Bravo! Good doctors and healthcare workers shouldn’t be bullied out of the profession just because in caring for the unborn child along with the woman who carries it.

“‘Women’s ability to manage their own health care is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology,’ Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.”
So basically, to protect the right to choose…the government should force people to do things against their will.
…
God bless.

Bravo! Let the women who want to destroy through abortion think a little deeper and act a bit more responsibly.

And this could lead, as Planned Parenthood mentions, to pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control pills, or the morning after pill etc. because it violates their religious beliefs. Some of those yo-yo pharmacists are already pulling that stuff.
A person can refuse to clean instruments that were used in an abortion? Give me a break!

cknuck:
Women DO think very, very deep and hard and angonize over their decision to abort. You would have no way of knowing…absolutely NO WAY! They act responsibly….for the situation they are in. Like I said, you’d have no way of knowing. Hopefully if there is a doctor who refuses, they can find another close by, and wouldn’t have to do the procedure themselves…the trusty, deadly, coat hanger.

Bush’s administration is leaving something else for all to remember them by, and they still have a few more months to go!
If this goes through Medical Facilities won’t be able to pick doctors that present a united front for all patients, because they can’t turn any doctor away that won’t be of one mind to be a united group for all patients. This doesn’t seem right to me legally. I think some challenging will occur before this is passed.

I understood they could already refuse to participate in abortions. It sounds to me like they are requiring a lot of needless paperwork and perhaps are trying to give anti-abortion, anti-birth control groups leverage over hospitals and clinics and businesses just trying to do their jobs.

Pagansister,
Why don’t you go get a job cleaning up the mess after radical Islamists stone their wives and daughters?
For all the preaching you do about how we need to understand the hard decisions that women have to make concerning abortion (even while never giving us any clue as to why the difficulty of their decision matters in determining the ethics of abortion), you’re strangely unsympathetic to those healthcare workers who enter the profession hoping to help others and may find themselves in situations where they are pressured to do what is in their minds the very opposite of helping. That’s a tad hypocritical.
And how often would a woman HAVE to have to perform an abortion procedure on their own, whether they have a doctor or not? You can’t try to pin the choice (you’re pro-CHOICE, remember?) of a woman to risk her own health on the decision of a doctor to refuse to do what in his or her mind is committing murder. The responsibility falls squarely on the woman making the choice, and perhaps on those who directly on indirectly pressure her into choosing abortion; none of it falls on doctors following their consciences.

I’m curious Nate what has radical Islamists stoning their wives and daughters have to do with this article? And then asking ps why she doesn’t get a job cleaning up the mess, that’s pretty disgusting, what are you trying to say?

Henrietta,
Pagansister seems baffled that someone might object to cleaning up the mess after a murder, so I think she should go take a job cleaning up messes after murders.

What murder? This is about abortion, which is not murder.

To someone who is pro-life, abortion is murder. Asking them to clean up the tools used to perform an abortion is asking them to clean up the tools used to do what they believe to be murder. If you can’t grasp why someone might protest that, you utterly lack the kind of imagination needed for serious moral debate.
Seriously, you folks are some of the worst I’ve ever seen at understanding and sympathizing with the motives of people who don’t think the way you do. You ought to practice up on that.

Nate W:
Yes, the woman is responsible for making the decision, and a doctor can refuse. However he/she should be able to give the woman the choice of another doctor who will do the procedure. Desperate women have tried to do the abortion themselves for many reasons. Being denied one without the benefit of another doctor to turn to can/could cause her to try it herself. Pressure brought on by her by someone else can also force the issue. A woman should always have a legal and safe facility for an abortion.
What “ethics” of abortion? It isn’t murder, which is a term you like to use. It is a personal decision made by a woman. No murder involved. Unless you have been faced with this decision, you would have no idea what it is like to have to make it. You are a man…and will never have to face an unwanted pregnancy. Don’t preach to a woman about something you have never had to face.
Do I have no sympathy for healthcare workers? If they have moral problems dealing with the possibility of working during an abortion, then perhaps they should be in the health care field working in an ER or on the urology floor, or the cancer ward, or the orthopedic floor etc. and then they won’t have to face the procedure you call murder. Simple solution. Hard to refuse to help blast kidney stones, or set a broken bone, or do surgery on a cancer patient. Those things might be morally acceptable.
Sorry I can’t help clean up the mess made by radical Islamists who have stoned their wives and daughters…as I don’t live in that part of the world, Nate. Would those be wives and daughters who have strayed and gotten pregnant or forgotten to wear the face coverings? Haven’t figured out what that has to do with this article.

Amazing how a person can change religions and just buy into every tenet, forgetting there is another side.
Relax ladies, there will always be plenty of doctors who will assist with an abortion, and the religious wrong is a dying breed. Christianity will got the way it has in Europe – die out.

If it is not a rape case, the desperate feelings the woman is experiencing is little compared to the child depending on its mother for life. For the woman it is inconvenience, for the baby it is life. I believe that women should be more responsible.
Pagan no disrespect intended but you can no more know how all women feel about aborting babies than me. Although I admire your sentimental projections (I think you are a loving person) but it is impossible to speak for all women. I’ve seen some examples that definitely not fit your sentimental profile of pregnant women, too ugly to recount.

“If it is not a rape case, the desperate feelings the woman is experiencing is little compared to the child depending on its mother for life.”
Very emotional; a child depending on its mother for its life. No doubt hoping its mother won’t abort it. Don’t you think that’s a little precocious for a blastocyst or zygote or embryo or fetus even?

Reading through the comments on this subject is like watching spoiled children fight over a toy. Even a backwoods Catholic like myself can see the hopeless direction of this one. Pax!

cknuck:
It would seem obvious that not every woman is going to angonize over having an abortion, thus I don’t claim to “speak for all.” IMO all women should think long and hard, but I’m sure not all do. The women I know, a couple close to me, did think long and hard and under the circumstances it had to be done. Being a woman puts me in a different position than you, cknuck. I think I can relate a lot more to the women in the situation of having to comtemplate the procedure than you, being a man.
I know you consider a group of cells as a “person.” We disagree on this. That group of cells isn’t thinking about anything. I don’t think it is crying out to it’s host to not terminate it. Is there a point where I think a woman should go ahead and finish a pregnancy? Yes. If she can’t make up her mind withing 3 months, then she should seriously consider finishing the term. However there are medical reasons etc, where such pregnancies can’t be carried to term. BUT after having said that…it is not my place to make up another woman’s mind as to whether she should or should not terminate after 3 to 3 1/2 months.

Pagansister,
As is typical for you and your allies here, you’re just trying to shut down any possibility of conversation by denying that there’s even any debate to had on the issue of abortion. Like it or not, there is moral debate surrounding the abortion issue, and you’re not going to win anyone to your side by trying to tell us we’re not even allowed to talk about it. I say, given the fact that you’re not a radical Muslim man who will ever be tempted to stone your adulterous wife, you ought to have no opinion on the matter. What, you don’t like that? Get a taste of your own medicine, and quit trying to use that idiotic line of reasoning that a man can’t have an opinion on abortion just because he can’t get pregnant (and I notice you never insist on that principle when a man is defending abortion, but only when he questions it).
You are utterly incapable of public moral reasoning if you think that no one is allowed to comment on issues that they themselves don’t have to face directly. We’re all part of the human community together, and we all are entrusted together with defending human dignity everywhere. I don’t have to keep my mouth shut just because I’m not a woman who might be pregnant, just because I’m not a master who might have to discipline a lazy slave, just because I’m not a radical Islamist who might not have to kill an unfaithful wife.
Can you seriously not follow what my comment on the Muslim women has to do with the article, or are you just feigning ignorance? You act baffled that someone should not want to clean up after an abortion–SOMTHING THEY BELIEVE TO BE MURDER. So if you’ve got no problem cleaning up murder instruments, why don’t you go get a job doing that? Why don’t you get a job cleaning up the tools radicals use to kill their wives and daughters? You can’t understand why someone would object to be involved in murder, after all.

“Very emotional; a child depending on its mother for its life. No doubt hoping its mother won’t abort it. Don’t you think that’s a little precocious for a blastocyst or zygote or embryo or fetus even?”
“blastocyst or zygote or embryo or fetus” a human is still a human regardless the only difference in the stages is the human’s inability to care for itself. A mother is still a mother at any of these stages.

This is a horrible decision. For the women involved in such a decision I hope they can find a doctor thats willing to do the procedure. Ive herd of cases where pharmacists refuse to give out birth controle even though its there job to give out perscriptions! The way I see it, if a person has a job that might require them to do something that goes against their faith then causes them not to be able to do their job, they need to FIND ANOTHER JOB!!

I don’t think that healthcare workers should be forced to do something against their consciences, but if they refuse to perform such procedures they shouldn’t get any protection under the law if their employer decides to fire them on the spot for non-performance.
Don’t want to perform abortions? Apply at a hospital that doesn’t agree to perform them. Don’t want to sell contraceptives or the morning-after pill? Don’t get into the pharmaceutical business. Piece of cake.
There’s a reason PETA members don’t work in slaughterhouses and pacifists don’t join the military. Should obessive-compulsive garbagemen be allowed to keep their jobs if they refuse to get dirty? What about a federal judge that refuses to issue verdicts because they take “Judge not lest ye be judged” literally? For crying out loud, if you can’t do the job, stay out of the profession!

Nate, when have I ever said a man can’t comment? Lots of men on this blog have, including you. That is what these blogs are for. Comment, not always agreement.
However I do find it difficult to say that a man can totally relate AS a woman, anymore than I could totally relate as a man.
If someone doesn’t want to clean up after an abortion, they shouldn’t be there to begin with. That’s easy. Isn’t that what this article is about? Those folks shouldn’t put themselves in that position. However someone has to clean up after surgeries. So the unwilling person should be able to provide a substitute. Legal protection for the unwilling person? Not necessarily. As to the stoning of women and children. That is murder, unlike IMO, a safe and clean abortion. Sorry, I’m still not in an Islamic country at the moment. Would I clean up after that situation? If I was there, yes. Can I relate to a radical Muslim man and want to harm my wife or daughter? The relating I can do to that is to find it very sad that someone would take their religion so seriously that they think a mistake is worth killing a family member for. A radical woman might have the same feelings…and I can ralate to that. BTW, I didn’t have a problem with your attempted comparison.
Jay and Thelemite:
Agree. IF a person doesn’t want to do abortions, don’t work where they might be requested…and if a pharmacist can’t fill a RX for birth control pills or morning after pills etc., then they’re in the wrong field.

Pagansister,
You wrote: “When have I ever said a man can’t comment?”
You also wrote: “Don’t preach to a woman about something you have never had to face.” You’ve made statements to that effect many times. So am I, as a man, allowed to express my opinion on the morality of abortion, or not?
Sure, I admit that I can’t relate to the woman’s situation closely as another women might, but why you always feel the need to bring that up, I don’t know. What point does reminding me of the obvious have? I’m not claiming to be able to relate perfectly to a woman in that situation, and I’m not saying I’m the one who should be counseling women faced with an unplanned pregnancy. All I’m saying is that abortion is immoral, and that statement won’t change no matter how well I can relate to women, because my opinion is not based my ability or inability to relate to the woman but on my beliefs about when the unborn become members of the human community. So again, why repeat the obvious over and over again?
I’m also very confused when you say that you wouldn’t mind getting a job cleaning up the instruments used to kill adulterous women. You seriously would have no problem assisting in committing murder? Something’s not right here.
And hey, if the government is giving money to a healthcare provider, they can set whatever rules they want regarding how they deal with the doctors, including exempting them from having to be involved in abortion. That shouldn’t be controversial in the slightest. Don’t take government money if you don’t like it.

Yes it’s pretty simple. If you aren’t willing to do a job, get a different job. If they change the terms of the job you already have, that’s tougher but that’s not the case here.
Now when is Bush going to protect soldiers who don’t care to fight and kill in stupid and illegal and needless wars?

Embyos, zgotes, and fetus’s are not children, if they were the pregnant women would be able to claim them on their government tax return. So money given to healthcare providers for abortions for abortions when needed shouldn’t be considered illegal or murdering children. If Roe vs Wade is taken away as the pro-lifers want than we tax-payers will be paying more taxes to compensate “cells” that are considered children on their tax-returns. Does this make sense to everyone?

“why you always feel the need to bring that up, I don’t know. What point does reminding me of the obvious have?”
Why do you keep reminding us you don’t care for abortion? You’ve said that ad nauseam. What point does reminding us of the obvious have?

“And hey, if the government is giving money to a healthcare provider, they can set whatever rules they want regarding how they deal with the doctors, including exempting them from having to be involved in abortion.”
Uh, Nate, in case you hadn’t noticed that government money is OUR money. And of course it can determine what providers stay in business and what ones don’t. So clearly we should all have a say in how it gets spent, not just GWB.

Nate, if I was a nurse and part of my job was assisting in an abortion, yes, I’d do my job. As I said, I don’t think an abortion is murder.
What adulterous women are you talking about?????? Is that what the stoning of the wife and/or daughter you’re talking about is supposed to have done to “deserve” the stoning? I just figured you were trying to compare abortion to a overly zealous Muslim man stoning his wife for whatever reason he felt necessary. Stoning women to death is murder…using the excuse of religion as a reason.
It is obvious you find abortion unacceptable…you’ve made that clear a lot. Got it. My opinion and yours won’t come together in agreement.

Pagansister,
Please try to follow this very simple line of thinking that you don’t seem to be grasping. I’ll lay it out step-by-step to make it easier for you:
1. You are shocked that people would object to cleaning the tools used to perform abortions.
2. Those people think abortion is murder.
3. Those people are objecting to cleaning tools used for murder, that is, they don’t want to have blood on their hands.
4. Therefore, you are shocked that people would refuse to participate in murder.
5. I assume you consider the stoning of adulterous women by radical Islamists to be murder.
6. I want to know if you would object to being told to assist in stoning the women.
7. That is, I want to know if you would object to being told to assist in what you would consider murder.
8. If you would object, as I assume you would, then you have no reason to be shocked when other people object to assisting in what they consider murder, that is, healthcare workers being asked to clean up instruments that will be used for an abortion.
The problem that you frequently display is a complete lack of understanding for anyone who doesn’t agree with you. For all your talk about how important it is for me to be able to relate with women who might be considering abortion–something I do work hard very hard to do, and something I constantly insist my pro-life allies need to all be working very hard to do–you, here and in so many other discussions, display a lack of the kind of imagination required to get inside the head of people who make decisions you disagree with, an inability to really sympathize with them and understand exactly why they make the decisions they do. That’s why you can be shocked that someone would protest to cleaning up abortion tools, or break laws against handing out Bibles, or whatever. None of this should be so shocking or silly to you–just like the reasons that so many women turn to abortion are not at all shocking or silly or petty to me–if you really made the effort to understand those you disagree with.
I mean no offense, and this isn’t just your problem. It’s the problem of the vast majority of human beings. I’ve had the opportunity to pursue an educational track that emphasizes stepping outside of my own worldview and imagining the world from diverse perspectives, and as I grow in those skills, it can be quite infuriating when I look all around me and see the majority of people on any side of any issue lacking the ability to really understand what it is that they’re arguing against.
The only way a person can ever openly and honestly engage a different point of view is if they have taken the leap of imagination required to sympathize with that point of view so completely as to almost start believing it. The only people who can be intelligently pro-choice are those who have been tempted to be pro-life, and the only ones who can be intelligently pro-life are those who have been tempted to be pro-choice. That’s what it takes to grapple with the issue seriously.

Am I shocked, as you seem to think, that a person wouldn’t want to clean the tools used in an abortion procedure? No. Why did you think I was shocked? Shock is when something is unexpected..that isn’t unexpected.
Lack of understanding for those that don’t agree with me? At times, I expect so. I just write what I think. I certainly don’t expect folks to always agree with me…that would be unrealistic. This would be a boring world if everyone agreed…and this site would be boring if everyone agreed.
I can relate to the person who wouldn’t assist in the abortion procedure and how they feel, however that person should not put themselves in the facility that performs one.
Already said that stoning is murder…several times. Since I’m not a Muslim or male, I wouldn’t be asked to assist in that situation…thus not putting myself in a situation that would assist that murder.
It is obvious that you are a student. Learning tolerance for folks that don’t look at things like you do is part of that education. You will meet few people who think like you are being trained to do. Chances are you will be in a job that will have like thinkers. Education should also be teaching tolerance…and not making you “infuriated” when your line of thought isn’t obvious to everyone. The comparison to stoning is an example.

The above at 9:55PM Aug. 22 is mostly for…NateW. Forgot to address him.

H22 quote “Embyos, zgotes, and fetus’s are not children, if they were the pregnant women would be able to claim them on their government tax return.”
I think it is easy to do harm to someone if people deem them non-human, it’s a very old tactic. To say tax exemption is a reason to determine when a human is a human is imo a poor argument. Who gets to say who is human and who is not? Historically it has been those in power. Embryos, zygotes and fetus according to my God are people, people who depend upon those in power for their lives if people in power cut off compassion then embryos, zygotes and fetus die if not then they grow up to be you and me.

A country that fights for artificial inseminations, test tube babies, cloning and at the same time abortion really ought to take a long look in the mirror.

“I think it is easy to do harm to someone if people deem them non-human”
Indeed, that’s sop if, for instance, you want to fight a war. But blacks, Jews, Darfurians, Palestinians, etc. are clearly people and the only way to consider blastocysts, zygotes and embryos as people is to define them to be. Later term fetuses are getting much closer and of course Roe v. Wade gives them a lot more protection, as is reasonable.
Just as de-humanizing people can be used to set them up for harm, humanizing things can bring them sympathy they don’t deserve. So I’ll continue to point out the error of calling them human.

Blacks, Jews, Darfurians, and Palestinians are not clearly fully human persons. Neither is it clear that blastocysts, zygotes and embryos are not. At least not to everyone. You need to get it through your head that what’s obvious to you isn’t obvious to everyone, and that what you think is true isn’t true just because you think it is.

Pagansister wrote: “A person can refuse to clean instruments that were used in an abortion? Give me a break!” As if it’s shocking that someone might be exempted from participating in what they deem murder.
By the way, pagansister, what’s infuriating is not that you disagree with me, it’s that you repeatedly refuse to accurately represent the intentions and convictions of those who disagree with you. That’s why to you everything the Pope does has to be part of some sinister plan to hold onto power, any pro-life rhetoric is just the ramblings of men who don’t understand what women have to deal with, anyone who doesn’t respect China’s restrictions of religious freedom and freedom of speech is just some arrogant “ultra Christian” who would just as soon undermine all social order as play by someone else’s rules. That’s infuriating, because it reduces all discussion to noise and fighting, because no one is taking the other side seriously enough to move anything forward towards resolution.
Okay, some might find it boring to read their opponent’s position with charity, but that’s the only way a discussion can have any real purpose beyond just ranting.
I guess I don’t belong in Internet discussions. I guess I belong in academia, where people actually know how to disagree with others instead of misrepresenting others.

Read my comment on children and taxes again ck. I didn’t call cells non-human, of course they are ‘growing to be’ children, but they are not children until they are far along and born. If the pro-life considers them children in the beginning stage then will they next ask the government to declare this belief they hold to be valid? Of course they will it’s all or nothing with their mentality. If they are considered children from cell one then they will want to deduct them off of their income tax as full grown children. Sounds far-fetched, silly and incoherent, as Nate called a comment I made to him, but that is the way I view the RR, silly and incohherent most of the time.

NateW., If you’re going to quote me, please be accurate: From my last post: “Am I shocked, as you seem to think, that a person wouldn’t want to clean the tools used in an abortion procedure? No.” And yes,you did quote the other statement correctly, because if the person was in the room during the procedure, then she/he would also be expected to help clean up. If they weren’t in the room, due to “moral” reasons, then no problem with the expectation of clean up.
As to Benny 16 and his plans…he certainly wants to retain it…being powerful (or as he preceives himself to be) is a big high. I stick by my statements, and I respect yours….just don’t happen to agree with them. I write my thoughts. I have never thought like a philosopher. Not how my brain works. Lots of black and white in my thinking and some gray. That’s just the way it is. I run a lot on emotion, especially when it comes to women’s rights.
Misrepresenting others? Would we be talking about Benny 16, of the Bible pushers etc.? They are easy to see through…so I doubt I’m the only one who sees that.
You are serious, and so am I. IMO, being “infuriated” over an internet post is a bit extreme.

nnmns quote:
“Just as de-humanizing people can be used to set them up for harm, humanizing things can bring them sympathy they don’t deserve. So I’ll continue to point out the error of calling them human.”
They are certainly not another species or a non-species glob of spit or snot nnmns they are of the human species already and deserve the right to live. Just because people have the power to kill them does not make it right. If people were more responsible in procreation then it is less likely we would need to have the abortion procedure be so casual.
H22
To project a non-existing scenario and call the RR silly and incoherent because you think, they will think is not an argument at all H22 just projections and name calling and bias revealing. I know you are just eager to persuade your debaters and you do have a good heart but so do your debaters.
Nate hang in there you do belong in the debate I like much of your arguments and I see a great deal of civility and compassion in your post. We all don’t have to agree but we must treat each other as equal voice if we desire a good and fair world. Remember John 3:16 and Paul being stoned got back up brushed himself off and went back into the town to reason again with the townspeople.

I never used the word human, jut child. I’m not trying to persuade anyone to think as I do, just to think about this subject with more depth. Thanks for recognizing that I have a good heart, Im known for that with people who know me. I think you do, too ck, we just look at our beliefs differently.

I don’t get it. If a doctor has the religious rights to deny an abortion due to religious beliefs, then why are they not allowed to deny other medical attention to gays and lesbians due to religious beliefs? How can they approve one and deny the other?

I_Like_Dragyn,
For one thing, one is discrimination, and the other is not.
There aren’t many schools of religous thought out there that say it’s wrong to give medical aid to a gay or a lesbian, anyway. I’ve been around some VERY anti-homosexual Christians, and I’ve never met one person I have reason to believe would deny medical attention to a person for being gay. That’s just not part of the religion.

Nate during the early eighties when AIDS jumped out in our society as being recognizable many doctors, dentists, Eye doctors, and other medical related people were rejecting HIV patients, they may or may not have been christian. They were frightened of the disease and didn’t want to have anything to do with it. It was rather I would think like being a leper. You didn’t live back then or if you did you were probably in diapers. Lucky you. I lived it.

Henrietta,
I’m not sure what being frightened of a disease that no one yet fully understood has to do with the topic at hand. Is rejecting someone with any disease wrong? Sure. But how does it relate to the discussion?

Well there are some people out there who think Christians are somehow better, more upstanding people than others. I think Henrietta’s example shows (unless someone can provide documented evidence to the contrary) that Christians aren’t outstandingly more likely (if at all) than others to treat cases they are afraid of. If they had almost always been willing to take AIDS cases I’d think people would remember that.

Okay, but what does that have to do with anything?

“I’m also very confused when you say that you wouldn’t mind getting a job cleaning up the instruments used to kill adulterous women. You seriously would have no problem assisting in committing murder? Something’s not right here.” NateW
This is not logical. Someone who cleans up after a murder is not necessarily implicated in that murder. If it were so then crime scene cleaners (yes, there are people who do that) would be, in this way of thinking, accomplices to the crime. The nurse who simply cleans the instruments after an abortion while not taking part herself is the medical equivalent to the crime scene cleaners (not that I feel that abortion is murder, just trying to use Nate’s logic).

This is one of the nastiest arguments I’ve seen on this site. I’ve seen some bad ones, but this is one of the worst.

MReap:
Like your take on subject of cleaning up messes.

MReep,
No, you’ve missed some key distinctions between someone who cleans up crime scenes and someone who has a job cleaning up the instruments for abortions. Most importantly, the job of the person cleaning up crime scenes doesn’t exist to facilitate future crimes. The job of nurses cleaning up and preparing instruments used for abortion, or for killing criminals, etc., DOES exist for the purpose of facilitating the killing.
Compare it to the job of someone cleaning rifles. If you’re cleaning rifles for use by the SWAT team, and one of the members of the team goes insane and uses his rifle to go on a killing spree, no one is going to accuse you of being an accomplice. If you’ve got a job cleaning rifles for the mafia after they do their killing, you’re a few steps closer to being an accomplice in the killing, because you’re knowingly and willfully helping facilitate the murders.

Nate, are you ever wrong?

Sure, I’m wrong sometimes, and I freely admit it, when people address my arguments and point out the holes in them. But around here, people rarely actually address my arguments, so I suppose if I am wrong, I’ll never know it, because no one ever gives me a reason to think I am.

Whoa!

nnmns usually you have understandable arguments but your last statement concerning AIDS totally escapes me. Is it the result of some type of strange survey?

cknuck it was a bit obscure. Henrietta wrote of doctors, dentists, etc. rejecting patients with AIDS. If, as some people believe, Christians are more upstanding citizens that was an opportunity for Christian practitioners to set good examples. I’m not aware that happened (I said someone might provide evidence to the contrary.) Thus I concluded Christians aren’t more upstanding than others, at least in that way.
Not a strong argument, I acknowledge, but it’s frustrating when Christians assume other Christians are better people than non-Christians.