The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
BrotherIsaac, SeekingLight, NoTrueScotsman, Soraya, CuriousMarten
5,759 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 members (Fr. Al, 1 invisible), 98 guests, and 56 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,045
Posts413,994
Members5,759
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,632
Likes: 7
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,632
Likes: 7
J.F.,

You still have not responded to questions put to you.

Firstly, do you support a human life amendment to the Constitution, to protect life from conception to natural death? Yes or no, please, not just generalities. One wonders if you believe in anything but socialism.

Further, why do you want government rationing of health care? Don't you care for people?

John

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
"Catholics and all Christians should simply voice their concerns as you have done, and legistlate abortion out of the healthcare debate."

Vote the concern, not just voice it. Then we may have a shift of power in 2010 or 2012.

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Originally Posted by Administrator
J.F.,
Firstly, do you support a human life amendment to the Constitution, to protect life from conception to natural death?


I think that an amendment to the constitution is a waste of time because if legislated women seeking abortions would simply get them in Mexico, Canada, back-alleys, illegal clinics, etc..... Telling women that they can't get abortions will not reduce the number in any significant number, if at all. The best chance you have for the reduction of abortions is not through legislation, but rather by providing better living and medical conditions for those who are in need. I'm a capitalist, and in a earnings category which will bare the brunt of President Obama's new health care initiative. There are a lot of people out there who need our support and I for one will give it to them. Since I can't vote, the only way I can do it is by giving 2% more of my salary, and I'm ok with that.

Again, Canada's social health care system significantly reduces the number of abortions in tha country when compared to the current USA system. Canada has not changed it's constitution and has a significantly lower abortion rate when compared to that of the USA.

I.F.


Last edited by Jean Francois; 07/21/09 07:23 PM.
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 421
It is falso to assume that legislation will not reduce abortions.

It is a FACT that if there is a law outlawing abortions - abortions go WAY DOWN.

Going to Mexico or any other thing that adds time allows a woman to form a conscience about the abortion and probably ususally results in REJECTING THE ABORTION.

Go to AUL.org and voice your opinion on removing permanently the ability to have abortions under health care mandates!

John

Last edited by theophan; 07/21/09 09:06 PM. Reason: The "burn in Hell" inclusion. God alone has the right to judge whether an omission merits that.
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 84
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 84
The New York Times reported that Peter Orszag, the White House budget director acknowledged that abortion coverage is a key provision of ObamaCare. Why is anyone surprised? Every abortion is a political victory for liberals. That’s why liberalism is so cruel and inhumane. Remember what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg said a couple of weeks ago? She said that abortion is about kind of limiting people in the population that you don't really want more of. They want abortion to kill off the babies of people they think should not reproduce.

There’s more. Jean Francois should read the House Democrat’s plan, pages 425-430. The House version of the health care bill is going to require mandatory end-of-life counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years, more often if the senior is sick or in a nursing home. The counseling recommends that seniors not fight nature and accept death. Obama already said that elderly care should not focus on fixing anything or extending life. He says it should only focus on pain control. It will reduce health care costs. Obama supports legalized murder (not just abortion but after birth – infanticide). No surprise that he would kill off the elderly, too.

Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 84
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 84
haydukovich is right. Those who kill innocent babies do burn in hell unless they repent.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,930
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,930
And he tells the Pope that he wants to end abortion.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133
"I think that an amendment to the constitution is a waste of time because if legislated women seeking abortions would simply get them in Mexico, Canada, back-alleys, illegal clinics, etc..... Telling women that they can't get abortions will not reduce the number in any significant number, if at all. The best chance you have for the reduction of abortions is not through legislation, but rather by providing better living and medical conditions for those who are in need. I'm a capitalist, and in a earnings category which will bare the brunt of President Obama's new health care initiative. There are a lot of people out there who need our support and I for one will give it to them. Since I can't vote, the only way I can do it is by giving 2% more of my salary, and I'm ok with that.

Again, Canada's social health care system significantly reduces the number of abortions in tha country when compared to the current USA system. Canada has not changed it's constitution and has a significantly lower abortion rate when compared to that of the USA.

I.F."

Sorry but that is just a bunch of hooey.

What you are saying is that since criminals will continue killing and burglarizing people anyway, we should make murder and burglary legal.

Further, you are still to explain why I have to pay for the merciless slaughter of babies.

Finally you keep bringing out the argument that Christians should support socialized health care and the welfare state because it is the Christian thing to do. This can not be further from the truth.

Charitable giving is only edifying for both of the parties if it is done willingly. The government sticking a hand into our wallets, taking our hard earned money and redistributing it to other people is not only NOT beneficial to our spiritual growth, but rather detrimental. It breeds resentment, jealousy, even hatred and class tension. Neither is this kind of pseudo giving beneficial for the party who receives. Gratitude and a drive to improve ones living conditions is replaced by a feeling of entitlement.

Finally and perhaps most importantly the kind of socialist health care you are lobbying for does not work. Canadians come to the US when they get sick. Not the other way around.



Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 84
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 84
Britain's National Healthcare Looks Like Medieval Medicine
by James Delingpole
03/24/2009

Victims left for hours covered in blood, denied pain relief; elderly cancer patients lying in their own filth; dirty, chaotic wards akin to "war zones"; a shortage of basic equipment, including trolleys and thermometers; shouting nurses; ill-trained, badly supervised medics; disease outbreaks; starvation and dehydration; mounting piles of dead…

Scenes from a hospital in war torn Chechnya, perhaps? Mugabe's Zimbabwe? Romania in the days of Ceaucescu? The aftermath of Antietam? The Middle Ages?

Why, no. This was an English hospital the day before yesterday. And the day after tomorrow -- if President Obama gets his way -- it could well be an American hospital too.

All too often when I tell my U.S. friends just how dire the state of our nationalized health care system is in Britain, they assume I must be exaggerating for effect. "But we've English friends who tell us that it's the Envy of The World," some of them say (of which more later). "Come on, it can't be that bad. At least it's fair, and at least it's for free," say others.

Then consider, my friends, Exhibit A. The foul sub-third-world conditions I've just described came not from my overactive imagination but from a newly-published official report into the parlous state of affairs at two state-run hospitals in the central English district of Mid Staffordshire.

According to the report by the Healthcare Commission, standards of care were so "appalling" that between 2005 and 2008 as many as 1,200 patients may have died unnecessarily.

You should see the photo shrine the victim's families have erected on one of the walls inside the hospital -- like a mini-9/11 memorial; it's a heartbreaking sight. There are pictures of the loved ones while they were still smiling and healthy, their dates written underneath. And there are printed sheets detailing some of the myriad ways they suffered and died:

* "Medication not monitored for side effects."

* "Staff shouting, squealing and laughing throughout the night disturbing patients"

* "Patients not helped to the toilet, told to use a bed pan -- staff too busy."

* "Patients not fed or given fluids -- food trays just left on the table out of reach."

It has been described by the National Health Service's medical director as a "gross and terrible breach of trust" of patients, though why he should be so shocked is anybody's guess. It's not as though this sort of thing hasn't happened in Britain's magnificent "free" healthcare system many, many times before.

This, remember, is the "service" so poor that 55 per cent of senior doctors take out private medical insurance so they don't have to use it; the one where one in 300 hospital deaths is the result of a patient contracting an infection completely unrelated to the one they came in to have treated; where the cancer survival rates are the worst in the civilized world; where more patients die in hospital in a year -- 40,000 -- than were killed in the 2006 Iraqi civil war.

Oh, and it's also, let's not forget the "service" that costs the UK taxpayer £100 billion (about $140 billion) a year. That's roughly three times what we allocate for defense; and £20 billion less than we spend on our entire education system.

And if it costs that much in Britain, imagine how much more it's going to cost a country with five times our population size. Yes, I'm sorry, America: that means you.

Just four months ago, when I was writing my book Welcome to Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future and it Doesn't Work, I poured scorn on presidential candidate Obama's electioneering claim that his universal healthcare program would cost no more than $50 billion to $65 billion.

"If it costs you anything less than ten times that amount," I predicted, "Then I am Dr. Howard Dean's right testicle. His left one too: I'm that confident."

Fortunately for my wife and those others who have to look at me every day, it seems that I am indeed neither of the good doctor's testes. Already, Obama has set aside $634 billion of the federal budget to pay for your healthcare overhaul. And believe me, my friends, that will just be the beginning. As we've discovered to our cost on my side of the Atlantic, "free universal healthcare" is a gaping maw which is not only incapable of being satisfied, but, worse, actually seems to get uglier and more voracious the more money you chuck into it.

In its twelve years in office, Britain's socialist Labor government doubled its spending on the NHS -- allocating it another pounds £269 billion above the rate of inflation. Yet the waiting lists are just as long; the wards are filthier, more overcrowded and disease-ridden; and patient survival rates continue to plummet.

It's at this point that I ought to anticipate some of the comments which will appear at the bottom of this piece from one or two rose-tinted British readers. "Come off it," they'll protest. "It may be a basic service but at least it offers free healthcare at the point of need, unlike in fascist America where if you haven't got insurance they leave you to die on the street…." or "How dare you insult our hardworking nurses" or "If it hadn't been for the wondrous NHS my beautiful, blue eyed child…" etc.

Yeah, yeah, all right so the NHS doesn't actually manage to murder every patient which crosses its threshold. Sure, its doctors and nurses can be nurturing and caring, but -- duh -- that's why they joined the medical profession rather than becoming, say, serial killers or professional torturers in the service of Kim Jong Il.

But I should warn American readers to take the surprisingly widespread British affection towards the NHS with a hefty pinch of salt. It’s a legacy of wartime rationing, I suspect. Or twelve years under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. The authentically cowed, pathetically grateful voice of a nation which has lived too long under the yoke of European-style socialism and forgotten what service and quality and value for money mean.

Which I'm afraid, America, is now the fate that awaits you under your terrifyingly ambitious "progressive" president. "Oh, c'mon. We know what we're doing. We're never going to make the same mistakes here," the people in charge of your new health program will reassure you.

Oh really? So you've, what, just invented this amazing new paradigm where a "service" run by big government doesn't result in massive waste, inefficiency, and tier upon tier of bureaucracy?

Don't make me laugh. The reason your president's universal healthcare program is going to fail is the same reason most state-run systems fail: because big government can never allocate resources as efficiently as the lean, mean private sector can. Because big government doesn't care about people, only about systems. Because the bureaucrats and time-servers and coverers-up and apparatchiks that big government attracts are the very last people in the world you want in charge of something as important as your health, your well-being, your precious life.

James Delingpole is an English journalist, writer and broadcaster. His books include "Welcome To Obamaland" (Regnery) and "Coward on the Beach" (Bloomsbury) the first in a series of adventure novels set in World War II.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 71
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 71
Imaginary conversation between Hitler, Stalin, and Mao:
Hitler: "Fellow dictators, I must say that the Nazi system is much better than the Communist system. We have killed only 6 million Jews and several million slavs, gypsys, mentally retarded, homosexuals, etc. How many people have you killed Comrades? Now, be honest. You go next Josef."
Stalin: "Comrades, I am embarrassed to say but we have killed 40 million Russians (give or take several million). But, I hasten to say, they were the kind of people we didn't want to have around. Your turn, Mao."
Mao: "I don't want to say."
Hitler: "Now,come on, Mao. Don't be shy. How many people have you killed?"
Stalin: "Yes, Mao, tell us. We told you, didn't we?
Mao: "Oh,all right. I was responsible for 100 million Chinese being exterminated. Are you happy, now? But I had no choice; they resisted the revolution. And I couldn't have that inconvenience at the time, could I? So I had no choice. Right? You understand, I'm sure."
Hitler and Stalin in unison: "Of course we do. What else could you have done?"
Hitler: "So, Nazism IS a more moral system, since we killed fewer unwanted."

J.F. - To say that the Canadian health care system is better than the American health care system because you don't kill as many babies by abortion is as irrational as the above conversation. Be honest: aren't you glad your parents didn't abort you? You should thank them. You also said you are in an income bracket that will be tapped to pay for the Obama health care plan. So, you must be doing pretty good, financially. Good for you. How many of those babies that are aborted would like to have a stab (no pun intended) at life - like you. (answer: all of them) How many would opt for abortion? (None of them!) Think, J.F. Think! They are babies!

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Originally Posted by Dan Hartshorn

J.F. - To say that the Canadian health care system is better than the American health care system because you don't kill as many babies by abortion is as irrational as the above conversation. Be honest: aren't you glad your parents didn't abort you? You should thank them. You also said you are in an income bracket that will be tapped to pay for the Obama health care plan. So, you must be doing pretty good, financially. Good for you. How many of those babies that are aborted would like to have a stab (no pun intended) at life - like you. (answer: all of them) How many would opt for abortion? (None of them!) Think, J.F. Think! They are babies!


Dan,

Dan, you seem to be very confused about facts and for that reason I would have say the same thing to you also: "Think, Dan, Think!". You have probably been raised on propaganda which instructs you to deny your fellow man the basic health care every US citizen should have. "Think, Dan, Think !". Canadians who do fund abortions through that country's universal health care system, in fact have a far lower abortion rate than the USA. "Think, Dan, Think !" The parts you have been fed all your life just don't add up. "Think, Dan, Think !".

I.F.

Last edited by Jean Francois; 07/22/09 08:03 PM.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Originally Posted by Subdeacon Borislav
Charitable giving is only edifying for both of the parties if it is done willingly. The government sticking a hand into our wallets, taking our hard earned money and redistributing it to other people is not only NOT beneficial to our spiritual growth, but rather detrimental. It breeds resentment, jealousy, even hatred and class tension. Neither is this kind of pseudo giving beneficial for the party who receives. Gratitude and a drive to improve ones living conditions is replaced by a feeling of entitlement.


Canadian citizens see things very differently. They elect governments which legislate laws which encourage people to have children. Social programs include health care, 1 full year of fully paid maternaty leave, and many other benefits. Canadians do not feel that the Canadian government is "sticking a hand into their wallets", they are electing governments which are PROMOTING LIFE. CANADIANS PUT THEIR MONEY BIHIND LIFE PROMOTING SOCIAL PROGRAMS.

As for the rest of your NONESENSE, I come from a long line of anti-communists. My grandfather and my father fought the Russian Bolsheviks, and neither collaborated with the Soviets. Both emigrated to Canada, and both managed to become quite prosperous, without cheating or stealing. NEVER EVER would either one of them have denied their fellow countrymen the SAME basis health care they received in Canada. "If an employee is good enough to clean my toilet, then they are good enough for the same health care I receive" was my father's saying. Your statement that social healthcare creates resentment is absolutely "hooey" as you would say. Canadians get along much better than USA citizens. Just read the crime statistics for both countries and you will understand what I mean.

I.F.

Last edited by Jean Francois; 07/22/09 08:20 PM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
When private charity is considered, the United States contributes more to international development per capita than any other country. Beyond that, there have been a number of studies that show an inverse correlation between government welfare spending and personal charity.

Jean Francois' home state of New York, for instance, has one of the highest levels of government social spending in the United States (including its infamous imploding health care system), and one of the lowest levels of personal charitable giving. Conversely, the states with the lowest levels of government social spending have the highest per capita levels of private charitable giving, covering all levels of income.

I also submit that Jean Francois knows very little of what is happening in Canada today--or if he does, he chooses to redact that which he chooses to acknowledge.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
I think perhaps we should also all pitch in (a form a private charity!) to buy Jean Francois a copy of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 473
Originally Posted by haydukovich
It is falso to assume that legislation will not reduce abortions.

It is a FACT that if there is a law outlawing abortions - abortions go WAY DOWN.


God bless anyone who encourages women to keep their children !

However, legislation does not in fact reduce the number of abortions. Simply look a the statistic I posted and you will notice that in countries which have outlawed abortions, the women simply seek illegal abortions and the total number are about the same when compared with similar countries. If women can't get them legally, then they get them illegally.

I.F.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5