Who's Selling Body Parts???

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I shared this story on the old GPV site.  I'm curious of your thoughts.  My wife and I were not married when we had our first child.  Luckily my insurance agent sat me down for a little talk a couple years earlier about the benefits of carrying a family plan even though I was single.  Here's the thing.  My baby was covered from the time he was born, but not a second before.  Is that acceptable?  Should an insurance company be morally/legally obligated to treat a fetus as a living breathing human being?

Being a disciple of Dr Mengele you probably wouldn't want to tread on that ice. The entire argument of pro-abortionists is predicated on defining the fetus as not being a human being therefore they are not ending a life. Considering the current controversy at Planned Parenthood if you are going to define a fetus as a human being then the abortionists would be guilty of infanticide/murder. That's why the pro-abortion crowd goes ballistic when states propose laws  governing murder/manslaughter charges on people who kill a pregnant woman. Should additional charges also be filed for the death of the fetus?

My point is that if a private industry has the legal right to decide for themselves when life begins and act on their decisions accordingly, then why shouldn't every American have same right? To say that one has the right and not the other is hypocritical, and would make your concern for the life of an unborn child seem disingenuous.

So, Dr. Jones. Are you trying to argue that the baby (oops, I mean fetus) isn't a human being based on an INSURANCE companies policy?

Very very very weak argument.

BladeRunner wrote:So, Dr. Jones. Are you trying to argue that the baby (oops, I mean fetus) isn't a human being based on an INSURANCE companies policy?

Very very very weak argument.

Why is that?

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:So, Dr. Jones. Are you trying to argue that the baby (oops, I mean fetus) isn't a human being based on an INSURANCE companies policy?

Very very very weak argument.

Why is that?

You're making your argument that a person in the womb is not a human being based on what an insurance company will or will not cover?

Are you seriously that morally corrupt?

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:So, Dr. Jones. Are you trying to argue that the baby (oops, I mean fetus) isn't a human being based on an INSURANCE companies policy?

Very very very weak argument.

Why is that?

You're making your argument that a person in the womb is not a human being based on what an insurance company will or will not cover?

Are you seriously that morally corrupt?

No I'm not. You may want to re-read my posts.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I shared this story on the old GPV site.  I'm curious of your thoughts.  My wife and I were not married when we had our first child.  Luckily my insurance agent sat me down for a little talk a couple years earlier about the benefits of carrying a family plan even though I was single.  Here's the thing.  My baby was covered from the time he was born, but not a second before.  Is that acceptable?  Should an insurance company be morally/legally obligated to treat a fetus as a living breathing human being?

Being a disciple of Dr Mengele you probably wouldn't want to tread on that ice. The entire argument of pro-abortionists is predicated on defining the fetus as not being a human being therefore they are not ending a life. Considering the current controversy at Planned Parenthood if you are going to define a fetus as a human being then the abortionists would be guilty of infanticide/murder. That's why the pro-abortion crowd goes ballistic when states propose laws  governing murder/manslaughter charges on people who kill a pregnant woman. Should additional charges also be filed for the death of the fetus?

My point is that if a private industry has the legal right to decide for themselves when life begins and act on their decisions accordingly, then why shouldn't every American have same right? To say that one has the right and not the other is hypocritical, and would make your concern for the life of an unborn child seem disingenuous.

Go take your crappy argument to the SCOTUS. Justice Kennedy stated for the majority in Planned Parenthood v Casey that "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

While you have the right to believe that there is a human life pre birth (I don't believe you do considering your unwavering support of PP selling spare fetus parts), the absence of a legal mandate on the insurance company allows them the right to exclude that service from their contract with their customers. Actually you might very well find insurance companies willing to write a policy for a fetus if a separate premium rider is paid. In the good old days before all the legal mandates were imposed on insurance companies, I had to purchase pregnancy insurance in addition to the standard policy when the wife and I decided to start a family. And that was for a "well baby". There was a good possibility that my second daughter was going to be born premature and I purchased an intensive care rider for my insurance policy so I wouldn't be hit with a huge nursery bill not covered by the "well baby" insurance. Thankfully it wasn't needed and I was blessed with a healthy daughter.

And speaking of health insurance mandates, my wife and I now are charged for pregnancy insurance even though she is well past her child bearing years. And don't forget about the mandated contraception now included with every insurance policy. Should a teetotaler be forced to pay for mandated alcoholism treatment even though he'll never need it? How about mandated invitro fertilization for a couple who had no trouble conceiving on their own?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I shared this story on the old GPV site.  I'm curious of your thoughts.  My wife and I were not married when we had our first child.  Luckily my insurance agent sat me down for a little talk a couple years earlier about the benefits of carrying a family plan even though I was single.  Here's the thing.  My baby was covered from the time he was born, but not a second before.  Is that acceptable?  Should an insurance company be morally/legally obligated to treat a fetus as a living breathing human being?

Being a disciple of Dr Mengele you probably wouldn't want to tread on that ice. The entire argument of pro-abortionists is predicated on defining the fetus as not being a human being therefore they are not ending a life. Considering the current controversy at Planned Parenthood if you are going to define a fetus as a human being then the abortionists would be guilty of infanticide/murder. That's why the pro-abortion crowd goes ballistic when states propose laws  governing murder/manslaughter charges on people who kill a pregnant woman. Should additional charges also be filed for the death of the fetus?

My point is that if a private industry has the legal right to decide for themselves when life begins and act on their decisions accordingly, then why shouldn't every American have same right? To say that one has the right and not the other is hypocritical, and would make your concern for the life of an unborn child seem disingenuous.

Go take your crappy argument to the SCOTUS. Justice Kennedy stated for the majority in Planned Parenthood v Casey that  "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

While you have the right to believe that there is a human life pre birth (I don't believe you do considering your unwavering support of PP selling spare fetus parts), the absence of a legal mandate on the insurance company allows them the right to exclude that service from their contract with their customers. Actually you might very well find insurance companies willing to write a policy for a fetus if a separate premium rider is paid. In the good old days before all the legal mandates were imposed on insurance companies, I had to purchase pregnancy insurance in addition to the standard policy when the wife and I decided to start a family. And that was for a "well baby". There was a good possibility that my second daughter was going to be born premature and I purchased an intensive care rider for my insurance policy so I wouldn't be hit with a huge nursery bill not covered by the "well baby" insurance. Thankfully it wasn't needed and I was blessed with a healthy daughter.

And speaking of health insurance mandates, my wife and I now are charged for pregnancy insurance even though she is well past her child bearing years. And don't forget about the mandated contraception now included with every insurance policy. Should a teetotaler be forced to pay for mandated alcoholism treatment even though he'll never need it? How about mandated invitro fertilization for a couple who had no trouble conceiving on their own?

Do you support this businesses right to deny coverage based on when they feel life begins?

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:So, Dr. Jones. Are you trying to argue that the baby (oops, I mean fetus) isn't a human being based on an INSURANCE companies policy?

Very very very weak argument.

Why is that?

You're making your argument that a person in the womb is not a human being based on what an insurance company will or will not cover?

Are you seriously that morally corrupt?

BladeRunner, I am not sure if I understand the premise of the argument you are having with the birdbrain Jackoff Jones.  Here is my point:

This is an example that I personally experienced.  A relative was pregnant and was due in a couple of weeks.  However, she was having stomach pains and she went into the doctor.  He sent her to the hospital where it was determined that the preborn child had wrapped himself in his umbilical cord and as a result was in danger of strangling himself.  

While the plan was for a natural birth, the doctor said that to save the life of the preborn child they would have to do a C-section.  I know that the insurance covered the C-section even though it was done to save the life of the preborn child.  I also know that the insurance covered all kinds of prenatal care to ensure the health of the preborn infant.

Therefore, I am not quite sure if I understand why you are even arguing with this birdbrain.  Insurance did cover all of those issues for the preborn child.  Jackoff Jones just invented another one of his make believe scenarios to help sell his LIBERAL LIES.

My advice, is never argue with a birdbrain as there is always the possibility that you will end up with birdshit on you.

Jammer wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:So, Dr. Jones. Are you trying to argue that the baby (oops, I mean fetus) isn't a human being based on an INSURANCE companies policy?

Very very very weak argument.

Why is that?

You're making your argument that a person in the womb is not a human being based on what an insurance company will or will not cover?

Are you seriously that morally corrupt?

BladeRunner, I am not sure if I understand the premise of the argument you are having with the birdbrain Jackoff Jones.  Here is my point:

This is an example that I personally experienced.  A relative was pregnant and was due in a couple of weeks.  However, she was having stomach pains and she went into the doctor.  He sent her to the hospital where it was determined that the preborn child had wrapped himself in his umbilical cord and as a result was in danger of strangling himself.  

While the plan was for a natural birth, the doctor said that to save the life of the preborn child they would have to do a C-section.  I know that the insurance covered the C-section even though it was done to save the life of the preborn child.  I also know that the insurance covered all kinds of prenatal care to ensure the health of the preborn infant.

Therefore, I am not quite sure if I understand why you are even arguing with this birdbrain.  Insurance did cover all of those issues for the preborn child.  Jackoff Jones just invented another one of his make believe scenarios to help sell his LIBERAL LIES.

My advice, is never argue with a birdbrain as there is always the possibility that you will end up with birdshit on you.

Ummm....ya.  You have no concept of what we are talking about.

Talk about someone who has no moral compass.

BladeRunner wrote:Talk about someone who has no moral compass.

You mean the insurance company?

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Talk about someone who has no moral compass.

You mean the insurance company?

Please tell me what exactly you wanted them to cover during pregnancy....

Do you know the deductible for Obamacare is $10,000 so it won't cover pre-birth or delivery...does this also cause you concern jackoff?

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:Talk about someone who has no moral compass.

You mean the insurance company?

Please tell me what exactly you wanted them to cover during pregnancy....

Do you know the deductible for Obamacare is $10,000 so it won't cover pre-birth or delivery...does this also cause you concern jackoff?

Ultrasounds, doctor visits, false alarm visits to the hospital, various testing, all meds having to do with the baby. I can't remember where the actual drivery fell. It seems to me they didn't cover it. But I can't remember.

Our second was born with a polycystic kidney which required extensive work in utero.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I shared this story on the old GPV site.  I'm curious of your thoughts.  My wife and I were not married when we had our first child.  Luckily my insurance agent sat me down for a little talk a couple years earlier about the benefits of carrying a family plan even though I was single.  Here's the thing.  My baby was covered from the time he was born, but not a second before.  Is that acceptable?  Should an insurance company be morally/legally obligated to treat a fetus as a living breathing human being?

Being a disciple of Dr Mengele you probably wouldn't want to tread on that ice. The entire argument of pro-abortionists is predicated on defining the fetus as not being a human being therefore they are not ending a life. Considering the current controversy at Planned Parenthood if you are going to define a fetus as a human being then the abortionists would be guilty of infanticide/murder. That's why the pro-abortion crowd goes ballistic when states propose laws  governing murder/manslaughter charges on people who kill a pregnant woman. Should additional charges also be filed for the death of the fetus?

My point is that if a private industry has the legal right to decide for themselves when life begins and act on their decisions accordingly, then why shouldn't every American have same right? To say that one has the right and not the other is hypocritical, and would make your concern for the life of an unborn child seem disingenuous.

Go take your crappy argument to the SCOTUS. Justice Kennedy stated for the majority in Planned Parenthood v Casey that  "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

While you have the right to believe that there is a human life pre birth (I don't believe you do considering your unwavering support of PP selling spare fetus parts), the absence of a legal mandate on the insurance company allows them the right to exclude that service from their contract with their customers. Actually you might very well find insurance companies willing to write a policy for a fetus if a separate premium rider is paid. In the good old days before all the legal mandates were imposed on insurance companies, I had to purchase pregnancy insurance in addition to the standard policy when the wife and I decided to start a family. And that was for a "well baby". There was a good possibility that my second daughter was going to be born premature and I purchased an intensive care rider for my insurance policy so I wouldn't be hit with a huge nursery bill not covered by the "well baby" insurance. Thankfully it wasn't needed and I was blessed with a healthy daughter.

And speaking of health insurance mandates, my wife and I now are charged for pregnancy insurance even though she is well past her child bearing years. And don't forget about the mandated contraception now included with every insurance policy. Should a teetotaler be forced to pay for mandated alcoholism treatment even though he'll never need it? How about mandated invitro fertilization for a couple who had no trouble conceiving on their own?

Do you support this businesses right to deny coverage based on when they feel life begins?

Not sure where you are going (you probably ask yourself this same question all the time) but it's not unheard of insurance companies providing in vitro surgery on fetuses. It is going to depend on the insurance policy and premiums paid.

If you're asking if this should be mandated, then no. The problems of the increasing number of mandates on insurance policies is that it is contributing to the skyrocketing costs of health care and expecting others to pay for care they don't need or want.

I believe this though. If the government wishes to provide a bright on line on when life begins by mandating in vitro insurance coverage, then you've crossed the Rubicon and this would wipe clear the ambiguity provided by Roe v Wade and PP vs Casey.

BladeRunner wrote:Talk about someone who has no moral compass.

Jackoff Jones is a lying liberal socialist who has no moral compass or shame. This piece of scum should be set on the curb with the rest of the garbage in this world.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I shared this story on the old GPV site.  I'm curious of your thoughts.  My wife and I were not married when we had our first child.  Luckily my insurance agent sat me down for a little talk a couple years earlier about the benefits of carrying a family plan even though I was single.  Here's the thing.  My baby was covered from the time he was born, but not a second before.  Is that acceptable?  Should an insurance company be morally/legally obligated to treat a fetus as a living breathing human being?

Being a disciple of Dr Mengele you probably wouldn't want to tread on that ice. The entire argument of pro-abortionists is predicated on defining the fetus as not being a human being therefore they are not ending a life. Considering the current controversy at Planned Parenthood if you are going to define a fetus as a human being then the abortionists would be guilty of infanticide/murder. That's why the pro-abortion crowd goes ballistic when states propose laws  governing murder/manslaughter charges on people who kill a pregnant woman. Should additional charges also be filed for the death of the fetus?

My point is that if a private industry has the legal right to decide for themselves when life begins and act on their decisions accordingly, then why shouldn't every American have same right? To say that one has the right and not the other is hypocritical, and would make your concern for the life of an unborn child seem disingenuous.

Go take your crappy argument to the SCOTUS. Justice Kennedy stated for the majority in Planned Parenthood v Casey that  "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

While you have the right to believe that there is a human life pre birth (I don't believe you do considering your unwavering support of PP selling spare fetus parts), the absence of a legal mandate on the insurance company allows them the right to exclude that service from their contract with their customers. Actually you might very well find insurance companies willing to write a policy for a fetus if a separate premium rider is paid. In the good old days before all the legal mandates were imposed on insurance companies, I had to purchase pregnancy insurance in addition to the standard policy when the wife and I decided to start a family. And that was for a "well baby". There was a good possibility that my second daughter was going to be born premature and I purchased an intensive care rider for my insurance policy so I wouldn't be hit with a huge nursery bill not covered by the "well baby" insurance. Thankfully it wasn't needed and I was blessed with a healthy daughter.

And speaking of health insurance mandates, my wife and I now are charged for pregnancy insurance even though she is well past her child bearing years. And don't forget about the mandated contraception now included with every insurance policy. Should a teetotaler be forced to pay for mandated alcoholism treatment even though he'll never need it? How about mandated invitro fertilization for a couple who had no trouble conceiving on their own?

Do you support this businesses right to deny coverage based on when they feel life begins?

Not sure where you are going (you probably ask yourself this same question all the time) but it's not unheard of insurance companies providing in vitro surgery on fetuses. It is going to depend on the insurance policy and premiums  paid.

If you're asking if this should be mandated, then no. The problems of the increasing number of mandates on insurance policies is that it is contributing to the skyrocketing costs of health care and expecting others to pay for care they don't need or want.

I believe this though. If the government wishes to provide a bright on line on when life begins by mandating in vitro insurance coverage, then you've crossed the Rubicon and this would wipe clear the ambiguity provided by Roe v Wade and PP vs Casey.

This little game of Whack-a-Mole sure it's entertaining but it's really time to move on.

I'm going to assume by your answers that you were fine with my insurance company making the decision to deny me, a paying customer with a family policy, coverage on my unborn son based on their belief that an unborn fetus is not actually a living human being.  That's perfectly fine.  You are more than entitled to that opinion and you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.  

However, shouldn't a woman have the same right to terminate a pregnancy based on the same beliefs regarding when life begins that my insurance company was entitled to?

Dr. Jones wrote:

This little game of Whack-a-Mole sure it's entertaining but it's really time to move on.

I'm going to assume by your answers that you were fine with my insurance company making the decision to deny me, a paying customer with a family policy, coverage on my unborn son based on their belief that an unborn fetus is not actually a living human being.  That's perfectly fine.  You are more than entitled to that opinion and you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.  

However, shouldn't a woman have the same right to terminate a pregnancy based on the same beliefs regarding when life begins that my insurance company was entitled to?

We all knew you were heading this direction.

Your weak attempt at justifying abortion by equating the termination of a pregnancy to not providing for the care of a pregnancy falls short beyond belief.

But then, what should we expect from a liberal who believes that government should provide all his needs?

Your argument is no different than saying that if government doesn't provide welfare for its people, that they are murdering them.

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

This little game of Whack-a-Mole sure it's entertaining but it's really time to move on.

I'm going to assume by your answers that you were fine with my insurance company making the decision to deny me, a paying customer with a family policy, coverage on my unborn son based on their belief that an unborn fetus is not actually a living human being.  That's perfectly fine.  You are more than entitled to that opinion and you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.  

However, shouldn't a woman have the same right to terminate a pregnancy based on the same beliefs regarding when life begins that my insurance company was entitled to?

We all knew you were heading this direction.

Your weak attempt at justifying abortion by equating the termination of a pregnancy to not providing for the care of a pregnancy falls short beyond belief.

But then, what should we expect from a liberal who believes that government should provide all his needs?

Your argument is no different than saying that if government doesn't provide welfare for its people, that they are murdering them.

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm not likening their denial if coverage to an abortion at all.  I'm saying that if you support a businesses right to choose when life begins, then you need to support an individual's right to decide as well.  Otherwise you are a hypocrite.  I'm also saying that by supporting their denial of coverage you are proving that you don't care about the baby growing in a woman's belly as much as you claim you do, and that would make you very disingenuous in your concern about a fetus being a living person.

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

This little game of Whack-a-Mole sure it's entertaining but it's really time to move on.

I'm going to assume by your answers that you were fine with my insurance company making the decision to deny me, a paying customer with a family policy, coverage on my unborn son based on their belief that an unborn fetus is not actually a living human being.  That's perfectly fine.  You are more than entitled to that opinion and you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.  

However, shouldn't a woman have the same right to terminate a pregnancy based on the same beliefs regarding when life begins that my insurance company was entitled to?

We all knew you were heading this direction.

Your weak attempt at justifying abortion by equating the termination of a pregnancy to not providing for the care of a pregnancy falls short beyond belief.

But then, what should we expect from a liberal who believes that government should provide all his needs?

Your argument is no different than saying that if government doesn't provide welfare for its people, that they are murdering them.

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm not likening their denial if coverage to an abortion at all.  I'm saying that if you support a businesses right to choose when life begins, then you need to support an individual's right to decide as well.  Otherwise you are a hypocrite.  I'm also saying that by supporting their denial of coverage you are proving that you don't care about the baby growing in a woman's belly as much as you claim you do, and that would make you very disingenuous in your concern about a fetus being a living person.

Dr Mengele, you have so much to discuss, so few brain cells to utilize.

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

This little game of Whack-a-Mole sure it's entertaining but it's really time to move on.

I'm going to assume by your answers that you were fine with my insurance company making the decision to deny me, a paying customer with a family policy, coverage on my unborn son based on their belief that an unborn fetus is not actually a living human being.  That's perfectly fine.  You are more than entitled to that opinion and you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.  

However, shouldn't a woman have the same right to terminate a pregnancy based on the same beliefs regarding when life begins that my insurance company was entitled to?

We all knew you were heading this direction.

Your weak attempt at justifying abortion by equating the termination of a pregnancy to not providing for the care of a pregnancy falls short beyond belief.

But then, what should we expect from a liberal who believes that government should provide all his needs?

Your argument is no different than saying that if government doesn't provide welfare for its people, that they are murdering them.

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm not likening their denial if coverage to an abortion at all.  

Um, sure whatever you say.....

I'm saying that if you support a businesses right to choose when life begins, then you need to support an individual's right to decide as well.

What individual are you referring to? Certainly not the individual inside the womb.

 Otherwise you are a hypocrite.  I'm also saying that by supporting their denial of coverage you are proving that you don't care about the baby growing in a woman's belly as much as you claim you do, and that would make you very disingenuous in your concern about a fetus being a living person.

That's stupid. I don't support free welfare, either, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the people receiving the welfare.

Health care is not a RIGHT. Living, however IS A RIGHT. They aren't the same thing. You keep trying to associate them, in some twisted attempt at defining hypocrisy.

This little game of Whack-a-Mole sure it's entertaining but it's really time to move on.

I'm going to assume by your answers that you were fine with my insurance company making the decision to deny me, a paying customer with a family policy, coverage on my unborn son based on their belief that an unborn fetus is not actually a living human being.  That's perfectly fine.  You are more than entitled to that opinion and you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.  

However, shouldn't a woman have the same right to terminate a pregnancy based on the same beliefs regarding when life begins that my insurance company was entitled to?

You are a clueless sad sack. You can assume all you want because even when a rational explanation slaps you in the head you persist with your fantasy world logic.

I'm sorry you bought such a piece of crap insurance policy and that your friend took your money and didn't explain the nitty gritty of your policy.

99.9% of insurance policies have limitations on procedures and have exclusionary riders. The business world is pretty simple; you want more, you pay more. Read the fine print and be sure you are getting what you want. Caveat emptor.

Comparing the choice to have an abortion to an insurance company's writing of a contract with pre-defined benefits and limitations is not only ludicrous but risible According to your twisted logic, all the insurance companies who deny coverage to fetuses are just as cupable as your insurance company

A good analogy is this news story about this guy who failed/didn't pay a fee for fire service. The house caught fire and the fire department refused to put it out because he failed to pay for that service. This is equal to you not purchasing an insurance policy that would cover the fetus. Now if he had made the choice to commit arson and set the fire himself that would be equivalent to a woman making the choice to have an abortion.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

This little game of Whack-a-Mole sure it's entertaining but it's really time to move on.

I'm going to assume by your answers that you were fine with my insurance company making the decision to deny me, a paying customer with a family policy, coverage on my unborn son based on their belief that an unborn fetus is not actually a living human being.  That's perfectly fine.  You are more than entitled to that opinion and you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.  

However, shouldn't a woman have the same right to terminate a pregnancy based on the same beliefs regarding when life begins that my insurance company was entitled to?

You are a clueless sad sack. You can assume all you want because even when a rational explanation slaps you in the head you persist with your fantasy world logic.

I'm sorry you bought such a piece of crap insurance policy and that your friend took your money and didn't explain the nitty gritty of your policy.

99.9% of insurance policies have limitations on procedures and have exclusionary riders. The business world is pretty simple; you want more, you pay more. Read the fine print and be sure you are getting what you want. Caveat emptor.

Comparing the choice to have an abortion to an insurance company's writing of a contract with pre-defined benefits and limitations is not only ludicrous but risible According to your twisted logic, all the insurance companies who deny coverage to fetuses are just as cupable as your insurance company

A good analogy is this news story about this guy who failed/didn't pay a fee for fire service. The house caught fire and the fire department refused to put it out because he failed to pay for that service. This is equal to you not purchasing an insurance policy that would cover the fetus. Now if he had made the choice to commit arson and set the fire himself that would be equivalent to a woman making the choice to have an abortion.

They are still making the distinction; contract, no contract, fine print exclusionary riders, and blah, blah, blah, blah fukcing blah. Whatever.  And it's a distinction that you obviously support.  If they seamlessly considered a fetus a person in the same way that you do in regard to abortion, it couldn't have gone down in that way.  You support them all you want, I'm honestly fine with that.  But it doesn't leave people like you with a leg to stand on in regard to abortion, and that makes what I had to pay out of pocket worth it to me.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

This little game of Whack-a-Mole sure it's entertaining but it's really time to move on.

I'm going to assume by your answers that you were fine with my insurance company making the decision to deny me, a paying customer with a family policy, coverage on my unborn son based on their belief that an unborn fetus is not actually a living human being.  That's perfectly fine.  You are more than entitled to that opinion and you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.  

However, shouldn't a woman have the same right to terminate a pregnancy based on the same beliefs regarding when life begins that my insurance company was entitled to?

You are a clueless sad sack. You can assume all you want because even when a rational explanation slaps you in the head you persist with your fantasy world logic.

I'm sorry you bought such a piece of crap insurance policy and that your friend took your money and didn't explain the nitty gritty of your policy.

99.9% of insurance policies have limitations on procedures and have exclusionary riders. The business world is pretty simple; you want more, you pay more. Read the fine print and be sure you are getting what you want. Caveat emptor.

Comparing the choice to have an abortion to an insurance company's writing of a contract with pre-defined benefits and limitations is not only ludicrous but risible According to your twisted logic, all the insurance companies who deny coverage to fetuses are just as cupable as your insurance company

A good analogy is this news story about this guy who failed/didn't pay a fee for fire service. The house caught fire and the fire department refused to put it out because he failed to pay for that service. This is equal to you not purchasing an insurance policy that would cover the fetus. Now if he had made the choice to commit arson and set the fire himself that would be equivalent to a woman making the choice to have an abortion.

They are still making the distinction; contract, no contract, fine print exclusionary riders, and blah, blah, blah, blah fukcing blah. Whatever.  And it's a distinction that you obviously support.  If they seamlessly considered a fetus a person in the same way that you do in regard to abortion, it couldn't have gone down in that way.  You support them all you want, I'm honestly fine with that.  But it doesn't leave people like you with a leg to stand on in regard to abortion, and that makes what I had to pay out of pocket worth it to me.

Fail

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

This little game of Whack-a-Mole sure it's entertaining but it's really time to move on.

I'm going to assume by your answers that you were fine with my insurance company making the decision to deny me, a paying customer with a family policy, coverage on my unborn son based on their belief that an unborn fetus is not actually a living human being.  That's perfectly fine.  You are more than entitled to that opinion and you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption.  

However, shouldn't a woman have the same right to terminate a pregnancy based on the same beliefs regarding when life begins that my insurance company was entitled to?

You are a clueless sad sack. You can assume all you want because even when a rational explanation slaps you in the head you persist with your fantasy world logic.

I'm sorry you bought such a piece of crap insurance policy and that your friend took your money and didn't explain the nitty gritty of your policy.

99.9% of insurance policies have limitations on procedures and have exclusionary riders. The business world is pretty simple; you want more, you pay more. Read the fine print and be sure you are getting what you want. Caveat emptor.

Comparing the choice to have an abortion to an insurance company's writing of a contract with pre-defined benefits and limitations is not only ludicrous but risible According to your twisted logic, all the insurance companies who deny coverage to fetuses are just as cupable as your insurance company

A good analogy is this news story about this guy who failed/didn't pay a fee for fire service. The house caught fire and the fire department refused to put it out because he failed to pay for that service. This is equal to you not purchasing an insurance policy that would cover the fetus. Now if he had made the choice to commit arson and set the fire himself that would be equivalent to a woman making the choice to have an abortion.

They are still making the distinction; contract, no contract, fine print exclusionary riders, and blah, blah, blah, blah fukcing blah. Whatever.  And it's a distinction that you obviously support.  If they seamlessly considered a fetus a person in the same way that you do in regard to abortion, it couldn't have gone down in that way.  You support them all you want, I'm honestly fine with that.  But it doesn't leave people like you with a leg to stand on in regard to abortion, and that makes what I had to pay out of pocket worth it to me.

Fail

Amazing what the left will do to justify killing unborn children.

Dr Mengela and Dr Jones are brothers in the blood (pun intended)

More videos will becoming out.

nightlight88 wrote:
Amazing what the left will do to justify killing unborn children.

Dr Mengela and Dr Jones are brothers in the blood (pun intended)

More videos will becoming out.

Amazing and sad at the same time. They are blind. Abortion kills a life in ALL circumstances.