Replies

yes RJR generalized too much too much, but at some level the criticism is valid—physicians abandoned that oath. we should have never accepted abortionists or pro-homo shrinks, but even more to your point, we probably never should have accepted medicare. The health care profession should have figured out a way to do this without govt. IF we had really been as committed Christians as we should have been, once govt took over schools, individual locales should have pulled out and set up something private. If there is a will, there is a way.

Not to defend RJR (mostly because I don't know exactly what it meant completely), but I think one of the points trying to be made was that since there have been 30 mil abortions since the Supremes pulled the whole "privacy" out of thin air, there are 30 mil less people for jobs, 30 mil less consumers, and 30 mil less taxpayers. Seeing the post-war spike in births (the boomers), someone could have thought, "Well, with this kind of numbers, we could make something that could really work," extrapolating the population needed to support such things. But the lives cut down by abortion, and the productivity that would've come with them, makes Medicare and SS intenable. Add the colossal drain on the system that comes from illegal immigrants, and it's an unworkable scenario.

I feel bad for doctors. What are they to do? Have a quota of Medicare/non-paying patients that, once reached, isn't exceeded for economic reasons? "Nah, take anybody," sez the gvt., and then hospitals close and everyone wonders why. It's like education: All the special programs that are in place to help the children of illiterate illegals, wasting the money that could help advance even further the children of literate citizens. Here in Gawdhelpus-ifornia, test scores would soar, employment would rise, and the gaping hole in the budget would be closed (or at least shrunk) if the illegals were deported. But nobody's going to even approach that until the system fails completely.

I’ll go you one further. Not only should we not have accepted abortionists, we should have never accepted abortion. When the Roe v. Wade decision came down, every pro-life person, regardless of creed, should have flooded the streets in protest. And we should have never continued voting in politicians who continued to pass legislation that only strengthened access to abortion.

We can’t blame pro-life physicians for “allowing” abortionists to be accepted in the medical profession (which most, if not all, don’t accept as “doctors”).

It also would have helped in the religious leaders in this country would have been more courageous in opposing the Roe v. Wade from the very beginning. As a Roman Catholic, I certainly don’t exempt the bishops in the U.S. I think they could have done much, much more to shut down abortion. A real threat of excommunication to any Catholic judges and politicians voting to advance abortion, backed up by carrying out the threat may well have slowed the number of abortions to a crawl. It probably would have not stopped it completely, because we have always had abortion. But, instead of the 50 million (Yes, RJR, your figure is about 20 million too low) the numbers would be relatively miniscule. Still horrific, but not so much as what has happened.