Will Trump win again???

[Leon'sMom]

I'm not sure where this info comes from and, therefore, the context of what is being said in it. The hi lighted part is about transplanting an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus?

The Guardian article describes how some Christians are trying to advance policies that align with their religious views. The way I look at it is, people's deeply held religious or non-religious views affect their values and causes. There are people from all walks of life with their own values and causes who are working or not working to advance those things. These various views and causes all come together in the public square, the public weighs in on them by speaking to their elected officials, and by executing their right to vote for the officials who best align with their own values and causes. If you dislike something, then vote against it. If you want to see something advanced, then work for it. None of us are going to get 100% of what we deem perfect in a politician because they are serving a large population of varying values and causes.

America was founded by people seeking freedom from a government that established and compelled their participation in a state run church. In American society, we have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. In other words, by virtue of being a member of a pluralistic society, we will interact with others who are living their lives in their faith-based traditions or without any faith-based traditions. Everyone can CHOOSE if they wish to participate in a faith-based tradition or not. And, in my opinion, it is a positive thing for people of different faiths to interact and learn from one another.

There are 2 main problems, IMO, concerning organized religion in America:

1) I personally do not believe that any organized religion should receive tax-exempt status. The theory (as I understand it) is that religious groups do good deeds for society, and they are rewarded/subsidized with tax-exemption. People should do good deeds because of they value that and not because they are receiving a tax break. That's why I don't disagree with the elimination of the federal charitable giving tax break. I believe that many groups (religious and non-religious) do good deeds, and I don't think any of them should receive tax-exempt status. Organized religions need funds for their daily operations/overhead, but most also have lots of money that they funnel to the higher-ups/leaders. We should end the tax-exempt status which is over-used and misused by many. Many nefarious groups and cults can easily grow wealthy hiding behind the label of a religion. And they can claim religious persecution when someone questions them. (Think James and Tammy Faye Bakker, Church of Scientology, John of God, Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate...not to mention the more traditional religions)

2) People complain that religion should not be visible or discussed AT ALL in systems such as public schools or health care systems. The problem with that view is that these systems are designed to support the life and goals of a heterogenous population, composed of both faith-tradition and non-faith tradition persons. It is impossible, IMO, to completely remove a person's traditions while also claiming to be there to serve them. In health care, we must respect a person's autonomy to make their own health choices, and for some those decisions are influenced by their faith. We don't over ride those choices simply because we hold different views. They get information and decide on their own. And that is how it should be. For both the Provider and the Patient. No Provider or Patient should be COMPELLED to take an action that conflicts with their own values. Period.

To try to remove all traditions from public schools because somebody else doesn't share that tradition is, IMO, equally wrong. No one should be COMPELLED to take an action with regards to faith or traditions that conflict with their own values, and parents should be informed ahead of time and be allowed to opt their child out, but, in general, education should include broad range of traditions, reinforce their own traditions and teach children about new and different traditions. Not as indoctrination into a religion but as information about culture. Schools should practice and foster an environment where all ideas are welcome and can coexist.

IMO, if the government funding an institution (public school or Medicare/Medicaid) requires the complete obliteration of faith-based traditions, then it is time for the government to get completely out of those businesses. Health care and Education would be better served if they went completely private and were free of the government dictating who has to say and do what. There is a critical difference in being made aware of different/opposing views and being COMPELLED to take different/opposing action to your own individual values. To expose is to provide information for the purpose of teaching. To compel is to infringe upon someone freedom OF religion.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[radsisrad]

I wouldn’t worry too much about having to read the Koran anytime soon.

Tell that to the French and English.

 

[radsisrad]

You're having trouble reconciling because people who see the world in black and white frequently don't understand that "the law" is not always synonymous with justice being served. But honestly, if you're defending Trump at this point then it's pretty clear you don't give a sht about either.

Irony, thy name is vector2.

 

[deleted171991]

If ISIS Is Not Islamic, then the Inquisition Was Not Catholic

There's no such thing as a "true" religion.

newrepublic.com

"Many beliefs of some Muslim sects—like female genital mutilation and devaluating a woman’s testimony in court (according to sharia law, it’s worth only half of a man’s) —are not explicitly given in the Qur’an, the word of Allah supposedly dictated to Muhammad. Rather, they have become associated with Islam through the hadith and the sunnah (reported sayings, practices, and beliefs of Muhammad), or through simple tradition. "

Status of women's testimony in Islam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sharia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"European Court of Human Rights
In 1998 the Constitutional Court of Turkey banned and dissolved Turkey's Refah Party over its announced intention to introduce sharia-based laws, ruling that it would change Turkey's secular order and undermine democracy.[198] On appeal by Refah the European Court of Human Rights determined that "sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy".[199][200][201] Refah's sharia-based notion of a "plurality of legal systems, grounded on religion" was ruled to contravene the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It was determined that it would "do away with the State's role as the guarantor of individual rights and freedoms" and "infringe the principle of non-discrimination between individuals as regards their enjoyment of public freedoms, which is one of the fundamental principles of democracy".[202] In an analysis, Maurits S. Berger found the ruling to be "nebulous" and surprising from a legal point of view, since the Court neglected to define what it meant by "sharia" and would not, for example, be expected to regard sharia rules for Islamic rituals as contravening European human rights values.[203] Kevin Boyle also criticized the decision for not distinguishing between extremist and mainstream interpretations of Islam and implying that peaceful advocacy of Islamic doctrines ("an attitude which fails to respect [the principle of secularism]") is not protected by the European Convention provisions for freedom of religion.[204]"

 

[GravelRider]

Tell that to the French and English.

What am I telling them?

 

[deleted171991]

I'm not sure where this info comes from and, therefore, the context of what is being said in it. The hi lighted part is about transplanting an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus?

The Guardian article describes how some Christians are trying to advance policies that align with their religious views. The way I look at it is, people's deeply held religious or non-religious views affect their values and causes. There are people from all walks of life with their own values and causes who are working or not working to advance those things. These various views and causes all come together in the public square, the public weighs in on them by speaking to their elected officials, and by executing their right to vote for the officials who best align with their own values and causes. If you dislike something, then vote against it. If you want to see something advanced, then work for it. None of us are going to get 100% of what we deem perfect in a politician because they are serving a large population of varying values and causes.

America was founded by people seeking freedom from a government that established and compelled their participation in a state run church. In American society, we have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. In other words, by virtue of being a member of a pluralistic society, we will interact with others who are living their lives in their faith-based traditions or without any faith-based traditions. Everyone can CHOOSE if they wish to participate in a faith-based tradition or not. And, in my opinion, it is a positive thing for people of different faiths to interact and learn from one another.

There are 2 main problems, IMO, concerning organized religion in America:

1) I personally do not believe that any organized religion should receive tax-exempt status. The theory (as I understand it) is that religious groups do good deeds for society, and they are rewarded/subsidized with tax-exemption. People should do good deeds because of they value that and not because they are receiving a tax break. That's why I don't disagree with the elimination of the federal charitable giving tax break. I believe that many groups (religious and non-religious) do good deeds, and I don't think any of them should receive tax-exempt status. Organized religions need funds for their daily operations/overhead, but most also have lots of money that they funnel to the higher-ups/leaders. We should end the tax-exempt status which is over-used and misused by many. Many nefarious groups and cults can easily grow wealthy hiding behind the label of a religion. And they can claim religious persecution when someone questions them. (Think James and Tammy Faye Bakker, Church of Scientology, John of God, Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate...not to mention the more traditional religions)

2) People complain that religion should not be visible or discussed AT ALL in systems such as public schools or health care systems. The problem with that view is that these systems are designed to support the life and goals of a heterogenous population, composed of both faith-tradition and non-faith tradition persons. It is impossible, IMO, to completely remove a person's traditions while also claiming to be there to serve them. In health care, we must respect a person's autonomy to make their own health choices, and for some those decisions are influenced by their faith. We don't over ride those choices simply because we hold different views. They get information and decide on their own. And that is how it should be. For both the Provider and the Patient. No Provider or Patient should be COMPELLED to take an action that conflicts with their own values. Period.

To try to remove all traditions from public schools because somebody else doesn't share that tradition is, IMO, equally wrong. No one should be COMPELLED to take an action with regards to faith or traditions that conflict with their own values, and parents should be informed ahead of time and be allowed to opt their child out, but, in general, education should include broad range of traditions, reinforce their own traditions and teach children about new and different traditions. Not as indoctrination into a religion but as information about culture. Schools should practice and foster an environment where all ideas are welcome and can coexist.

IMO, if the government funding an institution (public school or Medicare/Medicaid) requires the complete obliteration of faith-based traditions, then it is time for the government to get completely out of those businesses. Health care and Education would be better served if they went completely private and were free of the government dictating who has to say and do what. There is a critical difference in being made aware of different/opposing views and being COMPELLED to take different/opposing action to your own individual values. To expose is to provide information for the purpose of teaching. To compel is to infringe upon someone freedom OF religion.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post, but not the emphasized part. The government is there to provide a public service (i.e. education), while respecting the Constitution. Hence a public school should have nothing to do with religion (that should also apply to teaching science). If you want your child to get a religious education, s/he should get it at home, at church (e.g. Sunday school) or in a private educational institution.

This is not a democratic/majority decision. This is a decision made by the Founders. If you don't like it, change the Constitution.

Btw, if you think you are so religiously tolerant, what do you do with people who believe in more than one god? "In God(s) We Trust"? There was a reason why the founders did not want religion mixed into the affairs of the State (and that's because nothing good would come out of that in a multi-religious society). That was the basis of Catholic-Protestant wars in Medieval Europe.

 

[vector2]

Irony, thy name is vector2.

I think you need to look up the definition of irony before whipping out any more zingers. Trumpists have zero interest in knowing whether or Trunp or his cronies have broken the law, let alone whether any punishment would serve justice.

 

[Leon'sMom]

I mostly agree with the rest of your post, but not the emphasized part. The government is there to provide a public service (i.e. education), while respecting the Constitution. Hence a public school should have nothing to do with religion (that should also apply to teaching science). If you want your child to get a religious education, s/he should get it at home, at church (e.g. Sunday school) or in a private educational institution.

This is not a democratic/majority decision. This is a decision made by the Founders. If you don't like it, change the Constitution.

Btw, if you think you are so religiously tolerant, what do you do with people who believe in more than one god? "In God(s) We Trust"? There was a reason why the founders did not want religion mixed into the affairs of the State.

I agree that "religion" should not be "subject" taught in public grammar-middle schools. Religion classes in those grades should be taught at religious/private schools or at church classes. I do believe that HS students could be capable of handling, and perhaps benefit from, the inclusion of some information as part of a Human Geography class or Sociology class. In fact, this would expose them to more information about different cultures. But, in general, I have little trust in the public school system to not screw that up. So, yes, I agree.

What I meant by faith-based traditions are things like grammar schools discussing, presenting, singing, reading about holidays such as Christmas, Halloween, Birthdays, and Easter. I don't take issue with the renaming of breaks to Winter break and Spring break, but I do take issue with the removal of all childhood traditions surrounding the celebration of these major holidays. I think that young children get excited about their families and their traditions, and it is kind of sad that they are not allowed or discouraged from sharing these things. I say, build a bigger tent and include more traditions, so that tolerance and understanding is fostered at a young age instead of making things foreign or taboo. This is the perfect, fun way, to do this. But that is just my opinion.

I stand by my comments on healthcare. The government has NO place in COMPELLING a Provider or a Patient to take certain actions. The government should have NO leverage to withhold medical reimbursements or disallow a Provider's participation in Government-sponsored insurance programs based on the Provider's personal decision to opt-out of performing certain medical procedures.

 

[radsisrad]

I think you need to look up the definition of irony before whipping out any more zingers. Trumpists have zero interest in knowing whether or Trunp or his cronies have broken the law, let alone whether any punishment would serve justice.

Your comments grow more presumptuous and fantastical by the day.

 

[GravelRider]

I agree that "religion" should not be "subject" taught in public grammar-middle schools. Religion classes in those grades should be taught at religious/private schools or at church classes. I do believe that HS students could be capable of handling, and perhaps benefit from, the inclusion of some information as part of a Human Geography class or Sociology class. In fact, this would expose them to more information about different cultures. But, in general, I have little trust in the public school system to not screw that up. So, yes, I agree.

What I meant by faith-based traditions are things like grammar schools discussing, presenting, singing, reading about holidays such as Christmas, Halloween, Birthdays, and Easter. I don't take issue with the renaming of breaks to Winter break and Spring break, but I do take issue with the removal of all childhood traditions surrounding the celebration of these major holidays. I think that young children get excited about their families and their traditions, and it is kind of sad that they are not allowed or discouraged from sharing these things. I say, build a bigger tent and include more traditions, so that tolerance and understanding is fostered at a young age instead of making things foreign or taboo. This is the perfect, fun way, to do this. But that is just my opinion.

I stand by my comments on healthcare. The government has NO place in COMPELLING a Provider or a Patient to take certain actions. The government should have NO leverage to withhold medical reimbursements or disallow a Provider's participation in Government-sponsored insurance programs based on the Provider's personal decision to opt-out of performing certain medical procedures.

The government also has NO place in punishing a clinician or patient for performing or undergoing a procedure that is in opposition to SOMEONE ELSE’S religion or personal beliefs.

 

[vector2]

Your comments grow more presumptuous and fantastical by the day.

No, this is fantastical

----
Todd would eventually confront Kennedy on the U.S. intelligence community recently briefing lawmakers that attempts to frame Ukraine for Russian election meddling was actually “a Russian intelligence propaganda campaign in order to get people like you to say these things about Ukraine," a briefing Kennedy claimed he didn't attend.

“When does opinion become fact?” Todd wondered aloud. “Does 17 intelligence services saying it, does every western intelligence ally saying Russia did this—I get sort of confused at what point is it no longer an opinion for you?”

....

“Russia was very aggressive and they’re much more sophisticated,” the conservative senator declared. “But the fact that Russia was so aggressive does not exclude the fact that President Poroshenko actively worked for Secretary Clinton.”

“Actively worked for Secretary Clinton?! My goodness, wait a minute, Senator Kennedy,” Todd shot back. “You now have the president of Ukraine saying he worked for the Democratic nominee for president. C’mon. You realize the only other person selling this argument outside the United States is this man, Vladimir Putin!”

The NBC host then highlighted the Russian president recently boasting that “nobody is accusing us anymore of interfering in U.S. election” but instead blaming Ukraine.

Todd further pushed back on Kennedy’s assertion, asking him if he believed that Ukrainian officials criticizing Trump during the election over his endorsement of Russia’s annexation of Crimea was equivalent to Russia’s hacking.

Chuck Todd to GOP Senator: You’re Selling the Same Argument as Putin!

Chuck Todd was left gobsmacked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) when the GOP lawmaker said the ex-Ukrainian president “actively worked” for Hillary Clinton.

www.thedailybeast.com

----

 

[Leon'sMom]

The government also has NO place in punishing a clinician or patient for performing or undergoing a procedure that is in opposition to SOMEONE ELSE’S religion or personal beliefs.

Yes, I agree. The Provider and Patient should be completely free from Government coercion in what legal medical actions they take or do not take. If a medical procedure is legal, then the Provider and Patient each have an autonomous choice to be made.

 

[Leon'sMom]

No, this is fantastical

----
Todd would eventually confront Kennedy on the U.S. intelligence community recently briefing lawmakers that attempts to frame Ukraine for Russian election meddling was actually “a Russian intelligence propaganda campaign in order to get people like you to say these things about Ukraine," a briefing Kennedy claimed he didn't attend.

“When does opinion become fact?” Todd wondered aloud. “Does 17 intelligence services saying it, does every western intelligence ally saying Russia did this—I get sort of confused at what point is it no longer an opinion for you?”

....

“Russia was very aggressive and they’re much more sophisticated,” the conservative senator declared. “But the fact that Russia was so aggressive does not exclude the fact that President Poroshenko actively worked for Secretary Clinton.”

“Actively worked for Secretary Clinton?! My goodness, wait a minute, Senator Kennedy,” Todd shot back. “You now have the president of Ukraine saying he worked for the Democratic nominee for president. C’mon. You realize the only other person selling this argument outside the United States is this man, Vladimir Putin!”

The NBC host then highlighted the Russian president recently boasting that “nobody is accusing us anymore of interfering in U.S. election” but instead blaming Ukraine.

Todd further pushed back on Kennedy’s assertion, asking him if he believed that Ukrainian officials criticizing Trump during the election over his endorsement of Russia’s annexation of Crimea was equivalent to Russia’s hacking.

Chuck Todd to GOP Senator: You’re Selling the Same Argument as Putin!

Chuck Todd was left gobsmacked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) when the GOP lawmaker said the ex-Ukrainian president “actively worked” for Hillary Clinton.

www.thedailybeast.com

----

A few things:

1) I believe Kennedy walked back his comments or clarified his comments the day after that Todd interview.
2) 2 things can be true at the same time: Russia may have meddled in favor of Trump and Ukraine may have meddled in favor of Clinton. I believe both are probably true, but the critical questions are a) To what extent did the meddling actually change the election results? and b) Did either Trump or Clinton actively participate in the meddling? Foreign countries (including the US) meddle in other countries' elections all the time. Until corruption/pay-to-play is eliminated completely it will continue. Since that is probably never going to go away completely, we should seek to minimize foreign influence as much as possible by thoroughly investigating claims of pay-to-play by all parties.
3) From what I've seen/read, I believe that the majority of Crimea's citizens more closely identified with the Russian culture than the Ukrainians, and seeking to get away from the rampant Ukrainian corruption the citizens wanted to rejoin Russia. As far as the missile/plane incident, there were never conclusive results of Russia being at fault. I believe neither country is 'an angel' here.

 

[Leon'sMom]

No, this is fantastical

----
Todd would eventually confront Kennedy on the U.S. intelligence community recently briefing lawmakers that attempts to frame Ukraine for Russian election meddling was actually “a Russian intelligence propaganda campaign in order to get people like you to say these things about Ukraine," a briefing Kennedy claimed he didn't attend.

“When does opinion become fact?” Todd wondered aloud. “Does 17 intelligence services saying it, does every western intelligence ally saying Russia did this—I get sort of confused at what point is it no longer an opinion for you?”

....

“Russia was very aggressive and they’re much more sophisticated,” the conservative senator declared. “But the fact that Russia was so aggressive does not exclude the fact that President Poroshenko actively worked for Secretary Clinton.”

“Actively worked for Secretary Clinton?! My goodness, wait a minute, Senator Kennedy,” Todd shot back. “You now have the president of Ukraine saying he worked for the Democratic nominee for president. C’mon. You realize the only other person selling this argument outside the United States is this man, Vladimir Putin!”

The NBC host then highlighted the Russian president recently boasting that “nobody is accusing us anymore of interfering in U.S. election” but instead blaming Ukraine.

Todd further pushed back on Kennedy’s assertion, asking him if he believed that Ukrainian officials criticizing Trump during the election over his endorsement of Russia’s annexation of Crimea was equivalent to Russia’s hacking.

Chuck Todd to GOP Senator: You’re Selling the Same Argument as Putin!

Chuck Todd was left gobsmacked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) when the GOP lawmaker said the ex-Ukrainian president “actively worked” for Hillary Clinton.

www.thedailybeast.com

----

Let me ask you, IF there is an investigation and there is evidence/proof that Clinton was actively working with Ukraine, running pay-to-play schemes, in order to influence the 2016 election, would you believe it? accept it? agree that HRC and all parties deserve punishment? IF there is sufficient proof.

 

[Matty44]

You have a real obsession with Sharia law. Is that your new buzzword? Any law that is guided by religion or some sort of deity is wrong and a law that I will always vehemently oppose. I get annoyed when I see “In God We Trust” on the dollar bill. The separation of “church” and state is a integral part of our nation. The same way you don’t want to here about transsexuals switching teams is how I feel about religion...keep it to yourself. Don’t bother me with your prayers and ideas about a magic man in the sky. Christian fundamentalism is much more likely to gain ground here and favor in our government than any kind of Sharia law. I wouldn’t worry too much about having to read the Koran anytime soon.

Who is bothering you with prayers and talk of God?

Also, this is an interesting short watch




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vector2]

Let me ask you, IF there is an investigation and there is evidence/proof that Clinton was actively working with Ukraine, running pay-to-play schemes, in order to influence the 2016 election, would you believe it? accept it? agree that HRC and all parties deserve punishment? IF there is sufficient proof.

Hell yea, lock her up

 

[GravelRider]

Yes, I agree. The Provider and Patient should be completely free from Government coercion in what legal medical actions they take or do not take. If a medical procedure is legal, then the Provider and Patient each have an autonomous choice to be made.

I noticed how you qualified that statement with “if a medical procedure is legal...” That’s a big “if.”

 

[GravelRider]

Who is bothering you with prayers and talk of God?

Also, this is an interesting short watch




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I have concerns that Sharia law is a real possibility in the United States, I can assure you that the Christian fundamentalists or just plain old Christians can count on us atheists and even the Satanic Temple as allies in fighting back against Islam. Until then, I will continue to oppose Christianity’s encroachment into the government, law, or other publicly paid for institutions.

 

[pgg]

Even when I was in third grade, I couldn't have been dumb enough to so pathetically misinterpret this clause. Writing that 60% of the number of slaves would be added to the free population for representation purposes is nothing close to saying that a slave is "3/5 of a person."

Settle down, don't be a dick.

I was replying to a post that claimed that slavery isn't in the Constitution. The mere fact that the 3/5ths Compromise in there is clear evidence that the Founders were aware of slavery and OK with it. That's all.

 

[Leon'sMom]

I mostly agree with the rest of your post, but not the emphasized part. The government is there to provide a public service (i.e. education), while respecting the Constitution. Hence a public school should have nothing to do with religion (that should also apply to teaching science). If you want your child to get a religious education, s/he should get it at home, at church (e.g. Sunday school) or in a private educational institution.

This is not a democratic/majority decision. This is a decision made by the Founders. If you don't like it, change the Constitution.

Btw, if you think you are so religiously tolerant, what do you do with people who believe in more than one god? "In God(s) We Trust"? There was a reason why the founders did not want religion mixed into the affairs of the State (and that's because nothing good would come out of that in a multi-religious society). That was the basis of Catholic-Protestant wars in Medieval Europe.

I don't have any issue with people who believe in more than one god. However, I don't really think changing "In God We Trust" to "In Gods We Trust" is necessary. I see that as a waste of taxpayer money to reprint coins/bills, etc. I believe that "God" should imply both singular and plural. I also feel this way about other words, such as men, actor, fireman, and postman as inferring both men and women.

I feel that the Government should really stay out of most everything "religious," unless there is reason to believe that a group is simply using the title of religion as a protective shield from scrutiny and taxes.

What I DO have a problem with is any so-called organized religion which incorporates rituals or practices that are a) mentally or physically abusive to its members or to others, (ie. The Church of Scientology, which I firmly believe is a cult based upon its members' lack of autonomy and freedom to leave the church, etc) or b) whose aim is to cause harm to others as a vehicle for gaining power or control (Satanic ritual abuse of children).

IMO, an organized religion's purpose is/should be to serve as a framework for how to lead a positive and meaningful life through the moral examples of its dieties/God. It should never actively seek to mentally or physically abuse others. That crosses the line for me into something other than a Constitutionally protected religion.

I respect everyone's freedom to choose for themselves whether they are a believer or not, in what or in whom. It appears to me from what I've read, that many here are agnostic or atheistic. We may disagree on some points, but I totally support your right to speak up and disagree, even if it's done with a disapproving tone. You do you , and I will do me.

One very important point to remember is this: It does not matter if YOU believe in a particular (religious) tenet. YOU may think it is nonsense or hocus pocus. What you need to know is that there are others who ARE true believers. Some of those believers may be peacefully praying for the betterment of world (and you may be splitting hairs about what that means exactly), but there are also those who worship their chosen diety/god for the sole purpose of power/control/chaos/revenge/predation/pleasure at the cost of others. It doesn't matter if YOU think that's crazy. It only matters what THEY think is crazy. They DO exist, mostly well hidden amongst us, and they ARE a detriment and threat to a healthy and happy society. (And, for the record, I am not talking about any form of Islam in this paragraph.)

 

[Leon'sMom]

Hell yea, lock her up

If there is evidence, thorough investigations performed, and proof found of others--Congressmen, National Committees, ex-Presidents, Intelligence officers and/or Cabinet members---who committed crimes or acts of treason or sedition, do you agree that they, also, should receive just punishment for their crimes?

 

[vector2]

If there is evidence, thorough investigations performed, and proof found of others--Congressmen, National Committees, ex-Presidents, Intelligence officers and/or Cabinet members---who committed crimes or acts of treason or sedition, do you agree that they, also, should receive just punishment for their crimes?

Most definitely. Lock em all up. I'm awakened

 

[Leon'sMom]

I noticed how you qualified that statement with “if a medical procedure is legal...” That’s a big “if.”

Yes, the right to make an autonomous medical choice must exist within a framework of what is also a legal medical procedure.

A few examples:
1) A Provider wishing to help a cancer patient alleviate his suffering cannot legally administer KCl to euthanize him, unless located in a state in which assisted suicide is legal.
2) A Provider wishing to help an infertility patient conceive cannot switch his own active sperm for the spouse's inactive sperm without the patient's consent in attempt to help the patient conceive.
3) A Provider of a patient located in State A cannot perform an abortion at 25 weeks if the law in State A says abortion can only take place up until 16 weeks gestation.

Current scientific knowledge combined with current societal values should shape our laws. Once a law is established it needs to be followed. A law can be amended or abolished over time.

 

[deleted50478]

Yes, the right to make an autonomous medical choice must exist within a framework of what is also a legal medical procedure.

A few examples:
1) A Provider wishing to help a cancer patient alleviate his suffering cannot legally administer KCl to euthanize him, unless located in a state in which assisted suicide is legal.
2) A Provider wishing to help an infertility patient conceive cannot switch his own active sperm for the spouse's inactive sperm without the patient's consent in attempt to help the patient conceive.
3) A Provider of a patient located in State A cannot perform an abortion at 25 weeks if the law in State A says abortion can only take place up until 16 weeks gestation.

Current scientific knowledge combined with current societal values should shape our laws. Once a law is established it needs to be followed. A law can be amended or abolished over time.

Why do you keep saying provider? I’m offended by the use of that term.

 

[GravelRider]

Yes, the right to make an autonomous medical choice must exist within a framework of what is also a legal medical procedure.

A few examples:
1) A Provider wishing to help a cancer patient alleviate his suffering cannot legally administer KCl to euthanize him, unless located in a state in which assisted suicide is legal.
2) A Provider wishing to help an infertility patient conceive cannot switch his own active sperm for the spouse's inactive sperm without the patient's consent in attempt to help the patient conceive.
3) A Provider of a patient located in State A cannot perform an abortion at 25 weeks if the law in State A says abortion can only take place up until 16 weeks gestation.

Current scientific knowledge combined with current societal values should shape our laws. Once a law is established it needs to be followed. A law can be amended or abolished over time.

But we’re talking about laws that are created solely based on religious belief and not scientific knowledge. The proposed law that sparked this discussion hadn’t been reviewed by a single scientist or other expert. So it’s ok for you to say that we must follow laws that are informed only by religion, but on the other hand the government cannot compel you to do things that go against your religious beliefs?

 

[Leon'sMom]

But we’re talking about laws that are created solely based on religious belief and not scientific knowledge. The proposed law that sparked this discussion hadn’t been reviewed by a single scientist or other expert. So it’s ok for you to say that we must follow laws that are informed only by religion, but on the other hand the government cannot compel you to do things that go against your religious beliefs?

I don't know what laws you are specifically referring to that are created solely on religious beliefs and not scientific knowledge. There was a text that was posted above, but I couldn't tell what it was quoting or in reference to. The one with the yellow hi lighted phrase. I must have missed something. I apologize, but I'm not following what you're getting at.

 

[Leon'sMom]

Why do you keep saying provider? I’m offended by the use of that term.

(Seriously? Sorry, I cannot tell if you are joking or not.)

"Provider" as in Medical Provider. Depending upon the scenario: a Doctor, PA, RN, APRN, Pharmacist, etc

 

[deleted171991]

I don't know what laws you are specifically referring to that are created solely on religious beliefs and not scientific knowledge. There was a text that was posted above, but I couldn't tell what it was quoting or in reference to. The one with the yellow hi lighted phrase. I must have missed something. I apologize, but I'm not following what you're getting at.

You're probably not a physician. Otherwise you'd know that the highlighted part is not possible (yet).

 

[Leon'sMom]

You're probably not a physician. Otherwise you'd know that the highlighted part is not possible (yet).

I don't even know what that text is from or what the point of it being posted was. But, yeah, I'm aware that the hi lighted part is not possible (yet). Without any context of what the quote is from, I just had no clue why it was posted. Still don't. But, moving on...

 

[AMEHigh]

I don't know what laws you are specifically referring to that are created solely on religious beliefs and not scientific knowledge. There was a text that was posted above, but I couldn't tell what it was quoting or in reference to. The one with the yellow hi lighted phrase. I must have missed something. I apologize, but I'm not following what you're getting at.

I don’t want to turn this in to the abortion debate again, but many (all?) abortion laws now have nothing to do with science and have everything to do with religion with the goal of eliminating abortion all together since "life begins at conception" and "every life is a precious gift from god." The anti-abortion groups and lawmakers will tell you this.

Banning abortion at 6 weeks or 8 weeks is completely arbitrary and is aimed at stopping anyone from being able to access an abortion until Roe v Wade is actually overturned. Requiring physicians to perform a pelvic exam before an abortion including a medication abortion is completely arbitrary and not based on science. It is like telling a physician to perform a pelvic exam before prescribing lisinopril. Requiring an outpatient center to have a janitors closet a certain size is not based on science. Requiring a physician to have admitting privileges within 30 minutes of their clinic is not based on science. Requiring physicians to re-implant ectopic pregnancies is not based on science. Yes all of which I’ve said above are real laws that have based or are in the works of being passed, even the ectopic pregnancy one.

So yeah there are plenty of laws, especially in regards to abortion care that are not based on scientific priniciples AT ALL. And regardless of whether or not one provides abortion care or not one should be pretty appalled that healthcare is being dictated in such a way all over this country that doctors are unable to provide the care based on science that patients need and it’s negatively affecting patients lives.

 

[GravelRider]

I don't even know what that text is from or what the point of it being posted was. But, yeah, I'm aware that the hi lighted part is not possible (yet). Without any context of what the quote is from, I just had no clue why it was posted. Still don't. But, moving on...

Sly use of the word “yet.”

Maybe one day we’ll be able to reimplant those ectopics in all of the male legislators’ rectums so they can give birth to those little miracles out of their a$$.

 

[Matty44]

Sly use of the word “yet.”

Maybe one day we’ll be able to reimplant those ectopics in all of the male legislators’ rectums so they can give birth to those little miracles out of their a$$.

Wow. Haven’t really been disturbed by any post in this thread til now. Congrats.

The vile rage is just so palpable in people who get so upset when someone says “Hey, how about you don’t kill that baby?”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GravelRider]

Wow. Haven’t really been disturbed by any post in this thread yet. Congrats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You clearly never saw Junior with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

[nimbus]

Monkey Cage
Analysis
Despite porn stars and Playboy models, white evangelicals aren’t rejecting Trump. This is why.
Key moments from Stormy Daniels’s ‘60 Minutes’ interview




In an interview that aired March 25, Stormy Daniels said she was threatened for attempting to tell her story about an alleged affair with Donald Trump in 2006. (Patrick Martin/The Washington Post)
By Andrew L. Whitehead, Joseph O. Bakerand Samuel L. Perry
March 26, 2018 at 4:00 a.m. PDT
A porn actress says she had sex with Donald Trump, only a few months after his wife gave birth to a son. A former Playboy model says she had an affair with him, too. And yet according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted March 7-14, both white mainline and evangelical Protestants continue to approve of Trump as president at higher levels than other religious groups.
Why are white Christians sticking so closely to President Trump, despite these claims of sexual indiscretions? And why are religious individuals and groups that previously decried sexual impropriety among political leaders suddenly willing to give Trump a “mulligan” on his infidelity?
Our new study points to a different answer than others have offered. Voters’ religious tenets aren’t what is behind Trump support; rather, it’s Christian nationalism — their view of the United States as a fundamentally Christian nation.
AD

Here’s how we did our research
To explore the link between Christian nationalism and Trump support, we examined data from the fifth wave of the Baylor Religion Survey. Fielded soon after the election, from Feb. 2 through March 24, 2017, this survey is a national, random sample of 1,501 American adults with telephones and is weighted to estimate population parameters. This data set is unique in its size, time of collection and the measures it contains.
To measure Christian nationalism, we combined responses to six separate questions that ask whether respondents agree or disagree with these statements:

• “The federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation”
• “The federal government should advocate Christian values”
• “The federal government should enforce strict separation of church and state” (reverse coded)
• “The federal government should allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces”
• “The success of the United States is part of God’s plan”
• “The federal government should allow prayer in public schools”

We also examined many other common explanations of support for Trump, including economic dissatisfaction, an index of attitudes on gender, an index of anti-black prejudice, a measure of respondents’ attitudes toward illegal immigrants and an index of views toward Muslims.
AD

How evangelical support of Trump helped to bring pornography into the mainstream
Finally, our statistical models also accounted for religious affiliation, religious beliefs and a variety of religious behaviors, as well as political measures including party affiliation and political ideology, and sociodemographic predictors including age, gender, race, education, income, marital status and residential context.
The more someone believed the United States is — and should be — a Christian nation, the more likely they were to vote for Trump
First, Americans who agreed with the various measures of Christian nationalism were much more likely to vote for Trump, even after controlling for other influences, such as political ideology, political party and other cultural factors proposed as possible explanations.
AD

It’s time to bust the myth: Most Trump voters were not working class.
As you can see in the figure below, even when holding constant a host of other explanations, a Democrat at the higher end of the index was three times more likely to vote for Trump than a Democrat at the lower end of Christian nationalist ideology. For independents, the probability of voting for Trump increased moving across the range of the Christian nationalism scale. Likewise, Republicans scoring low in Christian nationalism were significantly less likely to vote for Trump than those scoring high on the index.

No other religious factor influenced support for or against Trump
Second, we find that Americans’ religious beliefs, behaviors and affiliation did not directly influence voting for Trump. In fact, once Christian nationalism was taken into account, other religious measures had no direct effect on how likely someone was to vote for Trump. These measures of religion mattered only if they made someone more likely to see the United States as a Christian nation.
AD

Why don’t Trump voters feel betrayed? Because they’re getting what they wanted.
What you need to know about evangelicals in the Trump era




The label "evangelical Christian" gets thrown around in politics. Here's a look at how it has evolved and this group's religious beliefs and political leanings. (Claritza Jimenez, Sarah Pulliam Bailey/The Washington Post)
Antagonism toward Muslims was just as important as Christian nationalism
Finally, the various cultural explanations that other researchers have examined didn’t predict Trump support in our study, with one notable exception: anti-Muslim sentiment. How much a U.S. voter feared Muslims was as significant in predicting who voted for Trump as Christian nationalism. Overall the strongest predictors of Trump voting were the usual suspects of political identity and race, followed closely by Islamophobia and Christian nationalism.
What does this mean?
Many voters believed, and presumably still believe, that regardless of his personal piety (or lack thereof), Trump would defend what they saw as the country’s Christian heritage — and would help move the nation toward a distinctly Christian future. Ironically, Christian nationalism is focused on preserving a perceived Christian identity for America irrespective of the means by which such a project would be achieved.
AD

To many Americans, being patriotic means being white
Hence, many white Christians believe Trump may be an effective instrument in God’s plan for America, even if he is not particularly religious himself.
In the upcoming midterm elections, Trump and other politicians will keep emphasizing Christian nationalism. After all, it works.
White Christian America is unquestionably in demographic decline. But one of its primary cultural creations — Christian nationalism — will continue influencing U.S. politics and society for decades to come, particularly in response to waning demographic and social dominance. It’s a worldview that can’t be undermined, even by porn stars and Playboy models.
Andrew L. Whitehead (@ndrewwhitehead) is an assistant professor in the department of sociology, anthropology, and criminal justice at Clemson University.
AD

Joseph O. Baker is an associate professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at East Tennessee State University, and author of “American Secularism: Cultural Contours of Nonreligious Belief Systems” (NYU Press, 2015).
Samuel L. Perry is an assistant professor in the department of Sociology at the University of Oklahoma, and author of “Growing God’s Family: The Global Orphan Care Movement and the Limits of Evangelical Activism” (NYU Press, 2017).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/26/despite-porn-stars-and-playboy-models-white-evangelicals-arent-rejecting-trump-this-is-why/?noredirect=on

 

[Leon'sMom]

I don’t want to turn this in to the abortion debate again, but many (all?) abortion laws now have nothing to do with science and have everything to do with religion with the goal of eliminating abortion all together since "life begins at conception" and "every life is a precious gift from god." The anti-abortion groups and lawmakers will tell you this.

Banning abortion at 6 weeks or 8 weeks is completely arbitrary and is aimed at stopping anyone from being able to access an abortion until Roe v Wade is actually overturned. Requiring physicians to perform a pelvic exam before an abortion including a medication abortion is completely arbitrary and not based on science. It is like telling a physician to perform a pelvic exam before prescribing lisinopril. Requiring an outpatient center to have a janitors closet a certain size is not based on science. Requiring a physician to have admitting privileges within 30 minutes of their clinic is not based on science. Requiring physicians to re-implant ectopic pregnancies is not based on science. Yes all of which I’ve said above are real laws that have based or are in the works of being passed, even the ectopic pregnancy one.

So yeah there are plenty of laws, especially in regards to abortion care that are not based on scientific priniciples AT ALL. And regardless of whether or not one provides abortion care or not one should be pretty appalled that healthcare is being dictated in such a way all over this country that doctors are unable to provide the care based on science that patients need and it’s negatively affecting patients lives.

I have no interest in debating abortion again either. I would say that you are probably correct about some of the laws not being based on science and some seeming completely stupid or useless. Well, that is because laws are made by Congress (who's pretty inept) and not medical professionals, and the only real reason we have laws regarding medical procedures in to ensure safety. So, if there is a dumb law about the size of a janitor's closet, it probably has to do with cleanliness of the clinic and not the medical procedures. (Same can be said for a room with a wardrobe being used as a bedroom but not technically being labeled a bedroom for lack of a built in closet. That's just how laws go. It's not some effort to thwart abortions.) If there's a law about having hospital privileges within a certain mile radius that's probably intended to make sure that if a patient needs to be transferred from the clinic to the hospital, it can be done seamlessly. (It's based on patient safety. Probably came about as the result of an incident where there was an issue. Same reason there's a warning on every dry cleaner bag that "this is not a toy." It's not some effort to thwart abortions.)

I guess I see it like this. The current (stupid) laws are requiring the providers and the clinics to take certain steps, but are any of those steps things that you are morally opposed to? No. So, the imposition of those steps is not coercing you to take any action that you find objectionable. It's just red tape, like red tape in any other profession/business where the government is involved in regulating or licensing.

As for your assertion that it is solely for religious reasons that people oppose abortions/certain stage abortions, I disagree. Yes, there are some people who object purely for a faith-based reason. Yet, I believe that there are many people who object to abortion based on moral reasons that have been shaped by their own life experiences separate from any organized religion.

1) Some women who went through a pregnancy themselves, relate to the experience and are horrified by the idea that someone is choosing to kill their unborn child.
2) Some women who struggled with infertility to conceive and underwent procedures hoping for a child, cannot fathom doing a selected reduction for Downs.
3) Some women who have miscarried...
I mean, the possibilities are endless here. And none of them are based solely on any faith-based tradition. Just values.

 

[Leon'sMom]

Sly use of the word “yet.”

Maybe one day we’ll be able to reimplant those ectopics in all of the male legislators’ rectums so they can give birth to those little miracles out of their a$$.

Umm, I was quoting FFP. Relax, please.

 

[nimbus]

1) Some women who went through a pregnancy themselves, relate to the experience and are horrified by the idea that someone is choosing to kill their unborn child.
2) Some women who struggled with infertility to conceive and underwent procedures hoping for a child, cannot fathom doing a selected reduction for Downs.
3) Some women who have miscarried...
I mean, the possibilities are endless here. And none of them are based solely on any faith-based tradition. Just values.

All of those are valid feelings and they are entitled to have them. However they can not impose their own feelings and values on other women who do not share them. Basically people need to mind their own business.

 

[GravelRider]

Wow. Haven’t really been disturbed by any post in this thread til now. Congrats.

The vile rage is just so palpable in people who get so upset when someone says “Hey, how about you don’t kill that baby?”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice try.

 

[Matty44]

Nice try.

Que?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Leon'sMom]

All of those are valid feelings and they are perfectly entitled to have them. However they can not impose their own feelings and values on other women who do not share them. Basically people need to mind their own business.

Laws are based on SOCIETAL values. It may seem shocking to some of you, but children are valued by the majority of society. Not a crazy concept. Don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand. Unless of course, you don't really want to understand, you just want to continue to argue endlessly.

I'm going to give you one example, and then I'm signing off: "John is a wealthy physician in an unhappy marriage. He's thought about getting a divorce, but in his state he'd have to give 50% of his wealthy to his ex. John values his money, and this is not acceptable choice to him. So, instead, John kills his wife and throws her body in the river." Why should society care about whether or not John killed his wife? It's his marriage and his money, not our business. Why shouldn't John be able to live his life based on his own value system (money is more important than his wife's life)? Assuming his wife had no children and no other family, why is what John did even considered a crime, as it appears it didn't affect anyone else other than John? Shouldn't John be free to do as he pleases?

SOCIETAL values dictate societal laws.

 

[nimbus]

Laws are based on SOCIETAL values. It may seem shocking to some of you, but children are valued by the majority of society. Not a crazy concept. Don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand. Unless of course, you don't really want to understand, you just want to continue to argue endlessly.

I'm going to give you one example, and then I'm signing off: "John is a wealthy physician in an unhappy marriage. He's thought about getting a divorce, but in his state he'd have to give 50% of his wealthy to his ex. John values his money, and this is not acceptable choice to him. So, instead, John kills his wife and throws her body in the river." Why should society care about whether or not John killed his wife? It's his marriage and his money, not our business. Why shouldn't John be able to live his life based on his own value system (money is more important than his wife's life)? Assuming his wife had no children and no other family, why is what John did even considered a crime, as it appears it didn't affect anyone else other than John? Shouldn't John be free to do as he pleases?

SOCIETAL values dictate societal laws.

Agree. Societal law says abortion is legal.

 

[GravelRider]

Laws are based on SOCIETAL values. It may seem shocking to some of you, but children are valued by the majority of society. Not a crazy concept. Don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand. Unless of course, you don't really want to understand, you just want to continue to argue endlessly.

I'm going to give you one example, and then I'm signing off: "John is a wealthy physician in an unhappy marriage. He's thought about getting a divorce, but in his state he'd have to give 50% of his wealthy to his ex. John values his money, and this is not acceptable choice to him. So, instead, John kills his wife and throws her body in the river." Why should society care about whether or not John killed his wife? It's his marriage and his money, not our business. Why shouldn't John be able to live his life based on his own value system (money is more important than his wife's life)? Assuming his wife had no children and no other family, why is what John did even considered a crime, as it appears it didn't affect anyone else other than John? Shouldn't John be free to do as he pleases?

SOCIETAL values dictate societal laws.

No one is suggesting we harm children. That would be awful.

 

[AMEHigh]

I have no interest in debating abortion again either. I would say that you are probably correct about some of the laws not being based on science and some seeming completely stupid or useless. Well, that is because laws are made by Congress (who's pretty inept) and not medical professionals, and the only real reason we have laws regarding medical procedures in to ensure safety. So, if there is a dumb law about the size of a janitor's closet, it probably has to do with cleanliness of the clinic and not the medical procedures. (Same can be said for a room with a wardrobe being used as a bedroom but not technically being labeled a bedroom for lack of a built in closet. That's just how laws go. It's not some effort to thwart abortions.) If there's a law about having hospital privileges within a certain mile radius that's probably intended to make sure that if a patient needs to be transferred from the clinic to the hospital, it can be done seamlessly. (It's based on patient safety. Probably came about as the result of an incident where there was an issue. Same reason there's a warning on every dry cleaner bag that "this is not a toy." It's not some effort to thwart abortions.)

I guess I see it like this. The current (stupid) laws are requiring the providers and the clinics to take certain steps, but are any of those steps things that you are morally opposed to? No. So, the imposition of those steps is not coercing you to take any action that you find objectionable. It's just red tape, like red tape in any other profession/business where the government is involved in regulating or licensing.

As for your assertion that it is solely for religious reasons that people oppose abortions/certain stage abortions, I disagree. Yes, there are some people who object purely for a faith-based reason. Yet, I believe that there are many people who object to abortion based on moral reasons that have been shaped by their own life experiences separate from any organized religion.

1) Some women who went through a pregnancy themselves, relate to the experience and are horrified by the idea that someone is choosing to kill their unborn child.
2) Some women who struggled with infertility to conceive and underwent procedures hoping for a child, cannot fathom doing a selected reduction for Downs.
3) Some women who have miscarried...
I mean, the possibilities are endless here. And none of them are based solely on any faith-based tradition. Just values.

You are incorrect. Laws regarding medical procedures don't always have to do with safety.
You asked for examples of laws based on religion and not science and I provided those examples.
Lol at the size of the janitor closet has to do with cleanliness. The hospital privilege also has nothing to do with safety. There are plenty of procedures that are done in medical offices in which the doctor does not have to have hospital privileges that have a worse safety record than abortion care.
So overall they are NOT based on safety AT ALL.
If you don't know about something then you shouldn't just make up the information.
Law makers and anti-abortion groups will tell you this themselves. The goal is to limit abortion access as much as possible.
And yes I'm morally opposed to performing a pelvic exam on someone who does not need one. As a doctor you should be opposed to that as well.
I'm also morally opposed to telling patients incorrect information during "counseling" sessions that some states require. There are literally states in which you have to tell patients that abortion causes cancer, which is 100% false. So yes as a physician I'm morally opposed to that because my job is to provide patients with factually correct information. So yeah I'd hope you'd be opposed to a lawmaker telling you that you have to tell patients receiving anesthesia that they're more likely to get cancer after you give them propofol.

Your last part has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about in regards to women who have miscarried or who have struggled with infertility. You asked for examples and they were provided. Religion and specifically Christianity certainly has no place in healthcare and it's unbelieveable that we have to follow these arbitrary laws due to "Christian values."

 

[Leon'sMom]

You are incorrect. Laws regarding medical procedures don't always have to do with safety.
You asked for examples of laws based on religion and not science and I provided those examples.
Lol at the size of the janitor closet has to do with cleanliness. The hospital privilege also has nothing to do with safety. There are plenty of procedures that are done in medical offices in which the doctor does not have to have hospital privileges that have a worse safety record than abortion care.
So overall they are NOT based on safety AT ALL.
If you don't know about something then you shouldn't just make up the information.
Law makers and anti-abortion groups will tell you this themselves. The goal is to limit abortion access as much as possible.
And yes I'm morally opposed to performing a pelvic exam on someone who does not need one. As a doctor you should be opposed to that as well.
I'm also morally opposed to telling patients incorrect information during "counseling" sessions that some states require. There are literally states in which you have to tell patients that abortion causes cancer, which is 100% false. So yes as a physician I'm morally opposed to that because my job is to provide patients with factually correct information. So yeah I'd hope you'd be opposed to a lawmaker telling you that you have to tell patients receiving anesthesia that they're more likely to get cancer after you give them propofol.

Your last part has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about in regards to women who have miscarried or who have struggled with infertility. You asked for examples and they were provided. Religion and specifically Christianity certainly has no place in healthcare and it's unbelieveable that we have to follow these arbitrary laws due to "Christian values."

Is there some quote from the Bible regarding the size of a janitor's closet? I mean, let's be real here.
Of course I don't know 100% why there is a law about the size of a janitor's closet, and neither do you. Seems logical to me that it has something to do with cleaning, though. I don't really think it's a "Christian value" thing. I suggest if the size of the janitor's closet is such a big afront to you, that you call your Senator to complain.

Seriously now: Yes, I agree with you that physicians should not be instructed as to what exact counseling they should provide. I also think that it is alarming if physicians are being told to say things that are factually wrong based on a government law. If I were in your predicament, I'd be irked, too. Perhaps this is where ACOG should step in and put their foot down, stand up for the physicians' autonomy? This is exactly where all areas of medicine are headed, I fear, if the government takes over any more of the healthcare system. What you are describing should be a cautionary tale to all.

Listen, I don't come to this forum claiming to be a medical expert/a political science expert/any type of expert. I simply come here to converse about current events. People are free to read or not read anything I write. People are free to disagree or dislike what I say. I am free to learn a thing or two along the way, too. It's all good.

 

[Matty44]

No one is suggesting we harm children. That would be awful.

And when exactly is a child a child?

Most medical professionals would agree a 39 wk baby is a child.

Go down to 35 weeks and most are probably with you.

27 weeks? You lose more people.

20 weeks? The line shifts...

12 weeks? You get the picture.

The point being, unless you’re an extremist who thinks it’s ok to abort a baby up until it’s entirely out of the vaginal canal in week 42, you have to draw the line somewhere. And anywhere you draw that line is arbitrary. And I don’t believe that humans should be determining where an arbitrary line of life or death might lie.

At least the no conditions, up until birth, pro-abortion people are logically consistent with themselves as they have an exact black and white line when life begins. I totally disagree with them, but at least there’s some clarity. Anyone else who draws the line somewhere in the middle is doing so quite arbitrarily and has to overcome that cognitive dissonance to take that position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GravelRider]

And when exactly is a child a child?

Most medical professionals would agree a 39 wk baby is a child.

Go down to 35 weeks and most are probably with you.

27 weeks? You lose more people.

20 weeks? The line shifts...

12 weeks? You get the picture.

The point being, unless you’re an extremist who thinks it’s ok to abort a baby up until it’s entirely out of the vaginal canal in week 42, you have to draw the line somewhere. And anywhere you draw that line is arbitrary. And I don’t believe that humans should be determining where an arbitrary line of life or death might lie.

At least the no conditions, up until birth, pro-abortion people are logically consistent with themselves as they have an exact black and white line when life begins. I totally disagree with them, but at least there’s some clarity. Anyone else who draws the line somewhere in the middle is doing so quite arbitrarily and has to overcome that cognitive dissonance to take that position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one is delivering a 39 week old fetus and then killing it upon delivery, so stop.

 

[Matty44]

No one is delivering a 39 week old fetus and then killing it upon delivery, so stop.

Are you saying no one in history has ever had an abortion at 39 weeks? I wasn’t saying anything about how common very late term abortions are, I was just showing the entire spectrum, and there are definitely people that are fine with abortion up until the day of delivery. Don’t pretend there aren’t.

But if you just want to deflect and not answer my question about when a fetus becomes a baby/child, I understand. Because then you’d have to back up your arbitrary line in the sand and I know that’s quite difficult to do.

Also, I never said anything about killing a baby after delivery.

I mean, this guy did....

View attachment 287994

And you brought it up.

But I never did.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AMEHigh]

Is there some quote from the Bible regarding the size of a janitor's closet? I mean, let's be real here.
Of course I don't know 100% why there is a law about the size of a janitor's closet, and neither do you. Seems logical to me that it has something to do with cleaning, though. I don't really think it's a "Christian value" thing. I suggest if the size of the janitor's closet is such a big afront to you, that you call your Senator to complain.

Seriously now: Yes, I agree with you that physicians should not be instructed as to what exact counseling they should provide. I also think that it is alarming if physicians are being told to say things that are factually wrong based on a government law. If I were in your predicament, I'd be irked, too. Perhaps this is where ACOG should step in and put their foot down, stand up for the physicians' autonomy? This is exactly where all areas of medicine are headed, I fear, if the government takes over any more of the healthcare system. What you are describing should be a cautionary tale to all.

Listen, I don't come to this forum claiming to be a medical expert/a political science expert/any type of expert. I simply come here to converse about current events. People are free to read or not read anything I write. People are free to disagree or dislike what I say. I am free to learn a thing or two along the way, too. It's all good.

I'm highly involved in advocacy. So yes I speak with my representatives and senators on a regular basis about these ridiculous laws. It is actually part of my job outside of the actual exam room.
A lot of organizations such as AAFP, ACOG and AMA have put their foot down about patient autonomy. There are a lot of organizations fighting for healthcare based on science. Unfortunately, there are plenty of lawmakers that don't care/disagree so that's why we are where we are now.

In case you missed it, gay marriage was also illegal federally up until recently. That's another case of "Christian values" being opposed on all of us. So yeah there are plenty of examples in which laws have been made with religion in mind and I certainly don't agree with it. You asked for examples and they were provided so your rebuttals are not warranted as they were incorrect and had nothing to do with what you asked about. If you're simply looking for information and trying to learn then hopefully you have done just that.

 

[Matty44]

In case you missed it, gay marriage was also illegal federally up until recently. That's another case of "Christian values" being opposed on all of us. So yeah there are plenty of examples in which laws have been made with religion in mind and I certainly don't agree with it. You asked for examples and they were provided so your rebuttals are not warranted as they were incorrect and had nothing to do with what you asked about. If you're simply looking for information and trying to learn then hopefully you have done just that.

Why do you say that's a case of 'Christian values?'

 

[Leon'sMom]

In case you missed it, gay marriage was also illegal federally up until recently. That's another case of "Christian values" being opposed on all of us.
[/QUOTE]

Again I see that as a societal law based on societal values. I think that there were people of many faiths and some people of no faith at all that were opposed to gay marriage in the past, and that is why it used to be illegal. I don't see this as "Christians values being imposed on all". I see it as society's values being imposed on all. I guess, you could argue that in America the majority of religious people belong to a Christian faith, so therefore, they are always the majority of society and have the greatest impact on the societal values. Therefore they can get the most blame when you disagree with a value or law.

Today gay marriage is legal, yet Christians still are the majority religion. So how do you reconcile that? Did Christian values change and therefore societal values changed? Or did societal values change and therefore Christian values changed? IDK. All I know is that societal values do change over time, and therefore laws change, too.