Anonymous stoner22 12h

If this mf managed to get workable universal healthcare enacted id leave his name on it. He won’t but I would if he did

21

Anonymous #4 12h

pregnant women are included in cradle to grave because they are not fetuses

46

Anonymous #4 12h

Cradle to grave is a commonly used English expression which means for one’s whole life. It’s not that deep.

32

Anonymous #3 11h

You would literally just need to tax individuals/corporations what they’re currently spending on healthcare (and potentially even less) which is already in excess of $5T annually in total

30

Anonymous #3 11h

We actually need far less

13

Anonymous #4 11h

Terrible bait, genuinely horrific. 1/10. See me after class

14

Anonymous #4 11h

Hey man just wondering can I put my fetus on my health insurance plan right now? Like of course he’s excluding fetuses because fetuses don’t get fucking health insurance lmao

17

Anonymous #4 11h

A fetus is not going to be our “primary patient” until they are born hence the “cradle” terminology. Even in implementing direct fetal interventions, the mother’s health always comes first. The fetus is not going to have hospital bills separate from the mother as they are not separate, independent patients or policy holders and that remains until birth, making universal healthcare for fetuses obsolete and including them would only act as some form of political stunt

15

Anonymous #7 11h

Bad bait but 5 comments? Chile I-

1

Anonymous #6 9h

Isn’t that just CHIP

0

Anonymous #5 9h

Well fuck baby girls I guess

-1

Anonymous #10 9h

baby girls are included in cradle to grave because they are not fetuses

19

Anonymous #5 9h

What is a fetus?

0

Anonymous #10 9h

a human fetus is an unborn human

15

Anonymous #5 9h

And around half of humans are women girls, correct?

0

Anonymous #10 9h

yes i’m so excited to hear what you’re about say

18

Anonymous #5 9h

So thus around half of unborn humans are girls as well, since they are female humans in an early stage of development?

0

Anonymous #10 9h

yes that would be correct

7

Anonymous #5 9h

So if we’re excluding fetuses from something, girls at that stage of development are being excluded. Thus we are excluding some girls.

-2

Anonymous #10 9h

sure i guess you could think of it that way.

11

Anonymous #5 9h

You agreed they are girls though

-2

Anonymous #10 8h

yes, some fetuses are girls and some are boys

11

Anonymous #5 8h

So we should ensure the life, dignity, equality and healthcare of all humans, including unborn girls and boys.

-2

Anonymous #10 8h

what are you asking me exactly? just say what you mean.

11

Anonymous #5 8h

Would you agree that we should protect life from conception to grave to ensure equality for all human beings, regardless of their stage of development?

-2

Anonymous #5 8h

#5 i love you i see you this other guy is kooky 😭

8

Anonymous #10 8h

no i would not

13

Anonymous #4 8h

Holy shit it’s __Joker__ lmao no way I genuinely should have recognized the prose

1

Anonymous #10 8h

a fetus is a human being the same way that a tree is a chair

17

Anonymous #11 8h

So what species is a fetus if it’s not human? Because a chair is an object, it isn’t any species. Are you saying the fetus isn’t alive and that it’s an object?

-1

Anonymous #10 8h

the fact that you read the sentence that i wrote and somehow gathered that the comparison i was making was that chair = fetus because they are both objects is baffling to me

14

Anonymous #10 8h

define human being

3

Anonymous #11 8h

Member of the species Homo sapiens

0

Anonymous #11 8h

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Because a fetus is always an organism m in an early stage of development. A chair is an inanimate object that can be made from a wide range of materials. Sometimes it’s made out of parts of a tree. But it’s not an organism.

-1

Anonymous #10 8h

the point i was making is that human being refers to a distinct individual member of the human species, and a chair (i meant wooden but forgot to specify mb) refers to an object that is constructed from, in this case, wood. a fetus refers to an undeveloped organism made up of human cells, and a tree refers to a plant which is largely made up of wood. just bc a fetus is made of human cells doesn't make it a human being the same way a tree being made of wood doesn't make it a wooden chair.

8

Anonymous #11 8h

But it is a living organism. It’s not just made of human cells. It’s a distinct organism and individual and a member of the species Homo sapiens. What do you think is the first stage of life of an individual of any species?

0

Anonymous #10 7h

is the reason you're passionate about this focused more on biological classification of organisms or is it related to the moral implications of what a person is? because if it's about biological classification then sure, i guess zygotes and a fetuses are both "human beings" but that doesn't really mean a lot to me personally about the kind of responsibility we have to a fetus vs a born human

6

Anonymous #11 7h

Morally a human being should get human rights, otherwise we’re just being inconsistent. All human beings should have human rights. What do you think makes an unborn versus born human different enough to warrant one human being being excluded from human rights?

1

Anonymous #10 7h

bro, you literally just said it- the fact that they're born?? the fact they can sustain life independently (or with the help of advanced machines, in the case of preemies)

5

Anonymous #11 7h

There are multiple born people who can’t sustain life independently. Definitionally if you need a machine to sustain your life you aren’t living independently. And you can actually keep embryos alive outside the womb given appropriate conditions for quite a while.

0

Anonymous #5 7h

Why? Do all human beings and boys and girls not deserve human rights?

1

Anonymous #11 7h

They literally agreed with me they’re human beings and boys and girls.

-1

Anonymous #10 7h

i specifically mentioned advanced life support machines in my comment. the right to life does not mean you are entitled to another person's blood, or to be inside their body. even if you require those to survive, your right to life does not supersede the fact that you are not entitled to those. what makes you think i'm against human fetuses being kept alive by a machine if that's a viable option?

4

Anonymous #10 7h

let me ask you this. if i am dying of kidney failure, and a transplant would save me, and you were the only match, do you think that it is oppositional to my right to life for you not to donate your kidney to me?

5

Anonymous #10 7h

Yeah so the reason that happens is because an adult mother who earns too much for medicaid but not enough to buy private insurance should be able to cover things such as prenatal care. Under a system in which healthcare is provided to all, fetuses would not need to specifically be included because the mother would be covered by virtue of “cradle to grave”. Adding fetuses into the bills would be nothing but virtue signaling, but I imagine that doesn’t matter to you.

3

Anonymous #11 7h

No. But once I have already donated my kidney to you, I don’t think I’m allowed to kill you to get it back. I also don’t think I should be allowed to kill a human being that I myself conceived that is now dependent on my organs, entirely because I made it so.

0

Anonymous #8 7h

But fetuses do get health insurance, which was your original question. Do you think children are entitled to healthcare prenatally?

-1

Anonymous #10 7h

what if we went on a camping trip and we had to drive through a snowstorm to get there, and your car's battery died. i would freeze to death if i didn't slice open your stomach and hide inside you for warmth. you brought me into this situation, so its your responsibility to keep me alive, right?

2

Anonymous #11 7h

That would kill me, which doesn’t apply to pregnancy unless the mother has a life threatening condition, in which case an abortion is always permitted. Do you think I have a right to kill you? Because that’s what abortion does. It actively kills an innocent human being.

0

Anonymous #10 7h

You’re completely missing the point. It is completely redundant to include a fetus specifically into a bill on health insurance in which all individuals are covered when every single medical bill is billed to the mother. A pregnant mother would need to be added onto a bill only guaranteeing health insurance for children, but a fetus who is not an individual separate from the mother would not need the same.

4

Anonymous #11 7h

The fetus is inside your body because you put it there. Let’s say a mother has to drive through a snowstorm and the car battery dies. Her newborn needs to be breastfed and she doesn’t have any formula. Is she obligated to use her organs to breastfeed her child until help arrives, or is it ok if the baby starves because it’s her body, her choice?

4

Anonymous #10 7h

what if it wouldn't kill you? it would be painful and draining and disfiguring but you'd live? is it okay then?

1

Anonymous #8 7h

Prenatal healthcare is for the fetus and the mother. And in cases like IVF do you think the embryo also deserves healthcare before being placed into the uterus? There are many cases where an unborn baby needs healthcare separate from the mother.

0

Anonymous #10 7h

lets say a mother births a child who has a congenital disease which causes kidneys to shut down at a young age. she brought the child into the world, and in doing so created a situation where they are dying of kidney failure. she is the only match for the child. should she be legally required to donate her kidney?

1

Anonymous #11 7h

No. But what if I said ok you can crawl inside me for the time being, but then I change my mind and take the knife and slit your throat while you’re inside me? Is that ok?

0

Anonymous #11 7h

Can you answer my question first? I answered all of yours.

0

Anonymous #10 7h

what are you talking about, prenatal healthcare for the embryo before being implanted? what exactly are you referring to?

6

Anonymous #11 7h

IVF

0

Anonymous #10 7h

in general she's obligated to feed her child because of parental responsibility (same way you're obligated to make lunch for your 5 year old because not doing so is neglect) but the child starving because she did not breastfeed it when she ran out of formula should be considered a tragedy of circumstance and not a crime

1

Anonymous #11 7h

im saying this mostly under the assumption that she would be feeding formula for a reason. if she had stable milk supply and didn't feed it that would probably be neglect but i also think feeding an infant in a crisis is different than carrying a baby for 9 months

6

Anonymous #10 7h

yeah i heard you the first time. what healthcare are you referring to that the embryo receives?

2

Anonymous #10 7h

Yeah so if you read my comment literally right below from like 4 hours ago, I’ve already addressed that. I’m not debating you on this for hours like everyone else because I have a nursing shift tomorrow while you’re arguing about not being virtue signaled to in a bill that doesn’t exist yet on the internet. Who do you even think gets the bill for IVF? You don’t know what you’re even talking about and anyone with eyes can see you’re cherry picking information without any understanding on it, bud.

3

Anonymous #11 7h

It’s mostly just freezing, implantation, fertilization, and genetic testing which #10 seems to think the fetus is being billed for

1

Anonymous #11 7h

There are millions of women around the world who don’t have access to formula, which was also a relatively recent invention in human history. Do you really think it isn’t neglect if their children starve because they refuse to breastfeed?

0

Anonymous #11 7h

Controlled incubators to mimic natural environment of the fallopian tubes so the child survives, given nutrient dense substances appropriate for them at their growth stage that they need to live and grow, monitoring

0

Anonymous #8 7h

Parents always get the bill for the healthcare of their children what’s your point

0

Anonymous #10 7h

And whose bill does that go under?

1

Anonymous #8 7h

The parents, like all children. But the children still individually have a right to healthcare even if it’s the parents paying for them, would you agree?

0

Anonymous #10 6h

So here’s the deal. The reason for universal healthcare is so that nobody is limited by financial resources when seeking out care in early prevention or medical emergencies. A mother would not be impacted whatsoever for a child who is getting surgery and it would not be billed under her as a patient. However, if a fetus is receiving a fetoscopic surgery, the mother IS a patient and it would be billed for her.

1

Anonymous #10 6h

If she is the one getting the bill as a patient and either not the fetus or simply with the fetus. The bill is still not going solely to the fetus and would automatically be covered. Adding language to specify this would only serve to pacify your fragile mind in which you want to scream and cry about fetal personhood and would not impact patient care or coverage in the slightest. You are creating a problem that does not exist because you need to feel like your beliefs are special.

1

Anonymous #8 6h

Then you don’t need health insurance from cradle to grave because all kids are under their parents bill. So from cradle to grave is also virtue signalling

0

Anonymous #10 6h

Children if not covered by insurance will not be brought to get care because the parents can’t pay. Any procedure to a fetus will impact the mother. Even IVF starts before an embryo is created and growing costs are billed upfront so embryos aren’t being created then allowed to “starve”. So try again because you’re only proving this isn’t based on logic. I thought yall were facts over feelings no?

1

Anonymous #10 6h

You must actually be stupid, can’t read, of only read the second half bc I literally explained it in the first part of the comment. You can make yourself look like an uneducated, bumbling idiot all night for all I care but I’m going to bed. Please keep proving my points for me I beg you.

1

Anonymous #10 6h

“From the cradle to the grave” is also quite literally an idiom tracing back to 1709 and you’re bean souping it to not fit your particular worldview, dumbfuck. It’s not virtue signaling to try and use a phrase to say “all people should get healthcare” but you are asking for virtue signaling by pitching a hissy fit because “they didn’t say fetuses get it too”

1

Anonymous #10 2h

U sound dumb as hell rn dawg

1

Anonymous #11 2h

U gotta pull the dolphin fetus trick

1