Republican Biblethumpers. Explain Anti Abortion,Anticontraception, Antiwelfare stance

[MovingTarget]

Over generalize much? Yeh I hate to say it also... its not a republican/democrat thing.

Anyway it is the hard core Catholics that are against using contraceptives. You are on the right track you need to recompose your thoughts and come back to us later.

This. Very this.

 

[JTsyo]

I don't care if people have sex out of wedlock. I think you should use condoms so you don't get AIDS, herpes, or other STDs. I don't care if women have contraceptives, but think having them paid for by health insurance is stupid since it's an anticipated expense. I don't oppose abortion in all cases, but still think Roe v. Wade was a bad decision on Constitutional grounds; and also reject the idea of the "slippery slope" thinking that leads pro-choice people to reject any restrictions on abortion whatsover.

If folks in the ghetto want to push out babies, that's their business; I oppose long-term welfare as being ultimately harmful to its recipients (regardless if in the ghetto, suburbs, big businesses, or anywhere else). Considering that the abortion rates among blacks is IIRC like 5 or 6 times that of white women, I would think that "curtailing the population of ghetto folks and trailerpark folks" would be a concern of liberals as well.

It's actually a very good business decision for the insurance company. Contraceptives are way cheaper than than the costs for a child. Especially since companies tend not to charge per child if you are on a family plan.

 

[Atreus21]

Okay so you dont want people to have sex unless they are married.
You dont want people to use condoms if they have sex
You dont want women to take contraceptives
You dont want women to have the right for abortion.

Yet you are pro death penalty.
And you are anti Welfare,foodstamps.

But if you want people to have a baby everytime they have sex why are you against then helping the baby eat and get food if the parents are not working?

So what gives? IF you want to see less folks in the ghetto pushing out babies like its going out of style and collecting welfare/food stamps why wont you be for anything that helps curtail the population of the Ghetto folks and the Trailerpark folks? Or anyone that could potential increase the amount of government aid collected.

I part ways with the Catholic church when it comes to contraception, excluding RU-486. If a sperm cell hasn't inseminated anything, it's nothing more than a sperm cell. Once it does, you've created a human being. However, I still believe the decision to force them and their affiliates to pay for contraception is in violation of their first amendment rights.

I don't want women to have a baby every time they have sex. I want them not to kill their child if they happen to get pregnant.

There's a subtly sinister tone to the population-control facet of the pro-choice argument. It begins with the unstated premise that human reproduction must be controlled by someone other than those doing the reproducing, and suggests that some classes are more worthy than others to reproduce. That's a very dangerous premise. It is precisely that argument which motivated Margaret Sanger.

 

[mrCide]

That's not what he said. He said if you believe in God, you are a retard.

It's implied by what I said; believing any god that's tied into any past and current religion/scripture is showing lack of intelligence. Ignorance as well.. to call them retards is a bit extreme but it's just semantics.

 

[Atreus21]

It's implied by what I said; believing any god that's tied into any past and current religion/scripture is showing lack of intelligence. Ignorance as well.. to call them retards is a bit extreme but it's just semantics.

Congratulations. You're an arrogant dick.

 

[brandonb]

My catholic church is against the death penalty.
It is also against abortion.
It is also against birth control.

Why?

Because it believes it's God's will. My priest says, women have billions of eggs, men have millions of sperm. If God didn't want us reproducing, it wouldn't have made us to easy to procreate.

They are against birth control because of that.
They are against abortion because of that.
The church is also against the death penalty. Why? Because the person will be judged by God, and doesn't need to be judged by Man.

Welfare on the other hand. It is not a "bible thumping" thing. Bible thumpers have no issue giving out welfare to those in need. However, on the other hand, conservatives (that is separate from bible thumper) don't like giving out welfare to those who do nothing to better themselves. Think of unemployment. Do you believe unemployment should last an eternity when you lose a job? Who would ever look for a job again if you can live off unemployment forever? Welfare doesn't actually better the person. It is not a crutch for when they need help. It's a way of life for many for most of the people on it. Usually people will stay on it as long as they possibly can before they are forced off it.

Have you ever heard of the term "parenting"? Instead of being the kids best friend, sometimes whats best for them is to make sure they get their chores done, homework done, whatever that is not so fun before letting them "play." Some think the most important thing is to be the childs best friend, and in many cases that harms them, doesn't help them in the long run. Parenting is required to get the kids prepared for life, and sometimes, that isn't fun or "friendly." Think of conservatives disliking welfare as the same concept, just applied to adults. Sometimes the best thing to do is "kick their ass" (figuratively) and make people be responsible for themselves because thats best in the long run.

 

[Linflas]

It's implied by what I said; believing any god that's tied into any past and current religion/scripture is showing lack of intelligence. Ignorance as well.. to call them retards is a bit extreme but it's just semantics.

Were he still alive I would put this mans intelligence up against yours any day:

Donald W. Forester, Naval Research Laboratory scientist

He was a member of Westwood Baptist Church in Springfield, where he was a deacon and Bible teacher.

 

[mrCide]

Were he still alive I would put this mans intelligence up against yours any day:

Donald W. Forester, Naval Research Laboratory scientist

I don't doubt it, but were he still alive and studied theology in his younger years I wonder what he would have to say about his beliefs. Being brainwashed by religion isn't exclusive to morons.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Were he still alive I would put this mans intelligence up against yours any day:

Donald W. Forester, Naval Research Laboratory scientist

This guy is still alive.

Smarter than the fellow you quoted will ever be.

Then there are atheists who are superior such as Martin Rees who feel somewhat embarrassed by people with a bigger chip on their shoulder than minds.

Ah well, ignorance takes so many forms.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't doubt it, but were he still alive and studied theology in his younger years I wonder what he would have to say about his beliefs. Being brainwashed by religion isn't exclusive to morons.

Most certainly not. In a coincidence with the fusion power thread, my best friend's father is one of the most brilliant people I've ever known. He is a physicist working on General Atomics' fusion research project, and is working on ITER as we speak. He also gets up at 5AM every day so that he can go to church before work, he's one of the biggest Jesus people I've ever known.

So yeah, religion and intelligence can most definitely go hand in hand.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Most certainly not. In a coincidence with the fusion power thread, my best friend's father is one of the most brilliant people I've ever known. He is a physicist working on General Atomics' fusion research project, and is working on ITER as we speak. He also gets up at 5AM every day so that he can go to church before work, he's one of the biggest Jesus people I've ever known.

So yeah, religion and intelligence can most definitely go hand in hand.

But he's better than your friend's father because he's so... better. Just ask him.

 

[cybrsage]

Closed minded not believing in Fiction?

Close minded for refusing to entertain the thought it may not be fiction.
I noticed you did not mention the intolerance, which is good, since that means you agree it is intolerance.

 

[glenn1]

It's actually a very good business decision for the insurance company. Contraceptives are way cheaper than than the costs for a child. Especially since companies tend not to charge per child if you are on a family plan.

"Insuring" against anticipated, routine purchases is stupid, as it's no longer insurance but rather just pre-paying the expense. A rough equivalent would be having auto "insurance" pay for every brake job, since without the driver might get into a crash and total the car (which is more expensive than the brake job).

 

[fskimospy]

"Insuring" against anticipated, routine purchases is stupid, as it's no longer insurance but rather just pre-paying the expense. A rough equivalent would be having auto "insurance" pay for every brake job, since without the driver might get into a crash and total the car (which is more expensive than the brake job).

They have that, you know.

 

[cybrsage]

He has a good point about condoms...had not thought about that.

For me, I draw the line of insurance coverage at over the counter items. If you can buy it over the counter, it should not be covered. Condoms, asprin, razor blades, etc. Prenatal vitamins, sure. Birth control pills, sure.

 

[glenn1]

They have that, you know.

They also sell insurance against the rapture, alien abduction, and similar events - should Obamacare mandate coverage of those also?

I dont understand why democrats want to insert the insurance company middle man in this area. if all you wanna do ensure women's access to contraceptives, it would be a lot cheaper for the government to just buy and distribute them directly.

 

[fskimospy]

They also sell insurance against the rapture, alien abduction, and similar events - should Obamacare mandate coverage of those also?

I dont understand why democrats want to insert the insurance company middle man in this area. if all you wanna do ensure women's access to contraceptives, it would be a lot cheaper for the government to just buy and distribute them directly.

Well, I actually probably prefer a nationwide catastrophic insurance system coupled with mandatory health savings accounts. (subsidized for the poor) So in theory I'm with you on this one. This is quite unlikely to happen however, so as a back up I support a single payer system for all health expenses, contraceptives included.

I'm not sure if that puts me as agreeing or disagreeing with you, now that I think about it.

 

[glenn1]

Well, I actually probably prefer a nationwide catastrophic insurance system coupled with mandatory health savings accounts. (subsidized for the poor) So in theory I'm with you on this one. This is quite unlikely to happen however, so as a back up I support a single payer system for all health expenses, contraceptives included.

I'm not sure if that puts me as agreeing or disagreeing with you, now that I think about it.

with you 100 percent on your option 1. Unsure if we could afford your option 2 while maintaining current obligations with soc security, etc. might work if we abolish the individual programs in favor of just 1 single payment to beneficiaries to be used for whatever needs they had.

 

[etrigan420]

Instead of telling people what they believe in and why, when you obviously have no fucking clue, how about you start a thread explaining what you believe in and why. Don't put words into peoples mouths and then tell them they're idiots.

The irony is strong with this post...

 

[fskimospy]

with you 100 percent on your option 1. Unsure if we could afford your option 2 while maintaining current obligations with soc security, etc. might work if we abolish the individual programs in favor of just 1 single payment to beneficiaries to be used for whatever needs they had.

We can definitely afford option 2, or to be more clear we can definitely afford option 2 more than our current system.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Just believing in the bible and god (lowercase) make them retarded, so it's a no-brainer that they'd have retarded views.

Is that in your opinion? Or just a blanket statement with no bearing on the facts? Links please...

 

[Ausm]

Close minded for refusing to entertain the thought it may not be fiction.
I noticed you did not mention the intolerance, which is good, since that means you agree it is intolerance.

I agree that Religion should be banned yes....

 

[MotF Bane]

I agree that Religion should be banned yes....

Pay no heed to that pesky Bill of Rights. D:

.

 

[Mursilis]

I agree that Religion should be banned yes....

Well, this should be fun.

 

[glenn1]

We can definitely afford option 2, or to be more clear we can definitely afford option 2 more than our current system.

there's no free lunch with your option 2. any potential healthcare scheme involves trade offs between cost, improving results in the broad based aggregate population, or allowing best possible results in individual cases - pick 2 of the 3. Most "socialized" systems give up best individual results (via waiting lists, denied care, etc), while in the U.S. it tends to be social maximization that is overlooked.