The Political Discussion Thread

[mad_gater]

Yes.

check the Constitution again....it does not list "promiscuity" and "murdering the natural result of said promiscuity" as inalienable rights....nice try though

[Gatefan1976]

as for Catholic hospitals accepting public funds....what "rights" should they be forced to support then?

They are not forced to support ANY.
They are given a choice.
The law, weather your religion happens to support it or not says "X is not a crimnal offence". INSTEAD of *forcing* Christian doctors to violate thier conscience, they are given the ability NOT to by not performing medical services that violate thier personal ethics. As a result of that choice however, they loose public funding.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? I would expect a person who's faith supposedly preaches free will, but with consequences would have no problems with this idea.

the supposed "right" to kill your own child simply because the child is located inside the mother's womb instead of outside the mother's womb?

No, the right to have a choice over your own body without being told by someone, or something else what that choice should be.
Again, *free will*.

the supposed "right" to just run around and have sex willy nilly and have hard working citizens pay for their choice to live a promiscuous lifestyle?

Abortions are not funded by public funds, you do know this, right?
Before you launch into an ill-informed rant about "planned parenthood" clinics, do some research first, m'kay.

simple reception of public funds by any one individual or group does not morally obligate said individual or group to obey the edicts of the state if such edicts are inherently unjust

Inherently unjust?
Justice as a function of law is determined by ALL, not just the people who agree with you. There was a time it was "morally just" to burn people, torture "confessions" out of them, consider people lesser for being a different colour or gender, feed them to lions, Crucify them and much, much more. At these times such punishments were also considered "inherently just"
We have moved on from such times have we not?

As for moral obligation, see my first response in this post.

[Seastallion]

Quote Originally Posted by mad_gater View Post
as for Catholic hospitals accepting public funds....what "rights" should they be forced to support then? the supposed "right" to kill your own child simply because the child is located inside the mother's womb instead of outside the mother's womb? the supposed "right" to just run around and have sex willy nilly and have hard working citizens pay for their choice to live a promiscuous lifestyle?

Yes.

I hope people realize, that Freedom ISN'T free. Nothing is. Our ancestors fought and died to gain the Freedoms we currently enjoy. However, those Freedoms also have a personal cost for every individual if they are to be maintained for all. That personal cost, is RESPONSIBILITY. Each person MUST take responsibility for their personal behavior.

The 9th Amendment of the Bill of Rights (paraphrased)... This amendment says that details of these rights which are outlined or listed in the Constitution cannot be considered or interpreted in a way to have or deny others their rights. Or in other words... Your rights end, where mine begin. This means that your 'right' to run around making bad decisions, is NOT my problem. The Government can NOT ignore MY 1st Amendment Rights, just because YOU failed to take responsibility for YOUR actions.

In addition, the 10th Amendment... The last amendment (of the original Bill of Rights) addresses that anything the Constitution doesn't say or other laws that aren't governed or prohibited by the Constitution which Congress can do, should be done by the states or its people.

The Founders NEVER intended for the Federal government to have ANYTHING to do with healthcare in any shape, form, or fashion. That power, or responsibility, is SPECIFICALLY left to the States or the People. The role of the Federal government is defined VERY specifically for a reason. So what am I saying here?

I am saying that Catholic charities (or anyone else) are NOT obligated to do anything Government says in reference to providing abortions or even contraceptives, although I personally don't see the big deal on the latter. Those Catholics that are faithful to the tenants of their Religion would object to sex outside of marriage to begin with, so I can see their point. I might argue that since they are a charitable organization, they aren't necessarily going to always be helping people that have the same beliefs. In which case, I might argue that they COULD provide contraception options that won't violate their Faith, such as options that prevent fertilization in the first place, thus avoiding the issue of killing an already fertilized embryo.

On the other hand the Government has NO obligation to GIVE any charity funds either, nor is it the government's responsibility to do so. It MAY however, donate monies for things like Research or Charities on a case by case basis, with specific clauses pertaining to the rights and responsibilities of the donor and the recipient. Those things are agreed to before any money changes hands. Whatever was previously agreed to, is binding to both sides, no matter the ultimate results. The Preamble of the Constitution outlines the purposes to which the powers granted to the Federal government can be employed (including money donations)...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The phrase "general welfare" is used only ONE other time in the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8. That section goes on to list the various things that Congress is allowed to do in that regard. It refers to fiscal responsibility, and maintaining forces for defense. It says NOTHING about Healthcare, or even anything that might even be VAGUELY linked to it.

However, the Constitution, DOES address it, albeit indirectly. It is addressed in the 10th Amendment. Any Powers not SPECIFICALLY given to the Federal government (by the Constitution), belong to the States or the People. In other words, an individual's healthcare is HIS responsibility. The Government isn't meant to have ANYTHING to do with it. The Government MIGHT contribute money to a healthcare organization, but said organization is NOT beholden to the government, except for things previously agreed to.

One of the first hospitals in this country was in Philadelphia, and it was begun as a charity organization, which was co-founded by Benjamin Franklin. It was built with matching funds from the taxpayers and charitable donations combined. It did much to revolutionize the quality of healthcare across the nation. Of course back then, they didn't HAVE abortion or modern contraceptives.

If they HAD, then very likely what would've happened, if said hospital refused to perform abortions (and etc.), would actually have been quite SIMPLE. Those with OPPOSING views would have simply built their OWN hospital in the same way the first had. Then the power of the Free Market would've determined the survivor between the two, OR determined if there was room for BOTH to exist.

Assuming they would have agreed that Abortion was constitutional in the first place. That is debatable, but will never be truly known since that time has long past. Still, using the assumption, we can reasonably predict the outcome under government at that time.

So the answer to Mad Gater's question is "No".

[mad_gater]

They are not forced to support ANY.
They are given a choice.
The law, weather your religion happens to support it or not says "X is not a crimnal offence". INSTEAD of *forcing* Christian doctors to violate thier conscience, they are given the ability NOT to by not performing medical services that violate thier personal ethics. As a result of that choice however, they loose public funding.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? I would expect a person who's faith supposedly preaches free will, but with consequences would have no problems with this idea.


No, the right to have a choice over your own body without being told by someone, or something else what that choice should be.
Again, *free will*.


Abortions are not funded by public funds, you do know this, right?
Before you launch into an ill-informed rant about "planned parenthood" clinics, do some research first, m'kay.


Inherently unjust?
Justice as a function of law is determined by ALL, not just the people who agree with you. There was a time it was "morally just" to burn people, torture "confessions" out of them, consider people lesser for being a different colour or gender, feed them to lions, Crucify them and much, much more. At these times such punishments were also considered "inherently just"
We have moved on from such times have we not?

As for moral obligation, see my first response in this post.

you are still woefully ignorant of basic reproductive biology....life begins at conception not at birth, every biology text book I ever read describes conception as such, abortion is therefore the cold blooded murder of a human being....abortion is not designed to harm the mother's body, but the body of a new human person (although there is the risk of collateral damage occurring to the mother's body too)......the new human being is therefore being denied that which is an inalienable right for all human beings (the right to live) based on his location (inside vs. outside his mother's womb).....thus abortion = location based discrimination

abortion not funded by public funds? what planet did you come from again? plenty of public funds go to Planned UN-parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in not only the US but the entire world, they might say that they're using these public funds for rather innocuous sounding "women's services" but the rest of us know better...Abby Johnson used to work for PP for a long time until she wised up to PP's true purpose and motives, that their real cash cow is in the wholesale destruction of new human life and in the encouragement of promiscuity....they haven't provided anything like a breast cancer screening a day in their lives....people going to PP for such things like mammograms get referred elsewhere

[Naonak]

after which society self destructs due to lawlessness

Well, no. You understand what "ideal" means, right?

[Col.Foley]

They are not forced to support ANY.
They are given a choice.
The law, weather your religion happens to support it or not says "X is not a crimnal offence". INSTEAD of *forcing* Christian doctors to violate thier conscience, they are given the ability NOT to by not performing medical services that violate thier personal ethics. As a result of that choice however, they loose public funding.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? I would expect a person who's faith supposedly preaches free will, but with consequences would have no problems with this idea.


No, the right to have a choice over your own body without being told by someone, or something else what that choice should be.
Again, *free will*.


Abortions are not funded by public funds, you do know this, right?
Before you launch into an ill-informed rant about "planned parenthood" clinics, do some research first, m'kay.


Inherently unjust?
Justice as a function of law is determined by ALL, not just the people who agree with you. There was a time it was "morally just" to burn people, torture "confessions" out of them, consider people lesser for being a different colour or gender, feed them to lions, Crucify them and much, much more. At these times such punishments were also considered "inherently just"
We have moved on from such times have we not?

As for moral obligation, see my first response in this post.

Its curious to me that someone who makes the argument of 'how no one should dictate what someone else does with their body' seems to forget, as a general course, the 'body' that is growing within the body. The body whose life hangs in the balance because of the choices we make. Our society, at least here in the US is very schizophrenic when it comes to this. All throughout school and my own upbringing with my family I was told stories that you should not smoke, you should not ddrink, you should not eat too many fatty foods or this that and the other thing because it might effect the offspring. Thats right the same school system who produces many people believe in the right to 'choice' and the right to abortion at the same time hand wrings over people drinking alchol while pregnant? Why? If it is not life, if it is not human, why be so concerned? Why be so concerned about its development if youa re just going to throw it away in a couple of weeks time? In point of fact go drink Alchol, if its discovered that your actions contributed to bad development in the offspring...why you can abort it right? I at least had the good fortune to be born to a father who took the cigarretes away when my mom tried to smoke them. That he did not put my life in danger. Yes you can do WHATEVER you want with your life, and your body. have sex with whoever (or whatever) you want, get all sorts of ungodly piercings, take as many chemicals as you want to, but the second you put someone's life in danger those rights end.

As for free choice, sure they have the free choice. I have the free choice to murder you right here and now. But then I must face the eternal and earthly consequences for my actions.

[Gatefan1976]

you are still woefully ignorant of basic reproductive biology

Says the single man to the man with 3 kids........

....life begins at conception not at birth, every biology text book I ever read describes conception as such, abortion is therefore the cold blooded murder of a human being.

Have I disagreed with you on this point?
I am discussing the LAW here, not the moral basis of the law. Mrs GF has had 3 viable pregnacies, I have 3 kids because both of us decided that it was the right thing *morally* to do. In all the "pro-life" retoric, you guys always miss the point that the "other side" is not called "anti-life".

....abortion is not designed to harm the mother's body, but the body of a new human person (although there is the risk of collateral damage occurring to the mother's body too)......the new human being is therefore being denied that which is an inalienable right for all human beings (the right to live) based on his location (inside vs. outside his mother's womb).....thus abortion = location based discrimination

NO rights are inaliable MG, please understand this.

abortion not funded by public funds? what planet did you come from again? plenty of public funds go to Planned UN-parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in not only the US but the entire world, they might say that they're using these public funds for rather innocuous sounding "women's services" but the rest of us know better...Abby Johnson used to work for PP for a long time until she wised up to PP's true purpose and motives, that their real cash cow is in the wholesale destruction of new human life and in the encouragement of promiscuity....they haven't provided anything like a breast cancer screening a day in their lives....people going to PP for such things like mammograms get referred elsewhere

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...Pa2C_blog.html
Sigh.
Also, note your very own use of the word "cash cow". If PP are making money out of Abortions, they (abortions) are hardly a drain or reciever of public funds, are they?

Again, to be clear, I am discussing the *law* as it deals with this issue, not it's moral implications because they are outside the scope of this thread.

[Col.Foley]

Says the single man to the man with 3 kids........



Have I disagreed with you on this point?
I am discussing the LAW here, not the moral basis of the law. Mrs GF has had 3 viable pregnacies, I have 3 kids because both of us decided that it was the right thing *morally* to do. In all the "pro-life" retoric, you guys always miss the point that the "other side" is not called "anti-life".


NO rights are inaliable MG, please understand this.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...Pa2C_blog.html
Sigh.
Also, note your very own use of the word "cash cow". If PP are making money out of Abortions, they (abortions) are hardly a drain or reciever of public funds, are they?

Again, to be clear, I am discussing the *law* as it deals with this issue, not it's moral implications because they are outside the scope of this thread.

Yes there are inalienable rights. Those that come from God. Our Consitution and Bill of Rights does a very good job enumerating them.

[mad_gater]

Well, no. You understand what "ideal" means, right?

and you appear to have been poorly educated in what the true "ideal" of any form of collectivism is, to make the individual completely and totally subservient to the state, nothing more than a cog in some "great machine" of society....no private property, no inalienable rights, can only do x, , and z if and only if you can prove it has tangible value to the "great society", these are the inevitable end results of collectivism, an inherently unworkable system

"there is no state" - well since the state is essential to a certain extent to create, maintain, and enforce an inherently just body of laws that would make "ideal" communism and "ideal" collectivism in general inherently lawless and without that kind of stability society would rapidly collapse

[Gatefan1976]

Its curious to me that someone who makes the argument of 'how no one should dictate what someone else does with their body' seems to forget, as a general course, the 'body' that is growing within the body.
The body whose life hangs in the balance because of the choices we make.

Do you, honestly, truly think that the choice to have an abortion does not come with a whole slew of consequences for the mother a well? "just hop on up here dear and we'll have you fixed up in a jiffy"????
Thats laughable.

Our society, at least here in the US is very schizophrenic when it comes to this. All throughout school and my own upbringing with my family I was told stories that you should not smoke, you should not ddrink, you should not eat too many fatty foods or this that and the other thing because it might effect the offspring.

Try the majority of the western world.

Thats right the same school system who produces many people believe in the right to 'choice' and the right to abortion at the same time hand wrings over people drinking alchol while pregnant? Why? If it is not life, if it is not human, why be so concerned? Why be so concerned about its development if youa re just going to throw it away in a couple of weeks time? In point of fact go drink Alchol, if its discovered that your actions contributed to bad development in the offspring...why you can abort it right?

OMG!!
The US education system produces free thinking people rather than lockstep drones

I at least had the good fortune to be born to a father who took the cigarretes away when my mom tried to smoke them. That he did not put my life in danger.

That is fortunate for you, I really do mean that.

Yes you can do WHATEVER you want with your life, and your body. have sex with whoever (or whatever) you want, get all sorts of ungodly piercings, take as many chemicals as you want to, but the second you put someone's life in danger those rights end.

I guess somone forgot to tell the perpetrators of these forgot that:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

As for free choice, sure they have the free choice. I have the free choice to murder you right here and now. But then I must face the eternal and earthly consequences for my actions.

Yes you will, so do they. If you truly had the motive to kill me and tried, and I defended myself in such a way that causes your death, the law has ways to deal with that as well. The difference is, If I succeeded, I would have a clean conscience, if you succeeded, you may not.

[Gatefan1976]

Yes there are inalienable rights. Those that come from God. Our Consitution and Bill of Rights does a very good job enumerating them.

1: Not everyone believes in your god
(in fact, one of the defining features of Christianity is free will *but with consequences* isn't it?)
2: Not everyone lives in the US
(and to go back again, the FF made sure to state that they were not a Christian nation)

[Col.Foley]

Do you, honestly, truly think that the choice to have an abortion does not come with a whole slew of consequences for the mother a well? "just hop on up here dear and we'll have you fixed up in a jiffy"????
Thats laughable.


Try the majority of the western world.


OMG!!
The US education system produces free thinking people rather than lockstep drones


That is fortunate for you, I really do mean that.


I guess somone forgot to tell the perpetrators of these forgot that:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence



Yes you will, so do they. If you truly had the motive to kill me and tried, and I defended myself in such a way that causes your death, the law has ways to deal with that as well. The difference is, If I succeeded, I would have a clean conscience, if you succeeded, you may not.

Uh no my whole argument is there are great consquences for the mother. And in a wide variety of ways.

No. This is not what the US school system is teaching. It is teaching an inconsistent world view where it is on the one hand ok to commit murder of innocent life because it is an inconvinience for you, but yet you have to do a million different things and go to great lengths to protect this life that at the same time they believe do not exist. Granted I do not now what all teachers believe so it is always posisble you get on the one hand a pro life teacher and on the other hand a Margret Sanger wanna be, ( a racist who wanted to use Abortion to practice eugenics), but I wonder how come more students do not make the connection? I am fine with free thinking. But to force yourself onto soeone else, and when you do so leads to the death of something else, that is wrong. Especially when you are dealing with human beings. I am opposed to tyrany, I am opposed to the sensless slaughter of innocent life. Abortion violates both principles.

Wow.

[Col.Foley]

1: Not everyone believes in your god
(in fact, one of the defining features of Christianity is free will *but with consequences* isn't it?)
2: Not everyone lives in the US
(and to go back again, the FF made sure to state that they were not a Christian nation)

Irrelevant. there is a world view out there that our rights, the rights of the entire human race, whether you believe or not btw, comes from one source, one Author. And are thus 'inallienable' this is a legal tradition going back cnturies, and to so glibly dismiss it while at the same time claiming to be tolerant is a bit telling.

[Gatefan1976]

Uh no my whole argument is there are great consquences for the mother. And in a wide variety of ways.

Then why was your whole spiel about the mother "not giving two hoots" about then?
Foley, there will always be "bad people" in this world, there is nothing we can do about that, and regardless of the law they will do what they want.

No. This is not what the US school system is teaching. It is teaching an inconsistent world view where it is on the one hand ok to commit murder of innocent life because it is an inconvinience for you, but yet you have to do a million different things and go to great lengths to protect this life that at the same time they believe do not exist.

Of course it's inconsistant, what would you prefer?

Granted I do not now what all teachers believe so it is always posisble you get on the one hand a pro life teacher and on the other hand a Margret Sanger wanna be, ( a racist who wanted to use Abortion to practice eugenics), but I wonder how come more students do not make the connection?

Perhaps they do?

I am fine with free thinking. But to force yourself onto soeone else, and when you do so leads to the death of something else, that is wrong.

Is it only death that is wrong, or is it forcing yourself or beliefs on others and causing mental and/or physical pain wrong as well?

Especially when you are dealing with human beings. I am opposed to tyrany, I am opposed to the sensless slaughter of innocent life. Abortion violates both principles.

"I hate tyranny, so in order to avoid it, you must agree with me, cause the view I hold is right, and yours is wrong"

Wow.

So helpful

[Col.Foley]

Then why was your whole spiel about the mother "not giving two hoots" about then?
Foley, there will always be "bad people" in this world, there is nothing we can do about that, and regardless of the law they will do what they want.


Of course it's inconsistant, what would you prefer?

Perhaps they do?


Is it only death that is wrong, or is it forcing yourself or beliefs on others and causing mental and/or physical pain wrong as well?


"I hate tyranny, so in order to avoid it, you must agree with me, cause the view I hold is right, and yours is wrong"


So helpful

That was not what that spiel was about.

Consistency, defending of life from the most innocent to the death by natural cause. Unless of course you are a criminal or a grave threat to society in some way shape or form.

I think for that one I need to make a better analogy. The same professor one day ccomes up and tells me, Foley, you cannot smoke around a pregnant woman, it is wrong and will lead to abnormalities in the off spring (fetus...whatever) then a couple of days later he comes back and tells me, you know Foley you are not in the best place economically, and carrying a child to term is a terrible responsibility, have you not consider abortion? Now I would have to wonder if he had suddenly grew two heads, I would have to wondder if this were not a doppleganger of the teacher. I would have to wonder how someone who was so concerned about the fetus not two days ago is so quick to kill said fetus now. I would have to wonder about it and think about it. And then if I were smart, and honest, and above all cautious I would then have to reach the conclusion that I should listen to the first teacher, and protect innocent life.

No. It is not tyranny to charge the Government with the obligation of constructing laws that defend human life in all of its forms. It is not tyranny to protect the most innocent of life and say to someone, there are some choices you cannot make.