Prosperous America

[Scanner]

Why not just let it be at let all individuals decide and the government not interfere period with marriage and abortion?

This is silly talk. . .like debating: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

A. The states already regulate and certify marriages

B. If you let individuals regulate marriages, then you just get a cluster-f of anything that goes. . .I mean, me and 4 other men and 10 other women think a Group Marriage is cool. So. . .one of us gets a job and then the employer has to put on the other 9 people and their kids because they are "family", right?

I am sure you all wouldn't mind paying for that, right?

Hey, we are married, right? A reverend in Las Vegas performed the ceremony so it must be so and we all have wedding bands.

This is exactly what I mean about morality being one of the only things you can and should legislate. If you don't have boundaries, you just have anarchy.

C. As far as abortion, the same matter applies but in a different set of circumstances. You don't legislate it at least somewhat and just let it be a "personal decision" between doctor and patient and then you have it being used as birth control and a society destroying fetal material just as a matter of course.

Again, I am no closet Conservative but I think the CAtholic Church's criticism of whether we want to promote a Culture of Death or not is definitely an appropriate question to ask and try to answer. Am I "anti-abortion" - no, not necessarily so. I am just not at all supportive in having blind faith in the Feckless and the Great Unwashed in making decisions.

These are the same people that if you give them a tax rebate they'll go spend it on tatoo's and Coors Light and then end up in the hosptial ER for an ear infection crying they don't have any money for a family doctor visit.

You want them making ethical decisions on abortion and marriage?

I think you give the Feckless too much credit, just like everyone puts Bank CEO's on a pedestal.

PS: LivingLarge: I think Abu from the Simpson's is Hindu, not Muslim.

Apu Nahasapeemapetilon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[disneysteve]

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.

Medical treatment requires informed consent. Legally, a minor can not grant consent. Besides, I think we should be doing all we can to encourage parental involvement in their kids' lives. Allowing kids to get abortions without their parents knowledge is a terrible idea. That kid needs support and after-care and the parents should be involved every step of the way. And I hate to even think about the situation if anything bad happens as a result of the termination, like excessive bleeding or infection. If a kid didn't tell mom and dad about the pregnancy and termination, how easy will it be to then tell them about the problem afterwards. How long will care be delayed because the kid doesn't know what to do at that point?

As a parent, I would be very upset if my daughter got pregnant unintentionally, but I'd be far angrier if I only found out after a termination done without my knowledge or consent.

[maat55]

[

QUOTE=LivingAlmostLarge;218482]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.

Be real, I could google up a long list of religions, not to mention a large % of professing believers in God. Unfortunatly, many of those who claim to believe in God live a secular life. To each his own. I don't care one way or the other about a liquor store not being open one day a week.

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.

Do you really want to argue numbers on this subject. They do support a clinics right to commit murder, how many abortions are there a year? And how many extremist have killed abortion doctors? I don't condone either, which do you condone?

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?

I wonder how many of them would be adopted if allowed to be born? I wonder how many people would take serious birth control or higher morality standards if abortions were outlawed?

I wonder if this same standard will work against the elderly in the future when SS & medicare dries up. If it is financially convienent to destroy a baby, will it be convienent to eliminate the elderly?

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?

What regulations?

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.

Oh really? All I have noticed is a futher digression from our moral roots to a secular, less moral society.

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.

One, maybe on drugs.

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?

[/QUOTE]

You can display your rainbow correlation sticker, I'll display my "Where is John Galt" sticker.

Have you ever considered what this world would look like if America was just another France. Give it some real thought.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

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.

My reasoning for states having more power eliminates having an out of control federal government. IMO, the people will be better served if they can deal with their elected officials on a local level.

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 don't condemn anyone for their sins, we are all sinners. But I do believe that society as a whole should set the standards and not those of the least of morals. At some point, we will have prostitutes freely in the streets, drug dealers on every corner. Lack of moral restraint leads to chaos.

I don't consider homosexuals anymore sinful than an fornicator, But it is a sin and a detriment to society that should not be given moral status. I'm no better than an homosexual, I too am not perfect, no one is. But I own up to my disgressions and understand they are wrong, naturally or spiritually.

[disneysteve]

I don't consider homosexuals anymore sinful than an fornicator, But it is a sin

See, but here is where things get troublesome. Just because you personally consider homosexuality a sin doesn't make it so. That is your religious belief, and you have every right to believe it and I would defend your right to do so. But plenty of other people (and other religions) do not share that belief and they all have the right to their beliefs as well. You can't say that your way is the only right way and everyone else has to follow your beliefs.

[maat55]

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

IMO, capitalism best provides these desires. But I also think that excessive government impeads these goals.
There will always be those without jobs.
Wages are based on knowledge and performance. The economy is always going to have low paying jobs, suited for those who are not breadwinners.
I would imagine that our housing, across the board, is one of the best in the world, per capita.
Retirement with dignity is a personal responsibility, as is most of our personal desires.
I'm for a fair consumption tax, this would have everyone pay according to their spending only. This would probably leave the government having to cut many spending and social programs that would alow the people to retain more of their earnings to invest or blow at their disgression. IMO, a better financially aware populist would better use these funds.
I believe peace is better provided through strength. Do we really have a choice in this?
A clean environment is a great goal, but we would have to live in teepees to have it. Realistically, our modern lifestyles will not be sqeaky clean, and obliterating our economy is not a viable solution. I'm a advocate for energy independence through fossil fuels shorterm and green technology longterm. We need real jobs(good paying) now and less of our dollars supporting our enemies.

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.

These are all viable government oversites. But I would like to see as many of them as possible in the hands of the states.

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.

I would argue that the more an individual provides for him/herself the better for the society. Our capitalist system has done more to provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than any other system ever.

Everyone has different talents and levels of work ethic. With government as a proper referee, our system will provide more opportunity than any other, when it stays in its pandora's box. IMO, the more our country drifts from its founding principles, more towards a socialistic system, it will provide less freedom and opportunity for the whole of society.

[maat55]

See, but here is where things get troublesome. Just because you personally consider homosexuality a sin doesn't make it so. That is your religious belief, and you have every right to believe it and I would defend your right to do so. But plenty of other people (and other religions) do not share that belief and they all have the right to their beliefs as well. You can't say that your way is the only right way and everyone else has to follow your beliefs.

You are right, in this country we all have a vote. Those who do not share my opinion, will vote a different way. I am merely a small speed bump on the road to chaos.

[disneysteve]

You are right, in this country we all have a vote. Those who do not share my opinion, will vote a different way.

True, but my point is that certain things shouldn't be up for a vote because they shouldn't be decided in that manner. There is a large Christian majority in this country (over 80% I believe). If religious issues get put to a vote, the Christian belief will likely always win. That doesn't sound like freedom of religion to me.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Maat, you are making a judgment and expecting your way to be right instead of saying it's just a judgment.

Scanner, I have no issues however people want to live. Just don't regulate it. I'm not sure. I think that people have to live with their own decision period. Making it all regulated makes it easy way out.

And Maat, there are multiple studies showing that STDs, Abortions, and basically all sexual activity in the US is higher than other countries that don't treat sex as evil. We moralize it and thus "abstinence" only programs instead of education is seen as "right".

And please, until we change adoption rules, no matter how many infants are born in the US they won't be adopted. Everyone I know adopted outside of the US, including my two siblings. Specifically because of stupid adoption rules in the US allowing biological parents TOO much leeway. Biology over everything else. Thus I know over 30 couples who've adopted and non from within the US. They also paid an average of $20k to adopt outside instead of fostering or doing a US adoption.

So sure we could ban abortions, but with sex more rampant, how many more woman would go to illegal abortions anyways? Like previously?

Less than 100 years ago woman couldn't vote. They couldn't own property. Less than 200 years ago we had slavery.

Just because it was accepted during that time why did it change? Same thing with the US morality. When will we change? We did end up following France and Europe about slavery....

[disneysteve]

Less than 100 years ago woman couldn't vote. They couldn't own property. Less than 200 years ago we had slavery.

Just because it was accepted during that time why did it change?

True. Just because discrimination, prejudice and bigotry is government-sanctioned or institutionalized by religious organizations doesn't change the fact that it is still discrimination. Prejudice is alive and well today. Some religions discriminiate against woman and don't allow them to become priests or ministers. The US military discriminates against homosexuals. And we all know that racial discrimination is all around us. Just because something is legal and accepted doesn't make it right. We've made great strides over the years but we still have a long way to go.

[geojen]

Lets step back from the moral implications of abortion right now, and consider the other aspect of the debate, one that seldom if ever is mentioned: the financial aspect of unwanted pregnancies. Consider that most abortions are performed for women who cannot afford to support another child, but lets take a step back from that even, and talk about the financial impact of the pregnancy itself.

1) A large percentage of unwanted/unexpected pregnancies occur in women with low incomes
2) Pregnancies are expensive medical conditions--prenatal care is expensive, especially if you have no insurance. If you have a low income, most likely you have inadequate or no insurance
3) Because you have inadequate prenatal care, your risk for complications is higher
4) You most likely have to work while you are pregnant to support yourself, but at some point most pregnant women have to stop working. Where is your income going to come from at that point?

So now, you have a poor, pregnant woman who cannot work or has to work reduced hours and had inadequate access to prenatal care. No wonder our country has one of the highest neonatal mortality rates in the world.

5) Then, once you have the baby you cannot work for a period of time because you have to recover from having the child.

6) Plus, you have huge bills from delivering your child that you have to pay for as well.

7) Not to mention that statistically, children of poor, single women are more likely to end up incarcerated, which results in yet another financial cost to the society as a whole as well.

It seems to me that a valid argument could be made that the financial costs to society are just as large as the supposed moral costs as well and should be considered in any discussion of abortion.

[unsecuredmoneygroup]

Yeah, even at a practical level abortion makes sense. Aside even from issues of cost, look at the world around us. Our insanely rapid expansion has begun to noticeably stress the biosphere. Less people isn't gonna get in the way of us fixing our environmental problems. Extrapolate the numbers: if birthrates continue at current rates, we will pass a point of no return. Abortion can't hurt us at all.

[maat55]

True, but my point is that certain things shouldn't be up for a vote because they shouldn't be decided in that manner. There is a large Christian majority in this country (over 80% I believe). If religious issues get put to a vote, the Christian belief will likely always win. That doesn't sound like freedom of religion to me.

I'm not able to just sweep abortion under the rug as it it were some small thing.

I'm not free to walk into a store and take something without paying for it. I'm not free to kill my neighbors noisy dog, I'm not free to yell fire in a theater. Complete freedom is chaos and anarchy.

Tell me, what kinda of judgment are we using when we tell an 18 year old boy he cannot have sex with a 13 year old girl?

What kind of judgment are we using when we say a human cannot have sex with an animal?

What kind of judgment are we using when we say three people cannot be married?

Tell me Steve, do you have a problem with NAMBLA? What of their freedom?

I wonder if there are any emotional scares after an abortion. I wonder what the life expectancy is for homosexuals. I wonder how STD's are spread.

Why do we make any laws at all?

[disneysteve]

I'm not able to just sweep abortion under the rug as it it were some small thing.

I'm not free to walk into a store and take something without paying for it. I'm not free to kill my neighbors noisy dog, I'm not free to yell fire in a theater. Complete freedom is chaos and anarchy.

Tell me, what kinda of judgment are we using when we tell an 18 year old boy he cannot have sex with a 13 year old girl?

What kind of judgment are we using when we say a human cannot have sex with an animal?

What kind of judgment are we using when we say three people cannot be married?

Tell me Steve, do you have a problem with NAMBLA? What of their freedom?

I wonder if there are any emotional scares after an abortion. I wonder what the life expectancy is for homosexuals. I wonder how STD's are spread.

Why do we make any laws at all?

I totally agree with this post. We need laws. We need order. We need some basic shared sense of right and wrong.

I think, however, that there is a big difference between an issue that affects other people who are not consenting participants in the process and an issue that is very personal and confined to the person or people involved.

Example: I support smoking bans because smokers injure the people around them via secondhand smoke.

I support having an age of consent so that the 18 year old can't have sex with the 13 year old without legal consequences.

I support laws making theft illegal because theft has a victim who is not a willing participant in the process.

I do not support the government telling 2 grown men or grown women what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own bedroom. As long as both people are there of their own free will, it is none of the government's business.

I do not support the government telling a woman that she must carry a pregnancy to term whether she wants to or not (or is medically fit to or not).

Yes, I realize that some people consider the fetus a victim in the abortion scenario. That's an issue that can never be resolved. Nobody on either side of the debate will ever change their mind.

[maat55]

Yes, I realize that some people consider the fetus a victim in the abortion scenario. That's an issue that can never be resolved. Nobody on either side of the debate will ever change their mind.

Not some people, a majority of people. If the debate cannot be decided, why are we not ruling in favor of the fetus who has no say. Would it be inconvienent to abolish abortion? sure it would. But the right thing is not always the easy thing.