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.

 

Wake up and smell the chains people

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Republicans vote to ban contraception in Missouri for religious reasons
www.examiner.com...
From the article

Republicans in Missouri have voted to overturn the veto of Democratic Governor Jay Nixon that will now legally allow "religious" and "moral" exemptions in health insurance policies.


The Republican battle cry is that of religious freedom, but they seem to forget about the religious freedom guaranteed to all citizens, and that freedom includes protecting citizens from religious zealots.

For the record, I am neither Rep. nor Dem. It all just feels like theatrics to create the illusion of choice, however, this flies in the face of liberty no matter how you slice it.
edit on 30-9-2012 by tanda7 because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Sep 30 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
Starting a New Thread?...Look Here First


edit on 30-9-2012 by tanda7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-9-2012 by tanda7 because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Sep 30 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Sep 30 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: tags




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
In my opinion, this is the Christian version of sharia. And I find it very hard to believe the majority of citizens in the fair state of MO are for this legislation.

We are not talking about abortion here, we are talking about birth control pills. This country used to be the shinning example of progressive thinking, but this legislation sets the state of MO back 100 years.
What makes more sense, making birth control accessible and affordable, or dealing with the fallout of unplanned pregnancies? Because there WILL be unplanned pregnancies and everyone loses, the tax payers, the parents who are not ready for a family, and society in general.

In a perfect world with perfectly responsible citizens, abortion and contraception would be unnecessary. And hopefully with education we will get there, but we are not there yet. I personally believe contraception should be free and readily available anytime, anywhere.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by tanda7
 


S&F

What ever happened to Seperation of Church and State? These people don't realize alot of women need these birth control pills to equil out their hormones. It's not always for family planning as they think and they know this and it's all about "money." They act like this is the morning after pill, which in my opinion, would be better than an abortion anyway. There are a plethora of afflictions treated by 'birth control pills', (hormone adjusters) not just used for birth control.

I'll venture to say, that the Law makers who passed this piece of legislation, own stocks in these Pharmaceuticals. Even the Religions behind this. Always follow the money and there you will find the reason behind it.

If churches are now going to dictate how women/men run their bodies, they should darn well pay taxes. We're forced to pay more and more out here, while they judge and rule even more with tax breaks to go with it. /rant.

Great topic.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DaphneApollo
 


I'll venture to say, that the Law makers who passed this piece of legislation, own stocks in these Pharmaceuticals. Even the Religions behind this. Always follow the money and there you will find the reason behind it.

I had not thought about that but it makes perfect sense. T is always telling me I'm neither jaded nor paranoid enough to be a conspiracy buff.
As the female half of tanda7, I have a hard time believing any woman would ever vote for this, but according to this role call,www.stltoday.com... it looks like about 17 women did. If just one of these women had voted against party lines it would have turned the tide. The override passed by the bare minimum.



edit on 30-9-2012 by tanda7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
If you live in Missouri - vote...

If you don't live here it’s not your concern.

I don't care what they do in NYC or LA nor do I want their input on our laws or governance.

Change insurers or buy a contraception rider or something from another company. No one owes you anything. If you don't want to do business with a certain company don't.

If the Catholic Church wants to not cover contraception for their employees who cares they are a church FFS. I have employees and buy insurance for them I have no religious persuasion at all. I am ambivalent. I just make sure I get a good deal for my money and they have some decent choices.

I pay 70% of it they pay the rest whatever plan they choose. The single guy costs less than the family of course. That said I only have two full timers.

The other 10 are mostly high school kids and the Amish. Amish is just a straight cash deal on days I need them usually Saturdays. The "boys" (18-23) like to have the 12 bucks an hour on the days they consider "off" rest of the week they work for their dads for free and the English as they call them don't have to work Saturdays. Its win win for me.

I pay a pretty penny in medical liability though considering we have all these farm machines around here - I own a dairy farm. I have to limit the tractors and bigger machines to 18+ to even get coverage at all. Kids can't even use the gattor - I let a couple I trust since I know their parents but the rest just have to suck it up and walk or carry.

Sorry those are the insurance rules.

I'll take Missouri with all its faults any day over the liberal crap holes with all their taxes and rules.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 

So because I don't live there I'm not allowed to have an opinion about religious driven laws that get passed there?

Can you imagine how limited this website would be if we played by those rules?
And besides you broke your own rule by calling LA and NYC "liberal crap holes" (nice).

To be honest I'm not even on board with gov. mandated insurance to be provided by employers.
As a responsible business owner myself, I feel that I should have insurance to cover on-the-job
accidents, but beyond that, I'm yet to be convinced that it is my duty to provide my employees and
their families with full coverage. Especially since I have no control over their habits or lifestyle.
I just think when legislators specifically point to religion as a reason for passing unreasonable laws, it's worth questioning. Especially when it's more likely about money.
You don't see this as even remotely unconstitutional?

edit on 30-9-2012 by tanda7 because: punctuation and eta



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tanda7
reply to post by Golf66
 

So because I don't live there I'm not allowed to have an opinion about religious driven laws that get passed there?


First let me apologize for my tone in my response.

Second let me say that (what you said above) is exactly what I typed out there but not actually the way I think. I was defensive because of where I live and I think overly so.

You have my sincere apology. Discussion is the whole reason I come here.

You as is anyone in America free to have an opinion of course and I respect your opinion while I may disagree.


Originally posted by tanda7
Can you imagine how limited this website would be if we played by those rules?
And besides you broke your own rule by calling LA and NYC "liberal crap holes" (nice).


I think they are liberal crap holes of over-regulation and over taxation. Under education and over population. Over indulgent of the lazy and stupid and too quick to limit the rights of property owners. Just my opinions.

I think what I meant to relay (rather poorly BTW) in my attempt is that even though I disagree entirely with their methods of governance - I don't advocate them changing their laws. Leave them to it I say. I am not advocating they change their laws. In the end they will reap what they sow.

The whole point of a Republic after all is that we can vote with our feet and choose to live somewhere and with those who share the same values. Each State should be different.

It is this very quest and the pushing of federal legislation to make all the States homogenous in their governance by the likes of Chuck Schumer and others (who want to force their liberal agenda on the flyovers) that made me over defensive. The people of NY evidently love him so leave him to govern them and regulate their salt content - whatever they like him to do there. It’s bad enough a few (liberal) States dominate the national level agenda with their large portion of electoral votes.


Originally posted by tanda7
To be honest I'm not even on board with gov. mandated insurance to be provided by employers.


I agree 100%; I provide more than I have to because I can if it were cutting into my bottom line I would dump it in a second.


Originally posted by tanda7
As a responsible business owner myself, I feel that I should have insurance to cover on-the-job accidents, but beyond that, I'm yet to be convinced that it is my duty to provide my employees and their families with full coverage.


I agree you should not have to but I think you'll get better help if you do. At least for the full time people. I could probably afford one more full time person but honestly I think spreading the same amount around to more people in the community is better than one more full timer.


Originally posted by tanda7
I just think when legislators specifically point to religious freedom as a reason for passing laws, it's worth questioning.


I don't think they are citing religion as a reason for the law.

They are making no law establishing a religion nor are they limiting its practice in any way.

They are simply (out of necessity) clarifying the State's position is different than that expressed by the federal government of failing to guarantee freedom of religion for business owners.

If a business man (or woman) has a moral objection to birth control should she/he be required to cover that expense for those he employees? I don't think so. I think that is unconstitutional.


Originally posted by tanda7
You don't see this as even remotely unconstitutional?


We also just passed a referendum to allow children to pray in school if they so choose. I am agnostic - I voted for it.

It’s not saying that one religion is allowed or endorsed it is simply stating that people are allowed to practice their religion even if it is on government owned property and while at school. It does not make it acceptable for the school to make people pray only that they may not intentionally exclude it or forbid it from events for fear of offense. If the coach and some kids want to invoke an invisible friend before a game it is no sweat for me - not going to change my mind on the issue. It doesn't cost anything.

It also allowed parents to opt out of their kids being taught evolution. I think that is silly personally but to require a kid to sit, be taught and graded on reciting answers counter to her parents’ wishes or beliefs is directly antithetical to freedom of religion.

Its freedom of religion not freedom from it. There is big distinction – IMO.

Again - sorry for the snippy tone. Sincerely.

I welcome your opinion. I spent 24 years serving for your right to express it. We can disagree of course.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


No apology necessary. I respect your point of view and yes, tone is sometimes difficult to determine from reading text. I try not to presume.

The whole point of a Republic after all is that we can vote with our feet and choose to live somewhere and with those who share the same values. Each State should be different.

I could not possibly agree more.
One of the things that make this country so great is the diversity. There should be a place like New Orleans where people can brave the crime and chaos and party all night if they want, and then just 50 miles away a place where there are dry counties and my grandmother can feel safe.

Personally I would love to see this country become (or return to) a true republic, and get the feds out of the equation completely except for the most basic functions, such as defense. Speaking of which, I come from a military family and my step son is J.A.G. so I appreciate what you have done and fully realize the importance of people like you who are willing to do it.

The thing about this new law that is bothering me is the fact that it will lead to unwanted pregnancies. I see this as one of America's biggest problems. unplanned-for children. The problems that stem from this are so numerous i don't know where to begin.
The degradation of the family unit, (children without fathers) can contribute to a population that is morally bankrupt.
The drain on tax revenues.
The criminal element.
We should take every possible opportunity to provide contraceptives to any citizen who wants them.

I have even more radical opinions about this that probably will not win me any friends.
I think you should have a permit to bring a child into this world, prove yourself a fit parent, that sort of thing.

And,
I am all for religious freedom, I think it is a valuable moral compass for some people.
We are probably in accord on most issues. Thanks for responding.
edit on 30-9-2012 by tanda7 because: punctuation



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by tanda7
I have even more radical opinions about this that probably will not win me any friends.
I think you should have a permit to bring a child into this world, prove yourself a fit parent, that sort of thing.


Actually, we are eerily compatible - check this out.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The initial problem is that we are involved at all at the federal level in providing assistance to either those wanting contraception or needed aid to support the children for the lack of it.

My ideal situation would be the government at any level would not be involved either way in regulating procreation or the mitigation of the poor choices of people regarding procreation. These roles shold be charity and private only.

However, since we have gone way past the threshold of making people comfortable in their poverty by financially mitigating the effects of their poor decision making. Since that has already has happened at least we could put some restrictions on the aid so that people can’t repeat the same mistakes over and over. You want help – fine but there are conditions, some form of birth control – Norplant, shots or something you can’t skip. No additional funds for future children.

My issue is that the government has assumed the role of the indulgent parent who enables the poor decision making of their children by mitigating the resultant negative consequences. However, we have neglected to take the equally important role of limit setting and restrictive parent who places conditions on such aid to ensure the cycle does not continue. I think of it as sort of an only help one who helps themselves kind of thing.

We have too many unwanted babies in the US for sure – for the most part they are a drain on the financial system. They have issues in school with the law, behavioir problems at rates way beyond kids in a two parent home.

I mean here is a dude who should be sterilized...for deadly use of a penis in the ruining of 30 children’s lives.... Assault on a child’s potential.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A man who can't manage to maintain a job that pays more than minimum wage has "fathered" ( a use the term "father" in a biological terms there only) 30 children who in all likelihood will grow up to be just like him.

Why, because while the government has probably gladly been forking over checks to help each one of these women who have on average 2.72 children from a father who can't even support himself. However, infringing on his right to procreate is sacrosanct… Insanity and unsustainable.

This insanity must stop but I am sure the government should not have a role. I know it sounds callous but perhaps if a parent had to jest watch a child suffer for their actions there might be a deterrent. Often people will not change their behavior if there are no noticeable negative consequences.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
What are chains supposed to smell like?

Do they smell like a really bad mixed metaphor?

Why do you want people to sniff search themselves for chains? Couldn't you just feel the cold metal and weight of a chain?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11andrew34
What are chains supposed to smell like?

Do they smell like a really bad mixed metaphor?

Why do you want people to sniff search themselves for chains? Couldn't you just feel the cold metal and weight of a chain?
They probably smell a little like that post, not good.
But I have to admit, no matter how many times I read your post, it makes me laugh. And anything that makes me laugh that much, must have some value.
So here ya go, the photo that accompanies the article.This is what you would have seen if you had actually clicked on the link, the inspiration for the title.

edit on 1-10-2012 by tanda7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 
Well said my friend.


My ideal situation would be the government at any level would not be involved either way in regulating procreation or the mitigation of the poor choices of people regarding procreation. These roles shold be charity and private only.
The idea of having more permit offices is completely distasteful to me also. I try to imagine a licensing system that I could live with and the only way I can imagine it, is to have a rotating peer group from the community.
Sort of like jury duty. People that are NOT bureaucrats nor politicians nor civil employees.

It is as if the welfare system is purposely engineered to discourage the family unit, while at the same time encouraging procreation. The idea of increasing gov. support with every child born out of wedlock is obviously going to create generation after generation of welfare dependency. Young mothers are taught how to work the system. They are raised to believe that this is a very attractive option as opposed to contributing to society.
And of course, there are exceptions and a truly advanced society will take care of victims of circumstance.


However, since we have gone way past the threshold of making people comfortable in their poverty by financially mitigating the effects of their poor decision making. Since that has already has happened at least we could put some restrictions on the aid so that people can’t repeat the same mistakes over and over. You want help – fine but there are conditions, some form of birth control – Norplant, shots or something you can’t skip. No additional funds for future children.


If I didn't know better, I would think the system was in place to create a dependent class. And the fact that prisons are for-profit-corporations makes it seem even more like a con game. Young men with no strong male guidance are far more likely to run afoul of the law. I once saw a statistic that over 80% of prisoners come from single parent homes. (to lazy at the moment to provide a link to that stat but it seems like a no-brainer)

I'm very happy to discuss this with someone who agrees for a change. I'm usually called a heartless tyrant for expressing these views.
Thanks for the links, stars for your post in those links and in this thread as well.

BTW I read your intro and that last post (by Bugby) is a strange thing huh? His one and only post?


edit on 1-10-2012 by tanda7 because: eta



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join