Woo HOO!! Supreme Court upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban!!!!

[green 6]

I can tell you right now that I would rather have an abortion that give a child up for adoption. I don't want to carry what's basically a parasite for 40 weeks. I don't want the social stigma of being pregnant and not having a baby to show off. I don't want to have to take time off of my work as a field biologist because I can't do my job. I don't want a child and I don't want to take the risk of becoming emotionally attached to it. I don't want children. I don't like children. I wouldn't go so far as to say I hate children, but I really, REALLY dislike them. In fact, the more kids my family members have, the less I want to be around my family members.

I am built much like you, Laurend, and those were the reasons why I had an abortion when I discovered that my birth control had failed. Though there are a few children which I really do like, I also quickly begin to find them rather boring and can't be around them for more than a few hours at a time. I lack the necessary patience. And frankly babies give me the creeps.

Americans who like guns like to claim they need 'em in order to be able to kill home invaders; well, this division of cells was threatening to invade my body and my way of life, wasn't it?

I believe that the difference between the anti Iraq war, gun-shy, pro-choice liberal and the pro-life, pro-gun, pro-war right-winger is that we feel awfully squeamish about killing people after they are born. Our oponents prefer to concern themselves solely with pre-birth existence. Once the creatures pop their little heads out of the maternal womb, well then, they are out of luck for health care, education, and more...it all becomes a crap shoot!

[FunnyDuddies 6]

I have to ask whether you include abortion as a plausible alternative when you counsel women. If not, I don't consider your actions any more ethical than the nurse's. In both cases (if you don't include abortion), you are taking advantage of a woman's emotions and confusion over what the appropriate actions are. To me, demonizing abortion to a newly pregnant, confused girl or woman is just as bad as manipulating her into have the abortion.

Lauren, here is where you stated that if a counselling does not include both options it is unethical. I know when you debate it is hard to keep track of what is said. I hope this helps.

I have take responsibility for my actions. I have asked for forgiveness, and yes Alexandra, I have forgiven myself. That is why it is easy for me to now focus on those that need to stop manipulating and scamming, as well as those that need couselling to find the best answer for their situation. Just because I hold more people responsible for this than just myself does not mean that I do not take responsibility for the choice that I made. There only seems to be a few pro-choice people that believe the nurse did nothing wrong. the rest, even tho they are for abortion, feel the nurse was very much in the wrong and that I was wronged. Your stance just makes your side look bad. Compassion helps you win debates....remember that.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

I believe that the difference between the anti Iraq war, gun-shy, pro-choice liberal and the pro-life, pro-gun, pro-war right-winger is that we feel awfully squeamish about killing people after they are born. Our oponents prefer to concern themselves solely with pre-birth existence. Once the creatures pop their little heads out of the maternal womb, well then, they are out of luck for health care, education, and more...it all becomes a crap shoot!

I think this is an extreme view, and quite a broad painting of two seperate groups. But that is the way it is portrayed in the media when you do not live in the country.

"Right-wingers" are not bent to kill, or generally make life difficult, for everyone out there, and liberals are not bent on making life heaven for everyone. In fact there are HUGE contrasts to both in reality.

Seems to me that conservatives are actually the ones who contribute to charity and care orgs a lot more than most liberals. I personally give 25% of the over 200k I make a year. Plus I volunteer a lot of my time to counsel, help build homes, and clean beaches. Most of the people that I talk to and deal with in the many charities that I am involved in are conservative, and no...I did not get into these charities through my church. The only organization that would be concidered "politically right" would be the anti-abortion group. The rest are very environmentally centered and socially centered to provide for people and animals that have otherwise had hard luck. We see a lot of liberal people come in, all gung ho, wanting to help, and they last about 2 or 3 months. Then they complain that their time is worth more to them and drop away. It seems that it is the conservatives that are less self serving and focused on making the greater whole a better place to live in.

[green 6]

I think this is an extreme view, and quite a broad painting of two seperate groups. But that is the way it is portrayed in the media when you do not live in the country.

"Right-wingers" are not bent to kill, or generally make life difficult, for everyone out there, and liberals are not bent on making life heaven for everyone. In fact there are HUGE contrasts to both in reality.

Seems to me that conservatives are actually the ones who contribute to charity and care orgs a lot more than most liberals. I personally give 25% of the over 200k I make a year. Plus I volunteer a lot of my time to counsel, help build homes, and clean beaches. Most of the people that I talk to and deal with in the many charities that I am involved in are conservative, and no...I did not get into these charities through my church. The only organization that would be concidered "politically right" would be the anti-abortion group. The rest are very environmentally centered and socially centered to provide for people and animals that have otherwise had hard luck. We see a lot of liberal people come in, all gung ho, wanting to help, and they last about 2 or 3 months. Then they complain that their time is worth more to them and drop away. It seems that it is the conservatives that are less self serving and focused on making the greater whole a better place to live in.

FunnyD, I found your reply both interesting and wise. In fact sometime ago up here in Soviet Canuckistan there was a longish article in one of the weekend newspapers contrasting the Canadian and American attitudes towards charity. It seems that on the whole we Canucks are not very good at contributing our time or money to charities; we figure that our government organisations will take up the slack. By contrast, you Americans do much, much better.

The writer of the article posited that there were a number of factors at play but amongst these were 1) the lack of governmental assistance programmes in place and 2) the fact that there are many, many more actively religious folk in the States. The performance of charitable acts is part of daily life for an active Christian - or, for that matter, Muslim or Jew.

As for those of us who are inactive, wishy-washy Christians or agnostics or atheists, well, we, too, like the concept of charitable activities, but we don't meet together and thus are unorganised and so usually never get around to it - especially if we live in Canada....:tired And we happen to be liberals, to boot! And so you may well be right; it seems like one of the differences between the liberals and the conservatives is that the liberals figure that most programmes of assistance, be they domestic or international, should be developed and run at an official level. This means that everyone, even the cheapskates, will, by virtue of taxation, have to contribute to common good of their society.

Nevertheless, I can clearly see your point. The liberal does not want to get his hands dirty by chosing to actively engage in volunteering, in engaging on a personal level to assist his fellow humans, and by choosing to rid himself of some of his wealth - it is much easier when the government simply robs you of it in the form of taxes.

An individual such as yourself is certainly walking the walk! And I do feel complete admiration (and some degree of envy!) for your current lifestyle (apart from our philosophical/ethical differences on the choice question). There is very little that is more satisfying than to do a mitzvah (do a kindness) for a fellow human being.

And I can also see the concern that the conservative may have that government run programmes will encourage a welfarist underclass. But if the prime focus of these programmes is to insure universal access to health care and first rate education and adequate food to those who need it and only that - then both the poor and the middle class will profit. Educate people and they will become upwardly mobile. Get profits-oriented big business out of health care and you will release the middle class from mortgage-sized payments.

In many respects the conservative and liberal share a common ground. We are both anxious to help our fellow man and yet we do not want to infantalise him, either. We both become irritated when we see our fellow human beings refusing to stand up and take charge of their own lives. We just have different ideas as to how to help him get to that point. There are virtues and flaws in both of our approaches it often seems to me.

[marjon9 6]

FunnyD, I found your reply both interesting and wise. In fact sometime ago up here in Soviet Canuckistan there was a longish article in one of the weekend newspapers contrasting the Canadian and American attitudes towards charity. It seems that on the whole we Canucks are not very good at contributing our time or money to charities; we figure that our government organisations will take up the slack. By contrast, you Americans do much, much better.

The writer of the article posited that there were a number of factors at play but amongst these were 1) the lack of governmental assistance programmes in place and 2) the fact that there are many, many more actively religious folk in the States. The performance of charitable acts is part of daily life for an active Christian - or, for that matter, Muslim or Jew.

As for those of us who are inactive, wishy-washy Christians or agnostics or atheists, well, we, too, like the concept of charitable activities, but we don't meet together and thus are unorganised and so usually never get around to it - especially if we live in Canada....:tired And we happen to be liberals, to boot! And so you may well be right; it seems like one of the differences between the liberals and the conservatives is that the liberals figure that most programmes of assistance, be they domestic or international, should be developed and run at an official level. This means that everyone, even the cheapskates, will, by virtue of taxation, have to contribute to common good of their society.

Nevertheless, I can clearly see your point. The liberal does not want to get his hands dirty by chosing to actively engage in volunteering, in engaging on a personal level to assist his fellow humans, and by choosing to rid himself of some of his wealth - it is much easier when the government simply robs you of it in the form of taxes.

An individual such as yourself is certainly walking the walk! And I do feel complete admiration (and some degree of envy!) for your current lifestyle (apart from our philosophical/ethical differences on the choice question). There is very little that is more satisfying than to do a mitzvah (do a kindness) for a fellow human being.

And I can also see the concern that the conservative may have that government run programmes will encourage a welfarist underclass. But if the prime focus of these programmes is to insure universal access to health care and first rate education and adequate food to those who need it and only that - then both the poor and the middle class will profit. Educate people and they will become upwardly mobile. Get profits-oriented big business out of health care and you will release the middle class from mortgage-sized payments.

In many respects the conservative and liberal share a common ground. We are both anxious to help our fellow man and yet we do not want to infantalise him, either. We both become irritated when we see our fellow human beings refusing to stand up and take charge of their own lives. We just have different ideas as to how to help him get to that point. There are virtues and flaws in both of our approaches it often seems to me.

I think that people dive in and get their hands dirty to help others in need when they feel motivated to do so. It's a wonderful thing to do. But in my experience it has very little to do with whether one is liberal or conservative. Most of the people I know who are involved in charity programs are liberals, but in fairness I don't get out much. I don't run into very many social conservatives on day to day basis. I do know that my father was the most politically and socially liberal person I've ever met or heard about, and he spent the last 30 years of his life working in homeless kitchens and Aids clinics, etc. He died at 93.

I do think, though, that there is another part of this equation that does divide on lines of liberal/conservative. And that relates to the policies of the United States, both domestically and internationally. While this does not hold true in every individual case, I think that the voting record of Congress clearly bears out the fact that conservatives tend to vote in ways that protect big business at the expense of the environment. Liberals are against developing the oil fields in the Alaskan wilderness, conservatives are for it. Liberals support action by the government against global warming, conservatives, as a general rule, go the other way. Conservatives, generally speaking, support the war in Iraq to a greater extent than liberals. Liberals would rather spend these hundreds of billions of dollars on health care, education, domestic infrastructure, etc.

Looking at the voting record of members of the legislative branch of the U.S. government, I don't think that there is any rational basis for disagreeing with what I said above.

Of course, I fully expect that people will disagree with what I am saying, and they will probably disagree with great vigor and enthusiasm. But I think the objective proof is pretty clearly on my side on this, looking at the way the congress votes.

[anonemouse 1]

Compassion helps you win debates....remember that.

Actually, it doesn't. Knowledge is what helps someone win a debate. Compassion is what people request when they know they can't win. I am happy to give compassion where it is deserves, but I don't think you deserve it. Yes, you got talked into an abortion. But I happen to feel that you, as a legal adult, are 100% responsible. I don't hold the nurse responsible in any way for your abortion. She didn't hold you down while they sucked your fetus out. She just drove you to the clinic. You could have left at any time. You could have refused to sign the consent forms. The moment you walked into that clinic, that abortion became your decision, not the result of any so-called "scam" the nurse was running.

I think that you've always been pro-life, but that you had just a few moments where you actually put yourself above that little clump of cells inside you. You've always been told that that little clump should come first, so now you feel guilty, like you've betrayed everything you've ever been taught. You say you've forgiven yourself and that you accept all responsibility, but you haven't. Every single time you tell someone "but the nurse scammed me", you show that you aren't accepting all responsibility. If you had, the nurse would never come into the conversation. You would just talk about how you made a mistake years ago and rushed into an abortion without first considering all the options. That's taking responsibility for your actions.

I know you think that the nurse bears some responsibility, but she doesn't. The fact is, if you hadn't been considering abortion in the first place, she never would have been able to convince you to have one. As much as she talked about abortion or tried to trick you (which I doubt), you would not have had an abortion if you were absolutely anti-abortion at that moment.

Lauren, here is where you stated that if a counselling does not include both options it is unethical. I know when you debate it is hard to keep track of what is said. I hope this helps.

Actually, that is still not answering the question that I asked. Try to keep up, please. This is the part of your statement that I was questioning (in bold):

You said earlier that you felt all counselling was unethical if it did not pose both sides of the argument. Now you are saying you did not. I am confused as to which stance you wish to take on this.

Where did I say that I did not feel that " if a counselling does not include both options it is unethical"? I know where I said that I do feel that way, but you said I flip-flopped. I want to know where exactly you think I flip-flopped. Is that clear enough for you now?

[faithmd 14]

As a woman who works in Neonatology and regularly cares for humans that are born at 22, 23, 24, etc. weeks, I believe that life begins when a fetus can sustain itself with minimal assistance.

22 or 23 weekers RARELY live, 24 weekers have a much higher chance of survival than 22 or 23 weekers, but the question then becomes what type of survival, the complication rate is astronomical at that gestational age. I know, I know, many folks will say they know someone who was born at 24 weeks and is fine. But those really are few and far between.

My point is that in my mind, a fetus is not considered a life until it can be born and actually survive with my intervention. Basically to me, abortion is not murder if there is no chance the fetus could survive outside of the womb, even with medical intervention. Now that doesn't address the whole topic of late-term or partial-birth abortions, for those *I* do not agree with a woman having a late term abortion if the fetus is healthy and she is healthy, but that is not my decision to make. I would prefer to see a woman carry that pregnancy to term and put it up for adoption, but what I want shouldn't mater, it's not my body.

But the question is what does late term mean? If it means 20 weeks, then that isn't late term to me, that fetus would not survive outside of the womb even with intervention. If it means 22 weeks, same thing. Past 24 weeks is where my personal cut-off is.

That having been said, many ultrasounds and amniocentesis tests don't show serious complications until near or after that time. If my fetus was going to have life-threatening conditions or had a defect that would cause a lifelong problem that will significantly impact the quality of life, then I would argue that it is my right to then choose to terminate that pregnancy whenever I found out this information, if that was my decision. Depending on when I found out about any of these possibilities, I may choose to carry to term and then allow comfort care only.

It is such a personal decision, and one that cannot be made lightly. I would never tell another person to terminate their pregnancy if (for example) it was discovered that the fetus had a left hypoplastic heart defect. I would be there to completely support whatever their decision was and I'd gladly take the best possible care of that baby once it arrived. But I know for me, that I would choose not to continue with a pregnancy like that (again, unless I found out VERY late and then I would choose to love and make the most of every moment I had with my child until s/he passed).

I am only one person, and that would be my personal choice. I fully believe that this is a personal choice, not one to be dictated by someone else. It is something to be decided upon between the woman carrying the pregnancy, her partner(depending on the situation) and her doctor.

[anonemouse 1]

I should correct my above statement. Funny, I have compassion for you because you had an abortion that you regret. I don't have compassion for you because you think you "were scammed".

[lisah25 3]

As a woman who works in Neonatology and regularly cares for humans that are born at 22, 23, 24, etc. weeks, I believe that life begins when a fetus can sustain itself with minimal assistance.

 

22 or 23 weekers RARELY live, 24 weekers have a much higher chance of survival than 22 or 23 weekers, but the question then becomes what type of survival, the complication rate is astronomical at that gestational age. I know, I know, many folks will say they know someone who was born at 24 weeks and is fine. But those really are few and far between.

 

My point is that in my mind, a fetus is not considered a life until it can be born and actually survive with my intervention. Basically to me, abortion is not murder if there is no chance the fetus could survive outside of the womb, even with medical intervention. Now that doesn't address the whole topic of late-term or partial-birth abortions, for those *I* do not agree with a woman having a late term abortion if the fetus is healthy and she is healthy, but that is not my decision to make. I would prefer to see a woman carry that pregnancy to term and put it up for adoption, but what I want shouldn't mater, it's not my body.

But the question is what does late term mean? If it means 20 weeks, then that isn't late term to me, that fetus would not survive outside of the womb even with intervention. If it means 22 weeks, same thing. Past 24 weeks is where my personal cut-off is.

 

That having been said, many ultrasounds and amniocentesis tests don't show serious complications until near or after that time. If my fetus was going to have life-threatening conditions or had a defect that would cause a lifelong problem that will significantly impact the quality of life, then I would argue that it is my right to then choose to terminate that pregnancy whenever I found out this information, if that was my decision. Depending on when I found out about any of these possibilities, I may choose to carry to term and then allow comfort care only.

 

It is such a personal decision, and one that cannot be made lightly. I would never tell another person to terminate their pregnancy if (for example) it was discovered that the fetus had a left hypoplastic heart defect. I would be there to completely support whatever their decision was and I'd gladly take the best possible care of that baby once it arrived. But I know for me, that I would choose not to continue with a pregnancy like that (again, unless I found out VERY late and then I would choose to love and make the most of every moment I had with my child until s/he passed).

 

I am only one person, and that would be my personal choice. I fully believe that this is a personal choice, not one to be dictated by someone else. It is something to be decided upon between the woman carrying the pregnancy, her partner(depending on the situation) and her doctor.

 

You really summed up how I feel about this issue. I believe there are legitimate reasons to count life begining at different points during pregnancy. It's for that reason I oppose outlawing abortions, and leaving it as a private decision.

[green 6]

Marjon, when I was framing my response to FunnyD it was purely in connection with her comments on personal charitable commitment vs a demand for universal government-run programmes of the nature which we have here in what Pat Robertson called Soviet Canuckistan. I did find the comments contained in the article which I cited, an article written by a Canadian journalist and published in a Canadian newspaper, to be of interest and pertinent to the discussion in which we were engaging.

I am, however, still an atheist, a skeptic, and I continue to dress to the left as far as the core issues are concerned: religious beliefs play no part in determining civil rights; health care and access to a decent education must be made available to all citizens in order for a country to thrive; evironmental issues are a major concern, too big to be handled without governmental intervention; global warming, whatever the cause or causes, is the big issue of this century and will require international co-operation; and the war in Iraq was engineered for reasons which were both specious and corrupt and had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with al-Qaeda. I am also quite suspicious of patriotism for I view it as only another form of saying that we are better than you are; it is another form of shutting both people and ideas out.

Nevertheless, it strikes me that people who do volunteer their time and hearts and energies to charitable work will expose themselves, much as those who live in large multi-cultural cities and those who travel, to many individuals who are different from their own sweet selves; coming into contact with humanity can be very embiggening as Homer Simpson would say.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

I think that we both agree precisely on the way things are split and why. I think that were we disagree fundamentally is which way is correct.

Liberals do feel that official governing over the handouts that are given to people, and the overtaxation of the greater population in order to provide for a few. This is a forced charity.

Conservatives feel that the giving of charity should be left up to the individual, and that the government should not have ANY say in a societal issue of care and charity.

I feel that my tax dollars are being stolen from the groups and charities that I belong to and contribute to. Those are dollars that I would be more than happy to contribute to homeless, to troubled children seeking education, to drug rehab clinics, to post abortion counselling centers, to environmental cleanup. But to force me to pay for things that I do not agree with, charaties that have too heavy in fees and paychecks to the top members, to charities that are so big that small more focused charities fail because they never get anything. That is all wrong for me.

Now I know the argument from this will be "If we lower taxes and stop the forced contributing to charity and welfare through the govt then a lot of charities and people on welfare will stop receiving money and fail." yes. they will. But that shows that our american society is WAY too dependant on our govt. We should be taking care of ourselves and each other through community and charity. Not through govt. Let me decide what I want to give my money to. I think I make good choices with it, and I certainly put in the time and energy as well.

FunnyD, I found your reply both interesting and wise. In fact sometime ago up here in Soviet Canuckistan there was a longish article in one of the weekend newspapers contrasting the Canadian and American attitudes towards charity. It seems that on the whole we Canucks are not very good at contributing our time or money to charities; we figure that our government organisations will take up the slack. By contrast, you Americans do much, much better.

The writer of the article posited that there were a number of factors at play but amongst these were 1) the lack of governmental assistance programmes in place and 2) the fact that there are many, many more actively religious folk in the States. The performance of charitable acts is part of daily life for an active Christian - or, for that matter, Muslim or Jew.

As for those of us who are inactive, wishy-washy Christians or agnostics or atheists, well, we, too, like the concept of charitable activities, but we don't meet together and thus are unorganised and so usually never get around to it - especially if we live in Canada....:tired And we happen to be liberals, to boot! And so you may well be right; it seems like one of the differences between the liberals and the conservatives is that the liberals figure that most programmes of assistance, be they domestic or international, should be developed and run at an official level. This means that everyone, even the cheapskates, will, by virtue of taxation, have to contribute to common good of their society.

Nevertheless, I can clearly see your point. The liberal does not want to get his hands dirty by chosing to actively engage in volunteering, in engaging on a personal level to assist his fellow humans, and by choosing to rid himself of some of his wealth - it is much easier when the government simply robs you of it in the form of taxes.

An individual such as yourself is certainly walking the walk! And I do feel complete admiration (and some degree of envy!) for your current lifestyle (apart from our philosophical/ethical differences on the choice question). There is very little that is more satisfying than to do a mitzvah (do a kindness) for a fellow human being.

And I can also see the concern that the conservative may have that government run programmes will encourage a welfarist underclass. But if the prime focus of these programmes is to insure universal access to health care and first rate education and adequate food to those who need it and only that - then both the poor and the middle class will profit. Educate people and they will become upwardly mobile. Get profits-oriented big business out of health care and you will release the middle class from mortgage-sized payments.

In many respects the conservative and liberal share a common ground. We are both anxious to help our fellow man and yet we do not want to infantalise him, either. We both become irritated when we see our fellow human beings refusing to stand up and take charge of their own lives. We just have different ideas as to how to help him get to that point. There are virtues and flaws in both of our approaches it often seems to me.

[green 6]

There is are a couple of interesting debates on the ethics of birth going on British Columbia, Canada at this time. One of them concerns a girl who is the daughter of a welfarist family who gave birth to her first child when she was 16. She had her second child two years later and two years after that she was pregnant again. All her children were by the same father, a kid who is 2 years older than her and who, until the birth of her latest kids, did not actually live with her. (For those of you who might care, let it be known that these individuals are white.)

During her 3rd pregnancy it was discovered that she was carrying twins and that they were, moreover, conjoined at the head. Yep, Siamese twins. She did have the option to abort but chose to carry them to term even though the odds of these two girls a) surviving in utero and surviving an operation to split 'em up should they make it that far were grim.

The girl is now 21, the twins are 6 months old, and she is by all accounts a very competent mother of small children. She and her extended family live on social assistance and they are a very close and supportive family. She also personally receives additional hand-outs from church groups and other well-meaning people who are touched by the story of her and her twins. She receives a lot of hate mail, too.

It seems to me after reading these news reports that she loves these children deeply and is undeniably a good mum. It also seems to me that she herself is emotionally immature and intellectually unsophisticated and thus has no idea what will await these children once they leave infanthood and begin to grow up.

Was her choice to keep these kids frivolous, thoughtless and self-centred, or not?

The second case, also in British Columbia, concerns a young Mormon couple who gave birth to a set of sextuplets. Though there is a particial news ban on the case, implicit in the news reports is that they did go out of the country for fertility assistance. The babies were born - as is so often the case with multiples - extremely prematurely. Two of them died before the government stepped in and ordered that the remaining infants be treated with blood transfusions. This is absolutely against Mormon religious belief and yet the government of British Columbia felt that the choice lay between honouring the civil liberties of this couple and saving the lives of the remaining infants. The government is now being sued by the parents.

From all that I have read, although we now have the technology in place to save the lives of foetuses who find themselves outside the womb while still in an extremely early stage of development, these acts of intervention cost millions of dollars and the sad but unspoken truth is that many of these saved babies will grow up to lag behind their peers both physically and mentally and so will continue to be a charge on their families, the medical and the social systems for the rest of their lives. Balance out these costs against the costs of, oh, lets say, upgrading the infrastructure - access to fresh Water, food, medical care and supplies, agricultural technology, etc - in a continent such as Africa and you must admit that the North American tendency to worship its own - often lily white flesh - while discounting the value of all other flesh is kinda creepy and certainly soaked in hypocrisy.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

And i want to point out that I am not an anarchist, or anti-govt in any way. I am anti-big government. I believe that the federal government should focus on the protection of our borders and homelands, and that state governments should focus on roads and upholding laws. This is obviously an extreme example, and there are a few toehr things that i think a government should worry about and be involved in, but for the most part I think that things we are taxed for are totally bogus, and that the government has too many "programs" going on. For instance, I have no desire to pay for the living expenses of someone who paints for a living. If you cannot support yourself with your art, choose a different line of work.

 

As far as the abortion issue goes, because I know that a lot will say "If you believe in smaller government then you believe in fewer laws on our bodies" you are incorrect. This for me is a "murder" issue. A law that must be upheld, or should be upheld, by the government.

[BJean 16]

faithmd: Thank you so much for such an eloquent and educated post. Like lisah, we share many of the same beliefs about this subject and it was refreshing to read a post from someone with first hand knowledge of many aspects of the equation.

Green: I also agree with you about the characterization of some of the people of the U.S. who worship their "... own - often lily white flesh - while discounting the value of all other flesh...." And it is very hypocritical.

As for charity, many, many good people here in the U.S. do charitable work. Some do it because they believe it is their duty. Some are involved because their church compels them to. And then there are lots of folks who do charitable work because of how it makes them look to the outside world and because it makes them feel superior. Some people never give any time or money to the needy.

If all Americans could be depended upon to do their fair share to help the downtrodden and citizens with special needs, we wouldn't need the government to intervene and impose taxes to do the job. But it makes no sense whatsoever for us to ignore segments of our society who are diadvantaged, ill, uneducated, etc. First of all, it just isn't right. And secondly, if we do not take care of our own, our glorious empire will crumble around us.

So funnyd, just because you're generous, willing and able to do lots of charity work, doesn't mean that your next door neighbor is as willing to get involved with it. We might be able to count on you, but there are many many many more people who can't be counted on. Consequently there is an absolute necessity for taxes and government assistance for some of our less fortunate Americans. Proper handling of the programs may have suffered over the years, but it can be fixed if we choose to fix it.

marjon9 has it completely right.

[FunnyDuddies 6]

I disagree BJ. Govt programs and forced charity was flawed from the beginning. you cannot fix something that is fundementally flawed. The best is to do away with it and let people, our american society, become strong on its own and take care of people in their own rite. To continue handing out funds and services to people without making them do anything for themselves is devastating to those people. It forces them to become dependent on people and programs other than themselves. Most can never break away from it, and we as a whole tax paying society end up caring for this person for the rest of their lives.

The answer is not to fix the broken system. It is to do away with the system completely. Let people find charity from their neighbors, from their churches, from their youth groups, from their family. And teach them to be more self sufficient. It will develop a strong sense of being, a stronger society, a closer community, and a stronger government.