Campaign 2008--Let's Discuss
Since no one else was willing to start this thread, I guess I will. It's a thread for anyone who wants to debate issues relevant to this year's election, from taxes to abortion. I probably won't be posting much, but I hope that those who want to debate opposite points of view will use this thread to have at it. Maintaining a respectful tone would be nice. I hope this will alleviate any desire to hijack or fire back on threads designated for other purposes.
Here's Obama's stand on abortion:
"Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case."
Biden agrees with Obama. My personal belief is that life begins when the fetus is viable, which happens in the second trimester. As medical science improves, that may change, and my feelings about abortion would likely change with it. What are John McCain's and Sarah Palin's stands on abortion?
Red meat question: Do people who are anti-choice think that the government has the right to tell a woman how many children she will have, and when? Is the idea of "when does life start" a religious question? (My answers, no and yes).
Karl Rove once described Obama as someone you would see at a country club drinking a martini and looking down his nose at others. Does membership in a country club make one an elitist? Or are you only an elitist if you drink martinis there? When the McCains go to their country club, what do they drink? Do they hang out with the help?
Since health care is important to us all, here's a brief summary of Obama's health insurance proposal:
He believes in the concept of universal health care. His proposal would allow anyone with private insurance to keep their private insurance, just the way it is now. If they're happy with their insurance plan, nothing will change. Anyone who wants to join the public plan, whose benefits would be similar to benefits received by the U.S. Congress, can opt to do so. People who have no health insurance can opt into the public plan. No one will be denied coverage based on illness or pre-existing conditions. In addition to the public plan, he's proposing a National Health Insurance Exchange, which allows people who aren't insured through work and don't want to join the public plan, to buy private insurance at reasonable costs.
The plan will be paid for in part by increasing efficiency, reducing administrative costs (all those middle men who create paperwork and add to the cost of private insurance by 25%) and by increasing the pool of payees. All employers will be required to pay something toward their employees' insurance, although very small businesses and start-ups will be exempt from the requirement. Small business owners can receive subsidies. And there's a health tax credit for small business owners as well.
That was just a summary of the major points. Anyone who wants more detailed info can go to Obama's website. One possible down-the-road problem with this plan will be a shortage of general practioners and pediatricians. That's a problem even now and with more people insured, it will become a greater problem. Possible solutions include recruiting more doctors from overseas and forgiving student loan debts to med school graduates who serve this need.
Any thoughts on any of this? Feel free to add your own topics.
Comments
-
Gay rights. Although Obama doesn't support marriage
equality, he does support equal legal rights for gay couples. McCain and Palin support an amendment against equal rights for gays. Palin claims to have gay friends, but I seriously doubt any gay people would consider her a friend. There are currently about 1000 federal laws in terms of taxes and other rights that gay couples are discriminated against, particularly in terms of wills and inheritance. McCain once said he didn';t support an amendment against gay marriage, then later qualified that by saying the reason he didn't support an amendment was because it wasn't needed. Later he talked about if more states because equal like MA, he would support one and he supports one in his own state of AZ. Gays are the last minority that discrimination is legal to attempt to legislate against. -
Let's rock and roll...........I have to get ready for work but I will be back............Shokk
-
Amy let me say this..........I'm sure you know where I stand on gay marriage.........I do believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.......with that said I do believe also that this should be a State Issue..........Marriage laws are set up be states..............they always have been.........in Texas until about 10 years ago alimony didn't exist..............now there is alimony but only if you have been married for at least 10 years...........I do believe that if a State want's to recognize gay marriage then it should be voted on by the citizens of that state...........of course some states have legalized gay marriage and I personally don't have a problem with that but it should be treated just like any other marriage laws and they vary from state to state.........I know that this is an issue that is important to you and about 10 percent of the general population but I don't believe that it is going to have anything to do with this election...............I haven't heard Obama or McCain's stand on gay marriage and in the next 8 weeks I just don't believe that it will have any major impact on whom is elected...........Shokk
-
Sorry Amy I thought we were talking about gay marriage.................you are talking about legal laws such as tax laws...........the only thing I have to say about tax laws is I believe in flat taxes......everyone pays the same and do I think you should get a tax break for being married.....not really........it just complicates it...........every individual pays the same amount regardless of sexual orientation, sex, age, religious beliefs, marital status........I believe the Death Tax should be eliminated and as for wills as far as I now you can leave your money or possesses to anyone or anything you want to...............I think that if you are a gay couple then you should do everything legally possible to protect yourselves including having each other "power of attorney" and everything in writing........most states will recognize someones wishes..........Shokk
-
shokk- marriage stopped being a state only institution when it became outlawed for states to not recognize marriage between blacks and whites. I also don't believe marriage is going to be important in this election, but it's important to me in the same way choice is important to me. I will never have an abortion because I don't have the mechanics to get pregnant, but I support the rights of others to do so. I have no prospects for marriage on the horizon and the way it looks, I'll probably never have a gay marriage. The reason gay marriage vs. civil unions is so important to me is because I want my government to recognize that I am equal and my love is equal and to show that by giving me the same rights as heterosexuals. I think saying marriage is a state right isn't exactly so, because if it's legal in one state for people to marry at 16 and legal in other states to get married at 18, a 16 year old's marriage will still be recognized in the state where 18 is the legal age. States recognize each other's marriages and it shouldn't be different for gay relationships.
This won't be a big issue in the election, but it is to me. I'll bet black and white marriages weren't a big issue in any election, but it was a big issue to those who were told they wouldn't be recognized in some states. Love among consenting adults isn't wrong.
-
Shokk- the tax laws are different for gay couples in terms of whether or not they have to pay taxes on inheritances.
Do you believe in the same percentage of flat tax for everyone of all economic groups? Is there a minimum where people don't pay taxes? What about deductions? I'm curious because I think the tax codes definitely need to be changed. I worry that a 10% flat tax would effect different economic groups at harsher levels. To a family of 6 making $30,000 a year (my neighbors since she separated) that $3000 can make a huge difference in clothing and shoes or being eligible for food stamps and heating assistance. You talked before about the country made up of what I called podunk towns, this country is also made up of a lot of poor and lower middle class people who the percentage of income taxes they pay can make the difference between having enough heat in the winter and not.
-
Yes Amy I think the tax laws should not be on a sliding scale.........if you make 30,000 then you pay 3,000.........if you make 300,000 then you pay 30,000..........if you make 3,000,000. then you pay 300,000.............if you ask me about what is fair for everyone and in the long run would ease the tax burden for everyone..............especially for those at the lower end of the tax scale.......if you knew what you were going to pay in taxes every year then you could prepare for it and there would be no surprises............and in the long run would also eliminate such things as tax breaks for marriage etc.......I don't think you should be penalized if you are not married..........tax breaks for children.........what do you pay more if you have no children?..........I think if everyone paid the same amount in taxes regardless of personal lifestyles and choices really would be more fair.........Shokk
-
What you're saying makes sense on a lot of levels. Would social security benefits be taxed? Has anyone done the math do see the difference between what the government is bringing in now vs. what a flat tax would bring in?
Do you know what single people and couples pay more for without kids--- energy. It costs the same to heat a house with kids as it does without them,. yet for the lower income folks they are given energy assistance based on the number of people in the household. Heating the oven to make lasagna takes the same whether it'll feed children or just adults. I'm not saying there aren't ways to get around the flat taxes, just that people with children don't always realize how people without them are penalized. In the work place, insurance often covers families without extra costs, so the single person is paying more per person. How many times do people with kids get to vary their hours and days off because of their children and the same consideration isn't given to single folks or those taking care of elderly parents. I'm not whining that people with kids have it easier, just saying that there are benefits monetary and other wise to having kids. I recognize that there aren't also perks to not having children in the home as well. I'm sure overall, having kids is more expensive than not having them. I also think that parents in the work force deserve an occasional break to attend to the needs of their children, but that people without kids at home (either childress, noncustodial or grown kids) should have some perks to compensate.
-
Here is McCains proposed tax cuts and then Obama's follows:
John McCain on Tax Reform McCain's tax cut plan is valued at $238 billion over five years; and $500 billion over 10 years. Its centerpiece is an expansion of the lowest income tax bracket, the 15% bracket, to cover higher incomes.
Under the plan, the ceiling for the 15% bracket would rise to $70,000 from $43,050 for married couples filing jointly, and to $35,000 from $25,750 for single taxpayers. The effect is to give a $3,504 tax cut to a couple with taxable income of $70,000 or more. McCain's tax plan would double the child tax credit to $1,000 a year, expand tax incentives for savings and investment, reduce the tax on large estates, and reduce the marriage penalty for some people increasing the standard deduction for couples. McCain would offset a portion of the tax cuts by closing corporate tax loopholes. One analysis shows most tax cuts would go to the middle class, those earning between $39,000 & $130,000.Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families: Hard-working American families need lower taxes. John McCain will permanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) -- a tax that will be paid nearly exclusively by 25 million middle class families. John McCain will repeal this onerous tax, saving middle class families nearly $60 billion in a single year. Under McCain's plan, a middle class family with children set to pay the AMT will save an average of over $2,700 -- a real tax cut for working families.
Here is Obama : Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.
- Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
- Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000: Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return.
- Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.
Looks to me like McCain wins hands down, Obama's is just alot of smoke and mirrors to make those less educated think he is the better candidate. Same as blaming that the republicans are to blame for the current situation. People forget that the democrats control the senate and the house, so is really to blame for the crappy economy. The democrats have tied the hands of the republicans who fight for the people then they lie & blame the republicans when things go south.
-
Yes, I have thoughts on Obama's medical plan. What will the premiums be for the public plan? He needs to tell us at least an approximate amount for us to evaluate his plan. What, for example, do members of Congress pay, or if the government picks up the tab what is it paying per member? Premiums for private insurance are outrageous. I was paying for the two of us more than a $1000 a month in 2003. It would probably be $2,000 a month today. Most working families can't afford $1500 and up per month for health insurance. And If Obama continues to push this myriad of plans, it will be near impossible to get rid of the high administration and marketing costs of the insurance companies that he suggests he can reduce to bring down costs. By the way, he stole his plan from Hillary, who unlike Obama planned to cover everyone. Whatever the case, he is making an attempt.
McCain's plan as currently configured offers no hope of change that works. He wants to give a $5,000 family credit while at the same time putting a stop to the tax benefit given to employers. Many families don't have a total federal tax bill of $5,000 so getting a tax credit won't help. In addition, since many employer plans pay (its part) more than $5,000 per employee per year, those employees would, in effect, find their insurance costs going up with McCain's plan, not down. Now, the above is my understanding of McCain's medical plan but if I'm wrong, McCain supporters please let me know. But if this is it, it makes the situation worse, not better.
Nader proposes a single payer system, which is what most industrial nations currently have. France has the highest rated system in the world and its care (and that includes cancer care) is excellent, yet the costs in France per person are half those in the United States. Also, in the countries I've lived in Europe and plans I'm familiar with in other countries, individuals can also purchase supplemental care if they wish--and it's a lot lower than any coverage you can purchase here.
Whatever anyone thinks or wants, I'm convinced that within five years the United States will have to adopt a single payer system, whether a Republican or Democrat is in office. Our health care system gets worse each year and it's no longer possible for middle class familities to pay these costs. Niether of the major parties can solve it with their patch-work proposals. If I were to vote only on health plans, I would vote Democratic, since at least it is starting down the right road. McCain's plan doesn't even try!
-
If this this is going to be a cut and paste discussion, I'm out of here. I want to know what people are thinking, not what they can cut and paste.
-
Shokk:
The right for gays to marry only matters to only 10% of the general population? Wow, it felt like all our non-gay friends seemed like our marriage mattered when they attended our wedding. I'd even venture so far as to say there are many other "straight" people who don't feel their mariage is somehow threatened by two lesbians in a committed relationship of raising children, sharing the good and the bad, intimacy and love. I just wish, just ONCE, someone would explain to me why there is anything wrong with our lifestyle and why some straight people feel so threatened by it. Okay, you don't like it so don't go marry a woman. For me, I don't go around trying to take your straight marriages away. I seriously just don't get it.
Abortion rights: If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. I hated that Sarah Palin stood there on a stand and said, "We are proud of our daughter's decision," when clearly in Palin's world, there is no choice. She's proud because her "abstinence only" lack of choices didn't work? Or she's proud because her daughter didn't take a coat hanger to herself?
I like a lot about your tax plan though. It actually makes financial sense for me to stay home with the babies because my wife and I are in such a high tax bracket that it ends up costing us more if I work too. That must suck to people who have to work to just put food on the table. A more fair distribution should be enlisted. I also agree that people shouldn't get breaks for being married. I do think everyone should help pay for children (especially taxes for education) though. The children are the future of this regardless whether individuals decide to reproduce or not. I didn't know heating costs were distributed according to household size; and that is kind of a different issue. I probably have a lot of misconceptions regarding welfare, food stamps, and other government aid and should no doubt just stay out of it. My initial impression is that a lot of people take advantage of it while people like Amy's neighbor really could use it. I wish the agencies were more diligent (and accountable) about who receives my tax money.
Anna
-
In discussing tax breaks for families, one should also recognize that countries need new citizens and the cost to support these new citizens through tax credits, or whatever, does pay dividends to everyone, even those without children (and I fall into the latter category). Currently, many European countires (Italy, Spain, for example) have huge problems because their birth rates have declined to the pont that they are not replacing those who die. Many of these countries are now paying mothers to have children, and a lot more than the tax credits we currently give to families here in the U.S. .
-
Anna-- my neighbors could use those things, but she also made a lot of decisions because she knew she could get benefits. She didn't make the decisions to get the benefits, but knowing she could get them helped if you know what I mean without being too specific. In my opinion, people should be able to afford their kids before they have them-- ,makes sense to most people LOL. I also caught Palin's decision/choice and chuckled to myself. I had a friend who gave herself two abortions, though coat hangers weren't her method. She injected nail polish remover into herself with a turkey baster. I agree that children are the future and everyone should pay to some extent, but not to the extent that the parents pay. I would be much more comfortable paying school taxes that went equally to schools in poor districts than just in the weathier district where I live. I don't think kids should be penalized with their education because they happened to be born into families with less money.
-
Thank you JustHappy. I appreciate your cut and paste, as it makes it easier to actually compare plans when they come directly from the candidate's website. But in reading the two plans (and I have read them before) I don't think either candidate has the answer. For years I've been hearing, and resenting, the Republicans "cut taxes" mantra as a way to win elections. I regret to see that the Democrats are now playing the same dumb game.
Our economic problems will not be solved by cutting taxes, period. There's a point at which taxes can no longer be lowered and we hit that point more than eight years ago. Our economic problems have absolutely nothing to do with high taxes; we live in a global economy and it's changed the way we do business and the world does business. We need some thinking out of the box, and neither party is there yet.
-
On healthcare, I don't think either candidates proposals will work. The reason that healthcare in this country is so expensive is because there is no competetion based on price. Competition in healthcare today is based on services. Hospital ABC has a garden and waterfall, hospital CDE has gourmet food.... One has a fancy scanner...... When was the last time you shopped for healthcare like you shop for a car or food? Now I am not saying you should just go for the lowest price and not look at the quality too. There was an article in my hometown newspaper about a medium size business here who were considering setting up a health insurance plan so that their employees could go overseas to get healthcare for non-emergency surgery. Before they did that though, they decided to really check out the hospitals here in Wisconsin. What they found was that there was a hospital about a 3-hour drive away that was rated one of the top in the country for heart care - actually #1 in Wisconsin. Their success rates were at or near the top, very low complication rates (0% infections for 2006), and they charged about $30,000 less than the top rated hospital here in the city. So they are going to allow their employees to go to this hospital for heart care (non-emergency of course). They plan to do this for other health problems - allowing their employees to go to hospitals/clinics based on highest quality/lowest price. This made me think - why when you go to a doctor and he/she orders an MRI for instance could they not put it in a computer program that would bring up a list of all the places in your area that perform MRIs and list how much each of these places cost. You could then choose where to have your MRI done. As it stands now, you have to pull teeth to get anyones prices and the prices should be the same for everyone. Meaning if a facility charges $500 to an insurance company they should charge the same amount to someone who is paying out of pocket. I think this alone could bring down the cost of insurance because it would force hospitals/clinics/labs to compete on price instead of all the fancy stuff that we don't really need. Shouldn't matter what insurance you have - you should be able to shop for the highest quality/lowest price - obviously they (the insurance companies) are not doing it - they break deals with the hospitals/doctors which I don't think are always in our best interest. I have pretty decedent insurance but I can only see a certain group of doctors, go to certain hospitals, use certain labs - maybe I could get better, higher quality care at a lower price someplace else. Without controlling the costs of healthcare I don't think we will be able to afford a National Healthcare Plan at least not one with the same benefits as Congress - I hear they have the Cadillac of all insurance!
Amy - it may seem like it - but you are actually paying the same amount to heat a home with or without kids. Smaller families just pay less on other things like food, water. Energy assistance is based on how many people are in the home because if you have more people you are spending more of your income on food, clothing, etc than if you were single. Some states base their assistance on whether or not you have someone vulnerable in the home (over 60, younger than 6) as older people and young children are more likely to develop problems if there is no heat/cooling.
I looked this up and was shocked - the base income for the top 5% is $155,000. My dh works three jobs and I work one and we are nowhere even close to this. For some reason when you say top 5% it sounds like it should be higher than that.
-
Well since when I cut and paste it looks like this( ) don't have to worry about that from me................Anneshirley are you working?...........hmmmmmm...............ha................but in reading JustHappy's post is exactly what I am talking about.......our tax system is way to complicated................flat tax......single pay..............all income should be taxed...............for everybody............and of course Amy you know where I stand on abortion.........you sound just like my twenty year old...........Roe vs Wade was more about privacy issues..............we have a lot more privacy policies then we did when Roe vs Wade went into effect............I still believe that life begins at cell division..........and I am for more concern about the child's rights then about either the mother's or father's rights...........jmo............Shokk.......I'm sorry but I am very distracted today.........I sell property insurance and since we have Ike headed our way I am very busy here at work........of course my insurance company has already put up restrictions for writing any ins. along the coast but still people are trying.............jeez
-
Shokk--you're sounding like my husband now! And the answer is "No!"
In Europe, in many countries, there's a payroll tax but also a VAT (value added tax). It may be that a small payroll tax and a relatively high value added tax might work, so long as some of the basics were exempt so the tax didn't have an inordinate penalty on those not well off. Don't know what the answer is, except I know it's not cut, cut, cut taxes. I was very disappointed when the Dems joined the Republicans in this silly game. I don't see that either has given serious thought to solving our economic problems. If we're all still posting in four years we should meet up and see if anything has changed or if it's still the same old, old.
-
On abortion! Maybe some of the anti-choice folks can explain why the Republicans were against the "morning after pill." It certainly seemed a safe solution to me and a way to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Yet every effort was made by those on the right to stop women from getting this pill. Now, I have to admit, I followed this story a few years ago and don't know what's happened since. Perhaps it is now available in all drug stores in the U.S. Is it?
-
Justanna ok your right on your first point..........and maybe on your second point.......going to have to respond to you later probably this evening............Shokk
-
Anneshirley isn't it an abortion pill?...........Doesn't it just keep a possible fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall?........that is why many on the far right are also against the IUD...........doesn't keep conception from happening just keeps attachment from happening............Shokk
-
"I would be much more comfortable paying school taxes that went equally to schools in poor districts than just in the weathier (sic) district where I live. I don't think kids should be penalized with their education because they happened to be born into families with less money."
I agree especially because those are the children who need the extra education the most. It's why my family volunteers, donates, and helps fundraise for the candidates that advocate for children. What really angers me is how much money is spent on a falsehood of a war; think of all the children we could have put through higher education with that money! Think about how doing so would have impacted our country's (not to mention the world's) future!
Who we are sleeping with or married to or what our religion is or what our reproductive choices were are all merely distractions from the fact that the rest of the world loathes us for starting an illegal war under deception. I feel badly for people who have to take the rising prices of gas on the chin, but at the same time, I'm sort of glad that it's making us examine how ridiculous our reliance on foreign oil is and how we can really cut back. The higher costs are just another distraction; what we should be looking at is that our fatted usage was horrible for the environment and our children's future.
If you truly believe life begins right when the ova connects with the sperm, yeah, you're not going to be into the abortion pill or IUD. Both just create a hostile environment for the fertilized egg. I personally don't consider a fertilized egg to be "life" but I vow to continue to do all I can to ensure women have the choice to continue their pregnancies. I would never make someone have an abortion. Ideally, they would assume the financial and emotional parental responsibilities if they decide to go ahead with the pregnancy, but then again I've know adults who still haven't even figured out how to support themselves. As the co-mom of a couple of adopted children we happily added to our bio brood, I'm curious as to how many of the anti-choice believers help support moms who didn't make the "decision".
Anyway, I apparently got too much sleep last night for someone with two young infants in the house and need to get off my soapbox.
Anna
-
I'm pro-choice but I've always been sympathetic to those who are pro-life and understand how they can differ from me on this issue--it's not a small issue. It seems to me, however, that when it's taken to the point of saying women can't use the morning-after pill because they may prevent a pregnancy, then we're not that far from refusing all birth control methods to women, and down the line to telling women they must have X children in their lifetime. And then I wonder if perhaps this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting life and more to do with keeping women in a secondary position. I'm not addressing you, Shokk, but rather the issue itself. I know you want the best for your daughter.
And on another issue. If I hear one more word, from anyone, about that bridge to nowhere I''ll throw something at the TV.
-
Crap now I have a conference call at 3............Anneshirley you made me smile.........I have to admit I to am tired of the bridge to nowhere..........another saying I sure wish the right would never ever say again is "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve".............I think if I hear that statement one more time I am going to have to march in our Gay Pride Parade.........(just kidding)....(about marching in the Gay Pride Parade)........but with that said I too have something to say about education but I don't have time right now...............ok I will be back...........Shokk
-
I read that Palin was actually criticized by an ultra-conservative group for not doing more to make abortion illegal in Alaska. I think when push comes to shove a lot of pro-life lawmakers and jurists back away from changing the law because they know they would be creating a new class of felons if they did. We have a hard enough time as it is trying and housing criminals. If a life is being taken, what would be an appropriate sentence? Premeditated murder? Negligent homicide? Would boyfriends/husbands who helped procure the abortion be co-conspirators? Wouldn't it be hypocriical and unjust to punish one and not the other? Or just punish the providers? It's a real can of legal worms.
Another theory about why, despite years of conservative rule, Roe v. Wade stands, is that conservatives need the issue to get voters to the polls. If they overturn it, there goes their main emotional wedge issue.
-
Roe vs. Wade will not be overturned because it won't be found to be unconstitutional by a majority of the court. I don't think a right wing nut will ever be put on the court because they will never make it past the Senate confirmation hearings. I am prolife but respect those who are pro-choice.
-
Suz5- republicans like to say that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned because they want to try to convince naive women who aren't educated on the topic that is so.
shokk- where do the most extreme antichoice people stand on birth control and population control? I'm sure I don't have to say that I think china's policy is horrendous, but I do think people (not governments) need to be concerned with population control because of the limited amount of natural resources, global warming etc. I agree with AS about thinking the morning after pill would be something conservatives would rejoice at, since it prevents the sperm from reaching the egg-- no meshing of cells. I don't understand why people who are against abortion are ok with invitro fertilization and other forms of artificial impregnation. With IVF fertilized eggs often go unused and/or discarded. From my point of view I see fertilized eggs and fetuses as the potential for life until they are born or can live outside of the woman without medical intervention.
-
Hi there-
Amy I thought the morning after pill made the uterine lining shed itself, thus eliminating the fertilized egg along with it... I don't know this for a fact, I thought that is how it worked?
As far as in vitro, I know that people who are pro-life don't get it done because of what happens to the ones that don't get implanted and become viable. In fact, I think it is against some religious beliefs too. I know a very strict Catholic woman who has told me it is against the Church.
I don't think that Roe v Wade will be overturned, but if it is, they are overturning it from being a Federal law to a state law. Abortion rights would be transferred to the states, where the voters could decide how they want their state laws to be. Personally, I believe in more power to the states and less to the Feds.
I have to say that this election is white hot this year. I think it is exciting that so many people are engaged in what happens to their country. I'd rather have the fireworks than complacency.
-
NS, my understanding is that it takes sperm a few days to reach and fertilize the egg, so the morning after pill, which is really just a high dose of the birth control pill, prevents this from happening. That's why the pill needs to be given within 24 hrs of the act to ensure the sperm hasn't had a chance to fertilize the egg.
As for invitro, I've been thinking about people such as the famous multiple births who have said they didn't believe in selective reduction for religious reasons and would rather miscarry the whole pregnancy that reduce the pregnancy to two or three fetuses. That seems incongruous to me.
-
Thanks Amy. I didn't know how that pill worked. I understand what you are saying now.
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team