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

page: 21
30
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by noxvita83
 


sounds quite expensive, my guess is that it wouldn't solve much of anything, since what we are arguing about is who gets to hold pay the tab when the mom can't. we'd just have them arguing about why they shouldn't have to be paying this tab instead of the birth control, and I am fairly sure that the birth control would be the cheaper option.

beside, I've read a few stories where sperm donors have ended up paying child support....
there's a good chance that your plan wouldn't get the person off the hook legally till they hash out that one.

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




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
f
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??


I hope I won't offend people with this answer as it could offend some sensibilities, if so, mods, delete this post. But here goes anyways. There are many other options for sexual pleasure that doesn't require vaginal intercourse.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   
If we are going to refer to "potential life" as human and call abortion "murder" we are not being honest with ourselves at all. There were jokes going around during the primaries about Santorum believing that life begins at erection, and that's the next step for extremists. If we don't have a definite starting point then how far can it be carried?

Say the "pro-life/anti-choice" group gets their way and all abortion is done away with. This raises many, many issues. First, would we not have to then hold God himself accountable for miscarriages or still births? If everything possible is done by the expecting mother and medical professionals and there is a miscarriage or still birth, that would make it God's fault wouldn't it? I'm not comfortable with that.

Then there's the extremists born of that movement, like Santorum, that insist that every possible sperm and every possible egg represents a possible life and birth control should be made illegal because it's "MURDER" to them. Also, does that mean that every time a woman ovulates, she has to present sperm to that ovulation or she would be committing murder? Does that mean that every time a man produces sperm the sperm must be introduced to an egg or he is committing murder? That's what the extremists will focus on next. We'll be spending every waking moment of our child producing years having sex. We have to or we are committing murder. (not that I'm complaining, but it would get old after a while).

When a child is born, it takes the first breath and the umbillical cord is cut, it is an independent life and is subject to the rights of being a human life. Until that point, it is part of the mother. Regardless of the delivery method, in order to move forward, a baby HAS to take air into its lungs and the umbillical cord HAS to be detached. That's the requirement. You don't have to like the requirement and you don't have to agree with it, but that's what it is.

Think about what the trimesters mean. If a baby is taken from the mother's womb in a certain trimester, it's viability is affected. Babies can be delivered early term, but they're still delievered, they're still taken from the womb, they still take air into their lungs, the umbillical cord is still detached. Until that point, they are a fetus, not a baby. They have the POTENTIAL to be a baby, but so does the sperm, so does the egg, upon meeting one another. Why are the sperm and egg's rights denied but not the union of the two in the extremist mindset given? What's to prevent that from being the next step?

Abortion isn't murder. It's not pleasant, it's not something I would want to participate in and it's not a choice I would make, but it needs to remain a choice or we devalue human life, not give it more value.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by noxvita83
 

and..what if that ain't good enough for the male partner???
look, you are talking to someone who ended up waking up about a week and a half after having a baby to the pain of penetration here!!

I have had the experience of churches preaching the idea that women are to be obedient in all things...
I have tried to life that life, and finally left the church because of it...
and I am not gonna let the religious fanatics now sit there claiming oh, is she doesn't want the sex, just don't have it!!
they are unwilling to give the women the choice!!!!



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


There are many adoptive parents that actually pay the biological mother's living expenses and doctor's bills to carry the child to term so they can adopt it when the child is born. It may be expensive, but is this really any more expensive than doing that? Or on the same token, the costs of adoption are extremely high too, instead of paying it to an adoption agency, why not pay it to a clinic, thus keeping those abortion clinics and their employees employed. Instead of aborting, they can handle this. Like I said, really hypothetical since the science isn't perfected or even close.

The wikipedia link describing some of the theory

It's far from being perfected, so it's hard to describe what would be needed to have it done. They've tried one way with goat fetuses, but they only survived for 34 hours. Like I said, they are a long ways away from perfecting this. Cost would be a major issue for sure. Although I probably should have specified my question, I was curious the opinions on moral grounds. The pro-choicers believe in the woman's right to choose, and the pro-lifers believe the fetus to be a person at the point of conception. I was wondering if this solution would actually be mutually agreeable or not, and if not, why.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by noxvita83
 


In my opinion, the fuel that is burning this fire has very little to do with the poor unwanted children that aren't born. I was probably the invention of the pill thus giving women the freedom to decide when they would have children and how many that has lead us to where we are now....too many people going into retirement, too few kids entering the workforce, too many immigrants coming being allowed into the country ect...
actually rewarding motherhood or in some way making it a more pleasant option is an idea that is just too extreme for them..
better to just force them to have the kids!!
I got a feeling that if you were to scan the threads you would find that many of those preaching the anti abortion are also the ones claiming the the women should be home tending to the kids instead of the workforce, whining about the minimum wage laws, griping about the social service system, child support, ect....
they want their obedient, subservient wives back in the home.teahing their kids by example what it means to be obedient and subservient, to the king, to the employers, ect.....
your plan doesn't give them that....sorry.


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



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai
Say the "pro-life/anti-choice" group gets their way and all abortion is done away with. This raises many, many issues. First, would we not have to then hold God himself accountable for miscarriages or still births? If everything possible is done by the expecting mother and medical professionals and there is a miscarriage or still birth, that would make it God's fault wouldn't it? I'm not comfortable with that.

Then there's the extremists born of that movement, like Santorum, that insist that every possible sperm and every possible egg represents a possible life and birth control should be made illegal because it's "MURDER" to them. Also, does that mean that every time a woman ovulates, she has to present sperm to that ovulation or she would be committing murder? Does that mean that every time a man produces sperm the sperm must be introduced to an egg or he is committing murder? That's what the extremists will focus on next. We'll be spending every waking moment of our child producing years having sex. We have to or we are committing murder. (not that I'm complaining, but it would get old after a while).


I am actually (if it is possible) to be a middle of the road type person on this issue. I believe both pro-life and pro-choice have valid points. I believe the woman has a right to choose what she does with her body, but I have troubles (I don't like the legal definition you gave for when life begins, but I agree a time limit is needed. I believe at conception when the potential for human life has full human dna is when it should be called human. Sperm and egg alone does not have the full sequence.) But I'll get more into that later in the post. This is one of the issues I have with pro-lifers is the hidden intent behind it. Most pro-lifers have the hidden intent isn't the sanctity of life as they would have you believe, it's more about "Putting women back in their place". It's religious extremism, tyrannical, and bigoted. And you're right, the next step if they succeed is scary indeed. But using that same logic, most Pro-Choicers I've encountered (not accurate, I'm sure, since I have really bad luck. I have an innate ability to always find the worst of non-criminal society to encounter) only care about abortion for means of not taking responsibility for their actions. But they don't just do it with abortion either, they do it with many other things too. They're the type of people who always have someone else to blame for anything that doesn't go their way in life. I have an issue with that because it is another enabling aspect for those people to spread that social disease throughout society. To me, it has nothing to do with religion or whether abortion is murder or not, it is about whether or not that child has the potential to contribute to society later in life and if given the choice whether it would choose to have it done or not. I also find that most women in this group that have had abortions tend to be crappier parents when they finally don't abort as if their motherly instincts are aborted with the child. They tend to only have the children for their personal gain, not to raise them to be upstanding individuals. So in a way, my fear of this topic, in either direction is that chance for the extreme, the one you pointed out, and the one I've seen with the pro-choicers as well.




Abortion isn't murder. It's not pleasant, it's not something I would want to participate in and it's not a choice I would make, but it needs to remain a choice or we devalue human life, not give it more value.


I agree with everything for the time being for one reason. The solution I believe in this case isn't scientifically possible yet. If it was possible instead of terminating the pregnancy, but rather moving the fetus to an artificial uterus, that would be the way to give life more value. I believe this could also absolve all morality issues on both sides of the coin with this compromise, although I don't know what both sides think of this choice.
edit on 2-1-2013 by noxvita83 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by noxvita83
 


In my opinion, the fuel that is burning this fire has very little to do with the poor unwanted children that aren't born. I was probably the invention of the pill thus giving women the freedom to decide when they would have children and how many that has lead us to where we are now....too many people going into retirement, too few kids entering the workforce, too many immigrants coming being allowed into the country ect...
actually rewarding motherhood or in some way making it a more pleasant option is an idea that is just too extreme for them..
better to just force them to have the kids!!
I got a feeling that if you were to scan the threads you would find that many of those preaching the anti abortion are also the ones claiming the the women should be home tending to the kids instead of the workforce, whining about the minimum wage laws, griping about the social service system, child support, ect....
they want their obedient, subservient wives back in the home.teahing their kids by example what it means to be obedient and subservient, to the king, to the employers, ect.....
your plan doesn't give them that....sorry.


Unfortunately this is an issue with today's society. Anyone advocating a stance is always the extremist. In politics, you have those who want to throw everyone under the bus if they are struggling, and on the other side, they want to make sure everyone gets help, whether they are in the situation due to their own fault. If you read my reply to the other person there, you see what I mean. Money is buying elections, media coverage, etc. so only fringe ideas are given the light of day. The majority of people are centrists in nature, not liberal nor conservative. So whether we're talking conservative fringe and the religious right, or the fringe left which believes you should get everything whether you deserve it or not, we only hear from the extremes on the issues. It is almost as though we're being programmed to disregard anything except the extreme and not look for middle ground. It's more than this issue that I see this in. It is everything. If I didn't know any better, I would think that this is done intentionally to divide us all instead of us seeing common ground.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by noxvita83
 


they are trying to program us, but I have very little doubt that what I stated in the post you just replied to is part of their goal....
why in heaven's name are we doing so much to help the islamic extremists gain more power...could it be that they have one thing right (in the eyes of the power that be) that we don't...mainly, keeping the masses under the control of a strong government backed by "God"??
and there is no way that you are gonna have that kind of control in the US without making a few changes, and the first one is to have mom, at home, being the example how how those kids should be acting the rest of their lives.....obedient, subservient to those who "God" has put into power, in every aspect of their lives!

dependency=servitude.....
and women need to be able to control the reproductive glands in order to avoid the dependency part..
and we aren't talking abortion here, we are talking birth control....
my view on abortion is that it should be used only in extreme cases...it's only that when those extreme causes are put into rigid rules and dictated by the gov't, that well, we will find out too late that the rules have left out too many people, and we are just gonna end up with alot of injustices on the other end.....
and women usually have more obligations than just the one to the unborn baby to consider in their decisions....her other kids come to mind!



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Timing
reply to post by kthxbai
 


They are being forced to pay for something that is against their beliefs. Doesn't matter if they use it or not. It's the fact that they don't have a choice to chose the type of healthcare plan that they want. The government has dictated that the healthcare plan they will have will fund the morning after-pill.



Again.

Your rights begin where my rights end.

An employer cannot deny someone their rights. Even if it's against their religion.

I posted on this some pages back.

The scotus decision was correct.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
and because the healthcare system is the way it is, with for some reason, the employer stuck in the middle between the healthcare and the employee, hey, the employee really has had very little choice as to the healthcare plan they end up with!!!

it's our health care, why is it that the employer has had as much power over what kind of coverage we can or cannot have to begin with....
go on further, why is it that the health insurance companies can dictate to me and my doctor just what kind of medicine he gives me, why can't I go to any doctor I wish without being penalized because it's not one of their preferred providers????

individuals are granted rights in the constitution, not businesses and organizations...



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 





they are trying to program us, but I have very little doubt that what I stated in the post you just replied to is part of their goal.... why in heaven's name are we doing so much to help the islamic extremists gain more power...could it be that they have one thing right (in the eyes of the power that be) that we don't...mainly, keeping the masses under the control of a strong government backed by "God"?? and there is no way that you are gonna have that kind of control in the US without making a few changes, and the first one is to have mom, at home, being the example how how those kids should be acting the rest of their lives.....obedient, subservient to those who "God" has put into power, in every aspect of their lives!


I agree with almost everything you stated here, except the obedient, subservient being the reason they want to keep women at home. The dichotomy the has been set up, the to extremes that I mentioned before is very devious and dubious. One way to accomplish complete is exactly as you say. You become subservient to the man to keep him happy while he is subservient to the slave owners. The other option is to keep both men and women subservient to the slave owners. Either path, one side of the dichotomy or the other on any issue, not just the birth control or abortion issue is for the same end. This is getting off topic of course, but it is all really the same thing. Almost everyone is enslaved, we're just not chattel slaves. What strategic reason would it be to take such a fringe stance on every topic, like you see those in power do with every topic? The answer is simple, to cause sensationalism to make everyone focus on these topics, while they do there thing behind the scenes. The fact we are spending so much time on such radical ideas that in the long run does nothing really to further us as a people, nation, or even species is proof of the programing. Whether abortion existed or not, it would not change the course of history in any meaningful way except prevent a possible Hitler or a possible Steven Hawkings. But to be honest, there are people documented that are much more brilliant than Steven Hawkings, he happened to be at the right place at the right time with an interest in the right topic to get himself noticed. By taking a pro-life or pro-choice stance, you are in fact being programmed to look the other way while the real issues are happening.




dependency=servitude..... and women need to be able to control the reproductive glands in order to avoid the dependency part..


I can almost agree with this, but on the same token, that statement from an (hopefully) enlightened male point of view reeks of degradation towards women. Are women only valuable for their reproductive glands? Is that the only way to control a woman? There are many ways to control a population, that is just one of many. And to be honest, though it worked in the past, in this day and age, it actually would be rather ineffective to enslave women for their reproductive glands. It would be better to make them the same slaves as men, thus having more slaves to work for the powers that be. When the majority of people work for a select few barely taking home 10% of the monetary value of their labors, that is slavery. The median income from what I remember (not sure about the accuracy, but it is still useful to make the point) $45k/year in America, those people generally make $450k/year for their employer. The average difference between the what the workers, who make the employer their money, and what the employer takes home is usually $1 to the employee to $137 to the employer. If that's not slavery, I don't know what is. I'm all for people working to make their living in the world and not get handed things to them, but there is something severely wrong when the employer is making that much more money the people who actually make the money for the employer does. The abortion issue is just a distraction from that.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
do the youth in america today seem to you to be willing to be subservient to anyone much more than spending 40 hours a week at a job, where hey, if they aren't treated halfway decent they'll pick up and move???
no, they are not....
what I am saying is that having a subservient mother, bending over backwards to her lord...husband...conditions kids at an early age not to question the authority of those in power...
you are not gonna have that the way things are now.

they aren't happy with what they have now, they want more power...
they want to go back in time to a point where the people weren't so restless, didn't expect as much....


and the number one reason why there is still a pay gap between men and women in similar roles, is that women bear most of the brunt of raising kids....so there is a direct relationship between controlling reproduction and dependency.

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



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm saying there is more to the story. Think of the dependency on the government when the parents are too busy working and the children are left in their care. Schools, day cares, and the like have government mandates on what they have to do, how they teach the children, which often times steps on the toes of said parents. Which ever side of that coin wins, we lose. I don't advocate a man being the only one in that situation that has to stay home with the kids, in fact, who gets the stay at home parent would have to be a mutual decision between the couple. Sure, biologically speaking, the women have to spend the first year home due to breastfeeding, but no amount of laws from any government will ever change that. It is still superficial in the grand scheme of things. As far as the women's pay difference, maybe you're citing the averages, but my experience has not always held true. The jobs I've worked, the women were more likely to get the promotions, made the same amount, or more than I did. Not to sound arrogant or egotistical, but in every experience I've encountered, it wasn't because they had more experience or were better workers, it was because the companies were afraid of getting sued, so they did it as a preventative measure. I wasn't better than them, but I wasn't any worse either as far as work ethic. And job knowledge was greater, because I would end up 9 times out of 10 training them for the job that they got promoted to even though I had been trying to get that promotion myself. Like I said, it might have been the companies I worked for, or the region I live in, but that's just my experience.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
mine goes along with what I said...
maybe it depends on what type of industry you are in....
screen printing is kind of male dominated sometimes....



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
This debate reminds me of that episode of "The Office" where Micheal puts Dwight in charge of picking a health care plan for the office.

It's not a new, because of Obamacare, that employers have tried to pick and choose what should and shouldn't be covered, while choosing a employee health care package plan.

Enjoy




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Spectral Norm
 


So, you believe that all women who use oral contraceptives or IUD's are murders. Okay. Good luck with your crusade.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Spectral Norm
 


So, you believe that all women who use oral contraceptives or IUD's are murders. Okay. Good luck with your crusade.

There are those who will debate themselves right into hell I believe. Only someone who doesn't believe in God or divine judgement would argue the case of abortion in the affirmative.
People who do not believe in God have no business propagating divine judgement upon a whole nation. God does not hate homosexuals or abortionists but he hates homosexuality and abortion. Why would you risk bringing judgement on a whole nation so that you yourself could screw without accountability through the vice of murder.
When a nation embraces homosexuality and abortion by giving it mainstream status you can be assured that judgement is on the way. It would not surprise me if some great catastrophy struck America soon that would stop the wheels from turning. You already have an antichrist at the helm. Why not just do it up right. Stupid ignorant people who vote for an antichrist because he buys them a phone and such. REPENT!! again I say REPENT!!!
edit on 2-1-2013 by cantyousee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by cantyousee
 


Your God garners no respect from me. You God has no respect for innocent life.


Hosea 13:16
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.



Deuteronomy 20:10
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.
11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.

2 Kings 15:16
At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women.



Psalms 137:8
Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us. He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.



1 Samuel 15:3
Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”



Matthew 15:3
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


People are starting to get blind.






top topics



 
30
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join