Are Conservitives in favor of Sharia law?

[Pandora]

Thanks for acknowledging you were lying in your previous post, I had not expected you would be straightforward about it.

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.

How could you call them a baby? They don’t even have personhood do they? And is it really killing if it’s just an abortion? You do not think abortion is killing do you? I do! But from what I have read you do not consider it murder and you do not consider the baby a person but they could potentially become a person.



Or have you changed your views? Is an abortion killing a baby?

Is that baby a person, do they have personhood?





Really, this isn’t the right thread for the topic, the topic here is if you want the morning after pill or birth control pills, get off your butt and buy some or go to planned parenthood and have them dole some out to you and stop expecting someone else to pay your way, there is no free lunch!



edited for content

 

[Openmind]

Thanks for acknowledging you were lying in your previous post, I had not expected you would be straightforward about it.






How could you call them a baby? They don’t even have personhood do they? And is it really killing if it’s just an abortion? You do not think abortion is killing do you? I do! But from what I have read you do not consider it murder and you do not consider the baby a person but they could potentially become a person.



Or have you changed your views? Is an abortion killing a baby?

Is that baby a person, do they have personhood?





Really, this isn’t the right forum for the topic, the topic here is if you want the morning after pill or birth control pills, get off your butt and buy some or go to planned parenthood and have them dole some out to you and stop expecting someone else to pay your way, there is no free lunch!

This is the last time I answer you before you apologize.

I didn't say I was lying. When I use the term "YOU" I used it as generalization. . . .but if the shoe fits, be my guest

I have not change my stand, for as long as I have been in this forum, and for MUCH longer. AN EARLY TERM ABORTION IS NOT MURDER. It isn't in my beliefs, and it isn't by law. I believe that early term abortion (the earliest the better, but no later . . .unless the fetus is severely disable and/or the mother's life is at risk. . .than 12 to 16 weeks.).
Science and the law have determined that the VERY EARLIEST a fetus can feel anything is 20 weeks. . .before that there is NOTHING, but a cluster of cells.

But the fact is that this thread was intended to debate BIRTH CONTROL, NOT abortion. And the fact is that the morning after does NOT act on a fetus after at the most the 3rd or 4th day of fertilization. . .but most often act as a PREVENTER of fertilization, even before the egg and the sperm meet, or STOPS divisions of the cells (which by then are only numbered to a maximum of 80 cells. . .a lot less than the skin cells you shed every day, a lot less than ONE hair that falls of your head, or the nail that you break while dusting your home), OR prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. . .and let that egg be discarded like any other eggs during periodic bleeding.

Your remark about my "getting off my butt and buying some . . .birth control pills" is obviously another ridiculous remark, since I have never hidden the fact that I am 61 years old! Are you at all aware of menopause, or are you ready to accuse post menopausal women of not having children because they "abort" their fetus?

Apparently, there is a free lunch for the MALE employees of the Catholic Church, who are graciously receiving the 6 little blue pills a month. . . with no consideration of "promiscuity" or "encouraging sexual encounters" or " promoting more unwanted pregnancies!"

You are off my radar. I will reconsider if you ever decide to apologize (in private will do. . . I am not here to embarrass you). Otherwise, have a nice life. . and enjoy the "free lunch" you get from your hated Union!


edited for content

 

[Pandora]

This is the last time I answer you before you apologize.

Does this mean you are going to stop posting to me? Forever and ever.......

Oh I do hope so

 

[GenSeneca]

If you can't see that, if you can't even recognize that it is plain hypocrisy and a direct attack on women's right to choose, you are blind and you should have lived 50 years ago. . .in fact, if you have YOUR WAY, you MAY force everyone (especially women) to live as they did 50 years ago.

Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.​

Hypocrisy: On that point you're wrong twice. First, by your use of a fallacy to make an argument in favor of your position. Second, it's not even hypocritical; the Catholic church opposes birth control (for both men and women), Viagra is not a form of birth control.

An attack on women's right to choose: Another fallacy, that of the Strawman argument:

Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.​

​

The actual Catholic position: The religious beliefs of Catholic organizations do not allow them to support birth control, therefore, forcing Catholic organizations to pay for, or provide, birth control products or services would be a violation of their religious beliefs.

The Radical Leftist Straw man version of the Catholic position: The religious beliefs of Catholic organizations do not allow them to support birth control, therefore, Catholics want to BAN all forms of birth control.

Here's how things would work if 'Catholics get their way': Catholic organizations that provide health care insurance to their employees would choose policies that do not cover birth control products or services. An individual who wished to use birth control products or services would be free to purchase them, at their own expense, and use them as they pleased.

 

[GenSeneca]

Once again, you are ONLY considering YOUR side of the issue

There has been no indication that you're considering any side of the issue other than your own.

Do you even know our position on the subject? It would seem that you do not.

You will NEVER recognize ANY point I make as valid. . .

I would, if you actually made a valid point.

How biased and hypocritical can anyone be?

Read some of your own posts and see.

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.

That's how rational conversations among mature adults are meant to be conducted.

 

[Openmind]

There has been no indication that you're considering any side of the issue other than your own.

Do you even know our position on the subject? It would seem that you do not.


I would, if you actually made a valid point.


Read some of your own posts and see.


That's how rational conversations among mature adults are meant to be conducted.

ou're


Yet, you're not doing it.

 

[cashmcall]

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.

Lets say I agree with your reasoning, A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called “pro-lifers” as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman’s womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman’s womb.
What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically and finacially dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave me and others like me.Now isn't that just sick?

 

[Openmind]

Since I do not approve of late term abortions except in dire cases (severe disability of the fetus and/or life of the mother), I disagree that no one creature has the right to depend on someone for his/her life. However, the point where we seem to differ most is that I do NOT consider an early term fetus a "living person," while I do consider a person who is disabled and unable to care for him/herself a full person (unless he/she has been pronounced brain death by more than one professional) a full person.
Good try trying to make the false equivalency between an early term fetus (in term of birth control or the morning after pill, we are actually not even talking about a fetus, but merely a cluster of cells which, someplace around the 20th week of gestation will begin to FEEL) and any person who needs at some point in their life to access assistance from the government. . .
I would say tough that your comment about "no one has the right to enslave me and others like me" (which I do not disagree with. . .depending however of what you mean by "enslaving") is PRECISELY why we need the governement to provide a safety net for those people. And if you call participating in that national safety net "enslavement," be it. . .but I am GLAD to be able to participate, so for me, it is NOT enslavement, but free will, even if I am told exactly HOW MUCH I will need to participate based on what my income is.

Having worked exclusively for 7 years with people with severe developmental disabilities, having been in charge of organizing every aspect of their lives, and having been able to do so BECAUSE of govenment entitlements for that population, I know that those people would, without the law that protects them, and without the government that assure their survival through entitlement, would have had NO CHANCE to a normal life, and many would die or be killed.

And, although some people in this forum do not hesitate to call me a "child killer" and spew their hatred at me. . .but the fact is that I care, and I KNOW what it is to give of oneself voluntarely. . .but knowing that one is not enough when faced with some people's needs. Not even their family, even if they are lucky enough to have loving, caring family (some do. . .some don't!), can keep some of needy people alive and safe. . .or be safe from them.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yet, you're not doing it.

Let us see if you are capable of having a rational conversation...

Here is what I believe your position to be on this subject:

You support a government mandate that requires health insurance companies to provide birth control products and services as part of every policy. Despite opposing contraception on religious grounds, Catholic organizations that offer health insurance for their employees should have to offer these new insurance plans to their employees. You believe that exempting Catholic organizations from carrying these new insurance plans would violate the establishment clause because Catholicism would be given special treatment at the hands of government.

Is that correct?

Now, you tell me... What is my position on this subject?

 

[dogtowner]

have at it all you wish but leave the personal stuff out of it.

thanks in advance.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

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

they never put up...and they never shut up...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Its sad, they pretty much say that the rules of there Religion should trump State and Federal law ( by the way same laws that where pushed and supported by republicans before...of course like many other things if Obama does them its evil then) But if its any other Religion over Federal or state law...they go crazy. But yea...just pretend its a straw man...

 

[GenSeneca]

Its sad, they pretty much say that the rules of there Religion should trump State and Federal law ... But yea...just pretend its a straw man...

It is a straw man. Not one single person on this forum is arguing for the rules of their religion to trump state and federal law, not one. If the FDA mandated that all soup kitchens which services the poor must serve pork products as part of a balanced diet, that would violate the religious beliefs of Muslim and Jewish organizations who operated soup kitchens for the poor. Without the mandate, these soup kitchens could continue to serve foods that did not violate their religious beliefs and the people being served would be free to look for non-halal or non-kosher soup kitchens if they really wanted to eat pork.

The same holds true for this mandate about health insurance policies having to cover contraception and birth control. Without the mandate, the Catholic organizations would not be forced to provide products or services that violate their religious beliefs and anyone who chose to work for these Catholic organization would still be free to purchase and use birth control at their own expense or they could choose to work for a non-Catholic organization whose health insurance plan did cover contracption and birth control products.

So, would you like to offer a reasonable argument as to why the mandate is necessary, or shall I expenct another strawman about how we just want religious rules to trump government laws and that we should all just shut up and let the government run roughshod over our constitutional rights?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It is a straw man. Not one single person on this forum is arguing for the rules of their religion to trump state and federal law, not one. If the FDA mandated that all soup kitchens which services the poor must serve pork products as part of a balanced diet, that would violate the religious beliefs of Muslim and Jewish organizations who operated soup kitchens for the poor. Without the mandate, these soup kitchens could continue to serve foods that did not violate their religious beliefs and the people being served would be free to look for non-halal or non-kosher soup kitchens if they really wanted to eat pork.

The same holds true for this mandate about health insurance policies having to cover contraception and birth control. Without the mandate, the Catholic organizations would not be forced to provide products or services that violate their religious beliefs and anyone who chose to work for these Catholic organization would still be free to purchase and use birth control at their own expense or they could choose to work for a non-Catholic organization whose health insurance plan did cover contracption and birth control products.

So, would you like to offer a reasonable argument as to why the mandate is necessary, or shall I expenct another strawman about how we just want religious rules to trump government laws and that we should all just shut up and let the government run roughshod over our constitutional rights?

If the law states that all workers should have access to X and you say it should not apply to people of some Religion...your saying that there Religious law is more important then the Law itself at the state or Federal law.

and I could care less if some Religions own beliefs are overruled by Federal law. It happens a lot...the only reason you guys care is 1. Fox news told you to. 2, Hypocritical Republicans told you to. and 3..because its your Religion not someone elses. Same rules where pushed and passed by republicans before..none of you cared....But because Obama does it, its a war on Christianity...Bunch of little Myrter wannabes...look at me I am sooo persecuted!

 

[Gipper]

If the law states that all workers should have access to X and you say it should not apply to people of some Religion...your saying that there Religious law is more important then the Law itself at the state or Federal law.

and I could care less if some Religions own beliefs are overruled by Federal law. It happens a lot...the only reason you guys care is 1. Fox news told you to. 2, Hypocritical Republicans told you to. and 3..because its your Religion not someone elses. Same rules where pushed and passed by republicans before..none of you cared....But because Obama does it, its a war on Christianity...Bunch of little Myrter wannabes...look at me I am sooo persecuted!

STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!

Every American ALREADY has ACCESS to contraception. You libs just want it free...lazy bunch of %@@%#@%#^%$%^$%%&%(%(&&^*&^*&^*)))(*&)*(&%^#%%#

Do libs really believe money grows on trees? It seems so.

Do libs think the constitution grants the President the right to tell private organizations to give their employees free sh*t? Apparently so, which indicates libs do not believe the constitution constraints the President...well...as long as that president is a lib.....HYPOCRISY!!!