish denid (he) sucks)+ -tus suffix of v. action



Damn that dictionary definition, what a pesky thing.

No wonder liberalism has devolved into madness, compassion and humanity are semantics to you people.

Here you were given a concise and civil history of a legacy you betray and your response is to put an exclamation point on stupid.

---

If the dictionary makes you feel better, fine. I come from a legal background where those two words mean different things. But you already saw that in your dictionary where they put unborn before baby.

---

Please. That is a thin argument and I think you know it. Legal and dictionary definitions differ in numerous places but lets not pretend that jurists do not often consult other sources. Moreover the latest version of Blacks Law dictionary defines Fetus as "In medical jurisprudence. An unborn child. An infant in ventre sa mdre." Notice the limit to medical jurisprudence, e.g., malpractice, etc. Moreover, you and I both know that parties can, and often do, define their own terms in legal documents.

It seems disingenuous to claim that there is middle ground if only you would just occupy it when something as basic as language is still up for debate.

---

You can't have a debate until you agree on terms. A fetus is not a baby. As the dictionary notes.

---

Definitions are subjective and evolve and change, as I pointed out and this thread demonstrates. I even provided the most "legal" one available and widely agreed to. If the hold up on your part is over the "fetus" vs. "baby" distinction, then I doubt the strength of your subsequent arguments because it is largely a distinction without a difference, legal or otherwise, and there are numerous cases where baby, child, fetus, unborn are used interchangeably and with the same meaning. The fact remains, there is no set definition, even in legal circles, and to stand on a definition is a loser, even my somewhat recently barred ass knows that.

---

How postmodern of you.

---

Odd response. I assume you lack a substantive one. If you really are a lawyer, then you should be able to concede that my point is valid. "Postmodern" (whatever that means) or not.

What if we called it an "unborn human child"? Is that a definition you can work with? If not, please kindly outline your issues with it, or provide an alternative for consideration.

---

That was a substantive answer. And if you think definitions don't matter why are definitions right up front in the Family Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, etc.? I was involved in a lawsuit that turned completely on the definition of "destination".
And I got my gold card in 1984, junior.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

tommie said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

tommie said:

---

Had Stormy Daniels gotten pregnant by Trump would he have encouraged her to have the baby or have the abortion?

---

What a ridiculous question. First of all, we have no way of knowing the answer to that. And secondly, even if he had encouraged her to have an abortion, we elected Trump to help make America strong, prosperous, and safe, not to be our moral compass.

---

We can absolutely answer that. It's an absolute answer. Yes. That motherfucjer would have been sucked out of her faster then you can say "Hoover" (shock value intentional)


But it also shows what I've always known. What you believe isn't what you believe. And the fact that you pick and choose when and where to apply your "values" is disturbing.

Your concern isn't with me. You need to address and justify your impositions within yourself.

---

Hahahahaha. Sorry bud, but after fervently worshiping the Clinton's for the past 30 years, you Democrats don't get to play the morality card.

---

You are 100% sure that we are immoral people. What's your excuse?

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Socialists are murderers and presently democrat party has become infested with socialists unfortunately

---

It's just lamentable that a universal truth such as let's not kill babies has gone away.

If liberals actually knew their history, they'd see many of their heroes (they would I guess now disavow) were champions of the sanctity of human life and it informed their liberalism.

You will not change any minds by confusing a fetus with a baby.

But you will cement your standing with the Red Team, and Florda will wave pompons for you.

---

---

Just because you're ignorant of Latin doesn't mean you have said anything intelligent.

fetus
/fds/
noun

[ol]

an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby.

[/ol]
Origin of fetus

13501400; Middle English < Latin ftus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, youngstill in the womb, equivalent to f- (v. base attested in L only in noun derivatives, as fmina woman, fcundusfecund, etc.; compare Greek thsthai to suck, milk, Old High German tan to suck, Old Irish denid (he) sucks)+ -tus suffix of v. action



Damn that dictionary definition, what a pesky thing.

No wonder liberalism has devolved into madness, compassion and humanity are semantics to you people.

Here you were given a concise and civil history of a legacy you betray and your response is to put an exclamation point on stupid.

---

If the dictionary makes you feel better, fine. I come from a legal background where those two words mean different things. But you already saw that in your dictionary where they put unborn before baby.

There could be common ground in the abortion debate but people like you refuse to occupy it. That's fine. Other folks are finding it and that's why abortion rates have come down.

---

In your legal background, does "fetus" mean something other than unborn human offspring?

tommie said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

tommie said:

---

Had Stormy Daniels gotten pregnant by Trump would he have encouraged her to have the baby or have the abortion?

---

What a ridiculous question. First of all, we have no way of knowing the answer to that. And secondly, even if he had encouraged her to have an abortion, we elected Trump to help make America strong, prosperous, and safe, not to be our moral compass.

---

We can absolutely answer that. It's an absolute answer. Yes. That motherfucjer would have been sucked out of her faster then you can say "Hoover" (shock value intentional)


But it also shows what I've always known. What you believe isn't what you believe. And the fact that you pick and choose when and where to apply your "values" is disturbing.

Your concern isn't with me. You need to address and justify your impositions within yourself.


Hoover. Hoover. Two more Trump babies gone.

---

We have no idea. Has there been a story where he forced a woman to have an abortion? There has been a story about everything else, so if there isn't a story on that, it would be hard to say for 100% certainty how he would have treated it. Obviously, he is an immoral man and he very likely could have made the immoral decision to abort the baby, but I'm not really sure how that supports your opinion. You think it's ok to act immoral like presumably Trump would act in that situation? Seems like an odd argument.

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Socialists are murderers and presently democrat party has become infested with socialists unfortunately

---

It's just lamentable that a universal truth such as let's not kill babies has gone away.

If liberals actually knew their history, they'd see many of their heroes (they would I guess now disavow) were champions of the sanctity of human life and it informed their liberalism.

You will not change any minds by confusing a fetus with a baby.

But you will cement your standing with the Red Team, and Florda will wave pompons for you.

---

---

Just because you're ignorant of Latin doesn't mean you have said anything intelligent.

fetus
/fds/
noun

[ol]

an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby.

[/ol]
Origin of fetus

13501400; Middle English < Latin ftus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, youngstill in the womb, equivalent to f- (v. base attested in L only in noun derivatives, as fmina woman, fcundusfecund, etc.; compare Greek thsthai to suck, milk, Old High German tan to suck, Old Irish denid (he) sucks)+ -tus suffix of v. action



Damn that dictionary definition, what a pesky thing.

No wonder liberalism has devolved into madness, compassion and humanity are semantics to you people.

Here you were given a concise and civil history of a legacy you betray and your response is to put an exclamation point on stupid.

---

If the dictionary makes you feel better, fine. I come from a legal background where those two words mean different things. But you already saw that in your dictionary where they put unborn before baby.

---

Please. That is a thin argument and I think you know it. Legal and dictionary definitions differ in numerous places but lets not pretend that jurists do not often consult other sources. Moreover the latest version of Blacks Law dictionary defines Fetus as "In medical jurisprudence. An unborn child. An infant in ventre sa mdre." Notice the limit to medical jurisprudence, e.g., malpractice, etc. Moreover, you and I both know that parties can, and often do, define their own terms in legal documents.

It seems disingenuous to claim that there is middle ground if only you would just occupy it when something as basic as language is still up for debate.

---

You can't have a debate until you agree on terms. A fetus is not a baby. As the dictionary notes.

---

Definitions are subjective and evolve and change, as I pointed out and this thread demonstrates. I even provided the most "legal" one available and widely agreed to. If the hold up on your part is over the "fetus" vs. "baby" distinction, then I doubt the strength of your subsequent arguments because it is largely a distinction without a difference, legal or otherwise, and there are numerous cases where baby, child, fetus, unborn are used interchangeably and with the same meaning. The fact remains, there is no set definition, even in legal circles, and to stand on a definition is a loser, even my somewhat recently barred ass knows that.

---

How postmodern of you.

---

Odd response. I assume you lack a substantive one. If you really are a lawyer, then you should be able to concede that my point is valid. "Postmodern" (whatever that means) or not.

What if we called it an "unborn human child"? Is that a definition you can work with? If not, please kindly outline your issues with it, or provide an alternative for consideration.

---

That was a substantive answer. And if you think definitions don't matter why are definitions right up front in the Family Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, etc.? I was involved in a lawsuit that turned completely on the definition of "destination".
And I got my gold card in 1984, junior.

---

Care to point to where I said definitions do not matter? Please counselor, show me that in the record. I believe I said that definitions are not set, and in this case, several words are used interchangeably, this calling into question your refusal to engage on the basis of a lack of a settled definition.

I even offered a definition I would stipulate to, and yet here we still are, arguing over the nature of definitions. If you do not have a problem with the definition I proposed, then feel free to present your defense of abortion. If you have a problem with the definition I proposed, counter with something else. If you would rather do neither, I will take that as a sign you have no interest in a good faith discussion and I will go ahead and move on. I got my gold card more recently than 1984, but I know enough to not waist my time.

The "junior" jab was nice. Pointless and non-substantive, but good on you for working that in.

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

303Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

quash said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Socialists are murderers and presently democrat party has become infested with socialists unfortunately

---

It's just lamentable that a universal truth such as let's not kill babies has gone away.

If liberals actually knew their history, they'd see many of their heroes (they would I guess now disavow) were champions of the sanctity of human life and it informed their liberalism.

You will not change any minds by confusing a fetus with a baby.

But you will cement your standing with the Red Team, and Florda will wave pompons for you.

---

---

Just because you're ignorant of Latin doesn't mean you have said anything intelligent.

fetus
/fds/
noun

[ol]

an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby.

[/ol]
Origin of fetus

13501400; Middle English < Latin ftus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, youngstill in the womb, equivalent to f- (v. base attested in L only in noun derivatives, as fmina woman, fcundusfecund, etc.; compare Greek thsthai to suck, milk, Old High German tan to suck, Old Irish denid (he) sucks)+ -tus suffix of v. action



Damn that dictionary definition, what a pesky thing.

No wonder liberalism has devolved into madness, compassion and humanity are semantics to you people.

Here you were given a concise and civil history of a legacy you betray and your response is to put an exclamation point on stupid.

---

If the dictionary makes you feel better, fine. I come from a legal background where those two words mean different things. But you already saw that in your dictionary where they put unborn before baby.

---

Please. That is a thin argument and I think you know it. Legal and dictionary definitions differ in numerous places but lets not pretend that jurists do not often consult other sources. Moreover the latest version of Blacks Law dictionary defines Fetus as "In medical jurisprudence. An unborn child. An infant in ventre sa mdre." Notice the limit to medical jurisprudence, e.g., malpractice, etc. Moreover, you and I both know that parties can, and often do, define their own terms in legal documents.

It seems disingenuous to claim that there is middle ground if only you would just occupy it when something as basic as language is still up for debate.

---

You can't have a debate until you agree on terms. A fetus is not a baby. As the dictionary notes.

---

Definitions are subjective and evolve and change, as I pointed out and this thread demonstrates. I even provided the most "legal" one available and widely agreed to. If the hold up on your part is over the "fetus" vs. "baby" distinction, then I doubt the strength of your subsequent arguments because it is largely a distinction without a difference, legal or otherwise, and there are numerous cases where baby, child, fetus, unborn are used interchangeably and with the same meaning. The fact remains, there is no set definition, even in legal circles, and to stand on a definition is a loser, even my somewhat recently barred ass knows that.

---

How postmodern of you.

---

Odd response. I assume you lack a substantive one. If you really are a lawyer, then you should be able to concede that my point is valid. "Postmodern" (whatever that means) or not.

What if we called it an "unborn human child"? Is that a definition you can work with? If not, please kindly outline your issues with it, or provide an alternative for consideration.

---

That was a substantive answer. And if you think definitions don't matter why are definitions right up front in the Family Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, etc.? I was involved in a lawsuit that turned completely on the definition of "destination".
And I got my gold card in 1984, junior.

---

Edit: Double Post.

tommie said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

tommie said:

---

Had Stormy Daniels gotten pregnant by Trump would he have encouraged her to have the baby or have the abortion?

---

What a ridiculous question. First of all, we have no way of knowing the answer to that. And secondly, even if he had encouraged her to have an abortion, we elected Trump to help make America strong, prosperous, and safe, not to be our moral compass.

---

We can absolutely answer that. It's an absolute answer. Yes. That motherfucjer would have been sucked out of her faster then you can say "Hoover" (shock value intentional)


But it also shows what I've always known. What you believe isn't what you believe. And the fact that you pick and choose when and where to apply your "values" is disturbing.

Your concern isn't with me. You need to address and justify your impositions within yourself.


Hoover. Hoover. Two more Trump babies gone.

---

It's so bad for the evangelicals that they hitched themselves onto Trump.
I feel sorry for them.
The Democrats just remind people they are going to stay out of their way.
When evangelical dudes are sitting around at Christmas talking about blowing up clinics, it doesn't take much to figure they have been brain washed into think it is the most important political issue.

Gunny Hartman said:

---

tommie said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

tommie said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

tommie said:

---

Had Stormy Daniels gotten pregnant by Trump would he have encouraged her to have the baby or have the abortion?

---

What a ridiculous question. First of all, we have no way of knowing the answer to that. And secondly, even if he had encouraged her to have an abortion, we elected Trump to help make America strong, prosperous, and safe, not to be our moral compass.

---

We can absolutely answer that. It's an absolute answer. Yes. That motherfucjer would have been sucked out of her faster then you can say "Hoover" (shock value intentional)


But it also shows what I've always known. What you believe isn't what you believe. And the fact that you pick and choose when and where to apply your "values" is disturbing.

Your concern isn't with me. You need to address and justify your impositions within yourself.

---

Hahahahaha. Sorry bud, but after fervently worshiping the Clinton's for the past 30 years, you Democrats don't get to play the morality card.

---

You are 100% sure that we are immoral people. What's your excuse?

---

Not at all. I don't think most Democrats are immoral people, just unsound thinkers.

---

tommie said:

---

Had Stormy Daniels gotten pregnant by Trump would he have encouraged her to have the baby or have the abortion?

---

Really? We are playing what ifs in the post Clinton era?

xiledinok said:

---

tommie said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

tommie said:

---

Had Stormy Daniels gotten pregnant by Trump would he have encouraged her to have the baby or have the abortion?

---

What a ridiculous question. First of all, we have no way of knowing the answer to that. And secondly, even if he had encouraged her to have an abortion, we elected Trump to help make America strong, prosperous, and safe, not to be our moral compass.

---

We can absolutely answer that. It's an absolute answer. Yes. That motherfucjer would have been sucked out of her faster then you can say "Hoover" (shock value intentional)


But it also shows what I've always known. What you believe isn't what you believe. And the fact that you pick and choose when and where to apply your "values" is disturbing.

Your concern isn't with me. You need to address and justify your impositions within yourself.


Hoover. Hoover. Two more Trump babies gone.

---

It's so bad for the evangelicals that they hitched themselves onto Trump.
I feel sorry for them.
The Democrats just remind people they are going to stay out of their way.
When evangelical dudes are sitting around at Christmas talking about blowing up clinics, it doesn't take much to figure they have been brain washed into think it is the most important political issue.

---

Funny how people that mock evangelicals in every possible situation seem to care that they eventually took a page from the Democrats and voted for the person closest to their beliefs instead of waiting for a person exactly like their beliefs.

I wonder where they figured that out from?

GrowlTowel said:

---

tommie said:

---

Had Stormy Daniels gotten pregnant by Trump would he have encouraged her to have the baby or have the abortion?

---

Really? We are playing what ifs in the post Clinton era?

---

Let's go with Clinton was scum and would have encouraged an abortion (I'm sure that's the case), isn't that what you were against in a president?

Except you weren't.

Picking and choosing when to be pro life really means you're pro choice.

Eball said:

---

What is crazy to me is in Texas you can sue for the wrongful death of your unborn child because of negligence think car wreck...yet the statute specifically excludes suits for the intentional death of that child by an abortion.

So we recognize an unborn child is a person on the one hand but have to build in an exception for legal Abortions.

How much longer till we have nationalized health care and the decisions for health care is taken out of our hands and put in the hands of bean counters who are counting costs. Is it so hard to see that decisions regarding withholding of needed treatment will be made with out consideration of all life being precious?

---

That has been going on for years. Have you never had a physician prescribed procedure denied for being out of coverage?

GrowlTowel said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

tommie said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

tommie said:

---

Had Stormy Daniels gotten pregnant by Trump would he have encouraged her to have the baby or have the abortion?

---

What a ridiculous question. First of all, we have no way of knowing the answer to that. And secondly, even if he had encouraged her to have an abortion, we elected Trump to help make America strong, prosperous, and safe, not to be our moral compass.

---

We can absolutely answer that. It's an absolute answer. Yes. That motherfucjer would have been sucked out of her faster then you can say "Hoover" (shock value intentional)


But it also shows what I've always known. What you believe isn't what you believe. And the fact that you pick and choose when and where to apply your "values" is disturbing.

Your concern isn't with me. You need to address and justify your impositions within yourself.


Hoover. Hoover. Two more Trump babies gone.

---

It's so bad for the evangelicals that they hitched themselves onto Trump.
I feel sorry for them.
The Democrats just remind people they are going to stay out of their way.
When evangelical dudes are sitting around at Christmas talking about blowing up clinics, it doesn't take much to figure they have been brain washed into think it is the most important political issue.

---

Funny how people that mock evangelicals in every possible situation seem to care that they eventually took a page from the Democrats and voted for the person closest to their beliefs instead of waiting for a person exactly like their beliefs.

I wonder where they figured that out from?

---

I m not mocking them when I make fun of them for sitting around and having an actual conversation about blowing up a clinic at Christmas. A Christian like myself doesn't need the evangelical types who cry like an oppressed victim when things do not go their way in society.

They didn't have the balls to blow the clinic up. The brainwashing could not overcome putting it all on the line with nothing to gain deep down in their fearful souls.

quash said:

---

Eball said:

---

What is crazy to me is in Texas you can sue for the wrongful death of your unborn child because of negligence think car wreck...yet the statute specifically excludes suits for the intentional death of that child by an abortion.

So we recognize an unborn child is a person on the one hand but have to build in an exception for legal Abortions.

How much longer till we have nationalized health care and the decisions for health care is taken out of our hands and put in the hands of bean counters who are counting costs. Is it so hard to see that decisions regarding withholding of needed treatment will be made with out consideration of all life being precious?

---

That has been going on for years. Have you never had a physician prescribed procedure denied for being out of coverage?

---

I agree that our health care system coupled with the ever evolving reimbursement system is a Snow Ball rolling down hill that we will not stop...however we can and should take steps to keep it a snow ball instead of allowing it to turn into an avalanche. Once government takes over the whole shooting match and we have universal care then we will have not just the occasional cost factor limiting options we will have no option. There will be no options for types of coverage, there will be no ability to find physicians and facilities that would perform certain procedures if you wanted to pay beyond what Government allowed becasue they will all be tied to the system. I am pulling a ridiculous example but say you are a 71 year old man who no longer works draws SS and is on Medicare. You need a heart cath to prevent future likelihood of heart attack but they refuse and only allow medicines for treatment...so your quality of life and your life expectancy go down. Cost wise to keep the system working they need people to die at a younger age not live so long. Think mandatory DNR orders...Emergency care and treatment only for folks in good health within certain age range. Very limited surgerical options for people over a certain age. Why do hip surgeries/or other ortho type surgeries on old folks just give them drugs and and put them in wheel chairs....

At least in a limited private pay system you have some options and facilities and Drs' who will gladly do the procedures you need if you can afford it....I get that that it sometimes is not fair rich get treatment poor don't but by making it "available to all" you really are only making it fair in the sense it will no longer be available to any.