Self contradiction?: I saw a girl wearing a t-shirt in Berkeley today that said: "U.S. Out of my Uterus"...

Question

...she got into a car with a bumper sticker that said: "Single-Payer Healthcare Now!"

Now, if she wants the government out of her uterus, why would she want the government in her spleen or her tonsils? Or her lungs, muscles, ears, nose, throat or any other of her body parts?

Oh, and...if she got single-payer health care, wouldn't that allow the government into her uterus anyway?

Um, based on the first response, I feel I should add that "single payer health care" means that the government pays for all health care, not the consumer. So, presumably, she can't "pay for her own medical expenses." Hence the contradiction.

Jeeper, I am staunchly pro-choice, but I appreciate the humor. Thanks.

Mike F., you may get Best Answer just based on creativity...thanks for the laugh!

Patches, I agree with you about abortion rights, but you didn't answer the question. I'm saying that she wants the government out of her uterus, but she wants the government in the rest of her body...because that would be the result of government-run health care. Therein lies the contradiction...

Well said, Wayne. I should stop being surprised. As Elvis Costello said: "now I try to be amused."

Scott U, I think you're onto something. She doesn't want the government to tell her she can't have an abortion, but apparently it's ok for the government to tell her she can't have an appendectomy or an MRI.

And yes, making the government pay means making us taxpayers pay, and if she can have "reproductive rights," then I want "productive rights." Thank you.

Sagacious_ness (what does that mean, anyway?), I don’t disagree that that 'abstinence-only' programs do more harm than good in the prevention of HIV/AIDS and STDs. I’m just saying her choice of rhetoric is self-contradictory: she wants the government to leave her body (her uterus) alone, while asking the government to take control of her body (by dictating her health care). The fact that there are contradictions elsewhere in the world (even worse ones) doesn’t make her any less self-contradictory.

Wayne G, you and Wayne C are getting to the crux of the matter: at what point does self-contradiction cross the line to hypocrisy?

Nancy G, I hope you are right…I hadn’t thought of that.

Jeepers, in response to your edit, it's not my intent to turn this question into an abortion debate. But if you want to call it pro abortion rights, that's ok.

And I know of very few people who are opposed to humans being able to sell their organs. If the organ companies are going to make millions off an organ, why shouldn't the person giving up the organ get a share? Yes, it is true that those who are willing to sell are generally desperate and ripe for being taken advantage of. But I don't agree that the solution is to punish all donors by taking away their compensation.

Sagacious_ness, I appreciate that your name is a real word...it just sounds a lot like "strategery" to me...

I read the link and agree that single-payer does not necessarily mean government funded. But for all practical purposes, that is what it means. The link gave examples of single-payer systems, and they were all government-run. But I see your point in theory.

Answer 1

she wants the government to stay out of her uterus, until she gets an abortion, then the state can pay for that little sojourn into her uterus. She's just a typical young college lib who is wandering lost down the path of common sense

Answer 2

It means she's pro-choice, maybe she'd also like a health care system that would cover birth control the same way it covers Viagra. Maybe she's smart enough to know that 'abstinence-only' programs do more harm than good in the prevention of HIV/AIDS and STDs. I see no contradiction.


-- Martin, I see what you're saying but I included the wikipedia link because it points out that a 'single payer' system does not necessarily mean that it's government administered.
-- sagacious_ness... I just kept playing around until I could come up with a unique ID :-) Here's the definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sagaciousness&x=10&y=17

<2nd EDIT>
LOL... No, it just takes work to get a unique ID in a system like Yahoo, and certainly not 'strategery' in the sense of Bush's "Strategery Group"! But you did make me look it up and it gave me a good chuckle. :-)
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Strategery

Seriously though, I do see your point in that a single- payer system in the US would probably be government (mis)managed. Just to throw in a wrinkle... I know my health insurance will cover abortion only if deemed a medical necessity (i.e., mother health, abnormal fetus, etc.), otherwise it would be an out-of-pocket expense. I'd assume that a single-payer health system would follow the same criteria. UNLESS (big unless) the government mandated that there be no provisions for medical neccessity at all. To me, that would be a terrible disservice and amounts to the government 'trumping' medical advise. In that case, there would be a definite (government induced) contradiction!

Answer 3

I think its hard to be consistently liberal on all things. She probably means that the government can't tell her not to have an abortion or to have an abortion, but she should be able to make the government pay for whatever decision she makes.

Of course, making the government pay is making us taxpayers pay.

It's my body that does the work that gets taxed...I want control over the production of my body like a woman has reproductive rights.

Answer 4

I don't think, as a matter of fact I'm sure, that universal health care will not cover abortion. That woman, and many others who found themselves in a predicament that made them feel that abortion is necessary would probably 'want' to leave the government out, and pay themselves.

Answer 5

Not really, her right to not have a child that is already living inside of her is one thing. Saying that she wants universal health care is another. The reason I don't see abortions as something supremely evil is because I see mothers who cause more suffering to there children while they are alive. Having children suffer because of inadequate parenting is the worst thing a person can see. It would cost less for the government to pay abortion then for the government to pay for the child until it was 18.

Answer 6

The father is not only a "first class idiot" but he has a warped sense of humor. This is sickening indeed!!! Did the dad have a shirt that read, "Dad of future porn star?"

Answer 7

The best Tee Shirt I ever saw was on a baby.

It said :

" I support abortion rights, cause im already born !! "


EDIT:

Pro Choice ?? you mean pro abortion rights, don't ya ?

Heck a murder can be pro choice, he choose to murder someone didn't he?

Ever notice, my " pro choice " people, are against humans being able to sell their organs.

So it is people bodies, as long as they just wanna kill part of it, but heck no, you cannot sell part of it.

Thats wrong.

I'll never understand that type of logic.

Answer 8

When friends of mine moved, I drove one of their vehicles for them. That vehicle proudly displayed a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker -- it wasn't my car and it didn't reflect my opinion. It was just a bumper sticker on a vehicle that I happened to be driving.

Maybe you've just "over-assumed".

Answer 9

Why would you be amazed by anything you see in "The Peoples Republic of Berkley"

The hottest selling item on Telegraph @Bancroft is the Che Guevara T-shirt.

Answer 10

Well, that's Berkeley for you.

Funniest thing i ever saw I Berkeley (this was years ago) was a huge billboard that said "Jesus sacrified for you."

Someone wrote beneath it "Does not count as time at bat"