Prosperous America

[cschin4]

The question is do the folks who believe abortion is murder have the right to impose that belief on the folks who don't feel the same way.

Those who believe abortion is murder not only have a right to attempt to "impose" this belief but in fact have a duty and obligation as a human being to do so.

[maat55]

The question is do the folks who believe abortion is murder have the right to impose that belief on the folks who don't feel the same way.

Those who believe abortion is murder not only have a right to attempt to "impose" this belief but in fact have a duty and obligation as a human being to do so.

I'm curious as to why a majority of the citizens of this country believe abortion is murder, but those who disagree, believe the majority of the nation should lower its standards to theirs. IMO, allowing each state to decide is a fair compromise.

But again, the financial aspect of smaller federal government is my focus. Many of the road blocks that are impeading our economy are of federal nature. States should decide their financial and industrial limits.

[disneysteve]

And, not providing or offering an abortion is in no way "denying someone healthcare".

Except in instances where the pregnancy threatens the mother's health.

[disneysteve]

But again, the financial aspect of smaller federal government is my focus. Many of the road blocks that are impeading our economy are of federal nature. States should decide their financial and industrial limits.

There is a feature article in TIME last week about creating national education standards. Many feel that leaving education to the states has been a colossal failure. In order to make it look like they are meeting proficiency standards, districts across the country have just lowered their standards, making it look like more and more of their students are proficient. Independent testing has shown that it isn't true at all because the standards being used are totally inadequate. I haven't read the whole article but it sounds pretty convincing so far. Did you know that there are over 13,000 school districts in the country, each with their own rules and guidelines and curricula and testing standards?

[disneysteve]

I'm curious as to why a majority of the citizens of this country believe abortion is murder, but those who disagree, believe the majority of the nation should lower its standards to theirs.

I don't believe that at all. I am absolutely not asking anyone else to change their beliefs or lower their standards. However, I expect the same courtesy. I don't want anyone forcing me to change my beliefs or lower my standards. If you (general you) don't believe in abortion, then don't have an abortion. But don't tell other people what they can and can't do.

[maat55]

And other people don't believe that.

The question is do the folks who believe abortion is murder have the right to impose that belief on the folks who don't feel the same way.

I agree with you that hospitals and doctors should have the right to refuse to perform abortions. The main hospital I refer my patients to is a Catholic-run facility. They do not perform abortions. For many years, their clinic did not prescribe birth control, though they do now. I totally support their right to make that decision. Same goes for individual doctors. No doctor should have to compromise his/her own personal beliefs in order to treat a patient. At the same time, doctors who support a woman's right to choose should not be banned from providing abortion services by government mandate.

Sorry for going OT from the finance stuff. I usually stay out of abortion discussions because it is a non-winnable debate. Neither side is ever going to change the mind of the other side because it isn't a fact or logic-based issue. It is largely a religious issue and as long as there continues to be multiple religions, there will continue to be multiple points of view (which I think is a good thing).

I must say, I am surprised you engaged this topic as much as you have. We both know that if states decided this issue, people would still have access to abortions. And I fully agree, this is not a winnable debate, peace.

[disneysteve]

I must say, I am surprised you engaged this topic as much as you have.

It is quite rare to have a place to discuss the issue without it getting really nasty and ugly. This thread and this group of people have actually kept the conversation civil. I commend all of you for that.

[maat55]

I don't believe that at all. I am absolutely not asking anyone else to change their beliefs or lower their standards. However, I expect the same courtesy. I don't want anyone forcing me to change my beliefs or lower my standards. If you (general you) don't believe in abortion, then don't have an abortion. But don't tell other people what they can and can't do.

My obedience to my faith directs my pro-life stance. Thou shalt not murder means, thou shalt not murder. I'm not allowed to murder you, why should a doctor be allowed to murder a baby. I have every right to impead your so called freedom to have an abortion, no different than you have the right to tell me I can not murder and adult. Why is it that when a mother wants her baby it is protected and when she does not, it is not protected? This is a fundamental flaw/sin of society, that should not be accepted.

Yes, society should tell people what they can and can't do.

[disneysteve]

My obedience to my faith directs my pro-life stance.

That is a religion-based argument, and a perfectly valid one. We're not talking about religion, though. We're talking about government. Why should the government, state or federal, have the right to side with your particular religious beliefs and impose them on people of all faiths? What happened to freedom of religion? What happened to separation of church and state?

[cschin4]

Except in instances where the pregnancy threatens the mother's health.
__________________

Don't you mean mother's "life" not "health"? And, by all means, please tell me under what circumstances one would need to perform an abortion to save the mother's life versus actually delivering the baby or performing a C Section. If the mother's life is in danger so is the baby's. This is a phony argument and a disingenuous one as well.

[cschin4]

It is quite rare to have a place to discuss the issue without it getting really nasty and ugly. This thread and this group of people have actually kept the conversation civil. I commend all of you for that.

Again, no disrespect intended. Trying to have a civil discussion. 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.
So, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Don't you think that if there is the risk of actually killing a human being that we should take great care and making sure we are NOT killing a life? And, it is easy to kill the least among us as they cannot form a lobby and march on Washington.

[maat55]

That is a religion-based argument, and a perfectly valid one. We're not talking about religion, though. We're talking about government. Why should the government, state or federal, have the right to side with your particular religious beliefs and impose them on people of all faiths? What happened to freedom of religion? What happened to separation of church and state?

The government, is the entity that establishes and enforces our laws. Murder is one of these laws. A baby inside the womb is still a baby, this is not really a religious view, but a fact.

If I were a criminal and I shot a pregnant women, killing her and her child, I would be guilty of a double murder, would I not? The idea that one supreme court member could decide this issue for the masses is unfortunate.

Abortion is a societal issue, not an individual issue and should be decided by the people of the state either by vote or legislature. California and Oklahoma have two different sets of values, we should not, through the federal government, have to degrade our society. The whole point of morals and laws is to guide people to be better for the sake of society.

The establishment of this country as a government by the people came at great stress as to whether the people were moral enough to govern themselves. Our constitution was established for a moral people and will pass away in the hands of an immoral people. It is happening before our eyes today. People have become apathetic to immorality and government asistance. With every new program, we become a less free people. We are preparing ourselves for either socialism, facism or communism, all of which come due to lack of a moral people.

[maat55]

It is quite rare to have a place to discuss the issue without it getting really nasty and ugly. This thread and this group of people have actually kept the conversation civil. I commend all of you for that.

Again, no disrespect intended. Trying to have a civil discussion. 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.
So, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Don't you think that if there is the risk of actually killing a human being that we should take great care and making sure we are NOT killing a life? And, it is easy to kill the least among us as they cannot form a lobby and march on Washington.

This is truly an issue that reflects on the society as a whole. Abortion is but one of the degredations that is leading this country away from freedom.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

[disneysteve]

Don't you mean mother's "life" not "health"? And, by all means, please tell me under what circumstances one would need to perform an abortion to save the mother's life versus actually delivering the baby or performing a C Section. If the mother's life is in danger so is the baby's. This is a phony argument and a disingenuous one as well.

Yes, I guess "life" would be a more appropriate term. Lots of mothers have their health affected by pregnancy - high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, etc. - just not to an extent serious enough to threaten her life.

I'm not an expert in high risk obstetrics but there are certainly cases where a woman may have a medical condition that would make carrying a pregnancy to term a serious risk to her life. I can think of one patient a few years ago who had a brain aneurysm. Her neurosurgeons felt that the increased stress on her body and circulatory system from pregnancy could have caused her aneurysm to rupture which would have been fatal most likely. And I know of another case of a woman who had previously (recently before the pregnancy) suffered a blood clot in her leg that had traveled to her lung. She nearly died from that. At that point, as is standard treatment, she was on a blood thinner to prevent another clot. She couldn't continue to take the blood thinner when she became pregnant, meaning she risked another life-threatening clot.

So I'd have to disagree that it is a phony argument.