I don’t give two shits what you think about marriage, you have no right stopping gay people getting married.
And your opposition to anything embryonic is not even close to scientific, at best your are misinformed.[/quote]
Again if it is a person then she is responsible for it, same as if it is outside the womb.
I am afraid even Elton John agrees with me about gay marriage. Crazy isn’t it.
Want to make a bet that the DNA of an embryo is human? How much you want to wager? Say leaving the site for good? I say its human you say its not. How about it?
[quote]Otep wrote:
Does anyone else see it as somewhat… awkward, for Christians to rally around the idea of marriage and traditional monogamy in a country with two wars currently ongoing? I mean, these individuals and organizations are free to choose what social ills to combat, but… doesn’t ‘death’ come before ‘taxes’?[/quote]
Waaaaaaah. A bunch of christians bitching about their ‘freedom of conscience’ being threatened by the government. If they dont want the government meddling in their shit, then they need to stop forcing their superstitions on the government (mostly referring to the public school system here). What a bunch of hypocrites, as usual.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Yes, let’s tell women what to do with their body parts. And two consenting adults getting married is just a perversion.[/quote]
You’re missing the fact that they are protesting the government funding abortion clinics with tax dollars. While I think abortion should be legal, I am strongly against using tax dollars to fund abortions. If you “support a woman’s right to choose” why can’t you simply donate your money to an organization that funds abortions for people who can’t afford them? Why does the taxpayer have to foot the bill?
“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Render unto God that which is God’s.”
Unless of course “Caesar” is some black Muslim dude who conspired from birth to conceal his true identity so that he could some day take over America and turn it into a socialist country. Or something like that, anyway. Then it’s ok to tell Caesar to fuck off, and give his share to God.
Caesar was a king of sorts, the American government is not, we have certain liberties that we all agree on and some people in politics choose not to see or more specifically choose to ignore these rights we have.[/quote]
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Waaaaaaah. A bunch of christians bitching about their ‘freedom of conscience’ being threatened by the government. If they dont want the government meddling in their shit, then they need to stop forcing their superstitions on the government (mostly referring to the public school system here). What a bunch of hypocrites, as usual.
[/quote]
I think non Christians do a lot more crying about Christians than the other way around. “Separation of Church and State, Evolution vs Creation, Prayer in Schools, In God we Trust on the coins, Waaaaaaaaah.” Just because you dont believe does not mean we are forcing anything on anyone. We want our freedoms just as much as you do. We just have a huge voting block that is hard to ignore.
How do abortion laws work if a couple disagrees on what course of action to take? For instance what if the guy wants to keep it and the woman doesn’t? What about if the woman wants to keep it and the guy doesn’t?
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Waaaaaaah. A bunch of christians bitching about their ‘freedom of conscience’ being threatened by the government. If they dont want the government meddling in their shit, then they need to stop forcing their superstitions on the government (mostly referring to the public school system here). What a bunch of hypocrites, as usual.
[/quote]
You’re as funny as a bag of dicks. Grow up, people can input their beliefs as much as they want. Freedom of speech.
[quote]JLu wrote:
How do abortion laws work if a couple disagrees on what course of action to take? For instance what if the guy wants to keep it and the woman doesn’t? What about if the woman wants to keep it and the guy doesn’t?[/quote]
Shouldn’t matter, either way it is murder. Think of it like this, what if it was a two year old, what if the guy wants to keep it and the woman doesn’t? What about if the woman wants to keep it and the guy doesn’t? Doesn’t matter who terminates the baby, they are still a murderer.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
JLu wrote:
How do abortion laws work if a couple disagrees on what course of action to take? For instance what if the guy wants to keep it and the woman doesn’t? What about if the woman wants to keep it and the guy doesn’t?
Shouldn’t matter, either way it is murder. Think of it like this, what if it was a two year old, what if the guy wants to keep it and the woman doesn’t? What about if the woman wants to keep it and the guy doesn’t? Doesn’t matter who terminates the baby, they are still a murderer.[/quote]
I asked what abortion laws say about the matter, not religious viewpoints.
[quote]JLu wrote:
I asked what abortion laws say about the matter, not religious viewpoints.[/quote]
Under current US law, all women have a right to an abortion provided by a licensed medical practitioner at any time prior to the birth of the child. The biological father of the child has no legal right to keep the child alive or to force an abortion against the mother’s wishes.
I’ve lost track of the current status of abortion funding in the evolving health care reform legislation currently under consideration by congress. At one point, abortion coverage would be paid for only by monies collected from insurance premiums, not general fund taxes. This is basically the status quo today for people who have health insurance that offers abortion coverage (i.e. most people in the United States). I don’t know how or if that has changed in the current versions of the bill.
[quote]milod wrote:
JLu wrote:
I asked what abortion laws say about the matter, not religious viewpoints.
Under current US law, all women have a right to an abortion provided by a licensed medical practitioner at any time prior to the birth of the child. The biological father of the child has no legal right to keep the child alive or to force an abortion against the mother’s wishes.
I’ve lost track of the current status of abortion funding in the evolving health care reform legislation currently under consideration by congress. At one point, abortion coverage would be paid for only by monies collected from insurance premiums, not general fund taxes. This is basically the status quo today for people who have health insurance that offers abortion coverage (i.e. most people in the United States). I don’t know how or if that has changed in the current versions of the bill.[/quote]
Ok thanks for the response, this is exactly what I was wondering.
My next question then in response to this is if the woman decides to keep it and the man didn’t want it, is he still obligated to pay child support? I’m envisioning 2 situations that create a double-standard (maybe that’s not the right term, anyway); one in which the woman says “I can’t afford it/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and has the abortion meanwhile the man wanted to keep it, and the other in which the man says “I can’t afford this/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and the woman says tough beans fucker you get to pay me half your salary for the rest of your life because I want to keep it.
[quote]milod wrote:
JLu wrote:
I asked what abortion laws say about the matter, not religious viewpoints.
Under current US law, all women have a right to an abortion provided by a licensed medical practitioner at any time prior to the birth of the child. The biological father of the child has no legal right to keep the child alive or to force an abortion against the mother’s wishes.
I’ve lost track of the current status of abortion funding in the evolving health care reform legislation currently under consideration by congress. At one point, abortion coverage would be paid for only by monies collected from insurance premiums, not general fund taxes. This is basically the status quo today for people who have health insurance that offers abortion coverage (i.e. most people in the United States). I don’t know how or if that has changed in the current versions of the bill.[/quote]
From what I understand the House bill has an amendment where the coverage can not fund abortions, but the Senate Bill does not have such an amendment.
[quote]JLu wrote:
milod wrote:
JLu wrote:
I asked what abortion laws say about the matter, not religious viewpoints.
Under current US law, all women have a right to an abortion provided by a licensed medical practitioner at any time prior to the birth of the child. The biological father of the child has no legal right to keep the child alive or to force an abortion against the mother’s wishes.
I’ve lost track of the current status of abortion funding in the evolving health care reform legislation currently under consideration by congress. At one point, abortion coverage would be paid for only by monies collected from insurance premiums, not general fund taxes. This is basically the status quo today for people who have health insurance that offers abortion coverage (i.e. most people in the United States). I don’t know how or if that has changed in the current versions of the bill.
Ok thanks for the response, this is exactly what I was wondering.
My next question then in response to this is if the woman decides to keep it and the man didn’t want it, is he still obligated to pay child support? I’m envisioning 2 situations that create a double-standard (maybe that’s not the right term, anyway); one in which the woman says “I can’t afford it/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and has the abortion meanwhile the man wanted to keep it, and the other in which the man says “I can’t afford this/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and the woman says tough beans fucker you get to pay me half your salary for the rest of your life because I want to keep it.[/quote]
This is a very slippery slope, but a good question non the less. I saw a movie in High School with what you presented about the woman wanting the child and the guy not wanting the child. They lived together and when the baby was about 6 months old she showed up to one of his classes and dropped the kid off and disappered. It actually made me angry. I am not in favor of abortion, but the man should have some sort of say.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
JLu wrote:
How do abortion laws work if a couple disagrees on what course of action to take? For instance what if the guy wants to keep it and the woman doesn’t? What about if the woman wants to keep it and the guy doesn’t?
Shouldn’t matter, either way it is murder. Think of it like this, what if it was a two year old, what if the guy wants to keep it and the woman doesn’t? What about if the woman wants to keep it and the guy doesn’t? Doesn’t matter who terminates the baby, they are still a murderer.[/quote]
Do you think people who have abortions or perform abortions should be jailed for 25 years to life?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
JLu wrote:
milod wrote:
JLu wrote:
I asked what abortion laws say about the matter, not religious viewpoints.
Under current US law, all women have a right to an abortion provided by a licensed medical practitioner at any time prior to the birth of the child. The biological father of the child has no legal right to keep the child alive or to force an abortion against the mother’s wishes.
I’ve lost track of the current status of abortion funding in the evolving health care reform legislation currently under consideration by congress. At one point, abortion coverage would be paid for only by monies collected from insurance premiums, not general fund taxes. This is basically the status quo today for people who have health insurance that offers abortion coverage (i.e. most people in the United States). I don’t know how or if that has changed in the current versions of the bill.
Ok thanks for the response, this is exactly what I was wondering.
My next question then in response to this is if the woman decides to keep it and the man didn’t want it, is he still obligated to pay child support? I’m envisioning 2 situations that create a double-standard (maybe that’s not the right term, anyway); one in which the woman says “I can’t afford it/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and has the abortion meanwhile the man wanted to keep it, and the other in which the man says “I can’t afford this/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and the woman says tough beans fucker you get to pay me half your salary for the rest of your life because I want to keep it.
This is a very slippery slope, but a good question non the less. I saw a movie in High School with what you presented about the woman wanting the child and the guy not wanting the child. They lived together and when the baby was about 6 months old she showed up to one of his classes and dropped the kid off and disappered. It actually made me angry. I am not in favor of abortion, but the man should have some sort of say.[/quote]
If you are not in favor of abortion, why do you care whether men have a say or not?
[quote]JLu wrote:
milod wrote:
JLu wrote:
I asked what abortion laws say about the matter, not religious viewpoints.
Under current US law, all women have a right to an abortion provided by a licensed medical practitioner at any time prior to the birth of the child. The biological father of the child has no legal right to keep the child alive or to force an abortion against the mother’s wishes.
I’ve lost track of the current status of abortion funding in the evolving health care reform legislation currently under consideration by congress. At one point, abortion coverage would be paid for only by monies collected from insurance premiums, not general fund taxes. This is basically the status quo today for people who have health insurance that offers abortion coverage (i.e. most people in the United States). I don’t know how or if that has changed in the current versions of the bill.
Ok thanks for the response, this is exactly what I was wondering.
My next question then in response to this is if the woman decides to keep it and the man didn’t want it, is he still obligated to pay child support? I’m envisioning 2 situations that create a double-standard (maybe that’s not the right term, anyway); one in which the woman says “I can’t afford it/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and has the abortion meanwhile the man wanted to keep it, and the other in which the man says “I can’t afford this/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and the woman says tough beans fucker you get to pay me half your salary for the rest of your life because I want to keep it.[/quote]
It is a fucked up situation. The woman has every choice and the man has none. I think men should be able to decline their fatherly rights and obligations, just like a pregnant woman can decline to be a mother. Of course, if the man declines fatherhood the baby still gets to live, where as if the woman declines motherhood, it doesn’t.
People cry for “the child’s best interest”, yet the child doesn’t even have a right to be born. People cry that “men should take responsibility for their actions”. Well, so should women. They shouldn’t fuck men who aren’t going to stick around to support them or their child. Women are adults, and should take responsibility for their actions. If they want to have the kid, great. I’m pro-choice, by the way, but pro choice for men as well as women.
[quote]JLu wrote:
milod wrote:
JLu wrote:
I asked what abortion laws say about the matter, not religious viewpoints.
Under current US law, all women have a right to an abortion provided by a licensed medical practitioner at any time prior to the birth of the child. The biological father of the child has no legal right to keep the child alive or to force an abortion against the mother’s wishes.
I’ve lost track of the current status of abortion funding in the evolving health care reform legislation currently under consideration by congress. At one point, abortion coverage would be paid for only by monies collected from insurance premiums, not general fund taxes. This is basically the status quo today for people who have health insurance that offers abortion coverage (i.e. most people in the United States). I don’t know how or if that has changed in the current versions of the bill.
Ok thanks for the response, this is exactly what I was wondering.
My next question then in response to this is if the woman decides to keep it and the man didn’t want it, is he still obligated to pay child support? I’m envisioning 2 situations that create a double-standard (maybe that’s not the right term, anyway); one in which the woman says “I can’t afford it/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and has the abortion meanwhile the man wanted to keep it, and the other in which the man says “I can’t afford this/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and the woman says tough beans fucker you get to pay me half your salary for the rest of your life because I want to keep it.[/quote]
I do not think that it’s half the salary of the man, but for a 35,000 a year salary I think it is around 180 bucks every couple of weeks.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Waaaaaaah. A bunch of christians bitching about their ‘freedom of conscience’ being threatened by the government. If they dont want the government meddling in their shit, then they need to stop forcing their superstitions on the government (mostly referring to the public school system here). What a bunch of hypocrites, as usual.
You’re as funny as a bag of dicks. Grow up, people can input their beliefs as much as they want. Freedom of speech.[/quote]
People can voice their opinions on government-endorsed prayer in the schools all they want; but when they actually start forcing it into the schools, it’s not simply the freedom of speech that’s at issue.
Freedom of speech is: “I think public schools should endorse my religious beliefs.”
Far more is at stake when a government employee actually puts this into action.
Bottom line is they are still the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the country. Always crying about keeping their freedom of conscience intact but are all too willing to push their beliefs on every single individual they can possibly get their hands on.
If christians had their way, every public school child would grow up to be good little bigoted jesus-fearing citizen of the good 'ol Christian Nation of America.
Let me edit one part of this: I don’t dislike/wasn’t referring to all christians.
I’m only talking about the nut jobs that make it their mission to force their beliefs onto others.
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Waaaaaaah. A bunch of christians bitching about their ‘freedom of conscience’ being threatened by the government. If they dont want the government meddling in their shit, then they need to stop forcing their superstitions on the government (mostly referring to the public school system here). What a bunch of hypocrites, as usual.
You’re as funny as a bag of dicks. Grow up, people can input their beliefs as much as they want. Freedom of speech.
People can voice their opinions on government-endorsed prayer in the schools all they want; but when they actually start forcing it into the schools, it’s not simply the freedom of speech that’s at issue.
Freedom of speech is: “I think public schools should endorse my religious beliefs.”
Far more is at stake when a government employee actually puts this into action.
Bottom line is they are still the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the country. Always crying about keeping their freedom of conscience intact but are all too willing to push their beliefs on every single individual they can possibly get their hands on.
If christians had their way, every public school child would grow up to be good little bigoted jesus-fearing citizen of the good 'ol Christian Nation of America.
Let me edit one part of this: I don’t dislike/wasn’t referring to all christians.
I’m only talking about the nut jobs that make it their mission to force their beliefs onto others.
[/quote]
I can agree there is some crazy ass people (bigots), but if you look at the Catholic Church and her statements recently. They have been very, for the lack of the word I am thinking of, patient with other people’s beliefs.
Yes, the Catholic Church wishes that everyone would be part of the Church, but we also know that is God’s Will that will be done.