- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
February 2012 Moms
Pro-Life vs. Pro-Birth?
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Pro-Life vs. Pro-Birth?
Also, I am just going to throw this out there, but federal tax rates in all tax brackets are the lowest they have been in 30 years right now. They are ridiculously low--especially since we have 2! wars going on that are costing unfathomable amounts of money. When this country was founded, our founding fathers realized that we had to have federal taxes because if people just got to voluntarily pay for things that they support, not many people would find it super sexy to maintain our interstate highway system, staff police and fire stations, build levies and dams in Louisiana to ensure that New Orleans doesn't flood again, etc. The government needs tax money to keep the country running--and yes, some of the money does go to social programs, but those are necessary so that we don't have to deal with little children dying in the streets of disease and hunger, like in India and other countries with little to no social safety nets.
I am more than willing to pay taxes at a high rate to pay for good public schools, roads, fire and police services, and a general minimum level of healthcare, nutrition and shelter for all Americans. But don't kid yourselves that we pay lots of taxes as Americans.
In fact, NL, with you not working and talking about having to buy a used carseat for your LO, I SERIOUSLY doubt that your family is paying much at all in the way of federal taxes. Correct me if I am wrong, but I bet your effective tax rate (the amount of taxes you pay less any credits you receive at the end of the year) is pretty dang low, compared to how much you benefit from tax-funded government services like a public education, roads and bridges infrastructure, police/fire services ensuring your family's safety, and all the other little things that you don't even realize enrich your life on a daily basis.
This really surprises me because like I said before I usually agree with you and fully understand your logic. It's insulting that you're implying that someone who is pro-life doesn't care about anything but cute little babies. Aborting a human baby is not the same as sentencing a violent criminal to death. Babies are innocent and harmless while death row inmates are guilty and a danger to society. You're a lawyer (although I don't know what kind) so I have to assume you know more than the average person about the death penalty. You know that the death penalty takes years to actually occur after several appeals in which every aspect of the case is examined over and over again. I've never heard of anyone but truly violent, murderous and dangerous people being sentenced to death. The death penalty is not for your average criminal and it's not something that happens to every would-be aborted grown baby.
The death penalty is based on the circumstances of the person being sentenced to death. Pro-choicers base abortion on the circumstances of the mother of the aborted baby. It is a murderers fault that he is being sentenced to death, it is not a baby's fault they are aborted.
The person who is sentenced to death for their CRIME is not being killed "in cold blood" because they did something deemed punishable by death according to the law. They are paying for their crime. The unborn child committed no crime. Therein lies the difference.
As far as being "pro forcing babies to be born against their mother's will because it makes you happy regardless of the rights of the mother"- What happened to the rights of her child? What makes it OK for her to kill her child before it's outside of her body but not immediately after? Because you THINK it will have a "bad life" so it should never be allowed to live in case that happens. Even if the child DOES have a "bad life" of some kind, who are you to sentence an innocent child to death to prevent that?
If you don't see it as a child, but a mass of cells, then I suppose none of that makes any difference.
Such a good point!!
To me, the Democrats' stance of pro-choice (please don't say anyone is "pro-abortion" because that simply isn't true) and anti-death penalty makes complete sense. The Democrats don't believe that the government should murder people in cold blood. They also don't believe that it is their place to force women to risk her own health to carry an unwanted baby to full term, as long as the woman is responsible and ends her pregnancy WAY before the baby is even close to being viable.
Again, if a person wants to be pro-birth and anti-death penalty (as many of my Catholic friends are), then I totally get their position. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think it makes complete logical sense. But the Republican's current pro-birth/pro-death penalty stance can't be justified solely based on a position that "killing all people, including four-cell blastocysts, is wrong."
I honestly have no idea what we pay in taxes, the hubby deals with that because I stink with numbers. And I like to save money. So yay. I've heard enough with the carseat thing though, I get the point, Sooner. Stand down.
The Democrat stance is not pro abortion. Pro-choice and pro-abortion are two completely different things. Pro-abortion implies that you want people to have abortions. Pro-choice means advocating for women to have the ability to make decisions about their own personal health issues. This, to me, is why the arguing sides should not be labeled pro-choice and pro-life. Instead, it should be pro-choice and anti-choice - because essentially that is what the argument is.
Have you ever heard of the Innocence Project? If you haven't, you might want to read about it. Since 1973, over 140 people have been convicted of capital crimes, sent to death row, lost multiple appeals, and then, while on death row, been shown to be innocent and released due to DNA evidence or something similar showing that they absolutely couldn't not have committed the crime they were convicted to die for. Just to compare, 1200 people have been executed by our country in the same time frame. That is a pretty high error rate, right?!
The death penalty in this country is not even remotely fairly applied. Roughly 50% of all murder victims in this country are black. Yet, of all the murderers currently on death row, 80% of them received the death penalty for killing a white person. 5-10% of all death row inmates are seriously mentally ill, yet we are going to kill them, despite medical professionals testifying that they couldn't possibly have the necessary brain functioning to understand that their crime was wrong.
If you are against killing in all circumstances, that is fine. But our country's death penalty is seriously, seriously out of whack and racially and socio-economically biased.
I have heard of this. I friend of mine who recently became a lawyer dreams of working with this project. It's why she became a lawyer. I agree that the system used for the death penalty is messed up and needs to be fixed. But that doesn't mean that the death penalty itself is wrong, at least to me. It is just not being carried out the way it should be right now.
You're right; I didn't phrase it correctly. Let me rephrase: those who support women who choose to have abortions but not supporting the death penalty for those who deserve it.
Ainslie--thanks for summarizing my position far more eloquently and succinctly than I could!
And NatesLady--if you acknowledge that the system is totally screwed up, and that screwed up system could possibly (and is likely) at least ocassionally executing innocent people, then how can you, as a "pro-lifer," be for a system that could take an innocent life in cold blood?
*thumbs up*
As I said, I think the system needs to be reformed. Of course I would hate for an innocent person to be killed by mistake. That would be terrible to say the least. But in all honesty, mistakes will always happen, no matter how good the system. That's something that has to be considered in supporting the death penalty (even a reformed version from how it currently is).
I understand that but under the affordable care act/ obamacare, in some cases they are making it where it's not up to the Drs. and patients to determine what your treatment should be but up to the government on what they think is best. I am sorry but I don't think I am going to trust the government with my health when it comes to if I get cancer for the THIRD time! I think that is up to my Dr and myself... so what's the difference in that and on the other hand being pro life and the goverenment saying you can't get an abortion. It's a catch 22 really if you look at it that way.
I wanted to chime into this topic. I worked for the govt doing food stamps, medical, and daycare. I personally think there is a lot of work that could be done to the system. There is an overwhelming amount of people who abuse the system. I was always happy to assist those who truly needed it but they were tough to come by at times. I had a lot of people who tried to cheat the system. The food stamps are meant to help supplement. They are not meant to always be the primary source of food. The programs are necessary and I'm thankful they are there inc ase I ever need help. Howeve, I think they need to be reevaluated and find better ways of serving the public fairly. It's a vicious cycle. In order to improve the programs you need more people to do the job ( I had a caseload of close to 300 families...you should only have 100 or so). To hire more people you need more money. Since the program is failing to work efficiently, money gets cut from these programs first.
Seriously has hell frozen over? Is it a full moon? How is that NL is making sense to me today but Sooner isn't? No offense, NL, we just don't usually see eye to eye.
Sooner, there are serious faults with the CJ system. I work in law enforcement and I am fully aware that the system leaves a lot to be desired. But I agree with NL on this one. The US isn't currently executing, no pun intended, the death penalty process as well as it could be but that doesn't mean that the death penalty in and of itself is wrong.
I have wrestled back and forth on my personal views on the DP. Personally I wish it were possible to just isolate all of the violent and dangerous people in the country. But let's be real, US prisons are seriously overcrowded, which is a whole other issue, and the safety of the general public is more and more at risk as society goes down the tubes. I just don't see NOT having the DP as practical.
Again, I am against abortion because I think unborn fetuses are alive and innocent, not because I want the government to control women's health. I am for the death penalty because there people who commit crimes that justify it.
This. THIS THIS THIS!!!
No, this simply isn't true. The decision about whether medical treatments are covered (by your insurance) is still up to the insurers. With the PPACA, you actually have the right to appeal these decisions, without having to file a lawsuit. I'm not sure where people get this idea that the government is going to have death panels. It's just not true.
BFP 3.8.16 EDD 11.20.16
Let me rephrase that...I doubt that was her "only" point.
And this isn't related, completely, but I'm going to say it because I'm annoyed...Nateslady made some really bad statements at one point in time...WE GET IT! It pissed me off, I'll admit it...and I made my statement that day. But Sooner uses this post to once again bring it back up again. LET IT GO ALREADY, geez!
Actually it IS true! Affordable Care Act is moving away from doctors and patients making medical decisions for the patients and giving that ability to central decision makers in Washington, who will look at finances and protocol and make the decisions of how patients will be treated, where they should be treated, which doctor should treat them, and whether or not they should be treated at all.
Also who mentioned a death panel?
Source?
::taps foot impatiently::
for real? Ok, I'll bite. I suspect you're talking about sec 3403, which discusses the independent medical advisory board. Except that their recommendations are not allowed to restrict benefits or elegibility. So.... I'm not sure how that's going to be government getting in the way of your doctor treating you.
If you can't cite your source, I'm sorry, but you just sound like you have no idea what you're talking about.
I am NOT talking about insurances! I am talking about the protocol to diagnose and treat people!! Who mentioned insurances?
BFP 3.8.16 EDD 11.20.16
The PPACA is steeped in talk of insurance. But then, you read it, so you know that.
Also, please refer back to sec 1554. C&P for MollySm
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services shall not promulgate any regulation that?
(1) creates any unreasonable barriers to the ability of indi- viduals to obtain appropriate medical care;
(2) impedes timely access to health care services;
(3) interferes with communications regarding a full range of treatment options between the patient and the provider;
(4) restricts the ability of health care providers to provide full disclosure of all relevant information to patients making health care decisions;
(5) violates the principles of informed consent and the eth- ical standards of health care professionals; or
(6) limits the availability of health care treatment for the full duration of a patient?s medical needs.
see that? No regulations that limit the availability of treatment. The PPACA wants you to know your treatment options and have them all available to you. Madness, I tell you.
And with that, I'm out. As my dad is fond of saying, only a fool argues with a fool, and I think I've made a big enough fool out of myself for tonight. See y'all tomorrow.
Sorry, I had to get off last night before posting all this so this might be a moot point now. But I think it mentions something about it in 1311 and 10320. A urologist in Georgia was also interviewed about it. He even has an organization called Docs 4 patient care. I have to say though I haven't checked the organization out. What is below I have copied and pasted from sites that I think somewhat discribe what the sections of the law talk about, I may be wrong about what they are discrbing and I apologize if I am. Again, I wasn't saying anything about death panels but that the Government will have certain protocols for everyone, that will be the same that the Dr. will have to do, and me, everyone is different so why use the same protocol on everyone. and for you to call me a fool, is childish and very uncalled for. And with that I am done.
"Under Obamacare, doctors will be forced to provide only the care that is approved by the government. That covers everything in medicine - whether your doctor should give you a cardiac bypass or use a stent, when your doctor should perform a c-section, whether you will get an ACL repair, or a new knee. Even if you have private health insurance (ie. Aetna, Cigna, Blue Cross, etc.) and you pay the premiums yourself, the government still has complete control over your healthcare, because, with Obamacare, you are required to be in a "qualified" plan, and qualified plans can only pay doctors who act in accordance with the regulations imposed by the HHS Secretary. Section 1311 (h)(1). Beginning on January 1, 2015, a qualified health plan may contract with- (B) a health care provider only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as the Secretary may by regulation require. Either your body is protected from government interference or it's not." "Users of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) need to know about the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) which is derived from Section 10320 of the ACA. This section of the law appoints, some would say annoints, a panel of political experts who need not necessarily be physicians to oversee and decide which diagnostic and treatment protocols are covered under the law. The meaning is that your physician may interview and examine you and that you and your physician may decide upon a course of treatment only to learn the hard way that a bureaucratic panel of so-called experts hidden away in some dark capitol lagoon has decided that your personally agreed upon treatment protocol isn't eligible for coverage." Then the urologist; Question: The name of your organization is Docs4 Patient Care. I?ve always thought that all doctors were for the best patient care their patients could receive. If that?s true, why is there a need for this organization? Scherz: You?re absolutely right. Doctors do want good patient care. However, right now, the way the Affordable Care Act is moving away from doctors and patients making medical decisions for the patients and giving that ability to central decision makers in Washington, who will look at finances and protocol and make the decisions of how patients will be treated, where they should be treated, which doctor should treat them, and whether or not they should be treated at all. Doctors have formed Docs4 Patient Care as an organization to fight back to help our patients regain their rights to decide all these major issues. We believe that one of the really good things about medicine as we know it today is the doctor-patient relationship in determining the patients? treatment. We believe that patients and their families should be making the decisions. We?re working to unite doctors who perhaps have been separated by various interests before. Then all the doctors can work together to better enable patients and doctors to determine the best course of treatment, instead of having the powers in Washington dictate to the patients and to their doctors the courses of treatment that will be followed.