Prosperous America

[KTP]

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.

Is it right to spend $3 million on 8 kids just because Octomom refused selective abortion.

That 3 million is going to mean other poor kids go without things or have less medical treatment available (money doesn't grow on trees, as you would know since you read this forum).

Saying abolishing abortion is just "inconvienent" is a gross understatement.

Well, I guess I could agree with abolishing abortion if we implemented the following few steps:

1) Manditory norplant or other birth control device for all boys and girls starting at age 12. After reaching the drinking age of 21, they can take a 6 month course in child care and have the birth control removed.

2) No more fertility treatments. If you need a kid that bad, adopt one. If you need 8 kids after you already have 6 and are on welfare, then you need a lobotomy.

3) Manditory death sentence for rapes, and all of the assets of the criminal go to pay for the child

I think these are fairly reasonable steps to take before we abolish abortion?

[creditoria]

Simplicity is hardly the solution for any system aimed at perfection.

Simplicity in social bounds and relations means brutality of the strong over the weak. It might bring in order for just a short period of time.

[maat55]

Who thinks that the GM and Chrysler union workers are getting ready to become subsidized government employees just for the sake of votes in the next election?

Capitalism has a clear cut way to deal with poorly managed companies, this is not how America works.

[disneysteve]

Who thinks that the GM and Chrysler union workers are getting ready to become subsidized government employees just for the sake of votes in the next election?

Capitalism has a clear cut way to deal with poorly managed companies, this is not how America works.

I agree. For the most part, I think the bailouts were bad ideas, poorly implemented at great cost to the taxpayers.

[disneysteve]

If I may move back to the healthcare arena, there is another topic that has huge financial implications but is also complicated by moral issues and that is end-of-life care. I don't have current stats, but I know that an out of proportion percentage of health care dollars are spent on patients in their final days of life. Americans traditionally have a big problem dealing with and accepting death. Families often insist that doctors do everything possible to prolong life regardless of the cost.

How do we reform healthcare, whether on a federal or state level, to rein in costs and make care more accessible without addressing this issue? Who should have the final say in what care gets delivered to terminally ill patients? Billions of dollars could be saved in we could solve this piece of the puzzle.

[rizzmo]

QUOTE=maat55;218671]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.[/QUOTE]

Which majority of people? Christians? Assuming 80% of our population are Christians, what percentage do you think are devout Christians? I'm not talking about the facade people put on at church and other religion related activities or how a person conducts themselves in front of others that will judge them based on the appearance of their devotion. When I say devout I'm talking about a person who holds themselves personally accountable to their religious doctrine without exception. A person who doesn't pick and choose which rules they will follow or make exceptions based on their own personal interpretation of rules and scripture. A person who makes a conscious decision to act in accordance with the rules that govern their religious beliefs, without exception no matter the personal consequences. Now anyone can claim to live like this, but the reality is few, if any, do. I suppose one could claim that a defiant act of self interest was a sin; however that is really just a convenient justification for picking and choosing which rules to follow. So the truly devout removed, we are now talking about 5% of the population at best (I’m inclined to put <1% of population, but I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt). This 5% will not carry a vote to law. Perhaps if we made how everyone votes public, or if you really wanted to lock in the vote, have them cast these votes when they attend church. That would probably get it closer to 80%, but that would be due to a subtle form of coercion.

[rizzmo]

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.

Good points, I did not consider the post abortion complications both mentally and medically. Even so there are some situations where this is not the best route to go. An example might be a teenager who gets pregnant by accident, who then tells her parents that she made a huge mistake and wants an abortion. Her reasons are: not being able to support the child, no father present, and not wanting to give up getting an education. Her parents then tell her that abortions are unacceptable to their religious beliefs and they will not give consent. In this situation the teenager obviously has different beliefs and desires from her parents, should they be able to force her to carry the child to term?

This sounds like an extenuating set of circumstances, however I think this might happen more often than people think. The example above is one of a friend of mine from high school; she ended up keeping the child. Even though she could have gotten the abortion legally, her parents told her if she had the abortion she would be cut off and on the street as soon as she turned 18. Mighty Christian of them. Anyway the story has a happy ending, shortly after she had the baby she had to quit high school and find a job, waitressing, to support the child. The father came back a few years later and got her pregnant again, then went to prison for robbery. So six years after her first child she got her GED. Now a full ten year later she has her CNA, lives in poverty with her parents, and has no health insurance and two children to support. Where's the happy ending? Well her parents got to earn themselves a place in heaven. Not saying her current situation is due solely to having the child, but knowing her personally it was significant. Though she has accepted the life she now has, she carries a good deal of regret for both her decision (if you can call it that) to keep the child and her parents forcing her hand in the decision.

[disneysteve]

rizzmo - I agree with you. This is a really tough issue for me. On the one hand, I don't think kids should be able to have major medical procedures without parental consent, but I also see the problem with that line of thinking, as you've illustrated. There is also a problem depending on the age of the child. There is a big difference to me between a 12 or 13 year old getting pregnant and a 17 year old getting pregnant, but the law says you aren't of legal age of consent until 18.

In general, I support parental rights, but I think there are circumstances where parents simply aren't doing what is best for their child and there should be a legal way for the child to get the necessary care no matter what, even if the parents won't give consent. And I'm not just talking about abortion. Another example that comes to mind is parents who refuse to take a sick child to a doctor because they believe in faith healing. Everytime I hear a story of a kid dying from some common treatable disease because of that, it angers me tremendously. There should be a simple legal way for a friend or relative to step in and get the child the necessary care.

[cptacek]

I'm curious how you feel about smoking bans.

I'm personally opposed to smoking bans. I do not smoke and in fact hate walking out of a bar or restaurant smelling of smoke, but I made a choice to go there, so I have to take that risk. I know of two bars that are non-smoking because their owners decided that was a way to draw customers in. The town they are in then implemented a smoking ban. These two bars just lost all of their clientele.

[GREENBACK]

rizzmo - There should be a simple legal way for a friend or relative to step in and get the child the necessary care.

DS

I know in most states law enforcement can step in and charge the parents with child endangering which is a broadly defined charge that covers many things that might cause a juvenille harm. The courts may ultimately decide if law enforcement was right to intervene if it's religion based but a life may be saved by their immediate good faith actions.

[cptacek]

Well, the only problem is that there is no actual agreement about what the teabaggers were teabagging about. I have seen many different reports about the teabag parties and there did not seem to be any broad agreement on why they were there. Some were anti-abortion, some were anti-Obama, some were anti-tax, -- it seems that there is nothing behind the teabagging but a lot advertising from Faux Snooze.

But that is just my p.o.v.

hmm...for three pages people who were adamantly against each others' points of view were able to have a respectful discourse and refrain from calling each other names or degrading them with a sexual comment until this one. Nice going.

[cptacek]

Morality shouldn't be legislated.

Morality IS legislated. That statement is often tossed about but makes absolutely NO SENSE. Somebody's sense of morality determined that it was wrong and against the law to steal, murder and on and on. Making a judgement on anything is a moral decision one way or another.

I agree with you here.

[cptacek]

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.

I'm a little confused here. Are you arguing that the federal government SHOULD be able to make laws about these issues, but the states shouldn't? Or that neither the federal government nor the state government should make these laws? Because those are two entirely different points of view.

[maat55]

[[/QUOTE]

If I may move back to the healthcare arena, there is another topic that has huge financial implications but is also complicated by moral issues and that is end-of-life care. I don't have current stats, but I know that an out of proportion percentage of health care dollars are spent on patients in their final days of life. Americans traditionally have a big problem dealing with and accepting death. Families often insist that doctors do everything possible to prolong life regardless of the cost.

How do we reform healthcare, whether on a federal or state level, to rein in costs and make care more accessible without addressing this issue? Who should have the final say in what care gets delivered to terminally ill patients? Billions of dollars could be saved in we could solve this piece of the puzzle.

I have thought about this many times. IMO, terminally ill patients should have the right to euthanasia at their request or by legal decree. Unlike with abortion, the elderly have a voice. Society should understand the limitations of government resources.

I've always believed that if people want the finest care and availablility to medical treatment, they should be more responsible with their bodies and financial resources, in order to provide longevity for themselves. They should not expect expensive medical treatments when terminally ill through government provision.

I also believe that the government should not be in the business of collecting taxes with the promise of lifetime medical care, disability or SS. Only those who are not able to provide for themselves should be given assistance.

Every human life should be protected from fetus to elderly, but they are not entitled to healthcare, housing, food or clothing through the government. These are the responsibility of self, family, friends, churches and community charities.

[asmom]

I'm a little confused here. Are you arguing that the federal government SHOULD be able to make laws about these issues, but the states shouldn't? Or that neither the federal government nor the state government should make these laws? Because those are two entirely different points of view.

Neither. But in our most recent history, it's the states that have made and enforced the rules that I was talking about.