Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: a_ahmed on December 20, 2013, 08:18:26 AM
-
So if homosexual garbage wasn't enough to corrupt society, prostitution is heading in the direction of legalization too.
Brilliant morals of satan himself becoming reality throughout western nations.
Holland and Germany have had 'drive through sex' and taxed red districts for a while, so here comes Canada to 'enlighten' the moral world.
-
So if homosexual garbage wasn't enough to corrupt society, prostitution is heading in the direction of legalization too.
Brilliant morals of satan himself becoming reality throughout western nations.
Holland and Germany have had 'drive through sex' and taxed red districts for a while, so here comes Canada to 'enlighten' the moral world.
I hear Canada and Germany are doing just fine financially and with overall quality of life.
No homo.
-
Good. Stupid thing to have illegal. Can't force a woman to NOT sell her body, like shes going to give a shit if its illegal.
-
Good. Stupid thing to have illegal. Can't force a woman to NOT sell her body, like shes going to give a shit if its illegal.
No the stupid part is, now some women will feel even encouraged to partake in it so it will increase. When it's considered 'safe' and government controlled like the Dutch claimed.
The moment something is allowed vs punished, the more likely people will engage in it and down goes society.
When I was in Holland I saw the red districts, couldn't believe it. Debauchery and lewdness being accepted in society.
All one moral down the drain at a time.
-
So if homosexual garbage wasn't enough to corrupt society, prostitution is heading in the direction of legalization too.
Brilliant morals of satan himself becoming reality throughout western nations.
Holland and Germany have had 'drive through sex' and taxed red districts for a while, so here comes Canada to 'enlighten' the moral world.
So you are for the government saying it's a crime for a woman to sell sex? Seems like basic freedom to me!
-
It's nice to have another option if I become unemployed.
-
No the stupid part is, now some women will feel even encouraged to partake in it so it will increase. When it's considered 'safe' and government controlled like the Dutch claimed.
The moment something is allowed vs punished, the more likely people will engage in it and down goes society.
When I was in Holland I saw the red districts, couldn't believe it. Debauchery and lewdness being accepted in society.
All one moral down the drain at a time.
Dude.. bro.. You really want a woman that doesn't whore herself out because of fear of punishment, rather than a woman that doesn't whore herself out BECAUSE SHES NOT A WHORE!?
You can't regulate morals. No matter how hard Muslims want to. It doesn't work. Let the whores whore, and let the good girls separate themselves. You can't stop them.. and there is literally no reason to punish them for being who they are.
-
It's nice to have another option if I become unemployed.
why wait?
-
cant wait till they legalize murder......I mean OVER the age of 9 months. They can call it post birth abortion.
-
cant wait till they legalize murder......I mean OVER the age of 9 months. They can call it post birth abortion.
well dum dum, murder is something you inflict on others, if your analogy was sensible you would see legal suicide, same as legal sex sale, wait... isn't suicide illegal?
-
well dum dum, murder is something you inflict on others, if your analogy was sensible you would see legal suicide, same as legal sex sale, wait... isn't suicide illegal?
and I think anyone who commits suicide should be jailed....... ::)
-
cant wait till they legalize murder......I mean OVER the age of 9 months. They can call it post birth abortion.
Not all that far fetched. :-\
-
and I think anyone who commits suicide should be jailed....... ::)
well when you are through deciding which actions are appropriate for others to engage in under mutual adult consent, or with their bodies, let me know.
-
Not all that far fetched. :-\
read above, the analogy is wrong, you are supporting a irrational point.
Wouldn't have guessed that. Hey what you said doesn't make sense.. Beach bum "i agree with it"
-
read above, the analogy is wrong, you are supporting a irrational point.
Wouldn't have guessed that. Hey what you said doesn't make sense.. Beach bum "i agree with it"
it wasn't an analogy my not so bright bulb friend....it was sarcasm with a touch of satire
-
read above, the analogy is wrong, you are supporting a irrational point.
Wouldn't have guessed that. Hey what you said doesn't make sense.. Beach bum "i agree with it"
What?? I'm saying people supporting a post-birth "abortion" isn't all that far-fetched. Not sure what the heck you're talking about?
-
Not all that far fetched. :-\
bahahahahah
I love how right wingers love to tell each other "scary" stories
fucking hilarious
-
Good. Stupid thing to have illegal. Can't force a woman to NOT sell her body, like shes going to give a shit if its illegal.
Agree
-
bahahahahah
I love how right wingers love to tell each other "scary" stories
fucking hilarious
everything is about "right wingers"...... you're a sad lonely man I hope you find something to fill that hate hole in the middle of your torso,
-
it wasn't an analogy my not so bright bulb friend....it was sarcasm with a touch of satire
This quote reads like the blurb on a movie box trying to get me to buy it.
-
What?? I'm saying people supporting a post-birth "abortion" isn't all that far-fetched. Not sure what the heck you're talking about?
oh it's fucking far fetched, it's as far fetched a legal public rapings. Nothing is far fetched when you believe a talking snake did humanity in for eternity.
-
everything is about "right wingers"...... you're a sad lonely man I hope you find something to fill that hate hole in the middle of your torso,
Exactly right. That dude has like 100,000 post count and 99,999 are a variation of "right wingers are nazi fag hating bible thumping racist woman hating scum". the other post was a rating on a "wyhi" thread. :D
-
oh it's fucking far fetched, it's as far fetched a legal public rapings. Nothing is far fetched when you believe a talking snake did humanity in for eternity.
You really are obsessed with religion.
In any event, partial birth abortion already involves delivering part of a live baby. The "born alive" acts require that babies be cared for when they survive a botched abortion, and some people, including Obama, opposed those laws.
So, there isn't a great leap at all between a post-birth "abortion" and what we've already seen happening.
-
everything is about "right wingers"...... you're a sad lonely man I hope you find something to fill that hate hole in the middle of your torso,
Bum is most definitely a right winger and he somehow believes your preposterous theory that Canada is on the path to legalize murder is "not all that far fetched"
I don't know if you're a right winger or not
I haven't read many of your posts but from the ones I have read it certainly seems like you are
-
No the stupid part is, now some women will feel even encouraged to partake in it so it will increase.
LOL sure they do, not every woman are like your relatives Achmed ;)
When it's considered 'safe' and government controlled like the Dutch claimed.
The moment something is allowed vs punished, the more likely people will engage in it and down goes society.
When I was in Holland I saw the red districts, couldn't believe it. Debauchery and lewdness being accepted in society.
All one moral down the drain at a time.
-
Exactly right. That dude has like 100,000 post count and 99,999 are a variation of "right wingers are nazi fag hating bible thumping racist woman hating scum". the other post was a rating on a "wyhi" thread. :D
LOL
you're even worse at math that Beach Bunny and apparently not so good at reading either
-
You really are obsessed with religion.
In any event, partial birth abortion already involves delivering part of a live baby. The "born alive" acts require that babies be cared for when they survive a botched abortion, and some people, including Obama, opposed those laws.
So, there isn't a great leap at all between a post-birth "abortion" and what we've already seen happening.
Oh it is much fucking worse than that!! Look it up and watch "medical" footage of it on Youtube. IT IS THE MOST DISGUSTING ABHORRENT THING I HAVE EVER SEEN. The LIVING HUMAN BEING is dismembered in the uterus and pulled out piece by piece. You see a little arm with a hand and fingers pulled out. then legs. then the torso of what is left of that baby. I have never seen anything more disturbing or heartbreaking. IT IS MURDER ANYWAY YOU LOOK AT IT. All you sick depraved fucks who think it is a woman's right to have a partial abortion are monsters. Watch the video and then call me a "right wing nazi racist scum fuck" or whatever stupidity you can hurl it me to make yourself feel better for being selfish coldblooded monsters.
-
You really are obsessed with religion.
In any event, partial birth abortion already involves delivering part of a live baby. The "born alive" acts require that babies be cared for when they survive a botched abortion, and some people, including Obama, opposed those laws.
So, there isn't a great leap at all between a post-birth "abortion" and what we've already seen happening.
That;s not post birth abortion, birth occurs after 9 months of gestation are you saying they are aborting babies at this stage and if they fail to kill the self sustaining baby they keep it alive.n The born alive law is so clear cut as well, tell me beach bum, at what point does the baby become a human? Cus they have no idea really.
Regardless you are wrong, we condone ass slapping in public, flirty comments, it's not hard to imagine forcible rapes in the future with the current progression right?
-
Oh it is much fucking worse than that!! Look it up and watch "medical" footage of it. IT IS THE MOST DISGUSTING ABHORRENT THING I HAVE EVER SEEN. The LIVING HUMAN BEING is dismembered in the uterus and pulled out piece by piece. You see a little arm with a hand and fingers pulled out. then legs. then the torso of what is left of that baby. I have never seen anything more disturbing or heartbreaking. IT IS MURDER ANYWAY YOU LOOK AT IT. All you sick depraved fucks who think it is a woman's right to have a partial abortion are monsters. Watch the video and then call me a "right wing nazi racist scum fuck" or whatever stupidity you can hurl it me to make yourself feel better for being selfish coldblooded monsters.
Calm down retard, you know nothing about the reproductive cycle and should be euthanized. The thing has no consciousness till at least 28weeks, sorry you had to see a hand or toe, surgery is gruesome, and ultra complicated probably don;t look at things that upset you pumpkin.
-
It's nice to have another option if I become unemployed.
Prices and services, please :P
-
LOL
you're even worse at math that Beach Bunny and apparently not so good at reading either
Good one, you burned me bad with that scorching comeback ::)
And you suck at grammar. Now do us a favor, go douse yourself in gasoline and light a match, Strawman.
-
That;s not post birth abortion, birth occurs after 9 months of gestation are you saying they are aborting babies at this stage and if they fail to kill the self sustaining baby they keep it alive.n The born alive law is so clear cut as well, tell me beach bum, at what point does the baby become a human? Cus they have no idea really.
Regardless you are wrong, we condone ass slapping in public, flirty comments, it's not hard to imagine forcible rapes in the future with the current progression right?
I didn't call it post-birth abortion.
I believe human life begins at conception.
Comparing slapping someone on the butt with rape is stupid. Comparing partial birth abortion, where a baby is partially delivered, with something close to post-birth abortion, is much more logical. And no, I'm not calling partial birth abortion "post-birth abortion." As I said initially, the concept of post-birth abortion isn't that far fetched.
-
Good one, you burned me bad with that scorching comeback ::)
And you suck at grammar. Now do us a favor, go douse yourself in gasoline and light a match, Strawman.
LOL - angry much
you claim I have 100k in posts and somehow 99,999 of them contain words that I've never said
why is it you right wingers are so angry and prone to wishes of violence upon others
Is it because you're aware of your profound stupidity and ineptitude and you feel helpless to ever improve ?
-
Calm down retard, you know nothing about the reproductive cycle and should be euthanized. The thing has no consciousness till at least 28weeks, sorry you had to see a hand or toe, surgery is gruesome, and ultra complicated probably don;t look at things that upset you pumpkin.
You cannot be this stupid. It is not possible or you would be sticking your fingers in sockets and be dead already. You are a complete retard or just a sick fuck. let me explain this to you slowly and clearly: A FETUS IS A LIVING HUMAN BEING AT THE POINT OF CONCEPTION!! So it magically according to you becomes a life at precisely 28 weeks? The day before it is still what a clump of fucking jello!! You fucking retard. Fools like you who justify cold blooded murder of an innocent life are why this society has decayed into a depraved free for all. I joke around on here and make stupid comments, but sick fucks like you who think murdering a baby is okay are beyond hope. I truly pity you because you value having no responsibilities over the life of baby.
-
I didn't call it post-birth abortion.
I believe human life begins at conception.
Comparing slapping someone on the butt with rape is stupid. Comparing partial birth abortion, where a baby is partially delivered, with something close to post-birth abortion, is much more logical. And no, I'm not calling partial birth abortion "post-birth abortion." As I said initially, the concept of post-birth abortion isn't that far fetched.
No it's not, it's a sexual act that indicates the gradient from informed to not informed consent. It's a sliding scale on par with saying live begins at conception. Ahh no it doesn't, what makes you believe that? so fertilization or implantation, which step?
At the point when the zygote becomes a blastula? I see blastulas walking the streets daily.
Your concept of birth is remedial and petty with no fucking clue about how reproduction takes place and how many stages of "life" two simple cells go through. Not to mention the issues that go along with this process, halting many births.
Taken to it's logical absurdity, is me blowing a wad in the toilet murder. What about if I take and egg and sperm and put in in a petri dish, will they get married and have kids? Your definition of life isn't close to what most experts agree on, probably because you are speaking out of you ass with your "beliefs".
You use the word belief as if it's immune to objectivity. it's what I believe to be true, truth is independent of the observer.
-
Good for Canada!
-
You cannot be this stupid. It is not possible or you would be sticking your fingers in sockets and be dead already. You are a complete retard or just a sick fuck. let me explain this to you slowly and clearly: A FETUS IS A LIVING HUMAN BEING AT THE POINT OF CONCEPTION!! So it magically according to you becomes a life at precisely 28 weeks? The day before it is still what a clump of fucking jello!! You fucking retard. Fools like you who justify cold blooded murder of an innocent life are why this society has decayed into a depraved free for all. I joke around on here and make stupid comments, but sick fucks like you who think murdering a baby is okay are beyond hope. I truly pity you because you value having no responsibilities over the life of baby.
HAHA ok pudding, life starts when something is two cells big, check. Better not pick off your skin, more cells there.
-
No it's not, it's a sexual act that indicates the gradient from informed to not informed consent. It's a sliding scale on par with saying live begins at conception. Ahh no it doesn't, what makes you believe that? so fertilization or implantation, which step?
At the point when the zygote becomes a blastula? I see blastulas walking the streets daily.
Your concept of birth is remedial and petty with no fucking clue about how reproduction takes place and how many stages of "life" two simple cells go through. Not to mention the issues that go along with this process, halting many births.
Taken to it's logical absurdity, is me blowing a wad in the toilet murder. What about if I take and egg and sperm and put in in a petri dish, will they get married and have kids? Your definition of life isn't close to what most experts agree on, probably because you are speaking out of you ass with your "beliefs".
You use the word belief as if it's immune to objectivity. it's what I believe to be true, truth is independent of the observer.
Yes, comparing a butt slap to rape is stupid.
Oh stop trying to impress people with your medical terminology. ::) I'm not impressed.
You don't know what conception means? Really?
I think life begins at conception because it's the logical starting point, as opposed to viability, or some other arbitrary measure.
-
Yes, comparing a butt slap to rape is stupid.
Oh is it? but comparing abortion of a non viable baby or organism that couldn't survive wihtout a host is to active murder,of an actual living thing?
Oh stop trying to impress people with your medical terminology. ::) I'm not impressed.
I am not trying to impress you but to show you that you have no idea about this topic and that your opinion doesn't matter. You can't even tell me the basics, yet you can tell others what they shoudl do with there own bodies? you want to put the life of the unliving over the living? no one has the right to live
You don't know what conception means? Really?
Sure I do, but what they don't tell you in the media, as opposed to 10 years of academics ios that there are more details then that. If implatation doesn't occur it's dead, migration down the fallopian tubes, blocked? dead there are to many variables at this stage to call this thing living, it is not, it fits no definition and a virus has more life like properties then this zygote.
I think life begins at conception because it's the logical starting point, as opposed to viability, or some other arbitrary measure.
Conception as I just showed is arbitrary, we can't detect when it occurs, hence it's uselss as an objective starting point. This is real life, medicine, not the hee haw sing along with the fuck around gang ok. We need objective markers, things like organs being formed, connections of the cortex and thalamus *(conscious, autonomous) etc so you are incorrect, they are not arbitrary, unlike your silly starting point.
-
No it's not, it's a sexual act that indicates the gradient from informed to not informed consent. It's a sliding scale on par with saying live begins at conception. Ahh no it doesn't, what makes you believe that? so fertilization or implantation, which step?
At the point when the zygote becomes a blastula? I see blastulas walking the streets daily.
Your concept of birth is remedial and petty with no fucking clue about how reproduction takes place and how many stages of "life" two simple cells go through. Not to mention the issues that go along with this process, halting many births.
Taken to it's logical absurdity, is me blowing a wad in the toilet murder. What about if I take and egg and sperm and put in in a petri dish, will they get married and have kids? Your definition of life isn't close to what most experts agree on, probably because you are speaking out of you ass with your "beliefs".
You use the word belief as if it's immune to objectivity. it's what I believe to be true, truth is independent of the observer.
I understand what you are getting at as I had a similar view when I was young and naive, but aside from your extensive use of medical terminology your post screams immaturity, inhumanity and a total lack of actual real world experiences with the subject matter. You do not have kids do you?
-
I understand what you are getting at as I had a similar view when I was young and naive, but aside from your extensive use of medical terminology your post screams immaturity, inhumanity and a total lack of actual real world experiences with the subject matter. You do not have kids do you?
immaturity? I am not a bleeding heart for a zygote that rarely makes it to life, cry me a river. inhumanity? should I hold up a picture of nelson mandela as i jerk off?
-
Why are we talking about abortion? Wtf?
-
Good for Canada!
I will take this as support for my position.
-
Why are we talking about abortion? Wtf?
haha... i was trolling but DAGO I think is legitamately upset, he himself must have been aborted.
-
I will take this as support for my position.
What's your position?
I think it's a good thing.
It's legal here in Nevada and practically in most seedy Asian message parlors.
-
What's your position?
every drop of load should be stored in vince goodrums basement and sold in gallon quantities for bitcoin on his ecommerce site.
-
Bum is most definitely a right winger and he somehow believes your preposterous theory that Canada is on the path to legalize murder is "not all that far fetched"
I don't know if you're a right winger or not
I haven't read many of your posts but from the ones I have read it certainly seems like you are
I'm a capitalist.....definitel y not a socialist or communist.
-
It's legal here in Nevada and practically in most seedy Asian message parlors.
Only in certain counties, not the entire state, correct?
-
it wasn't an analogy my not so bright bulb friend....it was sarcasm with a touch of satire
necrosis might never recover, brutal word raping
-
Only in certain counties, not the entire state, correct?
Hmmm, not really sure. I think the whole state, there,s only 2-3 counties with any real population.
But I really don't know.
-
necrosis might never recover, brutal word raping
Your sarcasm is less subtle.....but Necrosis might still miss it
-
Oh it is much fucking worse than that!! Look it up and watch "medical" footage of it on Youtube. IT IS THE MOST DISGUSTING ABHORRENT THING I HAVE EVER SEEN. The LIVING HUMAN BEING is dismembered in the uterus and pulled out piece by piece. You see a little arm with a hand and fingers pulled out. then legs. then the torso of what is left of that baby. I have never seen anything more disturbing or heartbreaking. IT IS MURDER ANYWAY YOU LOOK AT IT. All you sick depraved fucks who think it is a woman's right to have a partial abortion are monsters. Watch the video and then call me a "right wing nazi racist scum fuck" or whatever stupidity you can hurl it me to make yourself feel better for being selfish coldblooded monsters.
Dang. I don't have the stomach to watch that kind of stuff. :-\
-
What's the big deal with this?
So they legalize prostitution? They can regulate something that will not ever go away.
-
What's the big deal with this?
So they legalize prostitution? They can regulate something that will not ever go away.
whats a fair price in your eyes for tranny sex? do we set time limits? is it subject to minimum wage? can they call in sick, holidays? do they have any accredation?
-
whats a fair price in your eyes for tranny sex? do we set time limits? is it subject to minimum wage? can they call in sick, holidays? do they have any accredation?
Time for Unions.
-
haha... i was trolling but DAGO I think is legitamately upset, he himself must have been aborted.
Yeah I am a weirdo for being upset about sick people saying that murdering a baby is okay ::)
-
So if homosexual garbage wasn't enough to corrupt society, prostitution is heading in the direction of legalization too.
Brilliant morals of satan himself becoming reality throughout western nations.
Holland and Germany have had 'drive through sex' and taxed red districts for a while, so here comes Canada to 'enlighten' the moral world.
Legalizing prostitution will not corrupt society. Prostitution has been around since time began. It's not going away. Laws against prostitution do nothing to curb it. Regulating prostitution, as in requiring health checks, could help lessen the spread of STD's.
-
Yeah I am a weirdo for being upset about sick people saying that murdering a baby is okay ::)
I drop loads of babies in the public sewage system nightly.
Also, some people don't agree with your idea of when something is a baby, clearly a picture of a zygote versus a suckling baby indicate that no?
Yet you want the same treatment? why are the two cells of the zygote more important then the one cell needed to make it, ie my sperm. In essence my bathroom is a contemporary auschwitz, shower and all.
-
Legalizing prostitution will not corrupt society. Prostitution has been around since time began. It's not going away. Laws against prostitution do nothing to curb it. Regulating prostitution, as in requiring health checks, could help lessen the spread of STD's.
so would putting gays on an island, which one should we do first? how do we decide?
-
so would putting gays on an island, which one should we do first? how do we decide?
I do not follow your line of thinking here. How does legalizing prostitution and putting gay folks on an island have anything in common? Are you suggesting straight folks don't spread STD's. If so, I got news for you.
-
Why don't all you religious nuts 'pray' to your various magic gods for Canada to reverse this law. See how it works out for you. Or Ahmed, get a few Muslim vermin to blow themselves up outside the parliament building. Or rather, bugger off to a sand pit where the drones share your moral outrage.
Or rather, don't waste your fucking time. Their bodies, their choice.
-
Prostitution was NOT legalized.
Here's the thing, ...prostitution wasn't illegal to begin with. You can't legalize something that wasn't illegal in the first place.
What the Supreme Court of Canada did was to strike down the existing prostitution laws.
The prostitution itself wasn't illegal., but the circumstances and the environments were.
The laws were such that it drove it underground and into an environment that was extremely unsafe for sex trade workers.
While you could prostitute, you couldn't do it in a brothel. At least in a brothel the women could expect some relative form of safety, instead, they were forced to ply their trade in back alleys, cars, meeting their customer wherever.
They've given MPs 1 year to draft new laws concerning prostitution. In the meantime, knowing this issue garnered a unanimous decision by the SC, law enforcement will most likely turn a blind eye to whatever they see taking place, knowing current legislation has been struck down.
A spokeswoman for a coalition of sex workers issued a statement saying that while many Members of Parliament (MPs) may be their clients, they have no idea about the sex worker industry, and are too stupid to craft legislation pertaining to their industry. If they want good laws, they have to have sex workers in on the process of crafting the legislation.
I have a tendency to agree with her. I am reminded of years of contract negotiations with the studios & independent producers being done by union council members who hadn't stepped foot on a film set in years and had no clue about the issues affecting film workers daily.
Even more recently, the giant and narrowly averted fucackta mess that the FTC almost created when they tried to write legislation regarding the network mktg industry. Just one cursory glance at some of those proposals clearly demonstrated they didn't have the first clue about how the industry worked, and the absolute ridiculousness of what they were proposing. Lawmakers can be notoriously clued out.
A few years ago, there was a class action suit against the Federal govt launched by... a bunch of pot smokers of all people! And they had a very valid point. They were fed up after the police raided a very low- profile, and discreet, but illegal hydroponic marijuana dispensary that only sold pot to those that had a legitimate medical marijuana card. When they shut that down, that was the straw that broke the camels back, and they filed a class action against the govt.
Their position was that the govt was forcing already sick people to risk their lives to get medicine. Since medical marijuana was legal, the government should produce it, standardize it, and control & regulate its distribution, just as it does with all other medications. And sick people should not have to be forced to turn to the streets, and buy their medicine from God knows who. You never know whats in it. It could be laced with all sorts of things. No kidney disease patient is forced to go to random stranger for dialysis, heart patients get their medicine from licensed pharmacists, why should they be forced to seek out a non- regulated, non-standardized form of their medicine from a stranger in a back alley, putting their safety at risk.
I believe this kind of thinking framed the structure for their decision.
The SC of Canada, recognized the existing laws surrounding prostitution was channeling / funnelling sex trade workers into situations & environments that was putting them at far greater risk than they needed to be in. So they struck down these laws.
I heard the guy who runs the Bunny Ranch in Vegas put some champagne on ice when he heard the decision.
Apparently he has some big plans for Toronto :D
-
So if homosexual garbage wasn't enough to corrupt society, prostitution is heading in the direction of legalization too.
Brilliant morals of satan himself becoming reality throughout western nations.
Holland and Germany have had 'drive through sex' and taxed red districts for a while, so here comes Canada to 'enlighten' the moral world.
Why do you believe you can regulate when, how and why consenting adults choose to mush their privates together?
I mean, we get it. You've said you find sex icky and dirty. So don't practice it, and leave the rest of us, who don't share your "viewpoint" and revulsion enjoy it.
-
What a bunch of fools. lol@'consenting adults' argument.
Suicide will be legalized too soon enough.
And what about consensual killing (not suicide, but just someone sick in their mind wanting to experience being killed and gets killed and signs waivers and what have you to be a 'part' of this)? Consensual cannibalism (yup a few guys in germany who 'wanted to be killed and eaten')? Satanic garbage, been a few sick cases of this in Europe.
Anyway this is what happens when a bunch of liberal brain dead societies make up man made laws.
The fabric of society is breaking apart as we know it.
You can rationalize eating SHIT, and get away with it in these societies :)
Why is it going to get legalized? Because government will make money. Just like marijuana? Why? Because government will make money.
Lets put a spin on it, why not legalize a man having 4 wives like in Islam some Muslims do? It's consenting adults isn't it? Oh wait, it's not profitable for the government then a single man with a single salary would be responsible for four women not just one, so more dependants means more tax cuts ::)
Why are alcohol and tobacco legalized? Oh wait government makes HUGE profits off of the two! Despite the fact that both are on the top of the list for causes of death in society, causes of crime (alcohol), and accidents (driving impaired).
Here's a little fact that the so called 'but its for SAFETY of women' (lmao), in Holland majority of the whores are NOT Dutch, they are East European or Asian or South American, amongst other things, IMPORTED, trafficked, threatened and under control. But most people don't realize that. Most prostitutes in brothels, same thing. So government will just make it legal while pretending to yes we'll look into this.
It's all sick. Instead of stopping a wrong and punishing it in the first place, a morally devoid society is allowing it and promoting it.
Everything that was once wrong even from Christian perspective, is being implemented, so much for being a Christian nation.
-
What a bunch of fools. lol@'consenting adults' argument.
Yeah, because why shouldn't people be told how they can have sex?
Suicide will be legalized too soon enough.
Well, seeing how the person who commits suicide can't be punished... But in all seriousness, why do you believe that people shouldn't be able to end their own lives? Are they bothering you in any way, shape or form?
The fabric of society as is breaking apart as we know it.
Yes... That's exactly what's happening.
You can rationalize eating SHIT, and get away with it in these societies :)
Well... maybe you can; I can't.
Why is it going to get legalized? Because government will make money. Just like marijuana? Why? Because government will make money.
Ok, and?
Lets put a spin on it, why not legalize a man having 4 wives like in Islam some Muslims do?
Why not? I don't think the government should be in the business of defining what kinds of relationships people have.
Oh wait, it's not profitable for the government then a single man with a single salary would be responsible for four women not just one, so more dependants means more tax cuts ::)
Only if the women were dependent and were not allowed to work or leave the house unescort... Oh, wait! You do believe that shit, don't you?
-
Lol. I cant understand anyone who thinks the government is in the business of trying to legislate morality.
My other question, why are the middle eastern countries, the ones with the strictest laws governing sex and morality, often the places with the most fucked up citizens? Where rape of underage boys, and goats is common place? How about buying underage girls as sex slaves from affluent western nations?
Im not sure, but it MAY have something to do with sexual repression....
-
Lol. I cant understand anyone who thinks the government is in the business of trying to legislate morality.
My other question, why are the middle eastern countries, the ones with the strictest laws governing sex and morality, often the places with the most fucked up citizens? Where rape of underage boys, and goats is common place? How about buying underage girls as sex slaves from affluent western nations?
Im not sure, but it MAY have something to do with sexual repression....
+1
-
Lol. I cant understand anyone who thinks the government is in the business of trying to legislate morality.
My other question, why are the middle eastern countries, the ones with the strictest laws governing sex and morality, often the places with the most fucked up citizens? Where rape of underage boys, and goats is common place? How about buying underage girls as sex slaves from affluent western nations?
Im not sure, but it MAY have something to do with sexual repression....
None of those countries are ruled by shari'ah law, they are secular countries, basically different forms of dictatorships or puppet regimes, be it military ruled or royalties or so called pseudo-democracies. Contrary to everyone's belief from the outside.
One of the reasons people are fighting against these secular governments while the United States keeps supporting them (puppets). Muslims world-wide want khilapha (caliphate) as that would be a real islamic state with a union of all muslim countries, no more puppets, no more dictatorships ruling Muslims by western backed systems.
If you're thinking Iran or Saudi, they are not truly Islamic, au contraire, Saudi is a royal kingdom ruled by civil laws and defined by certain legislated shari'ah laws, to an outside this may seem odd, however, that's what it actually is.
Saudi is an unjust state as it applies punishments and pardons people as it sees fit. For example someone who is of royals or of status may get away with crimes even murder or rape, but someone who is a 'lower' citizen will get the punishment served. This in principle goes against fundementals of shari'ah, which is, if someone commits what is deemed a crime under shari'ah and is proven as such, whether he be the caliph (if there was a caliphate) or a simple labourer, he would be held accountable for the crime, and furthermore someone with greater status would be held even more accountable. The opposite is actually happening. Things like women not driving has nothing to do with islam, again its civil laws. Iran on the other hand is a shi'a state defined by civil laws and some aspects of shari'ah by shia interpretation, hence sex changes are very common and allowed, prositution even based on a twisted belief that shia have called mut'a ('temporary marriage') all of these things go against Islam. It's far more complex for an outsider to understand.
Bottom line is, the principles of Islam are not changing, even if people are not implementing it in practicing at a state level. The governments themselves are puppet regimes that are secular, military dictatorships or royalties with pseudo-shari'ah. Shari'ah is not just hudood punishments (that most westerners think of when they think shari'ah) it's various other things like wellfare of the citizen, charity, taking are of the poor, finding people jobs, etc...
Anyways, the difference is western nations define man made laws as people see fit any way the wind blows or people's desires change. There are no moral principles. In Islam, if something is wrong for an individual and society it will remain wrong no matter what anyone says; that can include homosexuality, prostitution, beastiality, fornication, adultery, alcoholism, narcotics, theft, just to name a few. The laws in place that punish those that publicly act and condone on these things are there to be a deterrent.
When you have a law that threatens a person to have their hand chopped when they want to steal, they will think twice, and likewise if this was in place in western nations, government thiefs would think twice before stealing millions from the tax payer. If there was a punishment for theft like this in the US, there would be a ton of wallstreet scum walking around hand-less today, instead they are still reaping multi-million bonuses and continue to steal.
-
None of those countries are ruled by shari'ah law, they are secular countries, basically different forms of dictatorships or puppet regimes, be it military ruled or royalties or so called pseudo-democracies. Contrary to everyone's belief from the outside.
One of the reasons people are fighting against these secular governments while the United States keeps supporting them (puppets). Muslims world-wide want khilapha (caliphate) as that would be a real islamic state with a union of all muslim countries, no more puppets, no more dictatorships ruling Muslims by western backed systems.
If you're thinking Iran or Saudi, they are not truly Islamic, au contraire, Saudi is a royal kingdom ruled by civil laws and defined by certain legislated shari'ah laws, to an outside this may seem odd, however, that's what it actually is.
Saudi is an unjust state as it applies punishments and pardons people as it sees fit. For example someone who is of royals or of status may get away with crimes even murder or rape, but someone who is a 'lower' citizen will get the punishment served. This in principle goes against fundementals of shari'ah, which is, if someone commits what is deemed a crime under shari'ah and is proven as such, whether he be the caliph (if there was a caliphate) or a simple labourer, he would be held accountable for the crime, and furthermore someone with greater status would be held even more accountable. The opposite is actually happening. Things like women not driving has nothing to do with islam, again its civil laws. Iran on the other hand is a shi'a state defined by civil laws and some aspects of shari'ah by shia interpretation, hence sex changes are very common and allowed, prositution even based on a twisted belief that shia have called mut'a ('temporary marriage') all of these things go against Islam. It's far more complex for an outsider to understand.
Bottom line is, the principles of Islam are not changing, even if people are not implementing it in practicing at a state level. The governments themselves are puppet regimes that are secular, military dictatorships or royalties with pseudo-shari'ah. Shari'ah is not just hudood punishments (that most westerners think of when they think shari'ah) it's various other things like wellfare of the citizen, charity, taking are of the poor, finding people jobs, etc...
Anyways, the difference is western nations define man made laws as people see fit any way the wind blows or people's desires change. There are no moral principles. In Islam, if something is wrong for an individual and society it will remain wrong no matter what anyone says; that can include homosexuality, prostitution, beastiality, fornication, adultery, alcoholism, narcotics, theft, just to name a few. The laws in place that punish those that publicly act and condone on these things are there to be a deterrent.
When you have a law that threatens a person to have their hand chopped when they want to steal, they will think twice, and likewise if this was in place in western nations, government thiefs would think twice before stealing millions from the tax payer. If there was a punishment for theft like this in the US, there would be a ton of wallstreet scum walking around hand-less today, instead they are still reaping multi-million bonuses and continue to steal.
Yeah, Shari'ah law is the answer ::) What a joke...
-
Fornication is morally wrong?
Oh man... talk about a fundamentally fucked up belief system....
-
Muslim along with other organzied religions are just mobs looking for money.
End em all.
-
Lol. I cant understand anyone who thinks the government is in the business of trying to legislate morality.
My other question, why are the middle eastern countries, the ones with the strictest laws governing sex and morality, often the places with the most fucked up citizens? Where rape of underage boys, and goats is common place? How about buying underage girls as sex slaves from affluent western nations?
Im not sure, but it MAY have something to do with sexual repression....
Exactly.
-
So if homosexual garbage wasn't enough to corrupt society, prostitution is heading in the direction of legalization too.
Brilliant morals of satan himself becoming reality throughout western nations.
Holland and Germany have had 'drive through sex' and taxed red districts for a while, so here comes Canada to 'enlighten' the moral world.
Why shouldn't prostitution be legal? It's legal in Brazil and Colombia among other places.
Why shouldn't a man (or woman) be able to go on website, pick out a person, meet that person and pay for the sex?
It can be said that you pay anyway, correct? You as a man are giving up something--time, effort, money, etc?
Spare me the Moral Supremacy, because it doesn't work.
-
satan doesn't exit
neither does 1 god
there are many gods
-
Time for Unions.
First thing is bulk discounts like buy ten anal coituses for 15% price reduction or may 2 for 1 tuesday's. Some revenue/profit sharing and it's done.
-
bahahahahah
I love how right wingers love to tell each other "scary" stories
fucking hilarious
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D so true
-
First thing is bulk discounts like buy ten anal coituses for 15% price reduction or may 2 for 1 tuesday's. Some revenue/profit sharing and it's done.
I'm in if I can use amazon gift cards and promo codes.
-
I'm in if I can use amazon gift cards and promo codes.
Sure, no bitcoin though. it falls out of their vaginas when they get up, puts dents in the hardwood.
-
Good. Stupid thing to have illegal. Can't force a woman to NOT sell her body, like shes going to give a shit if its illegal.
what planet are you on...in Germany they have a big Problem with women who are forced into Prostitution. They get told they have a nice Job in Germany and come here and get beaten,gang raped and told if they do not do it they will go Swimming. The most are East European.
-
what planet are you on...in Germany they have a big Problem with women who are forced into Prostitution. They get told they have a nice Job in Germany and come here and get beaten,gang raped and told if they do not do it they will go Swimming. The most are East European.
so you blame the act of prostitution for those woman's plights? I think the people forcing are the problem, if handled properly there should be no force or coercion neccesary. So they get lied to by thugs then are victims of abuse and crime and you think prostitution is the culprit? Do you think making it legal or illegal will improve the situation?
-
so you blame the act of prostitution for those woman's plights? I think the people forcing are the problem, if handled properly there should be no force or coercion neccesary. So they get lied to by thugs then are victims of abuse and crime and you think prostitution is the culprit? Do you think making it legal or illegal will improve the situation?
telling you how it is Son. where do you live ?
-
what planet are you on...in Germany they have a big Problem with women who are forced into Prostitution. They get told they have a nice Job in Germany and come here and get beaten,gang raped and told if they do not do it they will go Swimming. The most are East European.
And how would illegalizing prostitution fix this?
-
so you blame the act of prostitution for those woman's plights? I think the people forcing are the problem, if handled properly there should be no force or coercion neccesary. So they get lied to by thugs then are victims of abuse and crime and you think prostitution is the culprit? Do you think making it legal or illegal will improve the situation?
no i am not blaming Prostitution. you clearly do not understand the whole Thing. Legal or illegal has no bearing on the plight of These women. If handled properly...lol you are very dumb. The sex Scene in Germany is old and has always been very open, much,much more than the UK or US
-
So if homosexual garbage wasn't enough to corrupt society, prostitution is heading in the direction of legalization too.
Brilliant morals of satan himself becoming reality throughout western nations.
Holland and Germany have had 'drive through sex' and taxed red districts for a while, so here comes Canada to 'enlighten' the moral world.
Stop complaining, you can always book a single flight to Mecca.
-
Stop complaining, you can always book a single flight to Mecca.
;D
-
no i am not blaming Prostitution. you clearly do not understand the whole Thing. Legal or illegal has no bearing on the plight of These women. If handled properly...lol you are very dumb. The sex Scene in Germany is old and has always been very open, much,much more than the UK or US
You responded twice to the same response, this indicates, to me at least, that you couldn't think of a response the first time and then even after thinking about it, you claim ignorance (i just don;t understand it, hi coach) on my behalf. Listen, what you are describing is the peripheral stuff. For example is marijauna bad? well drug cartels are bad and control it in mexico while in colorado it's a flourishing industry, see the difference context makes?
I sure we could find proper regulations to keep ladies safe and make it an ethical business like the sale of drugs. Prohibition gave us al capone, problem wasn't the alcohol, or in reverse, the prostitute, it's the way it's managed and a keen eye on logisitics,these hoes are commodities and need to be treated as such, ie no vacation, no bathroom breaks, stay on shelf, do your job and then go back in the cage. Problem solved,. cant abuse them if we are on teh other side of the bars now can we? no matter what they wear or how much they beg for it with the way they blink and shit.
-
No the stupid part is, now some women will feel even encouraged to partake in it so it will increase. When it's considered 'safe' and government controlled like the Dutch claimed.
The moment something is allowed vs punished, the more likely people will engage in it and down goes society.
When I was in Holland I saw the red districts, couldn't believe it. Debauchery and lewdness being accepted in society.
All one moral down the drain at a time.
I don't agree with you on many issues, but on this one you are correct.
The almighty dollar is more important than morality. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
The fact that people argue there is nothing morally wrong with this, shows how far humanity has fallen.
Humanity is in a fallen state.
-
I don't agree with you on many issues, but on this one you are correct.
The almighty dollar is more important than morality. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
The fact that people argue there is nothing morally wrong with this, shows how far humanity has fallen.
Humanity is in a fallen state.
morally wrong? you mean ethically numbskull
-
I don't agree with you on many issues, but on this one you are correct.
The almighty dollar is more important than morality. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
The fact that people argue there is nothing morally wrong with this, shows how far humanity has fallen.
Humanity is in a fallen state.
What is morally wrong about engaging in sex? Why is it any of your business what consenting adults do for sex and how they do it?
Let's ignore, for now, whether money changes hands - we'll get to that in a minute.
Please note: be sure to explain to us what, specifically, is immoral. Merely saying "it is" doesn't cut it.
-
Religious people seem to fear sex.
Its ok that a young kid watches repeated acts of violence, but show one tit and its 4 horseman of the apocalypse.
Which makes me think most of these leaders who push this stuff must be sexually repressed.
I think the more fucking that goes that less violence we will have.
-
Religious people seem to fear sex.
Its ok that a young kid watches repeated acts of violence, but show one tit and its 4 horseman of the apocalypse.
Which makes me think most of these leaders who push this stuff must be sexually repressed.
I think the more fucking that goes that less violence we will have.
I think religious people encourage sex within the confines of marriage. Doesn't sound like fear or repression to me. Just about setting boundaries.
Fear or repression would be prohibiting all sex.
-
I think religious people encourage sex within the confines of marriage. Doesn't sound like fear or repression to me. Just about setting boundaries.
Fear or repression would be prohibiting all sex.
No, fear or repression does not mean prohibiting all sex. Taking an abosolite angle on the two terms is completely false. Sexuality can be repressed in many ways or fear can be used to repress sexuality.
Typically, many religious people as I have said, condone the viewing of violence over sex when it comes to their children.
-
I think religious people encourage sex within the confines of marriage. Doesn't sound like fear or repression to me. Just about setting boundaries.
Fear or repression would be prohibiting all sex.
Agree, but it's not up to them to judge on others who make other choices. That's the problem I have with most religious people; their finger pointing.
-
No, fear or repression does not mean prohibiting all sex. Taking an abosolite angle on the two terms is completely false. Sexuality can be repressed in many ways or fear can be used to repress sexuality.
Typically, many religious people as I have said, condone the viewing of violence over sex when it comes to their children.
In ways do you see religious repressing sex, other than talking about confining sex to married folks?
I'm not sure religious people as a group condone kids viewing violence, or violence over sex. Or least that hasn't been my experience with them.
-
Agree, but it's not up to them to judge on others who make other choices. That's the problem I have with most religious people; their finger pointing.
I don't think anyone should tell consenting adults who and who they cannot have sex with in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
Regarding judging, it really is a loose term. Many, if not all of us, "judge" people to a certain degree. But I think what you're talking about is faith-based morality, and how people use that as a weapon?
-
In ways do you see religious repressing sex, other than talking about confining sex to married folks?
I'm not sure religious people as a group condone kids viewing violence, or violence over sex. Or least that hasn't been my experience with them.
"Premarital sex is a sin."
I can provide quite I few more examples if I think about it for while. But i got to go, history is about to be made, and at the last minute I came into possession of tickets to MNF ;D
So I will post some after xmas maybe, lol.
-
"Premarital sex is a sin."
I can provide quite I few more examples if I think about it for while. But i got to go, history is about to be made, and at the last minute I came into possession of tickets to MNF ;D
So I will post some after xmas maybe, lol.
I asked about other than talking about sex within the confines of marriage. That's really the only "repression" I'm aware of.
Sweet! Last game at Candlestick. I will be there in spirit. :)
-
I don't think anyone should tell consenting adults who and who they cannot have sex with in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
Regarding judging, it really is a loose term. Many, if not all of us, "judge" people to a certain degree. But I think what you're talking about is faith-based morality, and how people use that as a weapon?
Yes, it's that black-white moral thinking that I can't stand and the OP is a 'nice' example of this. Yes, we all judge on things, but in most cases I don't think in terms of good or bad. Even when I classify someone's decision as 'bad', like stealing, then I don't believe that he's a bad person. Many religious people tend to judge a thief as a 'bad' person.
-
Yes, it's that black-white moral thinking that I can't stand and the OP is a 'nice' example of this. Yes, we all judge on things, but in most cases I don't think in terms of good or bad. Even when I classify someone's decision as 'bad', like stealing, then I don't believe that he's a bad person. Many religious people tend to judge a thief as a 'bad' person.
I agree a lot of religious people fail to separate the act from the person.
On the other hand, I often see people attempting to stifle discussion of "good" and "bad" conduct by claiming any criticism of conduct is "judging."
-
They need to in the USA. ;D
-
I don't agree with you on many issues, but on this one you are correct.
The almighty dollar is more important than morality. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
Does that mean you are no longer a free-market capitalist?
The fact that people argue there is nothing morally wrong with this, shows how far humanity has fallen.
Humanity is in a fallen state.
-
I hope they make it legal.
Its a pain in the ass to talk services and prices with Vegas hookers because they are afraid to get busted.
Dont know about other parts of the country though.
-
I asked about other than talking about sex within the confines of marriage. That's really the only "repression" I'm aware of.
Let's see:
Trying to ban pornography is pretty repressive.
Trying to prevent objective sex-ed ("if you have sex at least be smart and use condoms") in schools.
Trying to prevent HPV vaccinations on the ground that getting the vaccine will cause girls to become promiscuous.
Advocating against the repeal of "sodomy" laws (which are more general than "no anal sex!")
Advocating against birth control pills (let's not talk about abortion.)
Now, not every Christian does it and I don't blame them all for the actions of the few. But there really is more "repression" than talking about sex as something that's only meant for marriage.
-
Let's see:
Trying to ban pornography is pretty repressive.
Trying to prevent objective sex-ed ("if you have sex at least be smart and use condoms") in schools.
Trying to prevent HPV vaccinations on the ground that getting the vaccine will cause girls to become promiscuous.
Advocating against the repeal of "sodomy" laws (which are more general than "no anal sex!")
Advocating against birth control pills (let's not talk about abortion.)
Now, not every Christian does it and I don't blame them all for the actions of the few. But there really is more "repression" than talking about sex as something that's only meant for marriage.
Silly examples. Like I said, other than sex within the confines of marriage.
-
Silly examples. Like I said, other than sex within the confines of marriage.
It's a silly example that some Christians seek to ban pornography? That they are opposed to sex-ed if it doesn't begin and end with "abstain"? That they oppose birth control? Abortions? HPV vaccinations? The repeal of existing sodomy laws?
None of those things are about sex outside of marriage.
That you don't see how repressive some of these actions are only proves one thing: you have blinders on.
-
It's a silly example that some Christians seek to ban pornography? That they are opposed to sex-ed if it doesn't begin and end with "abstain"? That they oppose birth control? Abortions? HPV vaccinations? The repeal of existing sodomy laws?
None of those things are about sex outside of marriage.
That you don't see how repressive some of these actions are only proves one thing: you have blinders on.
They are silly examples of "Christians" trying to repress sex, or being fearful of sex, which was the original statement Ozmo made.
Even if we accept all of those examples as true (which they are not) and that they reflect the view of "Christians" as a group (which they don't), they still are nothing more than examples of promoting sex within the confines of marriage.
-
They are silly examples of "Christians" trying to repress sex, or being fearful of sex, which was the original statement Ozmo made.
Even if we accept all of those examples as true (which they are not) and that they reflect the view of "Christians" as a group (which they don't), they still are nothing more than examples of promoting sex within the confines of marriage.
I did say, earlier, that these positions don't represent all Christians, nor do I think they do.
However, I fail to see how opposing birth control promotes sex within the confines of marriage. How advocating against the repeal of sodomy laws promoted sex within the confines of marriage.
Christians (again, not all) consistently and doggedly seek to not only enforce their morality on everyone else but they seek to control how consenting adults can choose to use their genitals.
-
I did say, earlier, that these positions don't represent all Christians, nor do I think they do.
However, I fail to see how opposing birth control promotes sex within the confines of marriage. How advocating against the repeal of sodomy laws promoted sex within the confines of marriage.
Christians (again, not all) consistently and doggedly seek to not only enforce their morality on everyone else but they seek to control how consenting adults can choose to use their genitals.
If you're talking about the Catholic teaching that opposes birth control, then I agree that teaching doesn't promote sex within the confines of marriage. By the same token, it is not an example of repression or fear of sex.
Promoting traditional marriage, which is what supporting sodomy laws are really all about, is promoting sex within the confines of (traditional) marriage. That entire paradigm is changing though. I've been saying for years that homosexual marriage was inevitable. I've also been saying that triad marriages are next. That is coming too.
Christian teachings do talk about sexual morality. And yes those teachings do bother some people. But I have no problem with Christians or any other group using the legislative process to promote their ideas. If I support those ideas, I vote for them. If not, I vote against them.
Also, if someone looks at the bigger picture objectively, we should be using public policy to promote what is best for society. How we get there is obviously the subject of debate, but the discussion is healthy.
-
If you're talking about the Catholic teaching that opposes birth control, then I agree that teaching doesn't promote sex within the confines of marriage. By the same token, it is not an example of repression or fear of sex.
I'm talking about Christians who, on the basis on their beliefs, advocate against the use of birth control, whether that be in pill form, in condom form, in ring form and whathaveyou. The particular ideology doesn't concern me, in the sense that I don't care if the person who advocates against a woman's ability to be on the pill is a member of the Catholic Church or some backwater Protestant denomination in rural Alabama.
With that said, if you are so inclined we can get into a debate about Martin Luther and his theology, the reformation, the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the various "Ecumenical" councils, and so on. You'll find that I am quite well versed in the history of your religion.
Promoting traditional marriage, which is what supporting sodomy laws are really all about, is promoting sex within the confines of (traditional) marriage. That entire paradigm is changing though. I've been saying for years that homosexual marriage was inevitable. I've also been saying that triad marriages are next. That is coming too.
Laws against sodomy are about promoting traditional marriage? You say this shit with a straight face?! How is getting a blowjob related to "traditional marriage"? How does it promote traditional marriage for the State to tell a wife "sorry, no sucking you on husband's dick!"
No, sodomy laws aren't about protecting traditional marriage - if they were, they would prohibit all sex between unmarried people; not just oral and anal sex as they do. Of course, we all know that would be blatantly unconstitutional as neither the Federal Government nor the several states have the authority to regulate the private sexual conduct of consenting adults, a fact that Courts have repeatedly pointed out.
Sodomy laws are laws passed by people who believe that they should be able to use the power of the State to enforce their particular moral views and to legislate away sexual acts they find icky. Nothing more, nothing less.
Christian teachings do talk about sexual morality.
And Christians are free to follow those teachings, as they see fit.
And yes those teachings do bother some people.
You will forgive me for being bothered when your almighty God is concerned about my marital status vis–ŕ–vis my sex life, and about how my girlfriend and I have sex.
But I have no problem with Christians or any other group using the legislative process to promote their ideas.
I don't either. Except when those ideas seek to curtail freedoms and outlaw behaviors and actions which the State doesn't have the authority to curtail or outlaw. The simple fact is that the Government has no authority to control my genitals or to dictate how I choose to use them.
If I support those ideas, I vote for them. If not, I vote against them.
There's more to consider - not just whether you support those ideas.
Also, if someone looks at the bigger picture objectively, we should be using public policy to promote what is best for society. How we get there is obviously the subject of debate, but the discussion is healthy.
What's "best" for society is, at best vague. Get any group of people together and I doubt you'll be able to come to a consensus about what's best for society. Having some "top-down" direction, where public policy guides people into something that's deemed "best" seems very dangerous to me.
-
Good!
I thought it was legal there already actually, but any third world goat fucking mohamedean who soft-touch Canada let come live there should fuck off back to turdistan if they disagree with their host countries laws.
-
I'm talking about Christians who, on the basis on their beliefs, advocate against the use of birth control, whether that be in pill form, in condom form, in ring form and whathaveyou. The particular ideology doesn't concern me, in the sense that I don't care if the person who advocates against a woman's ability to be on the pill is a member of the Catholic Church or some backwater Protestant denomination in rural Alabama.
With that said, if you are so inclined we can get into a debate about Martin Luther and his theology, the reformation, the schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the various "Ecumenical" councils, and so on. You'll find that I am quite well versed in the history of your religion.
Laws against sodomy are about promoting traditional marriage? You say this shit with a straight face?! How is getting a blowjob related to "traditional marriage"? How does it promote traditional marriage for the State to tell a wife "sorry, no sucking you on husband's dick!"
No, sodomy laws aren't about protecting traditional marriage - if they were, they would prohibit all sex between unmarried people; not just oral and anal sex as they do. Of course, we all know that would be blatantly unconstitutional as neither the Federal Government nor the several states have the authority to regulate the private sexual conduct of consenting adults, a fact that Courts have repeatedly pointed out.
Sodomy laws are laws passed by people who believe that they should be able to use the power of the State to enforce their particular moral views and to legislate away sexual acts they find icky. Nothing more, nothing less.
And Christians are free to follow those teachings, as they see fit.
You will forgive me for being bothered when your almighty God is concerned about my marital status vis–ŕ–vis my sex life, and about how my girlfriend and I have sex.
I don't either. Except when those ideas seek to curtail freedoms and outlaw behaviors and actions which the State doesn't have the authority to curtail or outlaw. The simple fact is that the Government has no authority to control my genitals or to dictate how I choose to use them.
There's more to consider - not just whether you support those ideas.
What's "best" for society is, at best vague. Get any group of people together and I doubt you'll be able to come to a consensus about what's best for society. Having some "top-down" direction, where public policy guides people into something that's deemed "best" seems very dangerous to me.
The Catholic Church is the only denomination I'm aware of that prohibits birth control, so yes the particular ideology does matter. Also, I don't believe they are trying to force non-Catholics to adopt that belief. They just don't want the government forcing them to violate that belief. But again, this has absolutely nothing to do with repressing sex or fear of sex.
No, I'm not inclined to have a penis measuring contest over our respective knowledge of religious history. You win. There, I conceded. Collect your trophy from Ron. :)
Sodomy laws were designed to prohibit homosexual sex. I understand the definitions are overly broad, but it's pretty clear that was the purpose of those laws. So yes, sodomy laws are, at their core, about preserving sex between married heterosexuals.
And sodomy laws were not "blatantly unconstitutional" until pretty recently, but that again doesn't have anything to do with repression or fear.
I'm not insecure about having people lobby for things they believe in, but that I happen to disagree with. It bothers you. It doesn't bother me at all. Another way to look at it is this: perhaps millions of Christians have a problem with people who want to remove all aspects of religion and Biblically based morality from the public sector? I see nothing wrong with those people using the legislative process to promote what they believe in. Just like I have no problem with any other group promoting a purely secular agenda, or lobbying for anti-religious stuff. If you like it, vote for it. If don't like it, vote against it. That's the way our democracy works.
I agree that people will have different opinions about what is best for society and what we should be promoting. For example, I personally believe a male/female two-parent household is the ideal environment to raise kids. I think public policy that promotes that kind of environment is a good thing. And no, that doesn't mean this is the only way to raise good kids, that single parents cannot be good parents, etc., etc.
-
The Catholic Church is the only denomination I'm aware of that prohibits birth control, so yes the particular ideology does matter.
Actually, many religions oppose birth control with varying nuisances. The Catholic Church even allows for it as long as it is practiced in the form of abstinence. Keep in mind that when Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. began, populating the world was of the upmost importance. This helps to explain why religions weighed in on people reproducing so heavily. And thank goodness for that or many of us would not be here today.
Speaking of today, the world is likely populated to the point that the earth cannot continue to sustain it. In recent times, birth control has been imposed by governments and in some cultures as a means of dealing with over population. It is just a matter of time before religions will have to weigh in on this issue too. It will be interesting to see how they accomplish this.
There are those who suggest gay marriage will limit population growth. Personally, I doubt the impact will be significant. Unless something changes significantly, there will come a time (not too far into the future) when anything that limits population growth could be looked on as a positive thing.
-
Actually, many religions oppose birth control with varying nuisances. The Catholic Church even allows for it as long as it is practiced in the form of abstinence. Keep in mind that when Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. began, populating the world was of the upmost importance. This helps to explain why religions weighed in on people reproducing so heavily. And thank goodness for that or many of us would not be here today.
Speaking of today, the world is likely populated to the point that the earth cannot continue to sustain it. In recent times, birth control has been imposed by governments and in some cultures as a means of dealing with over population. It is just a matter of time before religions will have to weigh in on this issue too. It will be interesting to see how they accomplish this.
There are those who suggest gay marriage will limit population growth. Personally, I doubt the impact will be significant. Unless something changes significantly, there will come a time (not too far into the future) when anything that limits population growth could be looked on as a positive thing.
Which religions prohibit birth control other than Catholics?
I don't think homosexual marriage will limit population growth, because there aren't enough homosexuals in the country to make a significant difference.
-
Which religions prohibit birth control other than Catholics?
I don't think homosexual marriage will limit population growth, because there aren't enough homosexuals in the country to make a significant difference.
ROTFLMAO!!!
If all the gays, lesbians, bi, and transgendered were out, you'd be surprised how many of them there are.
On just this board alone would shock you!
-
ROTFLMAO!!!
If all the gays, lesbians, bi, and transgendered were out, you'd be surprised how many of them there are.
On just this board alone would shock you!
Oh please. It's cool to be gay these days. And yet they're still a tiny percentage of the population.
-
The Catholic Church is the only denomination I'm aware of that prohibits birth control, so yes the particular ideology does matter. Also, I don't believe they are trying to force non-Catholics to adopt that belief. They just don't want the government forcing them to violate that belief. But again, this has absolutely nothing to do with repressing sex or fear of sex.
When you have pharmacists who claim that they should not only be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription on the grounds that doing so violates their religious beliefs, but who will refuse to return the unfilled prescription, I would submit to you that yes... some people are forcing others to adopt their beliefs.
True, this isn't necessarily related to repressing sex, and the conversation drifted slightly but it is a legitimate issue.
Sodomy laws were designed to prohibit homosexual sex. I understand the definitions are overly broad, but it's pretty clear that was the purpose of those laws. So yes, sodomy laws are, at their core, about preserving sex between married heterosexuals.
You're reaching here. If, as you claim, the goal was for those laws was to prohibit homosexual sex, they would do nothing to limit or encourage sex between only married couples.
And sodomy laws were not "blatantly unconstitutional" until pretty recently, but that again doesn't have anything to do with repression or fear.
I think that a law can be blatantly unconstitutional without a Court order. All the Court order does would be to codify a pre-existing fact. So, were such laws blatantly unconstitutional? That's a good question. My position is that a law that seeks to controls how consenting adults have sex is a huge overreach by Government, one that is completely unjustified and outside of the realms of the powers granted to it.
I'm not insecure about having people lobby for things they believe in, but that I happen to disagree with. It bothers you. It doesn't bother me at all.
People can lobby for whatever they want. That's not my point. My point is that when there are people who lobby to curtail my freedoms I feel obliged to stand up and challenge them. And if their lobbying was based on nothing more than their "feelings" or their "beliefs", I would challenge them more vigorously because I do not think that someone else's beliefs can justify chaining me.
Another way to look at it is this: perhaps millions of Christians have a problem with people who want to remove all aspects of religion and Biblically based morality from the public sector? I see nothing wrong with those people using the legislative process to promote what they believe in. Just like I have no problem with any other group promoting a purely secular agenda, or lobbying for anti-religious stuff. If you like it, vote for it. If don't like it, vote against it. That's the way our democracy works.
I don't disagree with you, although I think that there are degrees and variations. A Christmas Tree at the State Capitol is quite different from a school prayer, and a Judge who refuses allow someone to use an affirmation instead of an oath is different from a Court clerk who wishes you "Merry Christmas" after you submit paperwork.
I also believe that people should be able to lobby for just about whatever they want. But they should also realize that they can and, likely, will be criticized for their positions and their beliefs. And sometimes that criticism will be blistering. Case in point: the Duck Dynasty guy. He should be able to not only advertise his beliefs, but lobby for them. But he shouldn't expect everybody else to shut up and give him the floor uncontested.
I agree that people will have different opinions about what is best for society and what we should be promoting. For example, I personally believe a male/female two-parent household is the ideal environment to raise kids. I think public policy that promotes that kind of environment is a good thing. And no, that doesn't mean this is the only way to raise good kids, that single parents cannot be good parents, etc., etc.
I don't disagree with anything that you said there. Or, to avoid the double negative: I agree with just about everything you said here.
-
When you have pharmacists who claim that they should not only be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription on the grounds that doing so violates their religious beliefs, but who will refuse to return the unfilled prescription, I would submit to you that yes... some people are forcing others to adopt their beliefs.
True, this isn't necessarily related to repressing sex, and the conversation drifted slightly but it is a legitimate issue.
You're reaching here. If, as you claim, the goal was for those laws was to prohibit homosexual sex, they would do nothing to limit or encourage sex between only married couples.
I think that a law can be blatantly unconstitutional without a Court order. All the Court order does would be to codify a pre-existing fact. So, were such laws blatantly unconstitutional? That's a good question. My position is that a law that seeks to controls how consenting adults have sex is a huge overreach by Government, one that is completely unjustified and outside of the realms of the powers granted to it.
People can lobby for whatever they want. That's not my point. My point is that when there are people who lobby to curtail my freedoms I feel obliged to stand up and challenge them. And if their lobbying was based on nothing more than their "feelings" or their "beliefs", I would challenge them more vigorously because I do not think that someone else's beliefs can justify chaining me.
I don't disagree with you, although I think that there are degrees and variations. A Christmas Tree at the State Capitol is quite different from a school prayer, and a Judge who refuses allow someone to use an affirmation instead of an oath is different from a Court clerk who wishes you "Merry Christmas" after you submit paperwork.
I also believe that people should be able to lobby for just about whatever they want. But they should also realize that they can and, likely, will be criticized for their positions and their beliefs. And sometimes that criticism will be blistering. Case in point: the Duck Dynasty guy. He should be able to not only advertise his beliefs, but lobby for them. But he shouldn't expect everybody else to shut up and give him the floor uncontested.
I don't disagree with anything that you said there. Or, to avoid the double negative: I agree with just about everything you said here.
The handful of pharmacists who don't want to fill prescriptions aren't forcing people not to get those prescriptions. They simply don't want to do it themselves. Another pharmacist can do it. What's the big deal?
Regarding sodomy laws, I'm sure we can both come up with many examples of where the government wanted to pass a law affecting one thing, but through poor drafting affecting many other things. That's all that happened with those laws IMO.
I agree a law can be unconstitutional without a court order. Just pointing out that those were actually deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court until pretty recently.
I think we pretty much agree on people being able to use the legislative process to promote their ideas.
-
The handful of pharmacists who don't want to fill prescriptions aren't forcing people not to get those prescriptions. They simply don't want to do it themselves. Another pharmacist can do it. What's the big deal?
More than once, pharmacists have collected a prescription and upon seeing that it was birth control products refused to fill it, refer to another pharmacist or return the prescription. So although another pharmacist might be able to do it, that other, hypothetical pharmacist often doesn't get the chance. So yes, this issue is a big deal.
As for the beliefs of pharmacists: they can believe whatever they want to believe in their personal lives, but if their beliefs interfere with doing their jobs - to dispense prescriptions as written - they ought to choose a different profession.
Notice, by the way, how you brush off and dismiss as trivial something that is a very real issue and which affects people directly. Would you equally dismissive of someone who interfered with someone's ability to exercise their religion?
Regarding sodomy laws, I'm sure we can both come up with many examples of where the government wanted to pass a law affecting one thing, but through poor drafting affecting many other things. That's all that happened with those laws IMO.
Perhaps - it wouldn't be the first time laws were poorly drafted and had unintended consequences. But I think that the intent of anti-sodomy laws us pretty clear and has nothing to do with promoting sex within marriage and everything to do with making illegal forms of sex that one group of people (those in power) perceives as repulsive.
-
Actually, many religions oppose birth control with varying nuisances. The Catholic Church even allows for it as long as it is practiced in the form of abstinence. Keep in mind that when Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. began, populating the world was of the upmost importance. This helps to explain why religions weighed in on people reproducing so heavily. And thank goodness for that or many of us would not be here today.
Speaking of today, the world is likely populated to the point that the earth cannot continue to sustain it. In recent times, birth control has been imposed by governments and in some cultures as a means of dealing with over population. It is just a matter of time before religions will have to weigh in on this issue too. It will be interesting to see how they accomplish this.
There are those who suggest gay marriage will limit population growth. Personally, I doubt the impact will be significant. Unless something changes significantly, there will come a time (not too far into the future) when anything that limits population growth could be looked on as a positive thing.
How has limiting population growth worked for China and Japan? I am aware that in China it's forced, while in Japan it isn't. Both countries are facing social, economical, etc. problems because of a reduced population.
-
how can one worry about buttsex legality while voting for socialists who will lock down thier entire life and destroy economic growth?
-
Why are we talking about abortion? Wtf?
Somehow, some way, the religious types can always compare something to abortion.
Holy fuck.
-
More than once, pharmacists have collected a prescription and upon seeing that it was birth control products refused to fill it, refer to another pharmacist or return the prescription. So although another pharmacist might be able to do it, that other, hypothetical pharmacist often doesn't get the chance. So yes, this issue is a big deal.
As for the beliefs of pharmacists: they can believe whatever they want to believe in their personal lives, but if their beliefs interfere with doing their jobs - to dispense prescriptions as written - they ought to choose a different profession.
Notice, by the way, how you brush off and dismiss as trivial something that is a very real issue and which affects people directly. Would you equally dismissive of someone who interfered with someone's ability to exercise their religion?
Perhaps - it wouldn't be the first time laws were poorly drafted and had unintended consequences. But I think that the intent of anti-sodomy laws us pretty clear and has nothing to do with promoting sex within marriage and everything to do with making illegal forms of sex that one group of people (those in power) perceives as repulsive.
I'm brushing it off as trivial because it doesn't appear to be a problem for patients. Who has been unable to get a prescription filled due to a pharmacist's religious convictions?
And what's not trivial is the free exercise of religion.
Regarding sodomy laws, looks like we now agree they were targeting homosexual and not heterosexual sex. I'll concede it's debatable whether those laws were designed to preserve sex with within traditional marriage. I think they were, but I can see your point.
-
I'm brushing it off as trivial because it doesn't appear to be a problem for patients. Who has been unable to get a prescription filled due to a pharmacist's religious convictions?
Pharmacist Michelle Long refuses to fill prescriptions, claiming she didn't want to participate in murder (http://www.wisn.com/Pharmacist-Refuses-To-Fill-Prescriptions-For-Moral-Reasons/-/9374034/8039726/-/sn7je4z/-/index.html). At least one woman claims she became pregnant as a result and had to have an abortion.
This is just one case. But no... this sort of thing doesn't "appear" to be a problem.
And what's not trivial is the free exercise of religion.
First of all, pharmacists should exercise their religion on their own time and do their job when on the clock. And if they have a problem dispensing medications - the quintessential function of their job - perhaps they should look for another job.
As for the free exercise of religion, nothing prevents a private business from firing a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription, nor does the Constitution shield pharmacists. Remember, the Constitution protects us against infringement of our rights by the Government. Private pharmacies (the norm) are not agencies of the Government.
-
Pharmacist Michelle Long refuses to fill prescriptions, claiming she didn't want to participate in murder (http://www.wisn.com/Pharmacist-Refuses-To-Fill-Prescriptions-For-Moral-Reasons/-/9374034/8039726/-/sn7je4z/-/index.html). At least one woman claims she became pregnant as a result and had to have an abortion.
This is just one case. But no... this sort of thing doesn't "appear" to be a problem.
First of all, pharmacists should exercise their religion on their own time and do their job when on the clock. And if they have a problem dispensing medications - the quintessential function of their job - perhaps they should look for another job.
As for the free exercise of religion, nothing prevents a private business from firing a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription, nor does the Constitution shield pharmacists. Remember, the Constitution protects us against infringement of our rights by the Government. Private pharmacies (the norm) are not agencies of the Government.
I see. So in 2005, an unnamed woman in Wisconsin with six kids claimed she couldn't get an abortion pill, subsequently became pregnant, and had to have an abortion. Sorry. Not convinced. As an aside, if she couldn't afford to have another baby, why the heck wasn't she using birth control??
If pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions, and this actually prevents women (or anyone else) from getting their medication, then that is obviously unacceptable. Don't see that happening.
Fortunately, the free exercise of religion doesn't require a pharmacist to observe his or her faith only on their own time. That's not how the First Amendment works. That's not how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 works either.
-
I see. So in 2005, an unnamed woman in Wisconsin with six kids claimed she couldn't get an abortion pill, subsequently became pregnant, and had to have an abortion. Sorry. Not convinced. As an aside, if she couldn't afford to have another baby, why the heck wasn't she using birth control??
If pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions, and this actually prevents women (or anyone else) from getting their medication, then that is obviously unacceptable. Don't see that happening.
Fortunately, the free exercise of religion doesn't require a pharmacist to observe his or her faith only on their own time. That's not how the First Amendment works. That's not how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 works either.
WoW dude. Its not up to the pharmacist to decide if a person should have their medications or not. The woman not being on birrh control is irrelevant. The pharmacist should be fired for not doinh her job
-
WoW dude. Its not up to the pharmacist to decide if a person should have their medications or not. The woman not being on birrh control is irrelevant. The pharmacist should be fired for not doinh her job
Even better, prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license.
It's not her place to decide what medications or controlled substances are appropriate for patients.
That's between a patient and their health care professional. Her job is to dispense medicine according to prescription, not to arbitrarily withhold prescriptions or prescribe herself. If she doesn't believe in a woman's right to prevent pregnancy, she's free to push out all the babies someone can impregnate her with, but she has no right to make those decisions for another woman's body.
-
WoW dude. Its not up to the pharmacist to decide if a person should have their medications or not. The woman not being on birrh control is irrelevant. The pharmacist should be fired for not doinh her job
The pharmacist doesn't decide what medications a person gets. The pharmacist decides which medications (if any) the pharmacist does or doesn't personally dispense without violating the pharmacist's conscious and without interfering with the patient's access to the medication. Really shouldn't be that complicated.
-
The pharmacist doesn't decide what medications a person gets. The pharmacist decides which medications (if any) the pharmacist does or doesn't personally dispense without violating the pharmacist's conscious and without interfering with the patient's access to the medication. Really shouldn't be that complicated.
violating her conciense is no where in her job description. Nk where is it said that a persons right to have a clear conscience while employed at a private company something that is constitutionally protected. She dodsnt have to distribute it, she could always quit if it bothered her thay much.
Thats akin to a Muslim refuses to sell someone pork at arbys because its against their conciense. Not a protected right. They dont have to sell them that on their own time, but while at work theyll obey their comoanies rules or theu can quit and then refuse to help the person.
-
I see. So in 2005, an unnamed woman in Wisconsin with six kids claimed she couldn't get an abortion pill, subsequently became pregnant, and had to have an abortion. Sorry. Not convinced. As an aside, if she couldn't afford to have another baby, why the heck wasn't she using birth control??
It was the first search result I hit while on my iPhone. Forgive me for not providing a complete history, especially since it's fairly trivial to actually find numerous such cases on respectable news sites. I could paste some more instances here, but my position is that even if one person is denied medication because of a pharmacist's "beliefs" that's one too many.
If pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions, and this actually prevents women (or anyone else) from getting their medication, then that is obviously unacceptable. Don't see that happening.
You don't see it happening despite a case that I posted, where it did actually happen... when's the last time you had your eyesight checked?
Fortunately, the free exercise of religion doesn't require a pharmacist to observe his or her faith only on their own time.
That's not how the First Amendment works. Again, the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion from interference by government actors. The First Amendment does not mean that I - a private citizen - am required to let you freely exercise your religion in my house, or my business for that matter.
People whose "beliefs" and "religion" conflicts with the ability to dispense medications aren't qualified to be pharmacists anymore than people whose "beliefs" and "religion" conflicts with the use of technology are qualified to be software engineers.
That's not how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 works either.
You got me... not!
But really, nice try - I bet that this sort of "argument" - quoting statutes and waving your arms around - may amaze the people you typically debate with, who are left stunned by your legal expertise and frantic flailing, but it won't work on me. You see, I'm something of a legal dilettante. So let's dance, shall we?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 mainly prohibits discrimination on the basis of certain factors from Governments and goverment agencies. It's true that there is Title II which deals with facilities which provide public accommodations and, using the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, empowers the Federal Government to establish regulations for such facilities. So why doesn't this work here?
Well, given how expansively Courts have interpreted the Interstate Commerce Clause (rendering it effectively meaningless, but let's not worry about such things for now) it would seem like this clause could apply. HOWEVER - don't you hate it when I use that term? - it's unclear that it does. Let's carefully go over why that is: the law as written targetted hotels, motels, and generally, places of accomodation. It's unclear that a pharmacy qualifies under that standard. But let's not play hardball. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume, arguendo, that it is, indeed, a covered entity.
Game over, right?
Wrong.
Let's take a look at this PDF (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title42/pdf/USCODE-2008-title42-chap21-subchapVI-sec2000e-2.pdf) from the Government Printing Office. I have added emphasis and slightly snipped the text for clarity, but if you are curious, you may verify the accuracy of the language and the context:
It shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees [...] on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business [...]
Now, I don't know about you, but it seems pretty cut and dry that the ability and willingness to dispense medications in accordance with valid and legal prescriptions is not only reasonably necessary but mandatory to the normal operation of a pharmacy. Therefore, an employer who refuses to hire or fires a pharmacists who claims that their religion prevents them from dispensing some kinds of medications would not be discriminating for the purposes of Title II.
So, to recap: even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that requiring a pharmacist to do their job was discriminatory and in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title II, that's not the end of the story, because we have 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(e) which, quite explicitly, says otherwise.
Any questions?
-
Which religions prohibit birth control other than Catholics?
I don't think homosexual marriage will limit population growth, because there aren't enough homosexuals in the country to make a significant difference.
The Catholic church does not prohibit birth control.The Catholic Church is opposed to artificial contraception and orgasmic acts outside of the context of marital intercourse. This belief dates back to the first centuries of Christianity. Such acts are considered intrinsically disordered because of the belief that all licit sexual acts must be both unitive (express love), and procreative (open to procreation). The only form of birth control permitted is abstinence.
Ever since January 2012, when the Department of Health and Human Services issued guidelines requiring certain religious employers to provide contraception coverage on their group health insurance plans, evangelicals have stood with Catholics and other religious-liberty advocates against the HHS mandate.
Conservative Protestants have adopted Catholic positions on other sex-related issues. Perhaps it was only a matter of time until evangelical elites began pushing back against birth control.
Protestant attitudes concerning birth control. These are the "children in abundance" group, such as Quiverfull adherents who view all birth control and natural family planning as wrong; the "children in managed abundance" group, which accept only natural family planning.
The Qur'an does not make any explicit statements about the morality of contraception, but contains statements encouraging procreation. The prophet Muhammad also is reported to have said "marry and procreate".
Coitus interruptus, a primitive form of birth control, was a known practice at the time of Muhammad, and his companions engaged in it. Muhammad knew about this, but did not prohibit it.
Among Orthodox Judaism, use of birth control has been considered only acceptable for use in certain circumstances, for example, when the couple already has two children.
Homosexual marriage is not limited to the U.S. It is allowed in the following countries: England, Wales, France, Brazil, Uruguay, Denmark, New Zealand, Argentina, Portugal, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands (since 2000) and Mexico which like the U.S. only allows gay marriage in some regions.
I agree that gay marriage will probably not have much impact on population growth since gay people also procreate sometimes via the use of sperm donors and surrogate mothers.
-
The handful of pharmacists who don't want to fill prescriptions aren't forcing people not to get those prescriptions. They simply don't want to do it themselves. Another pharmacist can do it. What's the big deal?
They shouldn't have to go anywhere. Pharmacists serve as gatekeepers for medication in our society, and that means that have to serve everybody in our society equally, regardless of their own beliefs.
If they can't, because of their personal beliefs, treat people equally, then they don't belong in that position.
-
What does all this have to do with what the Supreme Court of Canada did?
Talk about a giant collective case of ADHD. ::)
The Supreme Court looked at the current set of laws surrounding prostitution, and concluded that as they existed, these laws were putting people in unnecessary danger. So they struck them down, and gave the Members of Parliament one year to come up with a new set of laws with regards to prostitution that didn't endanger people.
Prostitution in Canada is LEGAL, and was legal, at the time the Supreme Court struck down the laws SURROUNDING it.
Let me make an analogy:
Holding a newborn baby is perfectly legal / (prostitution)
It is unlawful for a father to hand his newborn baby to its mother. / (law surrounding prostitution)
It is unlawful for a mother to place her newborn in it's fathers arms / (law surrounding prostitution)
It is unlawful to pickup a baby / (law surrounding prostitution)
Providing sustenance to a newborn baby is perfectly legal. / (prostitution)
It is unlawful to place a bottle filled with baby formula in baby's mouth / (law surrounding prostitution)
It is unlawful to place a mammary gland in baby's mouth / (law surrounding prostitution)
It is unlawful to place a bottle filled with water in baby's mouth / (law surrounding prostitution)
It is unlawful to... / (law surrounding prostitution)
It is unlawful to... / (law surrounding prostitution)
The Supreme Court looked at the present situation, and realized their convoluted bunch of laws surrounding what were essentially lawful activities were resulting in dysfunctional parenting. Fathers were hiking babies to their mothers like they were footballs, ...in some cases punting them, and mothers were nursing babies with fire hoses & fire hydrants. These were unnecessarily dangerous situations.
That said, ...what laws would you propose to ensure a legal activity was not made unnecessarily dangerous or exploitative for it's various participants?
ps: Save me the sanctimonious condemnation for putting a newborn baby in the same sentence as prostitution
-
violating her conciense is no where in her job description. Nk where is it said that a persons right to have a clear conscience while employed at a private company something that is constitutionally protected. She dodsnt have to distribute it, she could always quit if it bothered her thay much.
Thats akin to a Muslim refuses to sell someone pork at arbys because its against their conciense. Not a protected right. They dont have to sell them that on their own time, but while at work theyll obey their comoanies rules or theu can quit and then refuse to help the person.
It doesn't really work that way. If someone works for a private company and has a sincerely held religious belief, the employer has an obligation to try and accommodate the employee, unless it would create an undue hardship. So no, a person who wants to listen to his or her conscience doesn't have to toe the line or quit.
-
It was the first search result I hit while on my iPhone. Forgive me for not providing a complete history, especially since it's fairly trivial to actually find numerous such cases on respectable news sites. I could paste some more instances here, but my position is that even if one person is denied medication because of a pharmacist's "beliefs" that's one too many.
You don't see it happening despite a case that I posted, where it did actually happen... when's the last time you had your eyesight checked?
That's not how the First Amendment works. Again, the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion from interference by government actors. The First Amendment does not mean that I - a private citizen - am required to let you freely exercise your religion in my house, or my business for that matter.
People whose "beliefs" and "religion" conflicts with the ability to dispense medications aren't qualified to be pharmacists anymore than people whose "beliefs" and "religion" conflicts with the use of technology are qualified to be software engineers.
You got me... not!
But really, nice try - I bet that this sort of "argument" - quoting statutes and waving your arms around - may amaze the people you typically debate with, who are left stunned by your legal expertise and frantic flailing, but it won't work on me. You see, I'm something of a legal dilettante. So let's dance, shall we?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 mainly prohibits discrimination on the basis of certain factors from Governments and goverment agencies. It's true that there is Title II which deals with facilities which provide public accommodations and, using the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, empowers the Federal Government to establish regulations for such facilities. So why doesn't this work here?
Well, given how expansively Courts have interpreted the Interstate Commerce Clause (rendering it effectively meaningless, but let's not worry about such things for now) it would seem like this clause could apply. HOWEVER - don't you hate it when I use that term? - it's unclear that it does. Let's carefully go over why that is: the law as written targetted hotels, motels, and generally, places of accomodation. It's unclear that a pharmacy qualifies under that standard. But let's not play hardball. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume, arguendo, that it is, indeed, a covered entity.
Game over, right?
Wrong.
Let's take a look at this PDF (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title42/pdf/USCODE-2008-title42-chap21-subchapVI-sec2000e-2.pdf) from the Government Printing Office. I have added emphasis and slightly snipped the text for clarity, but if you are curious, you may verify the accuracy of the language and the context:
Now, I don't know about you, but it seems pretty cut and dry that the ability and willingness to dispense medications in accordance with valid and legal prescriptions is not only reasonably necessary but mandatory to the normal operation of a pharmacy. Therefore, an employer who refuses to hire or fires a pharmacists who claims that their religion prevents them from dispensing some kinds of medications would not be discriminating for the purposes of Title II.
So, to recap: even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that requiring a pharmacist to do their job was discriminatory and in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title II, that's not the end of the story, because we have 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(e) which, quite explicitly, says otherwise.
Any questions?
Yes, I have one question: do you often put so much time and effort into making a fool of yourself?
Here are the problems with your Google "research."
1. Pharmacists are regulated by the government. So yes, the First Amendment does apply.
2. I can use Google too. Took me about sixty seconds to find this opinion. http://www.scribd.com/doc/82482561/Plan-B-Decision Took me another few minutes to skim it. This judge ruled that regulations requiring pharmacists to dispense the abortion pill are a violation of the First Amendment, just like I indicated. You'll have to forgive me if I take the analysis of this federal judge over some keyboard warrior on the internet, who is a self proclaimed "legal dilettante." LOL! (That's really funny.) :)
3. Regarding your Title VII stuff, I've actually been interviewing, hiring, managing, and firing employees for a long time, so I have to be aware of what I can and cannot do as an employer. What I know is I have to reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs, unless that accommodation would create an undue hardship on my business. So yes, in addition to the First Amendment, I think Title VII does apply.
4. Pharmacists are not required to dispense all kinds of medications. They can refuse to dispense medications for a variety of reasons, including the cost, refusing to accept various forms of insurance, avoiding risky drugs, etc.
Class dismissed. You are sentenced to 1 hour of additional Google remedial research training.
-
Yes, I have one question: do you often put so much time and effort into making a fool of yourself?
Here are the problems with your Google "research."
1. Pharmacists are regulated by the government. So yes, the First Amendment does apply.
2. I can use Google too. Took me about sixty seconds to find this opinion. http://www.scribd.com/doc/82482561/Plan-B-Decision Took me another few minutes to skim it. This judge ruled that regulations requiring pharmacists to dispense the abortion pill are a violation of the First Amendment, just like I indicated. You'll have to forgive me if I take the analysis of this federal judge over some keyboard warrior on the internet, who is a self proclaimed "legal dilettante." LOL! (That's really funny.) :)
3. Regarding your Title VII stuff, I've actually been interviewing, hiring, managing, and firing employees for a long time, so I have to be aware of what I can and cannot do as an employer. What I know is I have to reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs, unless that accommodation would create an undue hardship on my business. So yes, in addition to the First Amendment, I think Title VII does apply.
4. Pharmacists are not required to dispense all kinds of medications. They can refuse to dispense medications for a variety of reasons, including the cost, refusing to accept various forms of insurance, avoiding risky drugs, etc.
Class dismissed. You are sentenced to 1 hour of additional Google remedial research training.
Totally correct! And to simplify it a little more: A muslim working at arby's is not even close to a pharmacist having to dispense a drug that is INTENDED TO KILL A BABY!!! How could you even possibly compare the two? Yeah yeah i get it they view pork as dirty, but you are insane if you equate touching ham to killing a baby. Sick.
-
Totally correct! And to simplify it a little more: A muslim working at arby's is not even close to a pharmacist having to dispense a drug that is INTENDED TO KILL A BABY!!! How could you even possibly compare the two? Yeah yeah i get it they view pork as dirty, but you are insane if you equate touching ham to killing a baby. Sick.
I don't think there is much of a comparison either.
-
The Catholic church does not prohibit birth control.The Catholic Church is opposed to artificial contraception and orgasmic acts outside of the context of marital intercourse. This belief dates back to the first centuries of Christianity. Such acts are considered intrinsically disordered because of the belief that all licit sexual acts must be both unitive (express love), and procreative (open to procreation). The only form of birth control permitted is abstinence.
Ever since January 2012, when the Department of Health and Human Services issued guidelines requiring certain religious employers to provide contraception coverage on their group health insurance plans, evangelicals have stood with Catholics and other religious-liberty advocates against the HHS mandate.
Conservative Protestants have adopted Catholic positions on other sex-related issues. Perhaps it was only a matter of time until evangelical elites began pushing back against birth control.
Protestant attitudes concerning birth control. These are the "children in abundance" group, such as Quiverfull adherents who view all birth control and natural family planning as wrong; the "children in managed abundance" group, which accept only natural family planning.
The Qur'an does not make any explicit statements about the morality of contraception, but contains statements encouraging procreation. The prophet Muhammad also is reported to have said "marry and procreate".
Coitus interruptus, a primitive form of birth control, was a known practice at the time of Muhammad, and his companions engaged in it. Muhammad knew about this, but did not prohibit it.
Among Orthodox Judaism, use of birth control has been considered only acceptable for use in certain circumstances, for example, when the couple already has two children.
Homosexual marriage is not limited to the U.S. It is allowed in the following countries: England, Wales, France, Brazil, Uruguay, Denmark, New Zealand, Argentina, Portugal, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands (since 2000) and Mexico which like the U.S. only allows gay marriage in some regions.
I agree that gay marriage will probably not have much impact on population growth since gay people also procreate sometimes via the use of sperm donors and surrogate mothers.
If you're going to cut and paste from other sources, shouldn't you use quotation marks, or at least provide a link so it doesn't appear as though you are passing this off as your own writing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_birth_control
-
I don't think there is much of a comparison either.
of course you dont. Its not like theyre both deeply held religious beliefs or anything.
-
Yes, I have one question: do you often put so much time and effort into making a fool of yourself?
Your question assumes facts not in evidence.
Here are the problems with your Google "research."
Oh goody... some nudnik on the Internet is going to tell me what my problems are.
1. Pharmacists are regulated by the government. So yes, the First Amendment does apply.
No, that's not how it works. What First Amendment protected interest, specifically, is being infringed by government regulation of pharmacists if the company that owns a pharmacy chooses to fire a pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication?
2. I can use Google too. Took me about sixty seconds to find this opinion. http://www.scribd.com/doc/82482561/Plan-B-Decision Took me another few minutes to skim it. This judge ruled that regulations requiring pharmacists to dispense the abortion pill are a violation of the First Amendment, just like I indicated. You'll have to forgive me if I take the analysis of this federal judge over some keyboard warrior on the internet, who is a self proclaimed "legal dilettante." LOL! (That's really funny.) :)
Let's start from the bottom: of course the analysis of a Federal Judge carries more weight than what I write on legal issues. I never disputed this, nor did I claim otherwise. Now, onwards:
Stormans v. Selecky, a great case, but it's not quite as cut-and-dry as you make it. The most important thing about the case, in this instance, isn't the decision though. The most important thing is that you twisted what I said. It's possible that regulation by the State requiring pharmacists to dispense a particular medication may have First Amendment implications. But I said nothing about Government regulations. I said that a pharmacist who refuses to dispense an prescription on the grounds of his religious beliefs, doesn't have a claim against his employer under the First Amendment since the First Amendment bars the Government, not private individuals. I also said that the claim would be likely to fail based on exceptions explicitly listed in the Civil Rights Act.
Nothing in this case changes any of that. Stormans v. Selecky is about a regulation by the Pharmacy Board, a Government agency, promulgating a rule requiring pharmacists to dispense Plan B.
Apples and Oranges.
Now, since it's interesting, let's talk about that decision a bit too, shall we?
You will note that (a) the Fourteenth Amendment claim that they pharmacists make was rejected (at least for the time being) by the Court, and quite strongly. You will also note that (b) the Court, when conducting its analysis, had this to say about First Amendment concerns (internal quotations omitted):
While the Free Exercise Clause immunizes religious beliefs themselves, the Clause obviously cannot and does not bar regulation of all religiously-based conduct. Indeed, the Supreme Court has “never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from complying with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that a State is free to regulate.” To do otherwise would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
Consistently with precedent, the Court recognizes that laws can ban some religious conduct without violating the First Amendment. The Court then turns to the question of whether the law/regulation in question does or not. A primary concern voiced by the Court (and, really, the deciding factor) is that the law provides certain kinds of exemptions for secular reasons but not for religious reasons. I don't necessarily agree with the Court's analysis, but there is certainly merit to this argument.
[Before we go on, it's important to note that I am a libertarian; I do not believe that the Government should be able to force a pharmacy to carry a particular medication or, for that matter, to dispense it. I have faith that the market will deal with businesses which don't respond to the needs of the community that they operate in.]
With that said, I don't agree with the conclusion that a rule requiring a pharmacist to dispense a medicine that is in stock and for which there are no business reasons to not complete the transaction can or should violate the pharmacists' First Amendment rights. I believe that if you cannot dispense medications because of your personal beliefs you shouldn't be a pharmacist. And I certainly don't agree that pharmacists have the "freedom" to not only refuse to dispense a prescription, but to withhold it effectively prevent a person from receiving the prescribed medication from another pharmacist.
Now et's consider a somewhat more extreme example: You do know that doctors and nurses are required to render emergency aid and failure to do so will (almost always) cost them their license, right? So what about a doctor who witnesses a man suffering from some acute emergency but does nothing to help on the grounds that his religious beliefs prevent him from helping the man on account of his, for example, sexual orientation? Would a doctor who lost his license because of failing to render aid have a case on First Amendment grounds?
"But," you might say, "that's an emergency. Other rules apply there." Well, ok. What about an insurance adjuster who refuses to authorize radiation treatment for someone because he sincerely believes that prayer will make the cancer go away and if the man really believed he'd be saved?
So the question that we must ask: are regulations that require people who are engaged in certain professions to behave professionally violating their First Amendment rights? It's tricky to answer and the best we can do is: "well maybe."
The Court struggles with this very question and it's the quintessence of the issue debated in Stormans v. Selecky. It's certainly an interesting decision, but the fat lady hasn't sung yet. The case is on appeals as we speak and will, almost certainly, go all the way up to the Supreme Court should the 9th Circuit Court upholds the decision in panel and in an en banc session.
But again, this is a different topic. Remember, my original point was that the pharmacists First Amendment rights cannot be violated by their employer who can require them to dispense a medication and can fire them for failure to do so while remaining shielded from Civil Rights Act violations under 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(e).
3. Regarding your Title VII stuff, I've actually been interviewing, hiring, managing, and firing employees for a long time, so I have to be aware of what I can and cannot do as an employer.
Great. So, you were aware of the bona fide occupational qualification exception?
What I know is I have to reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs, unless that accommodation would create an undue hardship on my business. So yes, in addition to the First Amendment, I think Title VII does apply.
Yes, you do have to accommodate practices that don't create an undue hardship on your business. But you can do more than that. There are cases where you can make a decision based on factors that would, under other circumstances, be illegal to consider, where those factors are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of your business.
I would argue that a pharmacy firing a pharmacist who refuses to dispense certain medication on the grounds of his religious beliefs is allowed. After all, dispensing medication is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of a pharmacy. Do you disagree?
4. Pharmacists are not required to dispense all kinds of medications. They can refuse to dispense medications for a variety of reasons, including the cost, refusing to accept various forms of insurance, avoiding risky drugs, etc.
This is a bit of a disingenuous argument. Of course pharmacists aren't required to dispense medications to people who can't pay or which the pharmacy doesn't choose to stock. They can also refuse to dispense medications if they have a good faith belief the medication will be abused or the prescription was fraudulently obtained. The question is do pharmacists have a right to prohibit someone from receiving medications not only by refusing to fill a prescription but by confiscating the prescription and refusing to return it.
Class dismissed. You are sentenced to 1 hour of additional Google remedial research training.
Dismissed? I don't think so. I hope you took notes though, there will be a test.
-
Totally correct! And to simplify it a little more: A muslim working at arby's is not even close to a pharmacist having to dispense a drug that is INTENDED TO KILL A BABY!!! How could you even possibly compare the two? Yeah yeah i get it they view pork as dirty, but you are insane if you equate touching ham to killing a baby. Sick.
You do realize that Plan B doesn't kill a baby, right? It's taken at most 5 days after sex. At that point there's no baby, or a fetus. There may be a fertilized ovum - I say maybe because fertilization isn't instant and can happen up to five days after sex. But even if fertilization has taken place, at five days, you have a clump of at most a couple of dozen cells that haven't even implanted in the womb. And you do know what "Plan B" does and how it operates right? I'm just asking, because the "INTENDED TO KILL A BABY" histrionics make me suspect that you don't.
And, beyond that, why not compare these things? Because you think that some religious beliefs more important than others? How do you weight belief X vs. belief Y. Assume, for the sake of argument, that a person tells you that his beliefs dictate that touching pork will cause him to lose all possibility of salvation, and he will be sentenced to hell and unending torment for all eternity. Why do you dismiss and minimize that belief? Because it doesn't jibe with your own?
Even if you minimize and dismiss some beliefs (as you obviously do) please ask yourself one question: do I really want the State deciding which beliefs are important and which aren't? Think carefully, because if you answer yes you may find yourself in the unenviable position of having your beliefs minimized and dismissed. And something tells me your God won't help you then.
-
You do realize that Plan B doesn't kill a baby, right? It's taken at most 5 days after sex. At that point there's no baby, or a fetus. There may be a fertilized ovum - I say maybe because fertilization isn't instant and can happen up to five days after sex. But even if fertilization has taken place, at five days, you have a clump of at most a couple of dozen cells that haven't even implanted in the womb. And you do know what "Plan B" does and how it operates right? I'm just asking, because the "INTENDED TO KILL A BABY" histrionics make me suspect that you don't.
And, beyond that, why not compare these things? Because you think that some religious beliefs more important than others? How do you weight belief X vs. belief Y. Assume, for the sake of argument, that a person tells you that his beliefs dictate that touching pork will cause him to lose all possibility of salvation, and he will be sentenced to hell and unending torment for all eternity. Why do you dismiss and minimize that belief? Because it doesn't jibe with your own?
Even if you minimize and dismiss some beliefs (as you obviously do) please ask yourself one question: do I really want the State deciding which beliefs are important and which aren't? Think carefully, because if you answer yes you may find yourself in the unenviable position of having your beliefs minimized and dismissed. And something tells me your God won't help you then.
This is where the crux of the argument lies. I totally disagree. Do you understand my point now? And yes I fully understand and know what Plan B is. The bolded statement is where you and I will never agree.
And why do you vehemently defend anyone other than christians? You seem so hell bent on standing up for a muslims right to refuse to touch pork, but are totally opposed to christians who are against abortion. Mock my faith all you want, I know what is right and wrong. Equivocating and making everything shades of grey does nothing but divide societies.
-
This is where the crux of the argument lies. I totally disagree. Do you understand my point now? And yes I fully understand and know what Plan B is. The bolded statement is where you and I will never agree.
And why do you vehemently defend anyone other than christians? You seem so hell bent on standing up for a muslims right to refuse to touch pork, but are totally opposed to christians who are against abortion. Mock my faith all you want, I know what is right and wrong. Equivocating and making everything shades of grey does nothing but divide societies.
I agree with you on most everything bro, but disagree here.
If a woman has a right under freedom of religion to not give a customer plan B, then there is no reason a Muslim should be forced to serve Pork against his will.. either you protect all religions equally or you protect none.
-
This is where the crux of the argument lies. I totally disagree. Do you understand my point now? And yes I fully understand and know what Plan B is. The bolded statement is where you and I will never agree.
You disagree with what? That there's a clump of a few dozen cells after five days in the best scenario? You do realize that objective reality is not subject to your agreement. We are talking about processes that can be observed. The fertilized ovum is not even in the womb by the 5th day - it's still inside the Fallopian tubes - and it's made up of less than two or three dozen cells.
We can discuss/debate whether that cluster of cells is a human being or should be considered as such if you want, but that's an entirely different issue.
And why do you vehemently defend anyone other than christians?
You are either not serious or seriously confused. I don't "defend anyone other than Christians." In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a single post of mine where I defend any religion. I find them all ridiculous and my posting history proves it. If you think I have a bias against Christians you are wrong.
You seem so hell bent on standing up for a muslims right to refuse to touch pork, but are totally opposed to christians who are against abortion.
I was merely continuing the example you quoted, which I seem to recall someone else used before you. And please notice two important things: First, I carefully removed any references to any particular religion. Second, that I used this example to caution you against fostering a society where beliefs are "weighted" and "ranked" because when you end up with a government that minimizes and dismisses beliefs (even if at this moment the beliefs being minimized and dismissed are those you disagree with) soon enough the scales would tip and you'd find those things that you believe in being minimized and dismissed.
This broader point has nothing to do with being Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Rastafarian or whathaveyou. Particular beliefs are irrelevant to the point I was making.
Mock my faith all you want, I know what is right and wrong. Equivocating and making everything shades of grey does nothing but divide societies.
Don't be offended. For one thing, I'm an equal opportunity mocker. For another thing, I may be an atheist and I may find all religions to be irrational and stupid, but I don't presume to tell others what they should or shouldn't believe. If you have been convinced, to your satisfaction, that there is a God, I'm cool with that. If you don't bother me, I won't bother you. If you don't mention your beliefs to me, I won't ask, discuss with and/or mock you about them.
You say that shades of gray divide. Perhaps that is the case. But don't black and white also divide? You claim to know what is right and what is wrong. That's great, and maybe you really do. But the question is can you put your knowledge in the form of a rule or rules that allow the rest of us, who don't know, to rationally examine a situation and decide whether something is, indeed, right or wrong? I'm betting that the answer is no.
What's more, I'm betting that you don't know what's right or wrong with the certainty that you think you do. Is it right or wrong for a young girl that is raped by her Father to seek to prevent the possibility of pregnancy? Is it right or wrong for a pharmacist to deny this girl access to emergency contraception? Is it right or wrong that this girl may become pregnant and end up giving birth to her own brother because of other people's decisions and actions?
After you ponder those questions for a bit, then come back to me and tell me again how you know what's wrong or right. I'm really curious to hear what you'll have to say.
-
AV youre a good poster bro but you gotta start summarizing your shit
-
You say that shades of gray divide. Perhaps that is the case. But don't black and white also divide? You claim to know what is right and what is wrong. That's great, and maybe you really do. But the question is can you put your knowledge in the form of a rule or rules that allow the rest of us, who don't know, to rationally examine a situation and decide whether something is, indeed, right or wrong? I'm betting that the answer is no.
What's more, I'm betting that you don't know what's right or wrong with the certainty that you think you do. Is it right or wrong for a young girl that is raped by her Father to seek to prevent the possibility of pregnancy? Is it right or wrong for a pharmacist to deny this girl access to emergency contraception? Is it right or wrong that this girl may become pregnant and end up giving birth to her own brother because of other people's decisions and actions?
After you ponder those questions for a bit, then come back to me and tell me again how you know what's wrong or right. I'm really curious to hear what you'll have to say.
Very thoughtful response.
-
of course you dont. Its not like theyre both deeply held religious beliefs or anything.
lol