Time To Make A Difference

[Gabelma]

Move to Cuba then.

They don't care for capitalism either.

After all hasn't Micheal Moore shown us all the wonders of Cuba's health care system

ps...didn't you just say a few posts ago you are glad to pay higher taxes to support you NHS?

yes of course I am, it means my healthcare is good and costs me much less than the US equivelent, plus I get police, fire, education and social security thrown in, actually in the long run costs me much less - and I am not talking about communisim, are you familiar with Supachai Panitchpakdi former Buddhist Monk that was head of the World Trade Organisation? I watched an interview with him that started to change my views a lot prior to that I was always left wing, but wasn't sure things were all that bad either.

His view was of capitalism but fairer, people paid a fair wage for the services or work, people paid fairly for the products they produce and sell. And that we see our economies on a world stage. My arguement would be to change our education, so people get to see what big business does around the world, from a younger age. Here people power lol has managed to change some of the practices of bigger businesses and the major one was when we saw pigs being housed differently. Show people that really they would like a good nursing staff. My Father in Law served your countries military for 42 years in total he would have been treated better here and cost him £1000s less. There was no availible palliative care to ease his suffering. Explain to me where the mercy or justice is in that? I see none in the way my in Laws were treated - together they have served your country dilligently for 80 years+ and they get treated worse than a dog at the vets would be here. Most of the nursing staff didn't speak very good English I might as well have been in Cuba or Mexico, Doctors were rarely seen.

-Charley

[prisonchaplain]

yeah which is why I believe the forms of capitalism we have in the UK and US are wrong. We have the wrong values. It stinks whether I were to pay high tax here or ridiculously high health insurance in the US I get crap nursing staff at the major medical centres, that is why you get people that can't speak English taking care of you in hospital. Why because they can't afford to live there. If you want less corruption in public services we need to pay for it. And personally I can live without the movies and the ballgames.#

-Charley

The median wage for registered nurses in the United States ranges from a low of $19.50 per hour (Memphis, TN) to a high of $39 per hour (Oakland, CA). Do socialized countries pay that much?

[the Ogre]

I absolutely disagree. I am morally obligated to do my utmost to prevent the killing of babies. My effort to save them from killing does not obligate me to financial support them, regardless of their background or current living situation. Save babies from being willfully killed is a different matter from public support for at-risk children. You may have a cause, but there is no link between these two issues. One does not beget the other.

I see, its okay to fight abortion and allow people, children in particular, to live in the sewer.

One does not beget the other, but I do not see how they are separate.

Abortion for the most part is foul, but so is not extending a hand to those who need a help up. You do not see the hypocrisy in you position, but I fail in not being blinded by it.

The Pro-life stance is not about getting as many babies born as possible. It's about not killing babies.

You are right, it is not about increasing the overall human pop. But I think their name is a misnomer, if they are not willing to help improve the quality of life of those who need it, they ought be using a different one.

[prisonchaplain]

I see, its okay to fight abortion and allow people, children in particular, to live in the sewer.

At the risk of sounding callous, there will always be people--especially children--living in the sewer, both figuratively and literally. Should people of faith fight poverty and misery amongst "the least of these?" Of course. Does someone who lobbies against the legalized killing of unborn children lose all credibility for not supporting a particular proposal for a government program response? Absolutely not.

One does not beget the other, but I do not see how they are separate.

They are separate because there is only one solution to preventing the legalized killing of children. Criminalize the behavior. The solutions to widespread social ills amongst children can be much more complex and nuanced.

Abortion for the most part is foul, but so is not extending a hand to those who need a help up. You do not see the hypocrisy in you position, but I fail in not being blinded by it.

And again, it is the worst form of moral blackmail to say: You cannot legitimate oppose legalized killing if you do not also advocate a particular government program response to hardships amongst children.

You are right, it is not about increasing the overall human pop. But I think their name is a misnomer, if they are not willing to help improve the quality of life of those who need it, they ought be using a different one.

And again, I totally disagree. To be blunt--you do not have to be a liberal Democrat to oppose legalized killng of children. Quite often people of faith are paying full taxes in addition to 10% of their income to their communities of faith. They offer hours of volunteer time, they give more to charities than the unchurched, and sometimes, they even fund public education, while paying for their own children's religious education. Then, we get accused of being hypocrites because we do not support program-B, which will result in yet another raise in taxes, for often nebulous results.

[the Ogre]

PC,

Just to clear the air. I am not pointing an angry finger at you (as in Jason's ad hominem pout), just the position in general. That said, let's get back to the fun and general sport of finger pointing.

Does someone who lobbies against the legalized killing of unborn children lose all credibility for not supporting a particular proposal for a government program response? Absolutely not.

You say no, I say yes. Absolutely yes. I am however not lobbying for some type of "particular [political] proposal" or ideology. I think that the US can do something about poverty, but many have given up or some think it is important to have a poverty class so that some important jobs can be done or to give good Chr-stians something to do or talk about. I think as we explore space, fight international terrorism and tyranny, and make loads of cash as capitalists, we as a people can also cure poverty. I do not think throwing money is the solution, but I also know that the solutions that will work (equalizing education and access to employment, to name two possible beginnings) are going to take money. Sorry, nothing is free in the world we live in unfortunately.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

One does not beget the other, but I do not see how they are separate.

The solutions to widespread social ills amongst children can be much more complex and nuanced.

The solutions to both abortion and poverty are complex and nuanced. The first is so because many very influential people and political groups think it is important to have 100% access to any type of abortion and even more to limited forms of abortion. Criminalizing abortions will not work because it will go under ground again or people will go overseas as they are beginning to do so now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

Abortion for the most part is foul, but so is not extending a hand to those who need a help up. You do not see the hypocrisy in your position, but I fail in not being blinded by it.

And again, it is the worst form of moral blackmail to say: You cannot legitimate oppose legalized killing if you do not also advocate a particular government program response to hardships amongst children.

If you are going to insist on calling it blackmail, then you have a right to the term, but watch who you call a blackmailer. I can easily say one is hand in hand with the other. I would like to say to poor mothers that their babies will be able to live a better life not on the dole or redundant. Many people need government assistance, but wouldn't it be great if we worked as a people to defeat entitlement addiction, abortion, and poverty. It can be done, but to only stand for one and not the others is self-defeating.

I will also say quite simply that those who oppose abortion, but do not want to find a solution to poverty (political or not) deserve to have their feet held to the fire.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

You are right, it is not about increasing the overall human pop. But I think their name is a misnomer, if they are not willing to help improve the quality of life of those who need it, they ought be using a different one.

And again, I totally disagree. To be blunt--you do not have to be a liberal Democrat to oppose legalized killng of children. Quite often people of faith are paying full taxes in addition to 10% of their income to their communities of faith. They offer hours of volunteer time, they give more to charities than the unchurched, and sometimes, they even fund public education, while paying for their own children's religious education. Then, we get accused of being hypocrites because we do not support program-B, which will result in yet another raise in taxes, for often nebulous results.

I am not a liberal anything and oppose poverty. I have said that abortion most of the time is foul, but the LDS church has said that there are instances that it can be allowed. I stand by those qualifications. I am also not conservative anything and oppose abortion (with noted qualifications and one other) and most big government programs (as Frank pointed out many are corrupt, but reformation is possible--so many loopholes and exemptions must be closed).

What I will say is that I am a nebulous person (as is everyone else, we are not a single atom, but billions and as such how can anyone be simple?). I recognize the problem as nebulous and as such the solution as nebulous. With anything human, reductionism is wrong. Why did the L-rd not teach us laws as he commanded Moses to do and instead taught us principals? The L-rd recognized that our world is nebulous and that only governing principals will work. What if there are people with no principals and they need specifics, then invent the specifics as long as they do not violate or bypass the governing principals. Now for the real kicker: who is it that gets to determine these governing principals? With humans there is always opposition. Some people (like myself) are just plain contrary and disagree just for sport. Others do it because they seriously want to disable anything that might actually benefit humanity (by saying this I am not putting you in this pot).

Get beyond the simple view of existence and then eventually solutions can be forged.

[Gabelma]

<div class='quotemain'>

yeah which is why I believe the forms of capitalism we have in the UK and US are wrong. We have the wrong values. It stinks whether I were to pay high tax here or ridiculously high health insurance in the US I get crap nursing staff at the major medical centres, that is why you get people that can't speak English taking care of you in hospital. Why because they can't afford to live there. If you want less corruption in public services we need to pay for it. And personally I can live without the movies and the ballgames.#

-Charley

The median wage for registered nurses in the United States ranges from a low of $19.50 per hour (Memphis, TN) to a high of $39 per hour (Oakland, CA). Do socialized countries pay that much?

the amount doesn't count its the proportion. And it depends do you mean socialist based countries or 'communist countries' And if you had read my second post you would have realised I was not arguing for socialism more a social conscience, within a captalist system.

I suspect your ball players get paid more than in most other countries?

-Charley

[prisonchaplain]

You say no, I say yes. Absolutely yes. I am however not lobbying for some type of "particular [political] proposal" or ideology.

Well, then. My absolute no and your absolute yes, may be much closer than they appear. Me guesses that your real frustration is that many of those who opposed legalized abortion have no interest at all in helping live children living in poverty combined with social chaos. You may well be right. However, until we can get the doctor to put down his abortion tools, it's hard for many of us to contemplate what happens after the lives get saved.

I think that the US can do something about poverty, but many have given up or some think it is important to have a poverty class so that some important jobs can be done or to give good Chr-stians something to do or talk about. I think as we explore space, fight international terrorism and tyranny, and make loads of cash as capitalists, we as a people can also cure poverty. I do not think throwing money is the solution, but I also know that the solutions that will work (equalizing education and access to employment, to name two possible beginnings) are going to take money. Sorry, nothing is free in the world we live in unfortunately.

By way of personal confession, I've voted mostly conservative my whole life. I was part of that youth generation that rebelled against our professors by voting Republican. End abortion, pornography, save school prayer, tuition tax credits--we even debated on behalf of the Nicaraguan "Freedom Fighters" (Contras).

We're supposed to get more conservative as we grow older, but maybe I'm getting soft. I now vote for local school bonds and levies. I approve of taxes for more cops and fire fighters. I believe that teachers should be paid professional wages--probably somewhere in the GS-9 to 11 range (probably around mid 50Ks median). Furthermore, every American should at least have access to catastrophic healthcare.

In reality, I've probably always been a moderate conservative, and am now drifting towards absolute moderation (which means I'll be getting it from both sides).

The war on poverty and childhood maladies needs to take place on many levels. It would be wonderful if people of faith were at the forefront of the majority of those efforts.

The solutions to both abortion and poverty are complex and nuanced. The first is so because many very influential people and political groups think it is important to have 100% access to any type of abortion and even more to limited forms of abortion. Criminalizing abortions will not work because it will go under ground again or people will go overseas as they are beginning to do so now.

To clarify--the solution is indeed simple. Stop it. Getting there will be tough, because it will require winning the hearts and souls of a supermajority of Americans. Unless the Constitution is changed, the procedure will continue. And, the Constitution is incredibly difficult to change.

In the meantime, parental notification laws, banning the most abhorrent forms of abortion, and continued operation of the very expensive but effective alternative clinics are efforts that whittle down the overall abortion #s. Furthermore, and some organizations do this, churches ought to provide support for mothers who choose to bring their babies to term. Counseling, supplies, food, and, if wanted, assistance with adoption.

If you are going to insist on calling it blackmail, then you have a right to the term, but watch who you call a blackmailer. I can easily say one is hand in hand with the other. I would like to say to poor mothers that their babies will be able to live a better life not on the dole or redundant. Many people need government assistance, but wouldn't it be great if we worked as a people to defeat entitlement addiction, abortion, and poverty. It can be done, but to only stand for one and not the others is self-defeating.

What I call blackmail is the argument that one cannot oppose legalized abortion UNLESS s/he supports government expansion proposal A-1. The underlying accusation: You don't really care about children. Ultimately, you do not seem to be arguing that--but rather that pro-lifers ought to expand their vision to include quality of life for less fortunate children.

I hope you can also see how some would use this tact to coerce support for socialized medicine, socialized daycare, etc.? So, again--I see that these issues run parallel, but am reticent to recognize an absolute link.

I will also say quite simply that those who oppose abortion, but do not want to find a solution to poverty (political or not) deserve to have their feet held to the fire.

You know, it may be that many pro-lifers are so caught up in the URGENCY of saving lives, that they miss the long-term need to improve the lives that are saved.

I am not a liberal anything and oppose poverty. I have said that abortion most of the time is foul, but the LDS church has said that there are instances that it can be allowed. I stand by those qualifications. I am also not conservative anything and oppose abortion (with noted qualifications and one other) and most big government programs (as Frank pointed out many are corrupt, but reformation is possible--so many loopholes and exemptions must be closed).

And so, you and I are probably are lot closer on this matter than our rhetoric suggests. My fear is that by demanding that pro-lifers also actively involve themselves in anti-poverty efforts, fotter is provided for those who want to bring about federal socialized healthcare and daycare.

What I will say is that I am a nebulous person (as is everyone else, we are not a single atom, but billions and as such how can anyone be simple?). I recognize the problem as nebulous and as such the solution as nebulous. With anything human, reductionism is wrong. Why did the L-rd not teach us laws as he commanded Moses to do and instead taught us principals? The L-rd recognized that our world is nebulous and that only governing principals will work. What if there are people with no principals and they need specifics, then invent the specifics as long as they do not violate or bypass the governing principals. Now for the real kicker: who is it that gets to determine these governing principals? With humans there is always opposition. Some people (like myself) are just plain contrary and disagree just for sport. Others do it because they seriously want to disable anything that might actually benefit humanity (by saying this I am not putting you in this pot).

Get beyond the simple view of existence and then eventually solutions can be forged.

I'm thoroughly convinced we're in better than 90% agreement on this matter. :)

[FrankJL]

By way of personal confession, I've voted mostly conservative my whole life. I was part of that youth generation that rebelled against our professors by voting Republican. End abortion, pornography, save school prayer, tuition tax credits--we even debated on behalf of the Nicaraguan "Freedom Fighters" (Contras).

We're supposed to get more conservative as we grow older, but maybe I'm getting soft. I now vote for local school bonds and levies. I approve of taxes for more cops and fire fighters. I believe that teachers should be paid professional wages--probably somewhere in the GS-9 to 11 range (probably around mid 50Ks median). Furthermore, every American should at least have access to catastrophic healthcare.

PC I thought the saying was:

If your young and not a liberal you don't have a heart

If you old and not conservative you don't have a brain?

[prisonchaplain]

That's it, so, depending on your viewpoint, moderates either have developed both, or neither.

[FrankJL]

Perhaps they have developed half of each one.

Too smart by half?

[FrankJL]

His view was of capitalism but fairer, people paid a fair wage for the services or work, people paid fairly for the products they produce and sell.

Who exactly defines what fair is though? The government or the marketplace? No matter what job you do, most people think they should be paid more, regardless of if your making 20k or 200k a year.

And that we see our economies on a world stage.

\

Our economies has been on a global scale for some time now, its called globalization. Tom Friedman has an excellent book on this "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", read it.

My argument would be to change our education, so people get to see what big business does around the world, from a younger age.

Perhaps if logic will not work on older more mature people, it would only make sense to indoctrinate them when they are young and more malleable.

Why stop there..here are some other great things we could teach our kids:

Bourgeoisie and Proletariat,

"Surplus Value" Economics

Superstructures

Historical Materialism

Labor Vouchers

Commodity fetishism

Show people that really they would like a good nursing staff.

I really don't know anyone that would not like a good nursing staff when they are in a hospital. Just because they get paid what the market demands for their job doesn't mean we don't like them. If we didn't need their services they wouldn't be in demand.

My Father in Law served your countries military for 42 years in total he would have been treated better here and cost him £1000s less. There was no availible palliative care to ease his suffering. Explain to me where the mercy or justice is in that?

While I don't know that exact time or circumstance which your father in law served, I know it is much different with military that retire now. My father just retired from 30years in the Army. His (and his families) health care is covered for the rest of his life with retirement benefits. It may have been different back then I don't know. Our military has come a long way in how it treats its soldiers, but there is still much work to be done. Seeing how flaws our VA health system is though, seems to me to serve more appropriately an argument against government run health care.

I see none in the way my in Laws were treated - together they have served your country diligently for 80 years+ and they get treated worse than a dog at the vets would be here.

It is interesting you speak of palliative care, then speak of dogs. I don't think a whole lot of palliative care goes into animals, they are just put down. I assume no matter how bad they treated him, he wasn't simply put down, so your comparison is specious at best.

[the Ogre]

Me guesses that your real frustration is that many of those who opposed legalized abortion have no interest at all in helping live children living in poverty combined with social chaos. You may well be right. However, until we can get the doctor to put down his abortion tools, it's hard for many of us to contemplate what happens after the lives get saved.

This is where Frank's market ideas can be applied. Most doctor's operate out of politcal belief, but for the most part they are in it for the money.

When the market stops demanding it, then the market for such surgery will disappear. So then how do dry up the market's drive. Religion has not done it. On an EV board I sometimes frequent that is notorious for their opposition to abortion I have noted that no one condemns people who have had abortions, abortionists, and pro-choicers/NOW with the same fervency they condemn every Latter-day Saint on the planet. If their zeal for attacking the LDS church were the same as convincing their own flocks of the wrong in abortion, then some progress would happen.

The problem with Frank's model is that it will not control something that is obviously immoral. Laissez Faire politics and economics do not control something that is wrong. Look at many of the industries in the US prior to the creation of laws that required enforced safety systems.

By way of personal confession, I've voted mostly conservative my whole life (My first vote in my life was for Bush I- I was too young to vote for Reagan). I was part of that youth generation that rebelled against our professors by voting Republican. End abortion, pornography, save school prayer, tuition tax credits (you too)--we even debated on behalf of the Nicaraguan "Freedom Fighters."

We're supposed to get more conservative as we grow older, but maybe I'm getting soft. I now vote for local school bonds and levies. I approve of taxes for more cops and fire fighters. I believe that teachers should be paid professional wages--probably somewhere in the GS-9 to 11 range (probably around mid 50Ks median). Furthermore, every American should at least have access to catastrophic healthcare.

In reality, I've probably always been a moderate conservative, and am now drifting towards absolute moderation (which means I'll be getting it from both sides).

Me too. I think this is also true of most LDSs. There was a poll of Utahns after the last election that revealed most voted for Pres. Bush because of his views on abortion and homosexuality rather then a complete belief in his entire platform. Don't get me wrong, Utah is definitely a conservative state, but it is not nearly as conservative as many in the Eagle forum would like.

Overall, I think most LDSs are fairly moderate except on the issues I noted above.

The war on poverty and childhood maladies needs to take place on many levels. It would be wonderful if people of faith were at the forefront of the majority of those efforts.

A friend of mine recently emailed saying to not worry about childhood poverty because the L-rd during the second coming would take care of everything and that we should not worry about it now. I did not email back. I went over to his house and hit him with my newspaper and then ate dinner with him, his wife, and kids and worked him over considering the thoughtlessness of his position.

To clarify--the solution is indeed simple. Stop it. Getting there will be tough, because it will require winning the hearts and souls of a supermajority of Americans. Unless the Constitution is changed, the procedure will continue. And, the Constitution is incredibly difficult to change.

“Stop It” is wishful thinking and a constitutional amendment will not happen unless the abortion debate can be better managed. The absolutism of Stop it is as short sighted as most arguments supporting atheism. And to be also blunt, I do not think you will be satisfied with an answer that dictates a national abortion law that outlaws abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother.

In the meantime, parental notification laws, banning the most abhorrent forms of abortion, and continued operation of the very expensive but effective alternative clinics are efforts that whittle down the overall abortion #s. Furthermore, and some organizations do this, churches ought to provide support for mothers who choose to bring their babies to term. Counseling, supplies, food, and, if wanted, assistance with adoption.

OI!!!

What I call blackmail is the argument that one cannot oppose legalized abortion UNLESS s/he supports government expansion proposal A-1. The underlying accusation: You don't really care about children. Ultimately, you do not seem to be arguing that--but rather that pro-lifers ought to expand their vision to include quality of life for less fortunate children.

I am not interested in expanding the role or influence of the US government in anyone's life. In fact over all it needs to just back down, but there are some areas that need improvement (this does not mean more funding however, maybe rearranging the money already brought in would be better-and no this does not mean cutting military or space spending).

I hope you can also see how some would use this tact to coerce support for socialized medicine, socialized daycare, etc.? So, again--I see that these issues run parallel, but am reticent to recognize an absolute link.

I already think we have socialized daycare and medicine. I think they are vital, but at the same time that does not mean they are perfect. We are living in a society that is nearly as socialized as is Europe. I think we can learn from what the English are doing while recognizing that their situation is not ours (I would rather be homeless and steal then live in the project-like estates they force the poor and redundant into). I think they should be the extreme side of the equation opposite Frank's libertarianism and then devise a system that deconstructs this binary closer to libertarianism then what GB does. Maintaining the status quo is out of the question, however. There is a lot of corruption in our system and loopholes that need examination.

While recognizing your reticence, I feel it is closer to cowardice (the position and philosophy, not you personally) then prudence.

You know, it may be that many pro-lifers are so caught up in the URGENCY of saving lives, that they miss the long-term need to improve the lives that are saved.

Yup, my exact concern.

And so, you and I are probably are lot closer on this matter than our rhetoric suggests. My fear is that by demanding that pro-lifers also actively involve themselves in anti-poverty efforts, fotter is provided for those who want to bring about federal socialized healthcare and daycare.

I agree with this as well, but I think it is a risk that must be taken. An active understanding of your allies is important in forging a solution to problems that must be overcome.

I'm thoroughly convinced we're in better than 90% agreement on this matter. :)

I think so too, as on many issues we've exchanged views on. But, Ohhhhh, that 10%!!!

[FrankJL]

The problem with Frank's model is that it will not control something that is obviously immoral. Laissez Faire politics and economics do not control something that is wrong. Look at many of the industries in the US prior to the creation of laws that required enforced safety systems.

How so? and who defines immoral. If the vast majority of people think that abortion is immoral then the service would be outlawed and there would be no need for the service. Though this is starting to stray from economics into group dynamics and democracy vs theocracy.

Looking at it from a political angle though, it has never really been an issue that motivates many voters, so I wouldn't expect to see too much movement on it. Especially seeing as it looks very likely the next two people running in the general presidential election will be pro-choice anyways.

[the Ogre]

How so? and who defines immoral.

Exactly.

If the vast majority of people think that abortion is immoral then the service would be outlawed and there would be no need for the service.

Which is why there needs to be a lot of work done to accomplish this goal, and only a few would want it completely outlawed anyway.

Though this is starting to stray from economics into group dynamics and democracy vs theocracy.

We are discussing American politics after all aren't we.

Looking at it from a political angle though, it has never really been an issue that motivates many voters, so I wouldn't expect to see too much movement on it (except for many LDSs and EVs). Especially seeing as it looks very likely the next two people running in the general presidential election will be pro-choice anyways.

See, we do agree.

[Elphaba]

You know, it may be that many pro-lifers are so caught up in the URGENCY of saving lives, that they miss the long-term need to improve the lives that are saved.

This thread has gone in so many different directions I can't respond to everything, but this quote so elegantly communicates what I'm trying so clumsily to say.

Elphaba

[Traveler]

Since I started this mess I thought I would give some opinion about where it has gone.

Pont 1: I believe that we legislate morals into law. In fact morals are the only laws that man can make and enforce. We cannot change and enforce the universal gravitational constant, the value of pi or anything other than our morals.

Point 2: Whose morals – the majority. Often I disagree with the majority but I believe if I use the force of law to install my morals over that of the majority I am creating a state of tyranny. I believe anyone that installs any laws contrary to the morals of the majority is creating a state of tyranny.

Point 3: The majority can make mistakes but the mistakes of minorities have always been worse in the long run.

Point 4: Our morals are not what we say – they are what we do. If we live by the rule of law (and I think we should) then any and every exception is the law.

Point 5: I believe it is stupid and foolish and evil to waist a good human life because of our personal flaws.

Point 6: I am aware that the US Supreme has ruled that a fetus during the 1st trimester is not human life. I believe that ruling is in error because we know that the fetus meets all the criteria for life – therefore the question is not if there is life but if the life is human. I use the logic of elimination. Since it cannot be proven that a fetus is some other life other than human then it must be human. This is an extension of the innocent until proven guilty concept. If anyone disagrees with this concept – may I ask – how do we prove that any life is a human life? Especially those people that are handicapped? Where is the line drawn between that which is human and that which is not?

The Traveler

[FrankJL]

Which is why there needs to be a lot of work done to accomplish this goal, and only a few would want it completely outlawed anyway.

I don't really agree with this, I think many (if not most) of the EVs would go for an outright ban. I have even heard EVs refer to our church as a "liberal church" because our leaders have said abortion is ok in some (albeit rare) circumstances.

[the Ogre]

I don't really agree with this, I think many (if not most) of the EVs would go for an outright ban. I have even heard EVs refer to our church as a "liberal church" because our leaders have said abortion is ok in some (albeit rare) circumstances.

Yeah, but are there enough of those hard-core EVs to create such a super majority? I don't think so. I also do not think all LDSs would also support a complete ban.

Regarding abortion, I have told by many EVs that the LDS church is indeed liberal, but that is after they tell me we are heretical and accursed.

There are worse things to be called than this, so I don't worry and leave them to their divisive ignorance.

[FrankJL]

Yeah, but are there enough of those hard-core EVs to create such a super majority?

No of course not. Even if all the EVs did come together on the issue. The EVs have been steadily losing political clout since the 80s.

[prisonchaplain]

“Stop It” is wishful thinking and a constitutional amendment will not happen unless the abortion debate can be better managed. The absolutism of Stop it is as short sighted as most arguments supporting atheism. And to be also blunt, I do not think you will be satisfied with an answer that dictates a national abortion law that outlaws abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother.

If the last phrase were, "to protect the life of the mother," I might be satisfied. By my simple answer, I did not mean that every single abortion must be guaranteed to end. I simply meant that the solution to killing babies is to no longer kill them. The solution to poverty, on the other hand, is multi-fronted (parents, schools, government, etc.).

I'll have to tackle the rest later. ...

[the Ogre]

<div class='quotemain'>

“Stop It” is wishful thinking and a constitutional amendment will not happen unless the abortion debate can be better managed. The absolutism of Stop it is as short sighted as most arguments supporting atheism. And to be also blunt, I do not think you will be satisfied with an answer that dictates a national abortion law that outlaws abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother.

If the last phrase were, "to protect the life of the mother," I might be satisfied. By my simple answer, I did not mean that every single abortion must be guaranteed to end. I simply meant that the solution to killing babies is to no longer kill them. The solution to poverty, on the other hand, is multi-fronted (parents, schools, government, etc.).

I'll have to tackle the rest later. ...

I agree with "to protect the life of the mother". It is a much better phrase. I mean, the diet my ex likes when she is pregnant is not healthy for anyone, much less a pregnant woman.

[snipe123]

5. Religion: This baby will go to heaven, and I willing to bare the guilt of keeping him/her from this miserable world. After all, this was my mistake.

PC --

I have an honest question for you on this point...During my three year period in the "Great and Spacious Buliding..." I attended a "Non-denominational" christian church which I credit with breaking down the walls I had errected against God(that's another story)and really helped me to get my life back together etc... The pastor was a very friendly and loving old guy that had a very practical down to earth way of preaching...Very old school southern preachin'. One evening he preached a sermon and in it, he stated what I thought was an outrageous statement. He said that he believed, and that The Bible taught that aborted babies go to hell...He went on to say that to believe otherwise, would excuse the sin of abortion...I of course reject this doctrine, but I know that a lot of evengelicals teach this idea(not throwing you in this camp) and I was wondering if you know how they justify that belief? I was so distracted by the craziness of his statement that I did not hear much more about how he explained it or what scriptures he used to justify it when many in the congregation began to challenge him on the idea...I just kept thinking "How did this child have the opportunity to choose anything, or have an opportunity to commit sin?"

It seems to me that this is like saying that a murder victim is going to hell since to say otherwise would justify the sin of murder... Punishing the criminal would seem to be the more reasonable approach to insuring that murder is not justified...

Again, I am not saying you believe this or anything, I just know that you have probably heard a lot more evangelical preaching in your time than I have, and that you might have heard this idea preached from the pulpit...

Any thoughts?

[prisonchaplain]

I have never heard an evangelical or even a fundamentalist preacher/teacher say such a thing. Nearly all the ones I've heard believe that children are automatically heaven-bound before "the age of accountability."

Perhaps some, who believe that God predestines everything, would argue that such children are not "of the Elect," but I've never directly heard such a thing.

Your spiritual instincts strike me as quite sound in this instance.

[Traveler]

I have never heard an evangelical or even a fundamentalist preacher/teacher say such a thing. Nearly all the ones I've heard believe that children are automatically heaven-bound before "the age of accountability."

Perhaps some, who believe that God predestines everything, would argue that such children are not "of the Elect," but I've never directly heard such a thing.

Your spiritual instincts strike me as quite sound in this instance.

Good for you PC. If it was not for you and other good men of faith, I would still be thinking some of this nonsense myself.

The Traveler