Ohio State Budget Abortion Restrictions

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

I see what you're saying, and I agree that it's not realistic. But I have been in a doctor's office as a married adult woman and been denied birth control pills because of my doctor's Catholic faith (she's no longer my doctor). This isn't just an abstract argument to me - people of varying professions tend to project their faith onto those they serve, and I find it troublesome. It's one thing when you're talking about a doctor and you have the choice to find another physician. But it's another when it's Paul Politician and he starts making decisions that affect people who undoubtedly don't all share his religious beliefs.

The problem is that everybody is motivated and shaped by his or her religious beliefs,without exception. (I'm counting atheism here because most atheists have some sort of belief system, even if it isn't one with a higher power.) Part of the reason we have the style of government we do is so that we can have those making the decisions have a variety of worldviews, not just one.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

I see what you're saying, and I agree that it's not realistic. But I have been in a doctor's office as a married adult woman and been denied birth control pills because of my doctor's Catholic faith (she's no longer my doctor). This isn't just an abstract argument to me - people of varying professions tend to project their faith onto those they serve, and I find it troublesome.

My question would be whether she was projecting her faith onto you or was she refusing to violate her own beliefs by prescribing birth control. Was she saying you could not have birth control, or was she saying she would not provide it? While the immediate result was the same, it seems to me that there's a difference. I'd say she didn't make any decision for you -- she made a decision for herself about what she would and wouldn't do, and then you made a decision in response that you'd find a different doctor who would prescribe birth control pills.

I see what you're saying as well -- I do think it's problematic when people want the law to reflect their religious (or other) beliefs when there isn't wide consensus. (For example, belief that murder is wrong may be based on religious values, but that belief is all but universal.) But I think the choices of elected officials not letting religious values enter into their considerations at all on one hand, and imposing their beliefs on others on the other hand, aren't the only options. There's a wide path in the middle.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

The problem is that everybody is motivated and shaped by his or her religious beliefs,without exception. (I'm counting atheism here because most atheists have some sort of belief system, even if it isn't one with a higher power.) Part of the reason we have the style of government we do is so that we can have those making the decisions have a variety of worldviews, not just one.

Yep, and so they can have world views that reflect the people who elect them.

[ASTalumna06]

I don't think there's a problem with religion affecting people's thoughts, beliefs, decisions, etc., but I have an issue when people use that as the ultimate reason for creating policies and enacting laws.

I'm not religious, but I can respect the fact that other people are. In my opinion, to have faith, go to church, and pray when you need/want to is all fine and dandy. It's those people who take the words in the Bible (or whatever readings/teachings they follow) and take them so literally and think that's how things should be, and that even those who don't follow their religion should live the way they do. And of course, there are many people who pick and choose the things in those readings/teachings that are "most important," and only follow those in their most literal sense.

I'm all for gay marriage, for example, and I understand that there are people who are against it, or don't agree with it, or think that it's morally wrong (for both religious and non-religious reasons). That's their opinion, and they're entitled to it. However, I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell someone else who they can love. There is nothing about allowing gay people to marry that would affect a straight person who disagrees with it. And there are many people who start the argument with, "Well in the Bible, it says..." I don't care, because I don't live my life by the Bible. And we shouldn't create laws based on what it says in the Bible, either.

Look at it this way: Let's take one of the 10 Commandments - thou shalt not steal. We have laws against stealing. If one were to make an argument about why stealing should be illegal - BASED on their religious beliefs - they could say it emotionally hurts the person from whom something was stolen, that person may not be able to get that item back or purchase a new one, it could truly financially burden the person if the loss was big enough, there would be chaos and looting if nothing was done to stop it, etc. Those are good arguments for why stealing should be illegal. To make such an argument, religion would never even need to be mentioned.

Now make an argument for why gay marriage should be illegal.

I think the truly amazing thing to me is that people can question the genius of some of the greatest minds of our time; they can read a newspaper article, and they can roll their eyes; they can see a huge hole in the side of the Pentagon and deny that a plane ever hit it; but they can read a book, written thousands of years ago, which at times, talks of things that don't even seem possible or plausible, and they believe that that is the word of the world, and all who don't follow that word are destined to go to hell.

Regarding the abortion debate: as MysticCat basically pointed out, the vast majority of people look at murder as being morally wrong, regardless of their backgrounds, faith, experiences, etc. However, the question isn't about whether or not murder is wrong, but about whether or not abortion is murder. In a sense, religion should have no place in such an argument. But again, people use it as a way to force their ideas and desired policies/laws on others. I'm not saying that everyone does, but it obviously happens frequently enough for the majority of us to notice.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I'm not religious, but I can respect the fact that other people are.

I'm sorry, but I've got to be honest -- as a religious person, I don't feel very respected when I read things like this:

I think the truly amazing thing to me is that people can question the genius of some of the greatest minds of our time; they can read a newspaper article, and they can roll their eyes; they can see a huge hole in the side of the Pentagon and deny that a plane ever hit it; but they can read a book, written thousands of years ago, which at times, talks of things that don't even seem possible or plausible, and they believe that that is the word of the world, and all who don't follow that word are destined to go to hell.

I don't know who is denying that a plane hit the Pentegon (or what that has to do with religious beliefs) or what newspaper articles you're talking about (though I've certainly rolled my eyes at articles when I've known more about the situation than than reporter appeared to). But I'm not shy at all about questioning "the genius of some of the greatest minds of our time." And I can read that book written thousands of years ago and see Truth and Wisdom behind those impossible and implausible stories. While I may not believe that everyone who doesn't see that Truth or Wisdom the way I do is destined for hell, I do think that what that book has to say is as relevant and prophetic now as it was thousands of years ago. And it seems to me that some of the greatest minds of our time agree.

Sorry to unload on you; perhaps I just need to step away from this thread for awhile.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'm sorry, but I've got to be honest -- as a religious person, I don't feel very respected when I read things like this:I don't know who is denying that a plane hit the Pentegon (or what that has to do with religious beliefs) or what newspaper articles you're talking about (though I've certainly rolled my eyes at articles when I've known more about the situation than than reporter appeared to). But I'm not shy at all about questioning "the genius of some of the greatest minds of our time." And I can read that book written thousands of years ago and see Truth and Wisdom behind those impossible and implausible stories. While I may not believe that everyone who doesn't see that Truth or Wisdom the way I do is destined for hell, I do think that what that book has to say is as relevant and prophetic now as it was thousands of years ago. And it seems to me that some of the greatest minds of our time agree.

Sorry to unload on you; perhaps I just need to step away from this thread for awhile.

Ha, we probably all do.

My point is not to say that believing in the Bible/religion is crazy or irrational. What I mean (and maybe didn't portray very well) is that some people - a handful of which I know personally - are very smart, and they can question and interpret things in many different ways. They can read an article and disagree with it entirely. Or they can see something with their own eyes, but somehow find an explanation as to how or why it possibly may not have happened. Or they can read through 10 different internet sites, all discussing the same thing but making different arguments, and they can gather information and form their own opinion. However, when it comes to the Bible, they take it so literally and never find themselves analyzing any aspect of it. They listen to what others have said it means, and they accept it as fact. They would rather turn against their fellow man than offer the possibility that maybe what they've read isn't accurate.. or isn't relevant.. or has been misinterpreted, or what have you.

But essentially, the problem is when people use the Bible to promote hate and/or push their own agenda to the detriment of others. It's when they start quoting parts of the Bible as arguments in political discussions. My opinion is: Religion can play a role in what you (the general you) believe to be right, but it shouldn't define everything you do, everything you say, and every interaction you have with other human beings. It can guide you morally and it can give you faith and hope, but it shouldn't make you believe that everyone should be just like you, think exactly like you do, and want all of the same things that you do.

Like with SydneyK's example of the doctor that wouldn't give her birth control - I believe the doctor had every right not to give it to her, and SydneyK had every right to go elsewhere to get it. The doctor recognized that SydneyK wanted birth control and accepted that, but she didn't compromise her own beliefs by giving it to her. She also didn't stop her from getting it somewhere else. And while SydneyK may have been frustrated that she couldn't get what she wanted from the doctor, she was still able to go somewhere and get it. Neither compromised what they believed, neither "preached" to the other, and they've moved on with their lives.

Ironically, The Serenity Prayer just popped into my head, and I think it's applicable here:
God, Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

And it applies to everyone, whether you want to put "God" in the beginning of it or not.

Maybe I'm still not expressing all of this in the best way, but that's the best I've got... for now anyway... it's late.

[AXOmom]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I don't think there's a problem with religion affecting people's thoughts, beliefs, decisions, etc., but I have an issue when people use that as the ultimate reason for creating policies and enacting laws.

I'm not religious, but I can respect the fact that other people are. In my opinion, to have faith, go to church, and pray when you need/want to is all fine and dandy. It's those people who take the words in the Bible (or whatever readings/teachings they follow) and take them so literally and think that's how things should be, and that even those who don't follow their religion should live the way they do. And of course, there are many people who pick and choose the things in those readings/teachings that are "most important," and only follow those in their most literal sense.

I'm all for gay marriage, for example, and I understand that there are people who are against it, or don't agree with it, or think that it's morally wrong (for both religious and non-religious reasons). That's their opinion, and they're entitled to it. However, I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell someone else who they can love. There is nothing about allowing gay people to marry that would affect a straight person who disagrees with it. And there are many people who start the argument with, "Well in the Bible, it says..." I don't care, because I don't live my life by the Bible. And we shouldn't create laws based on what it says in the Bible, either.

Look at it this way: Let's take one of the 10 Commandments - thou shalt not steal. We have laws against stealing. If one were to make an argument about why stealing should be illegal - BASED on their religious beliefs - they could say it emotionally hurts the person from whom something was stolen, that person may not be able to get that item back or purchase a new one, it could truly financially burden the person if the loss was big enough, there would be chaos and looting if nothing was done to stop it, etc. Those are good arguments for why stealing should be illegal. To make such an argument, religion would never even need to be mentioned.

Now make an argument for why gay marriage should be illegal.

I think the truly amazing thing to me is that people can question the genius of some of the greatest minds of our time; they can read a newspaper article, and they can roll their eyes; they can see a huge hole in the side of the Pentagon and deny that a plane ever hit it; but they can read a book, written thousands of years ago, which at times, talks of things that don't even seem possible or plausible, and they believe that that is the word of the world, and all who don't follow that word are destined to go to hell.

Regarding the abortion debate: as MysticCat basically pointed out, the vast majority of people look at murder as being morally wrong, regardless of their backgrounds, faith, experiences, etc. However, the question isn't about whether or not murder is wrong, but about whether or not abortion is murder. In a sense, religion should have no place in such an argument. But again, people use it as a way to force their ideas and desired policies/laws on others. I'm not saying that everyone does, but it obviously happens frequently enough for the majority of us to notice.

There are several good issues in your post that could keep this thread going until we are all too old to type and living on social security- LOL. I’m not going to go any farther off topic and than I already have and delve into those. Instead, I’ll stick to the one I’ve been posting about.

People can vote for or against things for any reason they choose. There is no stopping that since we cannot know why a person is voting a certain way unless they choose to tell us, and we can’t stop them from telling us why they will vote a certain way or why they think others should without violating their freedom of speech. Whether or not it might be more politically expedient to give non-religious reasons for voting a certain way is another issue all together.

There is nothing I know of in the Constitution or the law that prevents a person from voting, speaking out, joining groups, and /or peacefully protesting on the basis of their religious beliefs in the same way any one else votes on the basis of their non-religious beliefs. There is no way that I know of not to vote on the basis of your beliefs, religious or not, since we all have them, so if voting on the basis of religious beliefs is the equivalent of “forcing” your beliefs on someone, voting on the basis of any belief is the equivalent of “forcing” your beliefs on someone and if that’s the case, the only solution I see is to forego laws.

You used that example of recent gay marriage laws as an example, I think, of passing legislation, on the basis of your beliefs that do not affect anyone who may disagree with the law. If every piece of legislation passed would only affect those who voted for it and agree with it that example would work, but that’s the exception and not the rule. In other words, we’ve all had a part in passing legislation we believed in and we knew would affect others who might disagree with it, but we voted for it anyway because we personally thought it was right. Does this mean we forced our views on others? I don’t think so.

Here’s an example. I live in a state where many consider themselves environmentalists and that belief system governs much of the way they vote and most of the people they vote for because they feel strongly about the environment. Recently in Portland a regulation passed that said everyone in the county had to compost or they would be fined. Some people resent the heck out of this and feel they are being “forced” to go along with someone else’s environmental beliefs. I don’t particularly want to compost either (looks disgusting, hate the smell), but I disagree that they are being forced. The environmentalists in our state have done a fantastic job of speaking their mind, protesting, getting their message out to the media, forming action groups, hiring lobbyists, voting, and voting for people who agreed with them. Those who oppose had every opportunity to do the same, but they chose not to – bad on them, but they haven’t had a viewpoint forced on them. The county voted on a law that reflected a group’s viewpoint about something they believe was a good, moral thing to do, and it passed. Welcome to America. This is what we do and the process is the same for everyone – religious or not.





*****






My opinion is: Religion can play a role in what you (the general you) believe to be right, but it shouldn't define everything you do, everything you say, and every interaction you have with other human beings. It can guide you morally and it can give you faith and hope, but it shouldn't make you believe that everyone should be just like you, think exactly like you do, and want all of the same things that you do.

It's totally possible that I'm entirely missing your point here (it's late) and please feel free to correct me, but the bolded comes across like this, "Don't tell me to think like you, but in my opinion, here's how you should think and feel about the role of religion in your life, so in other words, you should think about it the way I think you should think about it."


And yeah, we should probably all step away because we all must have lives out there somewhere that we need to get back to.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

There are several good issues in your post that could keep this thread going until we are all too old to type and living on social security- LOL. I’m not going to go any farther off topic and than I already have and delve into those. Instead, I’ll stick to the one I’ve been posting about.

People can vote for or against things for any reason they choose. There is no stopping that since we cannot know why a person is voting a certain way unless they choose to tell us, and we can’t stop them from telling us why they will vote a certain way or why they think others should without violating their freedom of speech. Whether or not it might be more politically expedient to give non-religious reasons for voting a certain way is another issue all together.

There is nothing I know of in the Constitution or the law that prevents a person from voting, speaking out, joining groups, and /or peacefully protesting on the basis of their religious beliefs in the same way any one else votes on the basis of their non-religious beliefs. There is no way that I know of not to vote on the basis of your beliefs, religious or not, since we all have them, so if voting on the basis of religious beliefs is the equivalent of “forcing” your beliefs on someone, voting on the basis of any belief is the equivalent of “forcing” your beliefs on someone and if that’s the case, the only solution I see is to forego laws.

You used that example of recent gay marriage laws as an example, I think, of passing legislation, on the basis of your beliefs that do not affect anyone who may disagree with the law. If every piece of legislation passed would only affect those who voted for it and agree with it that example would work, but that’s the exception and not the rule. In other words, we’ve all had a part in passing legislation we believed in and we knew would affect others who might disagree with it, but we voted for it anyway because we personally thought it was right. Does this mean we forced our views on others? I don’t think so.

Here’s an example. I live in a state where many consider themselves environmentalists and that belief system governs much of the way they vote and most of the people they vote for because they feel strongly about the environment. Recently in Portland a regulation passed that said everyone in the county had to compost or they would be fined. Some people resent the heck out of this and feel they are being “forced” to go along with someone else’s environmental beliefs. I don’t particularly want to compost either (looks disgusting, hate the smell), but I disagree that they are being forced. The environmentalists in our state have done a fantastic job of speaking their mind, protesting, getting their message out to the media, forming action groups, hiring lobbyists, voting, and voting for people who agreed with them. Those who oppose had every opportunity to do the same, but they chose not to – bad on them, but they haven’t had a viewpoint forced on them. The county voted on a law that reflected a group’s viewpoint about something they believe was a good, moral thing to do, and it passed. Welcome to America. This is what we do and the process is the same for everyone – religious or not.





*****






My opinion is: Religion can play a role in what you (the general you) believe to be right, but it shouldn't define everything you do, everything you say, and every interaction you have with other human beings. It can guide you morally and it can give you faith and hope, but it shouldn't make you believe that everyone should be just like you, think exactly like you do, and want all of the same things that you do.

It's totally possible that I'm entirely missing your point here (it's late) and please feel free to correct me, but the bolded comes across like this, "Don't tell me to think like you, but in my opinion, here's how you should think and feel about the role of religion in your life, so in other words, you should think about it the way I think you should think about it."


And yeah, we should probably all step away because we all must have lives out there somewhere that we need to get back to.

Yeah...no. I'm about as liberal as they come, but I wouldn't be composting, and I wouldn't pay a fine either. That's the most intrusive, ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Just because a vocal group gets something passed doesn't make it right or constitutional. I think you are missing the point behind the argument.

[*winter*]

There is a demand for abortions beyond 20 weeks- The Gosnell case makes this argument. He could barely meet the demand...

Making abortions illegal only means that people like him will thrive, and that women will die or be maimed for life.

I find it ironic that all the "pro-life" politicians are the same ones who are against free health insurance for children...raising SNAP benefits...welfare in general, raising minimum wage, affordable healthcare, government assistance with childcare, Section 8 housing, and lowering the interest rate on student loans. Effectively all the things that help someone, economically, decide to HAVE an abortion. If you care about fetuses, why not children? Why stop programs like Head Start? Why underfund urban districts? You want the baby born, but if it has no access to healthcare two years down the road, that's okay?!

Who do you think is having all these abortions, women who are one semester away from a degree in a high-paying field, with a committed fiancé? No, it's poor women who, along who their children, would greatly benefit from the so called "socialist" programs they love to hate.

And how about just not getting pregnant at all? Wait- we continue to cut access and funding to birth control for low-income women. So that's not going to happen...

Ok. That's all.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Maybe I'm still not expressing all of this in the best way, but that's the best I've got... for now anyway... it's late.

No, I understand much better now what you're saying. Thank you, and sorry if I overreacted.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Yeah...no. I'm about as liberal as they come, but I wouldn't be composting, and I wouldn't pay a fine either. That's the most intrusive, ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Just because a vocal group gets something passed doesn't make it right or constitutional. I think you are missing the point behind the argument.

I think perhaps this points up that these discussions and the way we view these matters involve a variety of considerations and influences that we have to sort through, balance and sometimes reconcile -- not just, say, religious/environmental views of right and wrong, for example, but also views on things like the proper role of government.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by *winter*

There is a demand for abortions beyond 20 weeks- The Gosnell case makes this argument. He could barely meet the demand...

Making abortions illegal only means that people like him will thrive, and that women will die or be maimed for life.

I find it ironic that all the "pro-life" politicians are the same ones who are against free health insurance for children...raising SNAP benefits...welfare in general, raising minimum wage, affordable healthcare, government assistance with childcare, Section 8 housing, and lowering the interest rate on student loans. Effectively all the things that help someone, economically, decide to HAVE an abortion. If you care about fetuses, why not children? Why stop programs like Head Start? Why underfund urban districts? You want the baby born, but if it has no access to healthcare two years down the road, that's okay?!

Who do you think is having all these abortions, women who are one semester away from a degree in a high-paying field, with a committed fiancé? No, it's poor women who, along who their children, would greatly benefit from the so called "socialist" programs they love to hate.

And how about just not getting pregnant at all? Wait- we continue to cut access and funding to birth control for low-income women. So that's not going to happen...

Ok. That's all.

It is still a very small number of abortions, and very few providers perform them. That may be why he had a glut of patients. When a patient needs a late abortion, it's not as easy as going to your local abortion clinic. The patient has to be referred to a practice that performs these cases because the procedure is more difficult than the much easier early abortion. This is why patients with fetal anomalies get caught in this web. Diagnostic testing pushes you out beyond twenty weeks. The Gosnell case isn't as instructive as you would think unless you were looking to see what a depraved mind is capable of.