Are Conservitives in favor of Sharia law?

[Openmind]

The question is NOT whether women in the plan take it or do not (that's up to them) its whether the rest in the equation are forced to subsidize what is against their faith.

Were you aware that Viagra is indicated for matters other than the obvious ? Might just explain the reference in our snip regarding its use.




and its not just for men

And NO ONE is asking anyone, but the insurance industry (who is more than happy to do it, since it means more profit for them in the long run trough a decrease in coverage for pregnant women and delivery).

In fact, if MONEY is your concern, why don't you worry about people having to pay MORE for all the children that SOME people want to bring into this world EVEN if they are not wanted by the parents?

Do you realize that, in smaller, or middle size corporations, the NUMBER of women who are pregnant in any one year influences the rate of the health care premium the company (and their employees through their co-pay) have to pay? Do you realize that, even the number of women in child bearing age in one corporation can increase the premium for everyone in that corporation?

What about all the people who DO NOT WANT more children in this already over-populated world? Can they say "it is against my code of ethics and against my moral to pay for more children to be born, when so many children are left to starve all over the world, even in our inner city neighborhoods"?

And if you think that 0ne out of 100 Viagra pills goes to someone who REALLY need it for a REAL medical reason (other than boosting one's male ego and feeling "like a man" again!), why are you ignoring the MANY MORE women (even young girls) who NEED birth control pills for MEDICAL reason. . . who without the hormones in the birth control pills would spend 2 to 5 days each month incapacitated by horrible cramps and heavy bleeding?

Once again, you are ONLY considering YOUR side of the issue. . .and you pretend that I do not understand the issue? At least, I see it in its entirety. . while you are stuck in your partisan hate for that ONE man who is trying to do the best he can to help women. . .especially poor women, for whom 30$ a month means two or three meals for her and her kids!

You will NEVER recognize ANY point I make as valid. . .and you will come answer this comment with an arrogant: "that's because you fail to make your point!"

How biased and hypocritical can anyone be? If I took the same approach as our dear General, I would ask you to ANSWER each one of the question and to justify with REASON why I am wrong.

But it would be wasting my time, because you do not have the fortitude to face that, even if you disagree with most of my view, even if you are convinced that I am wrong 99% of the time, YOU WILL NOT RECOGNIZE even that 1% that you KNOW is correct.

 

[Openmind]

No the issue was about sharia law! you liberals are just running with the talking points of the day..(most consevatives believe in birth control) end of story..

Yep. . .I KNOW most conservatives believe in birth control! I just wish THEY would face up to it, instead of using this "talking point of the day" to try, in a most outrageous and hypocritical manner, to find a new way to bash Obama and to bring women back 50 years!

But apparently, even the GOP congress finally realize that they were out of bound on that one, and the "discussion committee of FIVE MEN" set up to discuss the issue of BIRTH CONTROL, without ALLOWING ANY WOMEN to be a part of the discussion has thrown in the towel. . . at last. But I am sure the vitriolic partisanship and little minds in this forum will not let it go that easy!

 

[dogtowner]

And NO ONE is asking anyone, but the insurance industry (who is more than happy to do it, since it means more profit for them in the long run trough a decrease in coverage for pregnant women and delivery).

In fact, if MONEY is your concern, why don't you worry about people having to pay MORE for all the children that SOME people want to bring into this world EVEN if they are not wanted by the parents?

Do you realize that, in smaller, or middle size corporations, the NUMBER of women who are pregnant in any one year influences the rate of the health care premium the company (and their employees through their co-pay) have to pay? Do you realize that, even the number of women in child bearing age in one corporation can increase the premium for everyone in that corporation?

What about all the people who DO NOT WANT more children in this already over-populated world? Can they say "it is against my code of ethics and against my moral to pay for more children to be born, when so many children are left to starve all over the world, even in our inner cities neighborhoods"?

And if you think that 0ne our of 100 Viagra pills goes to someone who REALLY need it for a REAL medical reason (other than boosting one's male ego and feeling "like a man" again!), why are you ignoring the MANY MORE women (even young girls) who NEED birth control pills for MEDICAL reason. . . who without the hormones in the birth control pills would spend 2 to 5 days each month incapacitated by horrible cramps and heavy bleeding?

Once again, you are ONLY considering YOUR side of the issue. . .and you pretend that I do not understand the issue? At least, I see it in its entirety. . while you are stuck in your partisan hate for that ONE man who is trying to do the best he can to help women. . .especially poor women, for whom 30$ a month means two or three meals for her and her kids!

You will NEVER recognize ANY point I make as valid. . .and you will come answer this comment with an arrogant: "that's because you fail to make your point!"

How biased and hypocritical can anyone be? If I took the same approach as our dear General, I would ask you to ANSWER each one of the question and to justify with REASON why I am wrong.

But it would be wasting my time, because you do not have the fortitude to face that, even if you disagree with most of my view, even if you are convinced that I am wrong 99% of the time, YOU WILL NOT RECOGNIZE even that 1% that you KNOW is correct.

I have not made money the issue but you do so continually. I don't have the luxury of making this a money issue since the 1st amendment isn't about money but the religious freedom that this country was founded upon.

You seek to paint this as something that its not. The RCC has made valid points regarding Constitutionality and you counter with an argument regarding women's (and men's health and it's costs) when we are not talking about health at all but family planning.

 

[Openmind]

I have not made money the issue but you do so continually. I don't have the luxury of making this a money issue since the 1st amendment isn't about money but the religious freedom that this country was founded upon.

You seek to paint this as something that its not. The RCC has made valid points regarding Constitutionality and you counter with an argument regarding women's (and men's health and it's costs) when we are not talking about health at all but family planning.

So. . . you write this in your post:

The question is NOT whether women in the plan take it or do not (that's up to them) its whether the rest in the equation are forced to subsidize what is against their faith.

And that doesn't refer to MONEY?


I have provided you (repeatedly) with the litteral words of the first amendment, including the establishment clause and the exercise clause. I also provided you with SCOTUS interpretation of the exercise clause in diverse cases involving potential "conflicts" between religious beliefs and government policies.
One clearly says that, while the "RELIGIOUS FAITH AND BELIEFS" cannot be questionned or affected by Government decisions. . . the ACTION based on those beliefs are not exempt from government rules.

One exemple was polygamy. There were several others.

But, I realize it is easier for you to just ignore my sources than to rise to the level of maturity that it would take to recognize that I may be correct in my assessment.

I feel sorry for your lack of intellectual honesty. It is beginning to seriously affect your credibility and your character.

 

[dogtowner]

And I have provided you (repeatedly) with the litteral words of the first amendment, including the establishment clause and the exercise clause. I also provided you with SCOTUS interpretation of the exercise clause in diverse cases involving potential "conflicts" between religious beliefs and government policies.
One clearly says that, while the "RELIGIOUS FAITH AND BELIEFS" cannot be questionned or affected by Government decisions. . . the ACTION based on those beliefs are not exempt from government rules.

One exemple was polygamy. There were several others.

But, I realize it is easier for you to just ignore my sources than to rise to the level of maturity that it would take to recognize that I may be correct in my assessment.

I feel sorry for your lack of intellectual honesty. It is beginning to seriously affect your credibility and your character.

Yeah I saw.

Family planning is hardly a conflict on the order of (from your post) "human sacrifice". In fact its not a conflict at all. You are aware that this is exactly like the prohibition on federal money being used for abortion don't you ?

 

[Openmind]

Yeah I saw.

Family planning is hardly a conflict on the order of (from your post) "human sacrifice". In fact its not a conflict at all. You are aware that this is exactly like the prohibition on federal money being used for abortion don't you ?

I didn't think family planning should have triggered ANY conflict! In fact, it hasn't until the Hyper Religious Right got it into their head to make this country a "Christian" Country, with "Christian" traditions, and "Christian" based laws. . .which is ENTIRELY against the Constitution!
And. . .I cannot find the context in which I used "human sacrifice," so I cannot speak on that subject, unless you provide me with the context.
In addition, I believe that the prohibition on federal money being used for abortion is a perfect example of "Christian based law" that are unconstitutional. . .as the ONLY reason for such a prohibition is RELIGION.
If it was anything else than religious bigotry, people who, as I stated before, find it unconscionable to bring more children into this world, especially if they are not planned and wanted by the parents, when there are so many unwanted children who live in poverty, who live in foster home, whose chances for a decent life are minimal, and many millions of children all over the world who will die of hunger, or easily preventable illness due to over-population, would ALSO have the right to request the PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL MONEY BEING USED to bring those unwanted children into the world, and to pay for their (very poor) education, just to lock them up in jails and pay for their keep in jail!

If EVERY child was wanted, there would be better education, and less crime, and less emprisonment. And to work toward reaching that elusive goal of EVERY CHILD being born because of a strong desire by STABLE people to have a child, the BEST way is to allow EASY AND FREE access to contraception for ANY WOMEN who chooses to use it. . .without EVER forcing any woman into using birth control if they don't want to.

 

[GenSeneca]

so now your against Insurance....

you I don't favor Chemo...so no one gets Chemo paid for now...

its what I expect from your, only about me view of everything.

Your reply does not address anything that I've actually said about the subject. As usual, you are attacking strawmen to distract from your complete inability to defend your own position.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Dog, why aren't you warning these people for going off subject?

 

[Pandora]

The first paragraph of your post is offensive and a direct attack on this poster.

It is also too ridiculous to make a big deal out of it.

I just acknowledged what you have said in past threads about abortions and how they are not people. You as well as obama and barbara boxer do not seem to care even when they are born and outside the womb, somehow they are still not people because someone doesn’t want them.

I would call that an attack too if you said it about me but that is because I do not believe in it and I think people, all people have a right to life. And you cannot go to any thread in this forum and find evidence of me advocating that some people are persons and some people are not.



So be offended, that’s actually healthy if you are … even if it’s just a tad bit!


edited for content

 

[dogtowner]

I didn't think family planning should have triggered ANY conflict! In fact, it hasn't until the Hyper Religious Right got it into their head to make this country a "Christian" Country, with "Christian" traditions, and "Christian" based laws. . .which is ENTIRELY against the Constitution!
And. . .I cannot find the context in which I used "human sacrifice," so I cannot speak on that subject, unless you provide me with the context.
In addition, I believe that the prohibition on federal money being used for abortion is a perfect example of "Christian based law" that are unconstitutional. . .as the ONLY reason for such a prohibition is RELIGION.
If it was anything else than religious bigotry, people who, as I stated before, find it unconscionable to bring more children into this world, especially if they are not planned and wanted by the parents, when there are so many unwanted children who live in poverty, who live in foster home, whose chances for a decent life are minimal, and many millions of children all over the world who will die of hunger, or easily preventable illness due to over-population, would ALSO have the right to request the PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL MONEY BEING USED to bring those unwanted children into the world, and to pay for their (very poor) education, just to lock them up in jails and pay for their keep in jail!

If EVERY child was wanted, there would be better education, and less crime, and less emprisonment. And to work toward reaching that elusive goal of EVERY CHILD being born because of a strong desire by STABLE people to have a child, the BEST way is to allow EASY AND FREE access to contraception for ANY WOMEN who chooses to use it. . .without EVER forcing any woman into using birth control if they don't want to.

regarding the bolded above...copied straight from your post #24 context was limited not absolute religious freedom.

would it be nice if people were responsible and actually planned their families ?
sure it would. but they don't.

birth control is readily available for poor folks at no cost but they get pregnant a anyway. in some cultures its considered cool. and then there are those others who use abortion for birth control.

but none of them were the target of this vote buyer. it was intended to make obamacare seem like a good thing for the 50+% who will have to try and pay for all the rest. thats right, Soccer Moms who helped elect him and who he's been losing ever since.

but the constitutional law lecturer (oh ok his handlers keeping tabs on electoral calculus) failed to realize this could not be.

the best thing he could do at this point is pull it off the table and maybe scold Sebilious for good measure.

not going to be easy to scrape the dog poop off his shoe.

 

[Openmind]

I think your post directed to me before this about me wanting to ban masturbation was of the mentality of a 12 year old and an UN provoked attack!



I just acknowledged what you have said in past threads about abortions and how they are not people. You as well as obama and barbara boxer do not seem to care even when they are born and outside the womb, somehow they are still not people because someone doesn’t want them.

I would call that an attack too if you said it about me but that is because I do not believe in it and I think people, all people have a right to life. And you cannot go to any thread in this forum and find evidence of me advocating that some people are persons and some people are not.



So be offended, that’s actually healthy if you are … even if it’s just a tad bit!

First, even if included you in my general comment about some people wouldn't be happy until even masturbation and monthly bleeding was outlawed, I didn't call you a killer. Let's leave it at that.

Second, I DARE you to show me ONE post where I said that newborns are not people. Or even that "some people are persons and some people are not." I have argue in the past that what makes us HUMAN is our mind, our ability to fonctions, to think (even at a very basic level), to feel pain and joy, and that if all those abilities are gone, because one is braindead (or is born without a brain, which does happen although rarely), there is no reason to sustain life by extroardinary means, and the person could without any moral dilemma be removed from life support.

edited for content

 

[Pandora]

Let's leave it at that.

Second, I DARE you to show me ONE post where I said that newborns are not people. Or even that "some people are persons and some people are not." I have argue in the past that what makes us HUMAN is our mind, our ability to fonctions, to think (even at a very basic level), to feel pain and joy, and that if all those abilities are gone, because one is braindead (or is born without a brain, which does happen although rarely), there is no reason to sustain life by extroardinary means, and the person could without any moral dilemma be removed from life support.

Go to the abortion thread and review your descriptions of “personhood” it if you feel the need … I already have.


edited for content

 

[Openmind]

You are

regarding the bolded above...copied straight from your post #24 context was limited not absolute religious freedom.

would it be nice if people were responsible and actually planned their families ?
sure it would. but they don't.

birth control is readily available for poor folks at no cost but they get pregnant a anyway. in some cultures its considered cool. and then there are those others who use abortion for birth control.

but none of them were the target of this vote buyer. it was intended to make obamacare seem like a good thing for the 50+% who will have to try and pay for all the rest. thats right, Soccer Moms who helped elect him and who he's been losing ever since.

but the constitutional law lecturer (oh ok his handlers keeping tabs on electoral calculus) failed to realize this could not be.

the best thing he could do at this point is pull it off the table and maybe scold Sebilious for good measure.

not going to be easy to scrape the dog poop off his shoe.

You are stuck in your "Obama hater" role. and you are giving up any rational thinking.

By the way, yes, now I do remember the case. . . which was only ONE case study quoted. Another one, as I mentionned, was polygamy and many others. And the real context was that religious freedom consisted of NO INTERFERENCE with beliefs and faith, but that religions was not free to ACT on those beliefs if it interfered with the wellbeing of others or with the law.

And. . .obviously, all of you are totally ignoring the new thread re: background information that clearly demonstrates that it is the CATHOLIC CHURCH BISHOPS (picked by the Pope for that specific purpose) who intent to destroy the first amendment by interfering ever more powerfully into politics. . .at the cost of the REAL meaning of the Catholic Church vocation: to thrive for equality and to help the poor and the sick It also clearly show that a LARGE number of people, even in the Church hierarchy is very concern about this, and has tried, several times, to raise awareness.

edited for content

 

[Pandora]

No

lets not leave it at that.

You not only included me in your "general" statement... You directed the commet to me in a post you directed to me and did not include anyone else.

Next, you will !

edited for content

 

[Openmind]

By the way, I cannot find the "post" you are so sure I stated that a newborn is not a person.

You either put up or shut up.


edited for content