"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Doug Kanter wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...

You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay
for
it?'

For the same reason the government pays for other medical
procedures,
like
hip replacements, or medication for childrens' ear infections.
However,
I'll
add this: The same government should also pay for health education
which
would help minimize some health disorders, and said education should
be
completely factual & not influenced by church committees.

So you believe in taking from one group to give to another, even to
the
point of taking innocent lives.

Two separate issues. "taking from one group...." refers to who should
pay
for ALL medical procedures, including setting broken bones, eye exams
and
abortions. Because of the economic structure of this country, there will
ALWAYS be people who cannot afford health insurance, so you'd better get
used to the idea unless you have a better solution. What do you suppose
a
hotel room would cost if the maids were paid $35,000.00 per year? How
about
the lower paid kitchen staff in restaurants? Are you ready for an $11.00
hamburger at your typical diner? How about a 3 lb bag of carrots for
$8.00?
As long as menial work needs to be done, the government will have to pay
for
health insurance for millions of people.

There are not as many uninsured people as you believe.

Really? How many do YOU think there are? A ballpark guess will suffice. And,
what's the difference anyway? If there are 1000 in this entire country, they
deserve to receive assistance, especially if they're working their tails off
like the rest of us and still unable to make ends meet.



"Taking innocent lives" is not connected with the financial issue. You
either accept government supported health care IN GENERAL, or you don't.

I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand.

I don't accept the government paying for injuries incurred when morons don't
wear eye protection while using power tools. But, I accept it because it's
not the government's place to judge how people ended up the way they are.


My ex-wife's Unitarian church ran a series of sex ed classes which
were
very
explicit. They honored parents' wishes through a real high tech
scheme
which
involved typing and printing things on paper - quite revolutionary.
All
parents were given VERY detailed copies of each week's lesson plan
so
they
could keep their kids out of certain classes if they wished to do
so.
Why
couldn't public schools do this, rather than have the typical
all-or-nothing
wars which seem to be the hobby of the fundamentalists?


Well, when I grew up, parents taught their children about sex. I
think
that is where it should be taught today too. Let schools teach real
subjects.

SOME parents teach their kids about sex. Of that group, some are idiots
and
teach their kids things which are simply incorrect. Not the morals, but
the
scientific facts. That's how you end up with unwanted pregnancies. You
can't
scream about abortion *and* try to stamp out information which will help
lower the abortion rate. Sorry. It's immature to think that way.

No, it's not immature to thing that way. Sex education at school seems
to encourage sexual activity, not just educate. It makes it much harder
for girl's to so 'no' to a guy today.

OK. That last paragraph is precious. Could you please provide at least two
sources (web links, scientific journals) for that ridiculous information,
preferably sources NOT connected with any religious organization?

By the way, some say I attribute too much to linguistic skills, but your
inclusion of an apostrophe in "girl's" reveals a lot about you.