It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Priest Warns Obama: Better Knock the Catholic Church Out NOW

page: 12
35
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


Right, you won't touch it because you cannot argue your points anymore.




posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKillah

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SilentKillah
 


No, you told us here that we should be willing to pay the extra 5 bucks. And you also said our premiums were going to rise due to the ozone depletion. You must be a crystal ball gazer too in addition to having many catfish poles dangling in the water.
What is the difference if it is you or someone else we are talking about here? Extra 10,000 in taxes? Well, wouldn't that also depend on my income? Oh wait, POTUS is raising everyone's taxes regardless of contraception. I've talked about rising inflation. Now you are trying to tell me I don't deserve to have my cable connection unless I also pay for someone else's frikken contraception? You are just engaging in a dialogue in relativity.


*Raised eyebrow* Lol... I don't know whether you're being serious anymore or just being funny. Either way, I'm not touching on this until you can make some sense out of it.



You seem to be saying that since I likely do not watch every channel on cable that I have paid for, that means I should have no trouble paying extra for contraception. So because I cannot control the garbage on some of those channels I ought not to try and control paying extra for someone else's contraception. That just makes so much sense.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No... I won't touch it because I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. big difference there. Look at the last thing I said.. "until you can make sense out of it". Meaning, when you can express it more clearly.


Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
You seem to be saying that since I likely do not watch every channel on cable that I have paid for, that means I should have no trouble paying extra for contraception. So because I cannot control the garbage on some of those channels I ought not to try and control paying extra for someone else's contraception. That just makes so much sense.


That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that many arguments here (not specifically saying yours) have to do with healthcare offering payment for services that some will use and others will not. Many people are saying that they don't want to pay for services that they will not use for whatever reason... being disagreement in the service, lack of need of the service, or any other reason. My point is that when it comes to cable, these same people don't view it the same way (i.e. paying an increased healthcare premium for contraception and abortion). But it's VERY LIKELY as someone else stated (sorry I can't remember the exact post) that healthcare premiums will actually lower because of the fewer child births that will occur as well.

edit on 12-3-2012 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Is it just me, or whenever there are pressing issues that need to be widely discussed and examined, somebody just whips out that old bogeyman: the female reproductive system. Dangle the ladyparts in front of a concerned and riled voter base, and watch the real issues wither away from lack of popular focus.

I am upset over having to underwrite a lot of things. Female reproductive health is not one of them.

By the way, are you guys enjoying the Viagra? Awesome, glad it's covered under most plans.



edit on 12-3-2012 by Eidolon23 because:



Does the Catholic Church cover it? I thought the issue was the Catholic Church and not just any plan? I oppose the Un Affordable Health Care Plan to begin with, and Sandra Fluke is lobbying for more free stuff. When does this ever end? Is it really fair for everyone's premiums to go up so that others don't have to pay?



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sarra1833
And condoms and terminations aren't that expensive. We should be able to pay for those out of pocket if needed. Just to clarify a bit more for the op's question. The former should be made available to everyone openly. The latter on an 'as needed' basis as there are many numerous reasons why that would be a sad thought to have to ponder going through. I trust if having one was necessary, the lover, friends, family would try to help if it was an issue getting 500 - 700 dollars up, you know? Anyway, the latter /is/ no ones business but those who are going through it.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKillah
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No... I won't touch it because I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. big difference there. Look at the last thing I said.. "until you can make sense out of it". Meaning, when you can express it more clearly.


Silent, you are telling me that because I may pay for cable channels I don't watch(my choice) I should also be willing to pay for contraception I don't use so that someone else can have it free.(not my choice).
edit on 12-3-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Why, yes, they totally do cover Viagra.


www.npr.org...


The answer on Viagra coverage is usually yes, Catholic leaders say. And they argue that's neither hypocritical nor sexist.

Procreation is something the Catholic church encourages. And Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs can be of help.


I'm so glad you asked.

ETA: The issue appeared to have been generalized beyond the original event. People had transitioned from griping over the state bullying the Church; and right into not wanting to subsidize birth control at all, period. So, I thought I'd just jump in on where the conversation had ended up.

edit on 12-3-2012 by Eidolon23 because: eta.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I'd rather have the option of contraception... then to have someone behind the scenes culling us at their own personal discretion to cut costs.
edit on 12-3-2012 by shushu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by shushu
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I'd rather have the option of contraception... then to have someone behind the scenes culling us at their own personal discretion to cut costs.
edit on 12-3-2012 by shushu because: (no reason given)


Are you saying you'd rather kill your kids to save your own ass?



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Silent, you are telling me that because I may pay for cable channels I don't watch(my choice) I should also be willing to pay for contraception I don't use so that someone else can have it free.(not my choice).
edit on 12-3-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


No... I am not telling you that you SHOULD do anything. I've already stated that I don't care what you do.

What I am saying is that THE POINTS that people make against not wanting to pay increased healthcare insurance are invalid simply because they do it on a daily basis and at a higher increase of a premium at that! If people could only pay for the 5-6 TV stations that they actually watch, cable bills would be far less than what they currently are. YET, nobody complains about that fact! Once again here... I'm making a general statement by saying 5-6 stations... not saying YOU.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Under Water

Originally posted by shushu
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I'd rather have the option of contraception... then to have someone behind the scenes culling us at their own personal discretion to cut costs.
edit on 12-3-2012 by shushu because: (no reason given)


Are you saying you'd rather kill your kids to save your own ass?


Not everyone sees a fetus as a KID. My kids are running around and playing at home every day. One of them is in school. While they were in my wife's uterus, they were her property. If she wanted to terminate, I AS HER OWN HUSBAND had no say in that. I could argue, but at the end of the day it's her body and she can do what she wants to with it. Period!!!



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKillah

Originally posted by Under Water

Originally posted by shushu
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I'd rather have the option of contraception... then to have someone behind the scenes culling us at their own personal discretion to cut costs.
edit on 12-3-2012 by shushu because: (no reason given)


Are you saying you'd rather kill your kids to save your own ass?


Not everyone sees a fetus as a KID. My kids are running around and playing at home every day. One of them is in school. While they were in my wife's uterus, they were her property. If she wanted to terminate, I AS HER OWN HUSBAND had no say in that. I could argue, but at the end of the day it's her body and she can do what she wants to with it. Period!!!


Oh it's HER body right? What about the body insider her's? Your own child. It has no rights? And you don't care what she does with YOUR child? You heartless SOB.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Under Water
 


I'm saying that I'd rather have the choice of opting out of contibuting to the world population problem via birth control... than to have some secret gov't entity culling people on the sly... thinking nobody's paying attention... when in actuality somebody is paying attention. Me.
edit on 12-3-2012 by shushu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by something wicked
 



why do you think religeous groups should not be allowed to lobby government?


Because I believe that the seperation of church and state should go both ways.

I also believe that if the church is going to be tax exempt, then they should not be involved in politics. If they start lobbying to push their own religous beliefs into law or if they start endorsing specific candidates or parties...then they should lose that tax exemption. The tax exemption is in place so they are specifically not burdened by government...in turn, they shouldn't try to influence that same government.

And this goes for all religions IMO as long as they are recieving the tax exempt, they should stay silent on political issues and just follow the law of the land.


Hi Outkast,

While I respect your opinion, I can't agree with it. The right or not to have the right to abortion shouldn't even be a political matter - are you saying that areas of society are not allowed to have an opinion on this? Why is religion any different from any other part of society? Tax exemption from what I understand is given to all recognised religions, and of course anyone or business that qualifies - do none of them have a right to a voice, even if it is not agreed with?



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Under Water
Oh it's HER body right? What about the body insider her's? Your own child. It has no rights? And you don't care what she does with YOUR child? You heartless SOB.


Hey... there's no point in name calling here. And you're right... that fetus has no rights. Why? Because it's not a human being. It can't breathe air, it can't cry when it's hurt, it can't do anything but what the mother's body tells it. From your logic, I guess we should jail women who have developed natural defenses to fetuses and their bodies encourage a termination of the fetus. Better yet, lets jail god because he's heartless enough to terminate fetuses for no reason as well. Lets not forget that your child is going to die one day because god is going to kill him/her. "And you don't care about what" god "does with your child?" How could you be so cold.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I don't think the catholic church has any room to talk, seeing as how they have quite a few problems going on internally like the child sex abuse problems and other sex scandals as well. They don't have the right to say much of anything, they need a severe wake up call. This isn't the dark ages anymore and any power they thought they had on people dwindled away centuries ago, the catholic church is to be shunned for all the problems, lies, murder, and greed and last but not least genocide it is built upon. The lies they tried to spin about the knights templar being evil & corrupt is a laugh and untrue. The vatican & catholic church are the greedy murderers they took money from a greedy genocidal king, to try to get rid of the templar knights it was a frame up job and pretty much a paid for death warrant lllegal even then.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I was just wondering :

What costs the most? Pay for an abortion for people that don't even have the money to pay for it or pay them for 18 years to raise a child that they can't afford / don't want to have?

IMO the abortion should be free for people without means. The ones who have enough money should pay for it themselves.

IMO Religion must stay out of this at any cost. In fact, religion must stay out of everything that can affect the whole population of a country. Not everyone in a country have faith in these religions.

People can decide for themselves what they want to do. If they think it would be better for them to get an abortion, then let it be. If not, then let it be.

They should stop trying to force people into those religious "crap". They are all the same and all they want is your money and your time to achieve any goal they may have. They really don't care about you as an individual. (sounds like big brother).

Peace out.


edit on 12-3-2012 by bigwig22 because: typos (a lot..)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigwig22
reply to post by seabag
 


I was just wondering :

What costs the most? Pay for an abortion for people that even don't have the money for it or pay them for 18 years to raise a child that they can't afford / don't want to have?



Just wondering...why do you assume that these parents won't get jobs and become responsible parents? My dad and mom certainly didn't expect me to come along especially since they were only married for 8 months, but they made the best of it, struggled with finances...ect., but eventually worked things out. My dad got a job in a steel mill and my mom ended up having 2 more kids.
My parents never had anyone give them a dime, besides something from the grandparents now and then.

I don't understand why you limit the options to such narrow possibilities. "Pay them for 18 years"? I fail to see why this is even an option.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


Don't you know how is the economical situation these days? Jobs are harder to find than 10 years ago. This is why i assumed that.

I guess a lot of families are in a struggling situation with money and one more child won't help.

I agree that the "pay them for 18 years" is a big stretch but you must admit that this can happen in many cases.

Maybe i was wrong but it's what I think.

Peace out.
edit on 12-3-2012 by bigwig22 because: typo

edit on 12-3-2012 by bigwig22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 



Hi Outkast,

While I respect your opinion, I can't agree with it. The right or not to have the right to abortion shouldn't even be a political matter - are you saying that areas of society are not allowed to have an opinion on this? Why is religion any different from any other part of society? Tax exemption from what I understand is given to all recognised religions, and of course anyone or business that qualifies - do none of them have a right to a voice, even if it is not agreed with?


First off...this isn't a discussion about abortion no matter what Fox News says.

Second...all tax exempt organizations have rules to follow. You can disagree with me all you want...but it is the law.

www.irs.gov...

All IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches
and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:
■ their net earnings may not inure to any private
shareholder or individual,
■ they must not provide a substantial benefit to private
interests,
■ they must not devote a substantial part of their
activities to attempting to influence legislation,
■ they must not participate in, or intervene in, any
political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to)
any candidate for public office, and
■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not
be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join