There isnât a Child yet and that is a religious question for someone to answer.
Why do you think the government should tell otherâs their own religious beliefs? Why should the government be in the room with someone and their doctor other than to keep them safe?
(Judaism has practiced a baby isnât alive until itâs first breath as Genesis shows)
I understand. But thatâs because you canât look outside your box. I donât think you even realize there is an outside of your box or that if there is it must be evil and you have to fight against it. Itâs not going to end well if this the way we have to look at each other.
And youâre putting up your hope that they want actual changs, instead of looking for ways to profit from it as well. âYeah, weâre gonna change that. Vote for me, I promise.â
Uh⌠no, birth control is used for many reasons, but in terms of pregnancy they donât want it to fail. If a better option existed without worry of fail, theyâd take it.
You realize how long it takes for a fetus to even start forming anything more than a small cluster of cells, right? And pregnancy tests arenât instant. They require time, and itâs also a huge step that many who are recovering from trauma may not want to experience - plus without actively taking pregnancy tests every time youâre intimate with someone in a way that might lead to pregnancy - no matter how much protection you use - and again, after the appropriate period of time - there is no way to actually determine youâre pregnant until at the very least 4 weeks, if not even more so.
For an accurate result, itâs recommended to wait until at least a week after youâve missed a period - otherwise the tests may not be accurate.
I get that itâs a big issue for you and itâs personal, and I respect that, but the choice of a woman shouldnât be taken away from her until theyâve had every opportunity and didnât take it. Plus this also brings up another issue, most that are, âpro-lifeâ are pro-birth and do not care about the child after itâs born.
Itâs a nice thought, but thatâs how it is. The people who want to get to the top do anything to get it, including selling out. I hate to tell you, but life isnât fair.
I mean, theyâre the only ones fighting for it. And at the very least the corporatist Democrats are pushing for better health care right now, even if itâs not MFA.
Itâs better than voting for the party that has shown they have no plan - theyâve weakened the ACA but have put out no health care bill.
No, I say that you believe without evidence. Thereâs plenty of things people believe in that they donât have a solid foundation to - and thatâs fine, so long as your religious morals and ideals end where your nose does. I personally care about truth, which is why Iâm not religious.
I wonât knock you for being religious, I just ask that anyone religious separates their religion from others.
Thatâs the point. Itâs only unfair if you sit around and donât challenge it. If youâre a doomer who takes it up the bum and accepts the hand youâre dealt, youâll never get anywhere.
Nah. US is still amazing on so many levels, donât get it twisted. Our quality and ease of life is still insanely good. People who think otherwise have never traveled to actual countries with severe issues.
She supported abortion and birth control, so I donât support her policies or legacies. However, I wish her well and hope all the best for her in the hereafter.
The current Presidentâs nominations have been more true to the Republican small government traditions than the previous Republicanâs neoliberal nominees were. I was pleasantly surprised.
Maybe you didnât care for the âstimulusâ bill or the PPACA, but that was a lot of legislation.
Sanders is. A number of Democrat Representatives are. I donât think many, or even any, other Democrat Senators admit to it.
No he wouldnât. Europe is mostly Social Democracies, which have mixed economies. Sanders is Democratic Socialist, which is straight socialist economics with a democratically elected government - a combination which never lasts long.
The numbers say the opposite. The Federal government already spends almost twice as much on nonuniversal healthcare as it does on the military, and universal healthcare would be far more expensive. It would be closer to the truth to say that you could remove military spending entirely and cover only a sliver of what universal healthcare would cost.
It kills way less people than the 2009 escalation in Afghanistan that killed thousands more Americans and probably tens or hundreds of thousands of Afghanis. You can approve or disapprove as you like, but killing Soleimani saved the lives of at least hundreds of troops on both sides.
No, itâs not. There are some commonalities, but the Massachusetts plan was heavily modified by a Democratic legislature - removing, for example, health insurance portability between jobs - and the ACA just went left from there, removing things like small business association plans and adding unrelated things like the ban on new doctor owned hospitals to get the corporate hospitals on board. Thereâs a reason why the ACA was 10 ties as long as the Massachusetts law, and itâs not because the Massachusetts law was a model of concise writing.
They didnât know I had appendicitis until they had completed the tests though. I could of been just an annoying patient complaining about a sore tummy. They still made sure I was seen to and tested relatively quickly.