Prosperous America

[disneysteve]

However, the anti-life crowd seems to support NO limits whatsoever on abortion and shows no concern whatsoever for the rights of child. In fact, the militant abortion crowd does not even recognize the developing child as a human being at ANY stage of the pregnancy.

I definitely oppose using abortion as birth control. It is far, far better to prevent unintended pregnancies than to have to deal with them once they occur. Hopefully, the "abstinence only" school curricula will fade away and students will start getting real sex education in our nation's schools, as I did back when I was in school.

I also believe in parental notification/consent laws. A teenager shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion without her parents knowing about it and consenting.

I'm honestly not sure what the laws are for murdering a pregnant woman. Does anyone know? Does it vary from state to state? Does it depend on how far along the pregnancy is?

[maat55]

A lot of argument stem from what is considered "life". Hence some companies (walmart) don't want to sell the morning after pill. You have many pharmacists refusing to give out prescriptions for morning after pills. Thus we're saying that even before implantation the fertilized egg is a life. Depends on what you think is life.

Personally, I have no problem with the morning after pill(assuming it is a pill you take the morning after sex). My uneducated opinion of what constitutes life is when there is a heartbeat.

But for Maat, I think it's unfair that your religion can impose the will on others. I think it'd just be more fair for government to not say anything. I believe it depends on how far along you are that determine if you are put on trial for murder of a woman and her baby versus just the woman.

First, my religion is my moral compass. Everyone that has a sense of morality bases their morality on some standard. My sense that a living human in its mother deserves the same protection under the law as a baby or adult outside the womb, is not a religious mandate.

For such a westernized country we have so much arguments over morality issues. Issues such as abortion and gay marriages/civil unions. What is wrong with allowing everyone individual choice for both abortion and civil unions?

What would be wrong with me taking my neighbors life, or my own childs life? What would be wrong with me taking your property if I needed it? Creating an unwanted life is irresponsible, taking that life because it is inconvienent is a selfish, soulless, immoral(by any standard of morality) act.

I find it interesting that cschin talks about defending the unborn if you really believe, that justifies murder. Which is actually what people who bomb abortion clinics, kill doctors do justify their actions. Never questioning about the lives they are taking who are already living and breathing?

Every religion and or group or organization has its extremist. Protesting is honorable, killing an abortion doctor is murder, and should be punished. Same for bombing clinics.

Second, what would be the problem with allowing civil unions? Except it anger religious beliefs, but otherwise? Making marriage nothing more than a civil contract and nullifying the religious aspect of it? A legal contract?

I think the states should decide this issue. Many states will condone it, many will not. I think homosexuallity is a degredation of society that should not be given legal status. But, I am just one vote.

[asmom]

Even where sodomy laws have been in place, I don't recall them being exercised.
Don't see any state introducing prohibition again.
I can't imagine states interfering in marriage between a man and a women in any case.

The constitution would remain in effect. Only admendments 16 and 27 would be repealed.

That's incorrect. People have been arrested for breaking sodomy laws in this century. As for Prohibition, I wouldn't be so sure. Here in GA, we can't get laws passed to sell liquor on Sunday because our governmental officials don't think we need to be able to buy it on Sunday. That's the "Lord's day". I shudder to think that those people should have the right to decide what else is moral.

At any rate, the point is why should the government have the option to enforce the laws by making them in the first place? I don't want to be at the mercy of some cop or DA or judge's whim as to whether they want to arrest/prosecute/sentence me because they don't agree with my lifestyle. The government should not have the right to make those laws in the first place.

So why does this interfere with your vision of a prosperous America? Historically states that legislate morality are extremely conservative; they are anti-intellectual, anti-progressive and discourage new ideas and different ways of doing things. That is not good for prosperity. A country needs to be free and open to new and different ways of doing things in order to grow and thrive.

[asmom]

Sorry, but the current Pres is trying to remove ALL opportunities for doctors and healthcare workers to refuse or participate against their beliefs. And, our local hospital is a Catholic hospital who's bylaws have a "perpetual ban" against both abortion and euthanasia.
And, not providing or offering an abortion is in no way "denying someone healthcare".

Oh hi, that is not true.

There was already an existing law that allowed health care workers to refuse to provide abortions on moral grounds. In the last weeks of the Bush administration, there was an add-on that allowed health care workers to refuse to provide birth control also on moral grounds. Worse than that even, they even have the right to refer you to someone who will do it. I can't believe that there are a significant number of people who think that was a good idea. So the Obama administration is moving to rescind the add-on. No healthcare worker anywhere in this country will ever be forced to provide abortions or euthanasia. That is a lot of false hysteria.

[disneysteve]

Here in GA, we can't get laws passed to sell liquor on Sunday because our governmental officials don't think we need to be able to buy it on Sunday. That's the "Lord's day".

Yes, Sunday is the Sabbath for some. Of course, Saturday is the Sabbath for others. I think this is an issue that should be decided by the individual storekeeper. If he/she want's to be open on Sunday, that should be up to him. Chik-fil-a is closed on Sundays because of the religious beliefs of it's founder. I have no problem with that at all. I think it is great that he honored his religious beliefs in that way and didn't give in to societal or financial pressure to open on Sundays. Having the government force a business to close on Sundays is a whole different story, though. Why, for example, should a Jewish store owner have to close on Sundays? That day isn't holy to him and his family. An observant Jew would close on Friday night and Saturday, not Sunday.

[asmom]

Yes, Sunday is the Sabbath for some. Of course, Saturday is the Sabbath for others. ...... Why, for example, should a Jewish store owner have to close on Sundays? That day isn't holy to him and his family. An observant Jew would close on Friday night and Saturday, not Sunday.

Precisely.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Because DisneySteve, the only religion is that of Christians! LOL. Seriously I agree, that it seems religious freedoms only apply to those who are Christian. To be anything else it's not considered. If so then all stores should stop selling liquor Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for Muslims and Jews. After all those are major religions, perhaps not in the US, but in the rest of the world.

But Maat, here's the deal, the extreme pro-choice people don't go out killing people protesting. They are supportive of the choice. They don't go killing people who disagree with them.

Something that's always bothered me, if you are anti-abortion, does that mean you are pro-welfare? That you believe in helping those who decide against abortion and live off the government dole? Are you willing to pay more taxes to help those people out?

If you read the census, most westernized countries, though they have less LIMITS on abortions have had abortions decreasing in their countries still such as UK, Canada, Netherlands, etc.

The US doesn't, though we impose stricter regulations. Why?

Easy peasy answer. We don't teach people about sex, birth control, and diseases. We have the highest rate of teen pregnancy and STD transmission of a Westernized country. We have the highest rate of abortion. Yet we have all these "moral" rules.

One can argue our religious morality is blocking what would be a natural evolution of morality if we allowed people to choose like other countries.

But since you argue the states should make more rules, it's happening. Gay marriage is now legal in 4 states MA, Conn, Iowa, and Vermont. I am guessing in the next 1 year another 3 states will fall in. I'm thinking NY, NJ, and Wisconsin. So in 20 years will we allow it in every state?

[Scanner]

I'm happy to agree to disagree on this. As I said earlier, I don't want the government making moral decisions for me and my family. We can take care of our own morality just fine. Morality shouldn't be legislated.

You have it backwards, DisneySteve.

Morality is the only thing you legislate.

That's the whole thing with this subprime debacle - it's not about capitalism vs. socialism. It's about bank CEO's being pigs with money. That's why the industry needs regulating and banks needing to be broken up, nationalized, and then resold.

Because they are acting like swine and for a human to act like a swine is morally wrong.

[rizzmo]

It is my belief that people should be free to follow their own beliefs. Maat55 though I vehemently disagree with your religious beliefs, I would never seek to deny you them, though it seems that your belief system will not afford me the same level of respect. I must say that I agree with you so much as I see nothing wrong with states deciding on these moral issues. Whether this is decided at a federal or state level, the bottom line is both state and federal have equal chance of making the wrong decision, whatever that maybe. So if this point is pivotal to your vision of a prosperous America I have no objections. Steve I agree that ideally this is an issue that should not be handled by the government; however it seems that ship has sailed and government intervention is here to stay. Now I am compelled to respond to some comments made on this subject.

I think the states should decide this issue. Many states will condone it, many will not. I think homosexuallity is a degredation of society that should not be given legal status. But, I am just one vote.

Not to sound redundant but states deciding … sure. Overtime people will move to area’s that suit their tastes and beliefs is that not why people first chose to move here from other countries. Really, I mean really did you have to put the homosexuality comment in here, where did this even come from? So what follow the lord teachings sometimes? Was Jesus not kind to prostitutes and people who worshipped false idols and had different beliefs from him? I’m sure the 11th commandment would have been “thou shall not foster, or participate in intolerance” had God not felt this was not self evident. It was this same intolerance that ultimately had his son crucified. Intolerance is the soil in which hate is sewn, and hate leads to the oppression of the minority and we all know how that ends. Can you elaborate on how your religious beliefs allow you to take a stance of intolerance?

I definitely oppose using abortion as birth control. It is far, far better to prevent unintended pregnancies than to have to deal with them once they occur. Hopefully, the "abstinence only" school curricula will fade away and students will start getting real sex education in our nation's schools, as I did back when I was in school.

I also believe in parental notification/consent laws. A teenager shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion without her parents knowing about it and consenting.

I'm honestly not sure what the laws are for murdering a pregnant woman. Does anyone know? Does it vary from state to state? Does it depend on how far along the pregnancy is?

Steve I am mostly in agreement with the above quote. Could you elaborate on why you believe in the parental notification/consent laws? This just doesn’t seem consistent with your view point on this subject overall, so I am curious.

[EEinNJ]

I think this thread wandered into politics and religion because there was never a definition of prosperity, just the question of what is government's role in creating it.

Here is an ideal for prosperity:
When everyone who needs a job has one,
Where everyone is paid a living wage.
No one is homeless or lives in substandard housing.
No one goes without basic healthcare
Senior citizens can retire in dignity
People pay their fair share of taxes, and can afford to
The country is at peace
Our environment is clean

What is governments role? There are things for the common good, like infrastructure and defense. There are undertakings for which there is no clear profit motive- basic research, science. A safety net for the sick and elderly, for one day we will all be there. Regulating public safety, such as food, drugs, hazardous industry, mass transportation. Protecting the consumer from dangerous products and unfair business practices. Providing education, law enforcement.

I could go on, but my point is we cannot be prosperous as individuals without having the greater means to create prosperity as a society.

[Scanner]

EEinNJ:

You may want to examine this link:

Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The HDI is a way to measure how "prosperous" a society is.

A little more simple than your measurement, it's defined as:

1. Life expectancy
2. Standard of living
3. Literacy/education

To Maat, "prosperous" may just be "dough" (number 2). . .it sounds like it as all of his initiatives are aimed at taxation and monetary policy. . .but to others, just having a nation of ignorant rich Paris Hiltons may not be a "prosperous society."

Notice the nations ahead of the US and someone proceed to give Maat CPR as many of them are socialist.

How is it that "socialist" nations are beating us in life expectancy, literacy, and standard of living? Hey, I don't like it anymore than the next guy but we may have to face facts that raw, lassiez-faire capitalism has failed.

What a minute . . .someone penned that after I said it. . .

Laissez-Faire Capitalism Has Failed - Forbes.com

[boosami]

Here in GA, we can't get laws passed to sell liquor on Sunday because our governmental officials don't think we need to be able to buy it on Sunday. That's the "Lord's day"

Laws to prevent liquor sales on Sundays may have started as a religious thing, but these days it has nothing to do with religion. The people who ensure those laws stay in place are the liquor store owners themselves. They get a free day off each Sunday, and save operating expenses every week. Why? There's no other option or competition that day. People buy just as much booze, they just have to get some extra on Saturday instead of Sunday. Profits would be the same for a 7-day week as a 6-day week in a place with those laws. God has nothing to do with it, unless your definition of god is the liquor store owners assocaition.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Yeah but boosami, wanna bet if the law were raised and you had a muslim liquor store owner who saw nothing wrong with working on Sunday and did? Okay I'll take some hits here but I'm thinking Abu from the Simpsons and the quickie mart.

So would Abu put all others out of business? Would it be wrong for him to do so? Probably not most would say but some would argue that he's taking advantage of those who don't want to work on the "lord's day". But to him, it's not the lord's day.

And I do always wonder why our society is supposedly the best medical care but we are behind in life expectancy, mortality, obesity? Talk to most insurance people and doctors, it's because of lack of preventative care.

US has specialists for everything. They can cure the most arcane diseases. But basic care? Well we don't believe in it

[boosami]

So would Abu put all others out of business? Would it be wrong for him to do so? Probably not most would say but some would argue that he's taking advantage of those who don't want to work on the "lord's day".

Liquor store owners and hardcore Christians agree on that law, but they are not the same group of people. They want the law in existance for completely different reasons. If the law was changed, all the liquor stores would change their schedules to be open on Sundays because of competition.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

No they are not the same group. But it's a much larger group that pushed no alcohol sales on Sunday.

Besides Iowa just legalized gay marriage because they feel telling others how to live is a bad idea.

So I wonder, maat wants states to decide everything. Leave it up to individuals. Why not just let it be at let all individuals decide and the government not interfere period with marriage and abortion?