Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23257)	3/1/2012 9:07:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

That only works as an argument if it's the state is imposing the abortion. Its only a strong argument if the state is imposing the abortion. But since they only need the less invasive procedure should they sign up for a more invasive procedure, its at least a weak counter argument. Also its been pulled anyway, the requirement didn't go in to effect. It seems pretty obvious that forcing an employer to pay for a benefit that he considers immoral is a lot less oppressive than forcing someone to have a medical procedure, even a less invasive one. In the one case it simply forcing people to pay, in the other its forcing a procedure in order to get an abortion. I wouldn't have picked this particularly tactic, the optics are poor, and it would be unlikely to do any practical good even if the policy had been implemented, but I don't have a problem with putting barriers in the way of the killing of other humans when self-defense is not an issue.