Defining Pro-Life

[Jesuslove]

With an election year around the corner, I'm curious to know how others on this board define "pro-life". Does "pro-life" mean....

1. anti-abortion?

2. pro-adoption?

3. pro-universal healthcare?

4. pro-education?

I struggle with our government's desire to enact pro-life legislation, but their failure to ensure all children have adequate healthcare.

[clemsontigers23]

Pro-life strictly means anti-abortion. I am strongly pro-life because I don't support murder.

[cheewiee]

With an election year around the corner, I'm curious to know how others on this board define "pro-life". Does "pro-life" mean....

1. anti-abortion?

2. pro-adoption?

3. pro-universal healthcare?

4. pro-education?

I struggle with our government's desire to enact pro-life legislation, but their failure to ensure all children have adequate healthcare.

Welcome back Jesuslove...

So let me understand your statement.... You struggle wanting to end the systematic murder of a million unborn children per year because we don't have universal healthcare?

[blacksheep]

Universal healthcare would be the worst thing to happen to medicine second only to abortion.

[clemsontigers23]

What's scary is that more than likely a democrat will win the presidency and most young voters don't understand the ramifications of universal healthcare.

[Jesuslove]

What's scary is that more than likely a democrat will win the presidency and most young voters don't understand the ramifications of universal healthcare.

We need to address the millions of uninsured children in the US. I believe if we support life, we must support health, and it is in our best interest as a nation to ensure our nation's youth have proper healthcare.

[clemsontigers23]

We need to address the millions of uninsured children in the US. I believe if we support life, we must support health, and it is in our best interest as a nation to ensure our nation's youth have proper healthcare.

Nothing wrong with free healthcare for children, but universal healthcare is an all-around bad idea.

[Jesuslove]

Welcome back Jesuslove...

So let me understand your statement.... You struggle wanting to end the systematic murder of a million unborn children per year because we don't have universal healthcare?

Thanks for the welcome back! I am 100% against abortion. However, I also believe that ensuring children a future should extend beyond birth.

[Jesuslove]

Nothing wrong with free healthcare for children, but universal healthcare is an all-around bad idea.

I agree. I'm not suggesting universal healthcare is the answer. I just think children born in the richest nation in the world should be entitled to some healthcare up until age 18.

[clemsontigers23]

I agree. I'm not suggesting universal healthcare is the answer. I just think children born in the richest nation in the world should be entitled to some healthcare up until age 18.

You and me both.

[cheewiee]

Part (Notice I said part) of the reason our nation is having a health care crisis is because of the cost of malpractice insurance.

Ambulance Chasers like John Edwards who have made a fortune off the sufferings of people are partly to blame in my opinion.

Universal Healthcare is NOT a bad thing. This nation should have universal healthcare, what it should NOT be is socialized health care.

[Jesuslove]

Part (Notice I said part) of the reason our nation is having a health care crisis is because of the cost of malpractice insurance.

Ambulance Chasers like John Edwards who have made a fortune off the sufferings of people are partly to blame in my opinion.

Universal Healthcare is NOT a bad thing. This nation should have universal healthcare, what it should NOT be is socialized health care.

to me, it is just important for health coverage to be accessable and fairly priced for all Americans.

[cheewiee]

to me, it is just important for health coverage to be accessable and fairly priced for all Americans.

Your Right... and actually that's what Barak Obama's plan does...

[Debbie]

Welcome Back JesusLove! It is good see you.

[Jesuslove]

Welcome Back JesusLove! It is good see you.

Thanks Debbie! It's good to be back!

[blacksheep]

Barak is a socialist.

[cheewiee]

Barak is a socialist.

And Mitt Romney is a fascist... :rolleyes:

[Yippy]

With an election year around the corner, I'm curious to know how others on this board define "pro-life". Does "pro-life" mean....

1. anti-abortion?

2. pro-adoption?

3. pro-universal healthcare?

4. pro-education?

I struggle with our government's desire to enact pro-life legislation, but their failure to ensure all children have adequate healthcare.

Hi Steve!
1. yes
2. yes
3. healthcare should be affordable for all & definitely provided for children; I don't have an answer as to how
4. yes
& I'd like to add
5. pro elderly

I was just behind a car that had bumper sticker that said:

Pro-Child
Pro-Family
Pro-Abortion

And I thought to myself, how do you think a child or family begins? How can one be pro-child, pro-family, & anti-unborn child? It amazes me that people can come to the conclusion that an unwanted baby is fetal tissue, but a wanted one is a precious baby from the git go. I'd like the sticker to read:

Pro-Child
Pro-Family
Pro-Self Control
Pro-Responsiblity

[Jesuslove]

Hi Steve!
1. yes
2. yes
3. healthcare should be affordable for all & definitely provided for children; I don't have an answer as to how
4. yes
& I'd like to add
5. pro elderly

I was just behind a car that had bumper sticker that said:

Pro-Child
Pro-Family
Pro-Abortion

And I thought to myself, how do you think a child or family begins? How can one be pro-child, pro-family, & anti-unborn child? It amazes me that people can come to the conclusion that an unwanted baby is fetal tissue, but a wanted one is a precious baby from the git go. I'd like the sticker to read:

Pro-Child
Pro-Family
Pro-Self Control
Pro-Responsiblity

I agree! I like your sentiments better.

[blacksheep]

And Mitt Romney is a fascist... :rolleyes:


I don't care for him either.

[mat1583]

to me, it is just important for health coverage to be accessable and fairly priced for all Americans.

Who determines what is 'fair'? Would you think it's fair for the government to force a doctor to charge cheaply to use a machine for tests that costs its makers millions of dollars of research and 100's of hours of man time? With what you call 'affordable' health care for everyone, you throw away nearly all incentives for doctors to provide the best possible health care and for drug companies to spend millions on research.

In the end, universal health care means forcing your neighbor by gunpoint to pay for your medical bill.

-washboard

[kiwisongbird]

In New Zealand we get a card that makes it so our bill is halved if we earn under a certain amount and it changes depending on how many kids you have. The doctor then gets reimbursed by the government for that second half. The prescription drugs are also subsidised by the government - at least, most of them are...

it must be pretty scary to live in a situation where you cannot afford to take your children to the doctor - but from an outside viewpoint I think much of it is because of all the silly suing stuff that goes on in your country... must be scary to be a doctor as well...

[kiwisongbird]

Oops and pro-life for me would always need to include after birth as well, ie health care and also literacy skills - um and of course, being who I am pretty much anti-war as well...

[cheewiee]

In the end, universal health care means forcing your neighbor by gunpoint to pay for your medical bill.

-washboard

No it doesn't, Socialized healthcare may mean that, but Universal healthcare doesn't need to mean that....

In this nation we manage healthcare costs by leveraging them throughout groups. This means when you are employed, your employer gets a discounted group rate because the risk is shared over a large population.

What we could do to offer Universal healthcare is establish group plans that you could join so that the risk could be shared evenly. You can also provide tax credits for people under a certain income level who don't have insurance to assist with the cost.

But any attempt to reform healthcare w/o tort reform is useless IMO

[Jesuslove]

In the end, universal health care means forcing your neighbor by gunpoint to pay for your medical bill.

-washboard

I think that's an extreme interpretation. How is that different than making someone pay for a war that they believe is immoral and unjust? I just read this week that this war is costing each and every American houshold approximately $4,000.

[middletree]

I was unable to respond earlier, but in regards to the original post, the term "pro-life" means, to me:

against abortion
against tobacco (that is, laws which require no smoking is restaurants, etc.)
against the death penalty
against unnecessary wars
against violence except in defense of others

Some explanations:
The first 4 are regarding legislation and public policy. The last one is personal.

The Christian thing to do in self-defense is to turn the other cheek. The Christian thing to do f someone is stealing your property is to let them have even more than they intended to steal. These ideas are not popular with Republicans, but the bible supersedes political ideology. Those who are always in line with either liberals or conservatives need a reality check if they claim to be bible-believers.

JesusLove, it's good to see you back here. I disagree with you on govt health care. Not because I vote Republican, but because I have taken a lot of coursework in economics, and it has become clear to me just how much damage is done when the govt takes over jobs or industries which should be done by the private sector.

[Jesuslove]

I was unable to respond earlier, but in regards to the original post, the term "pro-life" means, to me:

against abortion
against tobacco (that is, laws which require no smoking is restaurants, etc.)
against the death penalty
against unnecessary wars
against violence except in defense of others.

Thanks! I very much like your definition of pro-life. I would add a few thoughts though...

against ilicit drugs
pro-healthcare
pro-education

[freakysoccer]

to me pro life simply means NO KILLING BABIES. that is it in my opinion.

[mat1583]

I think that's an extreme interpretation. How is that different than making someone pay for a war that they believe is immoral and unjust? I just read this week that this war is costing each and every American houshold approximately $4,000.

The sad thing is that Americans don't realize that it's not an interpretation at all. It's exactly what will happen.

What do you think would happen if you decided not to pay a portion of your taxes because you didn't want to support the war? The IRS would come after you and demand payment. What if you refused payment because you did not think the 'war' is a legitimate, declared war? They would send the police after you with guns, arrest you, and throw you in jail with thieves and murderers...all because you wouldn't let the government steal your money for a war which you believe is unjustified and immoral.

(And it's not any different)

-washboard

[kiwisongbird]

I'd rather some of my taxes went towards helping people receive decent healthcare rather than to get guns and shoot people...

[Evanescence]

Universal healthcare = Micro-chips in humans

No universal healthcare !!!!!!!!!

[kiwisongbird]

Ew, didn't realise that - don't want that Big Brother stuff happening... :eek:

[HotWireD]

Universal healthcare = Micro-chips in humans

No universal healthcare !!!!!!!!!

Ew, didn't realise that - don't want that Big Brother stuff happening... :eek:

I does not have to mean a microchip, a cheaper alternative would be a tattoo... (slightly tongue in cheek comment).

I believe that tattoos/microchips on/in combat soldiers will come first, in the argument that medical treatment will be safer if they can idenbtify the patient accurately. So Microchips and Healthcare will come hand in hand.

"There is nothing to worry about dear, little Timmy having a microchip is just like the one I got before I went to Iraq, and that one saved me from getting transfused the wrong blood".

[Evanescence]

I does not have to mean a microchip, a cheaper alternative would be a tattoo... (slightly tongue in cheek comment).

I believe that tattoos/microchips on/in combat soldiers will come first, in the argument that medical treatment will be safer if they can idenbtify the patient accurately. So Microchips and Healthcare will come hand in hand.

"There is nothing to worry about dear, little Timmy having a microchip is just like the one I got before I went to Iraq, and that one saved me from getting transfused the wrong blood".

You got it!!!!!!!

And the "war on terror", the Boogieman....helping it along. Anything to keep us safe...

Even Christians will cave for it...

[kiwisongbird]

I've taught my boys not to accept any type of permanent marker on their hands or forehead... it'll be difficult when it really kicks in won't it?

[blacksheep]

I've always read Rev 13 to say that you would most definitely know what was happening when receiving the mark. Something akin to open and knowing worship of the false god. So, that's to say, I don't believe that you can get it on accident or by believing it is something else. Look at your SSN. Clearly fits the description of some sort of mark with which you can't do a lot without-legally-but most people to day don't speak of it as the apocalyptic mark in the same way that people did when it first came out. I think microchips, should they come into fruition, will be the same thing, though I don't think they are a good idea for a myriad of other reasons. Of course, this all assumes a very literal translation of Rev.

Universal healthcare is bad for the same reasons socialism is bad. It will take out the human motivation factor.

[clemsontigers23]

I will never get anything put on or in my hand...no mark, no tattoo, no microchip. If that's not leading to the Mark of the Beast, then I don't know what is.

[cheewiee]

I've always read Rev 13 to say that you would most definitely know what was happening when receiving the mark. Something akin to open and knowing worship of the false god. So, that's to say, I don't believe that you can get it on accident or by believing it is something else. Look at your SSN. Clearly fits the description of some sort of mark with which you can't do a lot without-legally-but most people to day don't speak of it as the apocalyptic mark in the same way that people did when it first came out. I think microchips, should they come into fruition, will be the same thing, though I don't think they are a good idea for a myriad of other reasons. Of course, this all assumes a very literal translation of Rev.

Universal healthcare is bad for the same reasons socialism is bad. It will take out the human motivation factor.

In revelation's 13 there are two things that are being discussed, One is the image of the beast. It says that the second beast told those who dwell on the earth to make the image, and the second beast gives breath to the image, so that the image could speak, and it would cause those who did not worship the beast to be slain.

I honestly think that the image of the beast could be some form of AI.

The second thing is the mark on the right hand of the forehead. Basicly this prevents anyone from buying or selling. This could be an RF chip, or a tattoo of some sort that could be read by the AI. But John says that the number of the beast is the number of man, 666.

Some say that W is the hebrew symbol for 6, but www, wouldn't equal 666....

[Pouye]

Pro-life and universal health care are related, but not intrinsically. Many countries are pro-abortion with socialized medicine.

By the way, not to step on toes, but many people from New Zealand who need costly, specialized medical care cannot get it in a timely manner and go to the USA to get such procedures done -- as do Canadians and many other folks from nations with supposedly "free" health care.

The truth is, no health care is free. Period. There is no such thing as free, so get the idea out of your mind when it comes to health care or anything else. It costs SOMEONE, and that is just the fact.

So the question is, who can best manage the money it will cost?

Ideally, the folks who benefit the most from the service are the best ones to manage the money, because they are the ones with the most to lose. But with health care, it is tricky... because it is sometimes both necessary and too costly for the one who needs it. To equalize this, some costs have to be shared or spread over a larger group of people as a "buffer". This might accomplished through a private medical "co-op" or via insurance companies. Another way it could be done is through charging everyone in the society (or at least all those who are working) a tax, and having a governing agency redistribute the money.

Socialized medicine works pretty good for general health care, but is rotten for specialized or "high needs" care because of the inevitable "two tier" system that emerges because of the long waiting lists for specialized care. For instance, Canadians and others who live in countries with socialized medicine often travel to other countries (including the USA) for medical care because of the long waiting lists for surgery or specialized treatments:

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-11-17/48263.html

Anyway, there are ways to do universal health care, but in my opinion, it should not be simply through the government.

Rock

[cheewiee]

Anyway, there are ways to do universal health care, but in my opinion, it should not be simply through the government.

Rock


Obama seems to have an interesting approach. From what I understand of it (and I could be off) would be to allow Americans who's jobs did not offer Insurance the ability to join a private group plan (Spreading the risk) those who can afford it pay for it out of pocket, those who cannot receive a tax credit annually for the cost.

That way everyone has access to it, and those who cannot afford it can....

[kiwisongbird]

My Kiwi toes are totally unstepped on! :)

It's true - people have to wait for years for surgery in NZ... I would recommend to come to Thailand for surgery as well, in Bangkok there are several world class hospitals set up for the medical tourist industry - last time I had surgery I went there, it was great!

[Pouye]

My Kiwi toes are totally unstepped on! :)

It's true - people have to wait for years for surgery in NZ... I would recommend to come to Thailand for surgery as well, in Bangkok there are several world class hospitals set up for the medical tourist industry - last time I had surgery I went there, it was great!

Actually, this is happening in the USA, too. The cost of malpractice insurance in the USA is ridiculous as the "law suit industry" in the USA continues to get out of control. This drives up the price of private care. I don't really think going to a foreign country is a bad idea for special medical work, simply because often their care is excellent, and it is a very fiscally responsible move.

Rock