Jump to content

Why Nurses Should Oppose the Global Gag Rule on Abortion

Politics Article   (8,202 Views 30 Comments)
Maddy1 Maddy1 (New Member) New Member

article_pluralized; 2,802 Visitors; 1 Post

advertisement

The Global Gag Rule, also known as the Mexico City Policy, prevents any organization receiving US health aid from even discussing abortion in a positive light. Learn why this will deny care to patients around the world while not decreasing abortion rates. You are reading page 2 of Why Nurses Should Oppose the Global Gag Rule on Abortion. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Conservative health professionals won't be happy until poor women are dying from black market reproductive health services again.

It never hurts to put forth a meaningful argument ya know. All these straw man and ad hominem attacks are not making it look like you want civil discourse or are interested in any other viewpoint. Would you care to enlighten me on your viewpoint on this matter? Leaving out the social commentary on the opposing side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would submit that for most the belief that the babies life is equally imporant to the mothers.

I would expect an expectant mom to refer to what's growing in her uterus as "her baby". That's absolutely fine and normal for the mom.

However as nurses, you and I know that the correct term in utero is either embryo or fetus, depending on gestational age. I suspect you used the word "babies" on purpose in the above quote, and I resent what your sentence implies.

It never hurts to put forth a meaningful argument ya know.

While it might be true that it won't do any harm to put forth a meaningful argument, it is in all likelihood a complete waste of time.

I've already provided a meaningful argument in this thread and I'm willing to bet that it didn't manage to sway you even a fraction of an inch. ? ? ?

It's a fact that banning abortions won't save the lives of embryos and fetuses. The only thing that happens is that women choose unsafe abortions when they are denied access to safe abortions. We know this. All a ban accomplishes are more injured and dead women, but no more alive babies.

Is this fact ever going to register with so called pro-lifers? Or are you being wilfully blind to the fact that trying to make abortions illegal is a completely meaningless exercise, unless the purpose is really about control, rather than saving lives.

(The reason I wrote "so called" is that as long as a person supports policies that kill women, I don't consider them pro life at all. I have complete respect for women who don't want to have an abortion for themselves. I have no respect for someone who promotes policies that negatively affect women's health and autonomy).

If you, like I do, want fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions, it's much more meaningful to provide sex ed, make sure that all human beings of fertile age have access to healthcare and birth control as well as actively work ( partly with the help of the law, but more importantly how we teach the next generation to respect women and their bodily integrity and autonomy) to minimize the number of rapes committed against women.

Others would argue that the monetary costs of supporting these services to the world population is offering nothing to the healthcare of the US itself. Most often heard in the form of, "Why should I pay for another countries healthcare?".

Who are these vague "others" you refer to? What kind of a supremely selfish person cares only about saving lives if and when, it directly benefits them? I am so lucky that I don't know a single such person.

If you ever have the chance to have a discussion with one of these "others", please tell them from me that they are extremely callous and also pretty ignorant. Even if one is blessed with the moral core of a sociopathic toad and doesn't give a crap if people outside one's own country live or die, in today's interconnected world we ALL benefit when global health status is improved. Even if it's in countries continents away. Countries with healthy and prosperous populations are more stable and that's a win-win for all of us, and unless you plan on permanently shutting down international flights, contagions will reach your shores.

The scope of expanding the Rule just placed more pressure on the systems to stop abortion practice to keep the funding. If the concern is the loss of that funding to other services, then the one responsible for the services should step in to fill the gap. If they believe that they need the other services more than the abortion services, than they can stop the practice and continue to receive funding.

As I've already said and demonstrated, it doesn't work that way. All the rule does is to pose a grave danger to women's health and lives. I don't understand how any research-literate healthcare professional can support it, regardless of their individual religious convictions.

All these straw man and ad hominem attacks are not making it look like you want civil discourse or are interested in any other viewpoint.

In case you actually happen to be interested in my viewpoint, I've really tried to make it crystal clear ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would expect an expectant mom to refer to what's growing in her uterus as "her baby". That's absolutely fine and normal for the mom.

However as nurses, you and I know that the correct term in utero is either embryo or fetus, depending on gestational age. I suspect you used the word "babies" on purpose in the above quote, and I resent what your sentence implies.

While it might be true that it won't do any harm to put forth a meaningful argument, it is in all likelihood a complete waste of time.

I've already provided a meaningful argument in this thread and I'm willing to bet that it didn't manage to sway you even a fraction of an inch. ? ? ?

It's a fact that banning abortions won't save the lives of embryos and fetuses. The only thing that happens is that women choose unsafe abortions when they are denied access to safe abortions. We know this. All a ban accomplishes are more injured and dead women, but no more alive babies.

Is this fact ever going to register with so called pro-lifers? Or are you being wilfully blind to the fact that trying to make abortions illegal is a completely meaningless exercise, unless the purpose is really about control, rather than saving lives.

(The reason I wrote "so called" is that as long as a person supports policies that kill women, I don't consider them pro life at all. I have complete respect for women who don't want to have an abortion for themselves. I have no respect for someone who promotes policies that negatively affect women's health and autonomy).

If you, like I do, want fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions, it's much more meaningful to provide sex ed, make sure that all human beings of fertile age have access to healthcare and birth control as well as actively work ( partly with the help of the law, but more importantly how we teach the next generation to respect women and their bodily integrity and autonomy) to minimize the number of rapes committed against women.

Who are these vague "others" you refer to? What kind of a supremely selfish person cares only about saving lives if and when, it directly benefits them? I am so lucky that I don't know a single such person.

If you ever have the chance to have a discussion with one of these "others", please tell them from me that they are extremely callous and also pretty ignorant. Even if one is blessed with the moral core of a sociopathic toad and doesn't give a crap if people outside one's own country live or die, in today's interconnected world we ALL benefit when global health status is improved. Even if it's in countries continents away. Countries with healthy and prosperous populations are more stable and that's a win-win for all of us, and unless you plan on permanently shutting down international flights, contagions will reach your shores.

As I've already said and demonstrated, it doesn't work that way. All the rule does is to pose a grave danger to women's health and lives. I don't understand how any research-literate healthcare professional can support it, regardless of their individual religious convictions.

In case you actually happen to be interested in my viewpoint, I've really tried to make it crystal clear ;)

Human beings realize that what is growing in utero is in fact a baby (a human being).

It is only science/medicine that labels it a embryo or fetus.

I do not agree that banning abortions will not save life's of babies, of course it would.

"According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day. In the USA, where nearly half of pregnancies are unintended and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion [1] , there are over 3,000 abortions per day". (worldometers).

Per Politicofact 54 million babies have been aborted in the US since roe v wade.

These numbers are staggering, to say the least.

Assuming these stats are correct I am sure that some of these women would change their mind if adequate counseling was readily available and/or abortion was illegal.

That being said, I do not agree with banning abortion. I agree with you that we should have more education/counseling, and access to healthcare and birth control. Also spiritual counseling for those who wish.

Although times have changed and there is no longer a stigma (in most cases) of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies, I also understand that this is not a decision to be made lightly as it will affect the rest of your life (either way). If a woman has an abortion she is trading that (baby) for a more successful life, not being embarrassed, whatever the reason. There are also true medical etc. reasons for abortions besides unwanted pregancy. It is way too convenient to obtain an abortion, some even minors who are afraid to talk to their parents/boyfriends etc. And, then there is also the risk involved with the procedure itself, and the psychological issues one might face afterwards.

Personally I feel that abortion is wrong, (although I would never judge anyone who has had one, and I am friends with people who have), but I do also believe that it is a women's choice. I also believe that the choice should be made after obtaining all the facts available (informed consent so to speak) after speaking to the father of the baby, parents, friends, clergy, etc, especially for minors. Do you really think that a minor female who is stressed/upset is going to be able to critical think re: her situation/options (adoption, parental assistance, dropping the baby at firestation etc)?

In my opinion we have far too many abortions being performed worldwide that could be prevented without banning them and I wish we would focus more on the prevention aspect so no pregnancy to begin with, and with providing options after pregnancy to prevent abortions.

Call it what you want but if an abortion is preformed a baby is going to die, semantics wont change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am and I thank you. The comment was directed more toward bologna, but I'll address a few of your concerns as well to attempt to find a common ground.

However as nurses...

I'll start here. The impression I get from this area is that we are discussing topics with fellow peer groups whom have similar medical understanding which are normally discussed outside of the general work place. In the break room I am doing just that, taking a break from being a nurse with opinions to being a person with opinions who happens to be a nurse.

I suspect you used the word "babies" on purpose in the above quote, and I resent what your sentence implies.

Of course I did. I do so with the intention of putting importance on the life. I feel that in my practice, now as a nurse, to not use simple language leads to a disconnect as a Pt to caregiver. As a person calling a invitro baby a fetus is tantamount to comparison to a still birth. This is possible due to the more agrarian society I have been raised in, but an important distinction in my eyes.

It's a fact that banning abortions won't save the lives of embryos and fetuses.

I'd disagree as a matter of semantics. If one single baby was saved, then your statement is proven false.

The only thing that happens is that women choose unsafe abortions when they are denied access to safe abortions.

If I may allude to a later posting. If the knowledge of abortion being banned was made known, then the women would have incentive to commit to knowledge attained by safe sex talks.

Or are you being wilfully blind to the fact that trying to make abortions illegal is a completely meaningless exercise, unless the purpose is really about control, rather than saving lives.

I'm going to once again point out the semantic distinction and contradiction in your point. The belief of those who want to ban abortion is just that. Saving lives. Control? Quiet the opposite. The control should rest squarely on the family unit to raise and care for the child. I believe the point is to shift control back to the people involved.

(The reason I wrote "so called" is that as long as a person supports policies that kill women, I don't consider them pro life at all. I have complete respect for women who don't want to have an abortion for themselves. I have no respect for someone who promotes policies that negatively affect women's health and autonomy).

The same is felt from the pro life movement. Policies that would increase the killing of babies.

If you, like I do, want fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions, it's much more meaningful to provide sex ed

I agree completely, however I think the total number of abortion should be zero.

make sure that all human beings of fertile age have access to healthcare and birth control as well as actively work.

Access... how far does this access extend. Who provides this access? Is this government given healthcare? Does this also include abortions? Who pays for this care? When do we allow the local government to take control of this care?

but more importantly how we teach the next generation to respect women and their bodily integrity and autonomy) to minimize the number of rapes committed against women.

You say "the next generation" but you mean men. Well you mean P.O.S. boys who need to be beaten and offered euthanasia, but I digress. No one is taught to disrespect women in the US. You point me to a person teaching boys to not respect women and ill judge that. Tc continue the narrative that all men are rapists until taught otherwise is demeaning and lessens the burden of responsibility on society.

If you mean to change society in another country, then how do we affect this change, and in what way?

Who are these vague "others" you refer to? What kind of a supremely selfish person cares only about saving lives if and when, it directly benefits them? I am so lucky that I don't know a single such person.

Then I would argue you are not so lucky as you are missing out on the majority voter base to the conservative side. The issue is that MY money, in the form of taxes, are being sent to another country and not helping my neighbor. This is forced assistance to another country benefits me in no way. It in now way improves my life or the life of another in my community, where I would have spent that money or donated to my local church/charity.

To impress on me that I am a sociopath for not caring in someone dies in another country is absurd. I am being reasonable in my knowledge that I can't save everyone. Even in my professional practice I have seen death. If I can't save one person when I bend all my will and expertise on them, what hope do I have that someone else, thousands of miles away, will maybe benefit from assistance, with no assurance of outcome but a possibility that the money is being used correctly. It's not my job to save the world. I save the person in front of me, my family, and my neighbor in my community.

I don't understand how any research-literate healthcare professional can support it, regardless of their individual religious convictions.

Because I support all life. I will not hand the knife, through readily available and paid for abortion, to end a life. It is the women's choice to seek these dangerous alternatives. I cannot advocate for the easier cessation of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Human beings realize that what is growing in utero is in fact a baby (a human being).

It is only science/medicine that labels it a embryo or fetus.

It's also the religious/spiritual view of what defines 'life' that differentiates between different stages of development. While meiosis is a significant event in biology, it's not a meaningful point in what defines life in a religious or spiritual sense.

To define what we generally call 'life' in a religious or spiritual sense, it helps to look at the other end of life, specifically when we determine that someone's soul has left them and/or that they are no longer alive, which we generally occurs at brain death, regardless of our views on abortion.

So to argue that life begins long before any ability to be sentient or to have potential for any level of awareness is dishonest, and is substituting the emergence of a soul for an irrelevant biological event.

Personally, I would like to see that abortion isn't a choice anyone feels they need to make, but I understand why people make this difficult decision and I don't deny that many children that would have been born if abortion wasn't an option would be subject to far more pain and suffering than the pain and suffering that occurs when a pregnancy is terminated where no life yet existed in a spiritual sense, while there is potential life there, there is also potential life an a sperm or egg, and I don't believe that every egg and every sperm must become a life, that's actually pretty absurd.

It is disappointing that often the same people who claim to be so strongly opposed to abortion that it shouldn't be a choice are the same people who don't support dealing with the issues that lead to the choice to have an abortion, which are primarily financial. It's often the religious right who also oppose things like making maternity coverage mandatory, or ensuring that those who work can afford to support themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe life and our immortal soul begin with conception.

My belief is NOT a scientific fact.

It is my faith. Faith is by definition a strong belief in God and/or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

("apprehension" is defined as "understanding or grasp")

Other people believe differently from me. I know good moral kind honest people who believe life begins with the baby's first breath.

The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A Living Being

Other good honest people have different beliefs regarding the beginning of human life.

... The Talmud gives the full status of humanness to a child at birth, the rabbinical writings have partially extended the acquisition of humanness to the 13th postnatal day of life for full-term infants.

The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

The issues of abortion, embryo research, multifetal reduction and cloning will be discussed according to Jewish Law perspectives.

Life is a process that has a beginning and an end.

The consensus about the time when human life really begins is still not reached among scientists, philosophers, ethicists, sociologists and theologizes.

The scientific data suggested that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist.

Current biological perspectives on when human life begins range through fertilization, gastrulation, to birth and even after.

The development of a newborn is a smoothly continuous process...

The beginning of human life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's also the religious/spiritual view of what defines 'life' that differentiates between different stages of development. While meiosis is a significant event in biology, it's not a meaningful point in what defines life in a religious or spiritual sense.

To define what we generally call 'life' in a religious or spiritual sense, it helps to look at the other end of life, specifically when we determine that someone's soul has left them and/or that they are no longer alive, which we generally occurs at brain death, regardless of our views on abortion.

So to argue that life begins long before any ability to be sentient or to have potential for any level of awareness is dishonest, and is substituting the emergence of a soul for an irrelevant biological event.

Personally, I would like to see that abortion isn't a choice anyone feels they need to make, but I understand why people make this difficult decision and I don't deny that many children that would have been born if abortion wasn't an option would be subject to far more pain and suffering than the pain and suffering that occurs when a pregnancy is terminated where no life yet existed in a spiritual sense, while there is potential life there, there is also potential life an a sperm or egg, and I don't believe that every egg and every sperm must become a life, that's actually pretty absurd.

It is disappointing that often the same people who claim to be so strongly opposed to abortion that it shouldn't be a choice are the same people who don't support dealing with the issues that lead to the choice to have an abortion, which are primarily financial. It's often the religious right who also oppose things like making maternity coverage mandatory, or ensuring that those who work can afford to support themselves.

Actually from a religious point of view it is a human even before conception, so most definitely a human by the time an abortion would happen.

I agree that I would like to see women never in the position of needing to make that choice. We also have to acknowledge personal responsibility here. Women and men are in fact in charge of their body and that includes the choice to have intercourse to begin with (except in the case of rape). Most religious people I know, rather right or left, believe that women, men, and couples should not make that choice if they are unable or unwilling to raise a child. More education in school would be helpful here. I think that there are many abortions being performed as birth control and that should not be happening.

Most people I know, right and left, do support policies that help families, paid maternity etc., but also know that individuals need to take personal responsibility for their own situation. Too many people expect others to take care for them. We need to teach young people how to be responsible, birth control (knowing that some will not abstain), and options besides abortion if a pregnancy does occur.

I know people who are totally against abortion. I am torn on the issue because while I personally believe it is wrong, I am not sure that the gov has a right to tell a woman no, i just think it is so sad that so many abortions happen. We need to do better!

And the Christian's I know don't want to pay for others abortions because of religious reasons and also because it is an elective surgery, again personal responsibility.

Edited by Daisy4RN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually from a religious point of view it is a human even before conception, so most definitely a human by the time an abortion would happen.

I agree that I would like to see women never in the position of needing to make that choice. We also have to acknowledge personal responsibility here. Women and men are in fact in charge of their body and that includes the choice to have intercourse to begin with (except in the case of rape). Most religious people I know, rather right or left, believe that women, men, and couples should not make that choice if they are unable or unwilling to raise a child. More education in school would be helpful here. I think that there are many abortions being performed as birth control and that should not be happening.

Most people I know, right and left, do support policies that help families, paid maternity etc., but also know that individuals need to take personal responsibility for their own situation. Too many people expect others to take care for them. We need to teach young people how to be responsible, birth control (knowing that some will not abstain), and options besides abortion if a pregnancy does occur.

I know people who are totally against abortion. I am torn on the issue because while I personally believe it is wrong, I am not sure that the gov has a right to tell a woman no, i just think it is so sad that so many abortions happen. We need to do better!

And the Christian's I know don't want to pay for others abortions because of religious reasons and also because it is an elective surgery, again personal responsibility.

The vast majority of Christians don't believe a life exists prior to conception, there is a relatively small group that believes every egg should be fertilized, but no, most Christians don't believe that because a 12 year old girl allows menstruation to occur without trying to get pregnant, that she has allowed a living human to die.

The vast majority of Christians also don't believe that because someone is unable to have children, such as due to infertility or age, that they should be prohibited from having intercourse. Again, that's an extremist, fringe belief.

Based on extensive polling and voting data, the majority of the 'right' doesn't actually believe that those who 'take responsibility for their situation' by working full time should be afforded maternity coverage or a wage that can support that child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It never hurts to put forth a meaningful argument ya know. All these straw man and ad hominem attacks are not making it look like you want civil discourse or are interested in any other viewpoint. Would you care to enlighten me on your viewpoint on this matter? Leaving out the social commentary on the opposing side?

No, I don't care to enlighten you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That being said, I do not agree with banning abortion. I agree with you that we should have more education/counseling, and access to healthcare and birth control. Also spiritual counseling for those who wish.

I know people who are totally against abortion. I am torn on the issue because while I personally believe it is wrong, I am not sure that the gov has a right to tell a woman no, i just think it is so sad that so many abortions happen. We need to do better!

I personally would like to see as few abortions as possible being performed. But just as you mentioned in your post, I don't think the government or various religious groups have any right whatsoever to reach into my uterus and dictate how I should decide one of the most personal decisions of my life.

Human beings realize that what is growing in utero is in fact a baby (a human being).

It is only science/medicine that labels it a embryo or fetus.

Call it what you want but if an abortion is preformed a baby is going to die, semantics wont change that.

As I wrote in my first post, I think it's only natural for the woman to think of the fetus as her baby. But the difference between a ten-week fetus and a full-term fetus/newborn infant is more than semantics. If a pregnancy is terminated by abortion after ten weeks, I don't see that as a baby being killed. I see that as what would have eventually become a baby, not being born.

Most people I know, right and left, do support policies that help families, paid maternity etc., but also know that individuals need to take personal responsibility for their own situation.

Is it really accurate that most people on the right support policies which would guarantee affordable healthcare, quality schools, nutritious food and good housing for children in all low-income families?

I am and I thank you. The comment was directed more toward bologna, but I'll address a few of your concerns as well to attempt to find a common ground.

Bologna? Do you mean toomuchbaloney? Do try to keep your sausages straight.

After reading your posts here, I don't think you and I have any common ground. While I don't agree with Daisy4RN on a lot of things that she's written in this thread, she's said some things I do agree with. She's also doesn't seem as rigid in her view of the world. Despite her personal convictions, and I respect her right to have them, she seems to have a more realistic and emphathetic view of the world. So despite my disagreeing with a lot of the things she says, it is still possible for me to find common ground with her on this issue.

I'll start here. The impression I get from this area is that we are discussing topics with fellow peer groups whom have similar medical understanding which are normally discussed outside of the general work place. In the break room I am doing just that, taking a break from being a nurse with opinions to being a person with opinions who happens to be a nurse.

How do you take a break from what research tells you? This thing about being research-literate isn't something you just turn on and off at will to suit your religious (?) convictions. You either accept that statistics show that women do not have fewer abortions simply because someone bans them, or you stick your head in the sand and deny FACTS. It doesn't matter if you're in the breakroom, or not.

I'd disagree as a matter of semantics. If one single baby was saved, then your statement is proven false.

Semantics.... So hypothetically.. if worldwide, 1,000 babies who would not have born were actually born.. and the price paid for that was 1,000,000 dead women. That's a good trade-off?

Why do you keep on pretending that there is any evidence that countries where abortions aren't legal actually result in fewer abortions in those countries, than in countries where abortions are legal?

If the knowledge of abortion being banned was made known, then the women would have incentive to commit to knowledge attained by safe sex talks.

Care to clarify what this statement means?

To me there's a bit of misogyny lurking in its depths.

The belief of those who want to ban abortion is just that. Saving lives. Control? Quiet the opposite.

I think you're being either quite naive, blind or disingenuous, if you claim that there has never been a desire in society to control women.

I'm sure a desire to control women isn't what motivates each and every person who opposes a woman's right to choose, but you can't pretend that it isn't a factor for some.

The same is felt from the pro life movement. Policies that would increase the killing of babies.

Again, show me the evidence that fewer abortions are performed when they are made illegal.

I agree completely, however I think the total number of abortion should be zero.

Zero abortions?

How does that work?

So you support forcing rape victims to give birth to their rapist's child?

So you support forcing a woman carry her pregnancy to term even when it threatens her life?

So you support incest victims being forced to give birth to their own sibling?

If I told you what I think of this, I would likely be banned from this forum until the 23rd century.

Access... how far does this access extend.

I'd assume it would extend to cover all citizens, legal residents and if you want to be a good person you should probably consider to also offer every individual who presents at an ER with an immediately life-threatening condition, care regardless of their legal status.

Who provides this access?

Physicians, nurses and other healthcare professions in different settings; hospitals, clinics etc. provide the healthcare.

Is this government given healthcare?

I'll leave the technicalities of how you provide access to affordable healthcare for you guys to decide.

Does this also include abortions?

Of course. It's an integral part of women's health/healthcare.

Who pays for this care?

The people who directly and indirectly benefit from it. That would be all of you.

You say "the next generation" but you mean men. Well you mean P.O.S. boys who need to be beaten and offered euthanasia, but I digress.

That last sentence sounds unhinged. Beating boys and offering euthanasia??? What on earth are you talking about?

When I said the next generation, I meant exactly that. I was referring to how we socialize boys and girls.

No one is taught to disrespect women in the US.

You do realize that I never claimed that anyone is actively teaching anyone to DISrespect women, don't you? You're twisting my words.

What I said was that we should actively teach the next generation to respect women's bodily integrity and autonomy.

There was recently a thread on the yellow side where a female poster asked for advice regarding how to ward off unwanted attention from a male coworker. She received multiple replies, most of them from other women, that she should tell the "amorous" coworker that she was quite happily married and therefore not interested in him.

There are obviously many women out there who've been socialized to believe that it isn't enough to simply say that, I don't want your attention, but who feel it's necessary to use the marriage as a crutch when rejecting the coworker's unwelcome advances.

So when I say the "next generation" I mean just that. You're interpreting my statement through your own filter, and it's distorted by your biases and preconceived notions.

Tc continue the narrative that all men are rapists until taught otherwise is demeaning and lessens the burden of responsibility on society.

Who has continued the narrative that all men are rapists unless taught otherwise?

I know that I haven't since I don't believe that to be true. Again, I refer you to reflect on how your personal filter affects your interpretation of my statements.

Then I would argue you are not so lucky as you are missing out on the majority voter base to the conservative side. The issue is that MY money, in the form of taxes, are being sent to another country and not helping my neighbor. This is forced assistance to another country benefits me in no way. It in now way improves my life or the life of another in my community, where I would have spent that money or donated to my local church/charity

I find this viewpoint quite selfish and as I've already pointed out, it ignores the fact that our world is interconnected and that what happens in the Far East, Europe, South America or Africa, actually has ramifications even in your zip code area.

I don't know if you were active on this board when some of the posters of the "America First" persuasion were experiencing a major Ebola-related panic attack and supported all sorts of draconian and medically unnecessary measures just because they were so afraid?

That's exactly what I expect from myopic me, me, me people who don't look outside their own countries' borders. Why not make sure that money is spent on discovering, manufacturing and distributing vaccines to the countries most plagued by the scary disease, instead of screaming about closing your borders? This is a prime example of why I think that any decent and intelligent person ought to care about healthcare in other countries. So for anyone who asks; what's in it for ME? Now they know.

To impress on me that I am a sociopath for not caring in someone dies in another country is absurd. I am being reasonable in my knowledge that I can't save everyone.

So the persons you referred to in your first post as "others" in fact includes yourself.

I suspected as much.

Your original statement was this: "Others would argue that the monetary costs of supporting these services to the world population is offering nothing to the healthcare of the US itself. Most often heard in the form of, "Why should I pay for another countries healthcare?".

This is clearly not about being aware that you can't save every person on planet earth, which is a reasonable conclusion to arrive at. Your original statement is clearly transactional in nature. You were arguing that some people don't think paying for healthcare in other countries is worthwhile because there's NOTHING in it FOR THEM. Doesn't have a thing to do with the fact that not all human lives can be saved.

It is the women's choice to seek these dangerous alternatives.

That is so damn cold.

So when a (financially) poor woman with five children in desperation has an illegal UNSAFE abortion because someone saw fit to make access to safe abortions almost impossible or outright banned them, and she dies and leaves the five already alive children without their mom, that was her choice?

(@TMB, you know I don't think of you as a sausage :D :wavey: :inlove:)

Edited by macawake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The vast majority of Christians don't believe a life exists prior to conception, there is a relatively small group that believes every egg should be fertilized, but no, most Christians don't believe that because a 12 year old girl allows menstruation to occur without trying to get pregnant, that she has allowed a living human to die.

The vast majority of Christians also don't believe that because someone is unable to have children, such as due to infertility or age, that they should be prohibited from having intercourse. Again, that's an extremist, fringe belief.

Based on extensive polling and voting data, the majority of the 'right' doesn't actually believe that those who 'take responsibility for their situation' by working full time should be afforded maternity coverage or a wage that can support that child.

I am not sure that the "vast majority" of Christians don't believe a "life" exists prior to conception, depending on how we are defining "life" I guess...

"I knew you before I formed you in the womb; I set you apart for me before you were born; I appointed you to..." Jeremiah 1:5

Again polls can be wrong or skewed depending on the wording or how asked etc. I don't know anybody (including Christians) who doesn't support those family type policies. However, they also support teaching self responsibility/reliance at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure that the "vast majority" of Christians don't believe a "life" exists prior to conception, depending on how we are defining "life" I guess...

"I knew you before I formed you in the womb; I set you apart for me before you were born; I appointed you to..." Jeremiah 1:5

Again polls can be wrong or skewed depending on the wording or how asked etc. I don't know anybody (including Christians) who doesn't support those family type policies. However, they also support teaching self responsibility/reliance at the same time.

There is certainly significant debate among Christians as to whether life begins at conception, but no, there is no significant contingent of Christians who believe life begins before conception. You're saying an unfertilized egg is a 'life'? I assume that would go for a sperm as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×