Obama Administration: We Can and Will Force Christians to Act Against Their Faith

page: 20
30
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by Timing


The employee. First you can't terminate someone because they eat pork at a Jewish company, because that is against that persons freedom of religion. The same for the person that doesn't practice a prayer ritual at a Muslim owned company because they aren't a Muslim.


But equivalent to what you are saying, a company that serves pork in their cafeteria would be violating that employees freedom of religion because they make pork AVAILABLE.

The employee isn't required to USE the health insurance for birth control, it's only made available to them. There's a very, VERY big difference.

Making it available in their health plan doesn't violate their rights. Withholding it from their health plan would be violating their rights and that's what the employer is trying to do.

The health plan doesn't force them to use birth control. The employer wants to force them not to.


The difference would be requiring a Jewish company to serve pork in their cafeteria. That would violate their religious beliefs. Those who want pork can purchase it elsewhere.

Contraception in any form is an option and the person who wants it should purchase it on their own. No one, person, place, or thing should be required to pay for someone else's contraception. The same concept in insurance companies paying for someone's viagra. It is absurd!

Obamacare is an abomination and should be repeal in it entireity. It violates everything the constitution is based on.




posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by 1PLA1
 


Is it just me or are some Americans thinking that there constitution is without fault? The bases was written a long time ago.

Here in the Netherlands we have, when a new law passes, look if one become irrelevant or just plain stupid in the modern age. Also as a Dutch guy I can safely say that universal healthcare is a pretty nice thing when you accept it. (but then again the average American is almost famous for how conservative they are, with even the most liberal politician more conservative than in any other country).
Also as the Netherlands is a bigger mix of religions and culture then America (and then most countries for that matter) we have accepted that everybody is diffrent and has equal option for everything, even if there religion/morals forbids it, they still have an option to.
And what right does someone has limiting someones basic options because the one doing the limiting doesn't want it?



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
It would seem you haven't practiced due diligence in going back to the original comment that mentioned vasectomies and pregnancy insurance requirements for guys to review the context in which such statements were made in reply to equally ridiculous commentary, as previous stated, and now stated AGAIN.

Do I need illustrate with pictures, crayola, and big simple words?
Every single dot on the page shouldn't have to be explained and hand held.


So, instead of addressing your claim that men should be forced to have a vasectomy, which IS what you stated, you insult me? That is YOUR comment, and I don't care what someone else said. You stated that, so you should defend it. If you can't, then you should admit so. That's what adults do in a debate. You weren't talking about coverage for a vasectomy, but about forced vasectomies.


Originally posted by Druscilla
As I stated before, and now AGAIN, if a business is run by Militant Atheists, and they provided health care for their employees, would it be within their right as employers "providing" (you may want to look up how Medical benefits work, who pays what, and all the many hundreds, sundry different options) Medical Benefits to refuse those benefits to anyone that sees a Physician of any faith? No.

An employer can always just NOT offer any benefits at all to its employees.
It's that simple.
edit on 1-1-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)


Actually, an employer can't do that, because under Obama's health care laws, businesses are REQUIRED to provide health care coverage. You apparently aren't paying attention. Now, they want to force employers to provide abortion coverage (which is what those "morning after" pills are), even if that is a violation of the religious beliefs of the owners. You aren't much for real freedom, I suppose, unless it involves killing the unborn.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
Have the anti-abortionists murdered any doctors lately? Tell us again how precious life is to these radical extremists. They're not Christians. Life isn't precious to them. The thing that they covet is the power to force their views on other people, that is all.

Just listen to yourselves. Life doesn't begin at conception. The egg and the sperm are both alive to begin with.

So many self-righteous and condescending individuals in this thread, who must be without sin because of all the stones they are casting. Do any of you even read the Bible? You certainly don't seem to be living by Jesus' teachings, that much is obvious.


Anti-abortionists don't tend to go around killing anyone. That is a very RARE thing, and everyone knows it.

As for when a child is alive, you are dead wrong. Simple science proves that to be the case. The baby, from the point where the sperm meets the egg, has its own unique DNA, and is then a unique person.

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;.....", from Jeremiah 1:5.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destiny10
reply to post by TheComte
 


Regardless of who is the more righteous, killing your own child is not something that is right. Jesus would say don't kill your own child unless it is to save your own life. We can argue all day about how corrupt Christians are. How can you prove hypocrisy to a bunch of people who aren't trying all that hard at all? If your hurdles are low then heck yes, you are going to clear it. But if your hurdles are higher, and everyone can see that they are, it's a real challenge. We need to change as a nation (U.S) and abortion is at the front of our down fall. Some Americans don't care that much about anybody are too materialistic and full of themselves. I mean to say, I believe we can change but we need to stop stealing from each other...hope. So many of us are taking lives, we are trespassing on others lives and living a life that is a lie.


Mostly agree, but Jesus would die for that child. He already died for us.

I can't understand how so many people try and justify killing unborn children, and pretend that they are somehow not people. The arguments for later term abortion are even worse.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

So, instead of addressing your claim that men should be forced to have a vasectomy, which IS what you stated, you insult me? That is YOUR comment, and I don't care what someone else said. You stated that, so you should defend it. If you can't, then you should admit so. That's what adults do in a debate. You weren't talking about coverage for a vasectomy, but about forced vasectomies.


Right, so, let me hold your hand, and speak in small words:
1. The poster I was replying to made a ridiculous statement.
2. I made equally ridiculous statements as a counter-argument that ridiculous proposals work both ways.

Ridiculous statements:
A. If women don't want to get pregnant, they should keep their legs closed.
B. (response) Men should require mandatory vasectomy and insurance coverage for accidental pregnancy.



Actually, an employer can't do that, because under Obama's health care laws, businesses are REQUIRED to provide health care coverage. You apparently aren't paying attention. Now, they want to force employers to provide abortion coverage (which is what those "morning after" pills are), even if that is a violation of the religious beliefs of the owners. You aren't much for real freedom, I suppose, unless it involves killing the unborn.


In taking a quick look, it appears you are correct about all businesses now requiring to provide Heath Care.
The argument should then be a no-brainer.

Insurance is packaged. You can't rifle through it and simply pick out the parts you don't like.
Religious muppets have to deal with it.
Either that, or go out of business.
What's more important? Owning a business, or keeping one's faith?
Religious business owners thus have a choice; commit some "sin" every day by providing mandatory Health Insurance, or sell their business if their superstition is more important.

Religion is like a penis. Do what you want with it in private, but, don't be waving that thing around in public or forcing it on other people.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
It's funny because if Christians were really honest with themselves, maybe they would actually question their faith, because in all actual reality, most religions really don't have a problem with loss of innocent life.

C'mon, someone had to say it
edit on 31-12-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)


Because like OMG! All those witch burning of pagans, ohh right very few pagans were executed for being pagan(besides the two thousand Pagan chieftains Charlemagne executed).. What about all those heretics? Ohh wait that was done by SECULAR judges. Kind of like how the Spanish Inquisition was done by the Monarchy not the Church, because the Church's Inquisition was focused on re-converting not executing.

So what about those Crusades, when Christians went nuts? Ohh right, Muslims just got done butchering their way through North Africa a few centuries before(North Africa, Asia Minor and "Palestine", used to be firmly Christian territories until muslims butchered them all). Heck look at dark skinned Sicilians, they are the proof that Muslims started the Crusades. Muslim barbarians invaded Sicily and raped every Christian woman they could find. Then muslim barbarians invaded the Byzantine Empire.

In all actuality, most people are bigoted and intentionally ignorant of history to justify their actually stupid ideas. And these last few years only proved one thing:

To accept that which is unacceptable and to tolerate that which is intolerable is the greatest of evils.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
Right, so, let me hold your hand, and speak in small words:
1. The poster I was replying to made a ridiculous statement.
2. I made equally ridiculous statements as a counter-argument that ridiculous proposals work both ways.

Ridiculous statements:
A. If women don't want to get pregnant, they should keep their legs closed.
B. (response) Men should require mandatory vasectomy and insurance coverage for accidental pregnancy.


So, you are incapable of debating like an adult, and have to act rude, and insulting. Go figure. No respect for the rights of others usually correlates well to no respect for others that disagree with you.

Besides, anyone with a brain knows that there is a difference in stating that people who don't want babies should not have sex, and stating that people should be forced to sterilize themselves. If you can't get that, you aren't worthy of debate.


Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Actually, an employer can't do that, because under Obama's health care laws, businesses are REQUIRED to provide health care coverage. You apparently aren't paying attention. Now, they want to force employers to provide abortion coverage (which is what those "morning after" pills are), even if that is a violation of the religious beliefs of the owners. You aren't much for real freedom, I suppose, unless it involves killing the unborn.



Originally posted by Druscilla
In taking a quick look, it appears you are correct about all businesses now requiring to provide Heath Care.
The argument should then be a no-brainer.


Of course I am correct. I don't make statements like that without knowing the facts. Yeah, it should be a no-brainer, but here you are, arguing about forcing people to violate their religious beliefs.


Originally posted by Druscilla
Insurance is packaged. You can't rifle through it and simply pick out the parts you don't like.
Religious muppets have to deal with it.
Either that, or go out of business.
What's more important? Owning a business, or keeping one's faith?
Religious business owners thus have a choice; commit some "sin" every day by providing mandatory Health Insurance, or sell their business if their superstition is more important.

Religion is like a penis. Do what you want with it in private, but, don't be waving that thing around in public or forcing it on other people.


Insurance packages come in a wide variety, and they SHOULD, and people should be able to choose what they have covered, and don't have covered. The government should not be forcing companies to provide insurance at all, and certainly not what sort.

As for your vulgar opinions, how about you keep those in private. Religion, in this country, can be FREELY expressed, wherever a person happens to be. The Constitution forbids the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Maybe you should try reading that bit again. People can, and WILL, express their religious beliefs in public, and you have no right to tell them they can't. You don't get to force them into hiding because you disagree. How would you feel if someone said people who believed whatever it is you do should be made silent? No, some people think they have rights, and those that disagree with them don't. That is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance.

You succeeded in losing that "respected" bit.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by R9e9l9o
reply to post by 1PLA1
 


Is it just me or are some Americans thinking that there constitution is without fault? The bases was written a long time ago.

Here in the Netherlands we have, when a new law passes, look if one become irrelevant or just plain stupid in the modern age. Also as a Dutch guy I can safely say that universal healthcare is a pretty nice thing when you accept it. (but then again the average American is almost famous for how conservative they are, with even the most liberal politician more conservative than in any other country).
Also as the Netherlands is a bigger mix of religions and culture then America (and then most countries for that matter) we have accepted that everybody is diffrent and has equal option for everything, even if there religion/morals forbids it, they still have an option to.
And what right does someone has limiting someones basic options because the one doing the limiting doesn't want it?


Like I keep predicting, when WW3 happens, the USA and the EU will not be allies. After all the personnel is political and the political is personnel. If someone is your enemy politically, then that means they are also your personnel enemy as well. Since Europeans are Americans political enemies, therefore Europeans are Americans personnel enemies as well.

America was founded so Christians had the freedom to be Christian without government interference, not for a secular dystopia as pagan Europe has become.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 



Originally posted by MrWendal
Well I guess people are going to be flaming me... so what else is new? lol


I don't have a problem with this at all. At the end of the day, when it comes to healthcare, drugs are drugs. No business has a right to decide what drugs I take in regards to my healthcare. Many companies drug test. If I were to fail my drug test due to taking Loritabs, I would retain my job if I can provide a prescription from my Doctor and my companies healthcare plan would cover it.

Just because my employer may not believe in abortion, for any reason, does not mean they can dictate what is best for me. What if the mother's life was at risk? Should she have to choose between keeping her job or risking her life? I don't think so. At the end of the day, it is not the employers business at all.

Now with that being said- there should also be no exceptions. Indians, Muslims, I don't care. No one religion should be exempt from this at all.


That is such hypocritical nonsense because the the insurance companies can dictate what care their clients can and can't receive. A friend of mine can no longer receive a specific oxygen creating mechanism due to the new obabacare laws. This mechanism takes the oxygen from the air, filters it, and creates pure oxygen. Unfortunately, his new insurance does not provide for such things. He must take pure oxygen in stored in those metal tanks. Otherwise, no oxygen for him regardless of his needs or inconveniences.

I will agree to your point of view only when insurance companies cannot dictate to their clients the treatments they receive. Until then, employers have the right to dictate what coverage they offer.

Edit to add that my friend has been using the previously described oxygen mechanism for almost three years. Yet, new, silly insurance mandates forced through by obamacare and complied with by insurance companies will deprive him of this treatment. Tyrannical.
edit on 1-1-2013 by My_Reality because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by TheComte
Have the anti-abortionists murdered any doctors lately? Tell us again how precious life is to these radical extremists. They're not Christians. Life isn't precious to them. The thing that they covet is the power to force their views on other people, that is all.

Just listen to yourselves. Life doesn't begin at conception. The egg and the sperm are both alive to begin with.

So many self-righteous and condescending individuals in this thread, who must be without sin because of all the stones they are casting. Do any of you even read the Bible? You certainly don't seem to be living by Jesus' teachings, that much is obvious.


Anti-abortionists don't tend to go around killing anyone. That is a very RARE thing, and everyone knows it.

As for when a child is alive, you are dead wrong. Simple science proves that to be the case. The baby, from the point where the sperm meets the egg, has its own unique DNA, and is then a unique person.

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;.....", from Jeremiah 1:5.


No way, you didn't just say that! Anti-abortionists don't tend to go around killing anyone!? Hahah, laughable, man. That is just plain laughable.

en.wikipedia.org...


In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[8][9]

March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility, the Ladies Center, in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003. The clinic in Pensacola had been bombed before and was also bombed subsequently, in 1984 and 2012.

December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.

January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.

October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death with a high-powered rifle at his home in Amherst, New York.[10] His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.

May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas.[11]


I wonder, were you upset that these "righteous individuals" were caught?



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


No, you haven't heard of any?

Maybe you should pay closer attention to the news and such.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Anti-abortionists don't tend to go around killing anyone. That is a very RARE thing, and everyone knows it.

As for when a child is alive, you are dead wrong. Simple science proves that to be the case. The baby, from the point where the sperm meets the egg, has its own unique DNA, and is then a unique person.

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;.....", from Jeremiah 1:5.


No way, you didn't just say that! Anti-abortionists don't tend to go around killing anyone!? Hahah, laughable, man. That is just plain laughable.

I stated clearly, as you even quoted, that such is a very RARE thing. You list a source that states "at least eight people"......ooo, a whole eight, and there are how many pro-life, anti-abortion people around? You do know what "rare" means, right?



Originally posted by TheComte
I wonder, were you upset that these "righteous individuals" were caught?


I wonder, how upset you are that abortionists have killed over 48 MILLION people since Roe-v-Wade? Stop pretending that being pro-life means going around killing people, when you can't find a reference for more than EIGHT killed by pro-life types. Eight vs. 48 million........and you ask if I am upset that someone was caught for committing a crime?

I don't condone murder. Those that killed the eight are murderers. Those that killed the 48 million are also.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


I'm sorry you are so filled with hate and contempt that you can't see past your own hypocrisy. A fetus is legally considered a human being when it is developed enough to survive outside the womb. That is the law. It is not murder to have an abortion. If you don't agree, that's fine. That is your CHOICE. That is a key word in this debate: CHOICE. Anti-abortionists would deny the CHOICE to have an abortion because it goes against THEIR beliefs, not necessarily the beliefs of the person who is pregnant, or the law.

But then again, the anti-abortionists choose to only follow the laws they agree with anyway. Like when they murder doctors.

How many people have the Pro-Choice groups murdered? None.

edit on 2-1-2013 by TheComte because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
None of this would be such an issue if government was not so personally involved with each and every one of us.

IE Some people don't like blood transfusions or psychotropic meds- govt will just take a teen away that doesn't believe in them and make them get them. All a doctor has to do is say to the government that it is in the person's best interests.

Soon we will see no more religious exemptions for shots.
I think a religious exemption would probably be the thing to do here.

BUT, knowing that, no one has to shop at, or work at, hobby lobby.

If the economy would JUST give people more choice of their workplace, this would be less of an issue. Employees would be like, Oh, i got a job at Walmart, I'm finally going to get some decent insurance!

In the meantime, birth control is pretty much free at most health departments for people that don't make much, and very cheap otherwise. If it isn't, this is something the govt. could do to better cover these folks that get affected by the exemptions.

I don't get it. I'm not Christian, but it just seems wrong to make people that are very anti-abortion to participate financially in abortion or birth control. (As some birth control is seen as abortive to them, since it works by making the womb hostile to the embryo.)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Barack Hussein Obama is anti-christ and pro-Islam.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


You may certainly believe whatever you wish. I would go even further, and venture that you may dedicate yourself entirely to the promulgation of evil, if you wish. And according to the laws of the State, you may murder as many unborn children as you wish, and there is little I can do about it.

But, if you are waiting for me to acquiesce and say that it is not murder, then you will be disappointed. If you are insisting that I desist from making my opinion on the matter known publicly, then you will be disappointed. If you want me to participate in that which I consider reprehensible, then you will surely be disappointed. I will stand hand in hand with my like-minded brothers and sisters and together we, with stentorian voices, will absolutely refuse to take part in any murders, particularly of unborn children, come what may.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


I'm sorry you are so filled with hate and contempt that you can't see past your own hypocrisy. A fetus is legally considered a human being when it is developed enough to survive outside the womb. That is the law. It is not murder to have an abortion. If you don't agree, that's fine. That is your CHOICE. That is a key word in this debate: CHOICE. Anti-abortionists would deny the CHOICE to have an abortion because it goes against THEIR beliefs, not necessarily the beliefs of the person who is pregnant, or the law.

But then again, the anti-abortionists choose to only follow the laws they agree with anyway. Like when they murder doctors.

How many people have the Pro-Choice groups murdered? None.

edit on 2-1-2013 by TheComte because: (no reason given)


You're right, I can't think of a single instance of pro-choice groups murdering people. However, they are guilty of several thousand manslaughters (death via negligence). Before Abortion was legalized, they would have the "back alley" abortions that would often times lead to the patient's getting infected and dying because they couldn't follow the law.

I just wanted to throw that out there because our culture is so hung up as an us vs them on every issue. Hell, at the rate we're going, I'm going to see a 20 page thread arguing which tastes better, apples or oranges. But I digress.

The issue that I have with abortion is the lack of personal responsibility it shows. You don't want to get pregnant, take precautions, either use contraception (which isn't 100% effective) or not gamble and not have sex. But I have no problem with at risk pregnancies being aborted, because that saves lives and I'm against torture and agree with a women's right to choose for their body, so I condone post-rape abortion because the woman didn't have the choice of what should be done with their own bodies. You put your hand on a hot stove, you get burned. Lack of responsibility is what most pro-choicers are fighting for. If a woman allows a man into her body for sexual intercourse, she must accept the responsibility of the effects that could cause. Because one thing that is often overlooked is this, it's not just her potential life (because the baby isn't born yet, and most likely hasn't caused any effects to her body yet) that she's choosing, it is also the potential child's life. Why does her right for her potential self supersede the right of another potential person?

There is a potential solution I believe that would work as a perfect compromise that could end this pro-life, pro-choice b.s., unfortunately the science hasn't been perfected yet, and that's Extra Uterine Incubation. If we could perfect that science, women can get rid of the child, and the child still can have life. I've been curious what pro-lifers and pro-choicers opinion's on that theoretical solution would be if it were hypothetically a working technology.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


Please for the love of god, educate yourself in biology. Also stop trying to force your religion on others by wanting abortion to be illegal or at least hard to get.

Keep thy religion to thy self.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I might be wrong but the only difference that I see between your regular birth control pill and the morning after pill is that you have to take the birth control pill on a daily basis, or if you get shots, on a regular basis, ect. the morning after pill you take more of an on needed basis, after you have a sexual relationship.
outside of that, I think they basically work about the same way??
the both make the uterus an unwelcoming place for a fertilized egg, thus causing the ejection of the egg. other methods of birth control do about the same thing, really. there are very few that actually prevents the fertilization of the egg...and they tend to be the ones with the least effective rates.

if I am right here, it's more that the pill is causing a physical condition within the women's body that prevents the fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus and causes a miscarriage....not an abortion!!
so, to me, the argument that is being presented not only pertains to the morning after pill but also most of the more effective methods of birth control, since they don't prevent the egg from being fertilized, but just make the uterus not able to host the fertilized egg.

for those of you who are saying that if you don't want kids, just don't have the sex...
well, there is usually two parties within that deal, a man and a women. sometimes, there is a marriage involved.
so, well, let me ask you this.
since there are two people, and both interests should be considered equally...
what if mom is already going nuts chasing after a couple of kids and feels that maybe they should wait a few years before having the next but dad feels that their marriage really, really needs that sexual pleasure to stay strong and healthy??
one....it is wrong to force the women to accept the risk of getting pregnant if she feels that another child would put her in over her head.
and two, divorce is also a sin...
so, what is your grand solution oh great and noble ones???
which would you prefer?? she take the birth control for the sake of a peaceful home, or would you rather their marriage deteriorate to the point of divorce??

and no, I don't accept that all of the healthcare needs that men and women have, that this one solely should be left out of any "standardized minimal healthcare" package because of some people's "beliefs". we all have beliefs and have had to grow accustomed to having them trampled on often!! one of those beliefs just might be to think it is wrong to bring another child into the world when you feel you are not strong enough to handle the ones you already have!!
in that case, aren't you doing to another the very same thing that you want us all to believe the gov't is doing to you??
aren't you trying to prevent her from doing what she believes is right???





new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join