The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

@spendius,

spendi,

Quote:

They are providing the choice of using or not using contraceptives. That you see that as not a choice is your affair but it obviously is. And a more important one because without it the choice is down to doctor's advice and advertising. Either way you have an expert in the bed with you.

What you fail to see are many; in the first place, many catholic women use contraceptives. If their insurance takes away that right, they're removing what is available to everybody else - and even to non-catholics working for the church. Secondly, some women use contraceptive for medical reasons, and if the contraceptive benefit is removed, it can cost them $100 a month in expenses that are available to everybody else on insurance. Thirdly, the bishops are intruding into women's private sex lives by telling them it's wrong to use contraceptives. Nowhere in the bible does it restrict the use of contraceptives, so men are making rules against women for no practical reason except control.

spendi wrote,

Quote:

The Church is trying to restore women's sexuality not control it. You are trying to control it. Take the risk out of sex and you don't have sex.

They don't restore anything by taking away something. Your understanding of logic is nil.

spendi wrote,

Quote:

Religious morals are not enforced today. Where have you got such a silly notion from? They are presented to people for them to consider. It is you who wants to take that away from people.

The teachings of any church are based on their concept of morals; otherwise they have no place in society. That you have the gall to state that "religious morals are not enforced today," only proves your ignorance of control by the religious institutions.

spendi wrote,

Quote:

Of course it is the Church's business.

Why is it the churches business to determine whether a woman uses contraceptives? Why are they determined to remove a healthcare benefit for women?

spendi wrote,

Quote:

The Church prohibited meat on Fridays on very good grounds. It has been said that the Church owned fishing boats for example. And that dietary advice was fish once a week. And it was economic to use a food resource close at hand so that more land could be used to grow fodder for the cavalry horses.

So, you're saying it's an economic issue and not a religious one? ROFL

spendi wrote,

Quote:

"Silly rules by silly men" is the hallmark of a very silly know-all.

It would be under most circumstances, but I explained why they are silly; trying to control women's sexuality, and health needs.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Not really; many single women choose to have a baby.

what has that got to do with it?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

The natural method is two healthy adults rolling in the hay naked and having fun and determined to produce no after effects and knowing how not to.

Aha! That's all. And it is 100% effective, you say.

Why not explain that to us.

1 Reply

@blueveinedthrobber,

You said,

Quote:

well until a woman can make a baby without sperm and is willing to support that baby out of her own wallet once she decides she wants it no matter what and she alone has any say in the matter, then I suggest celibacy and/or birth control on the part of EVERYONE . It takes two consenting people (and I'm excluding rape) to make a baby and two people SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. Neither a man or a woman has the right to impose their will on their partner. Decision needs to be made together.

Quote:

Who needs dads? The single mum's guide to having a baby without a man
By HELEN WEATHERS

Last updated at 12:01 29 November 2007

Comments (0)
Share
In a controversial new book, this defiantly single mother gives a step-by-step guide to having a baby without a man. But even she admits there's a bitter price to pay.
When Louise Sloan's son Scott was born in June last year he was obviously going to grow up to be the spitting image of his father - a tall, green-eyed, handsome, intelligent actor with a wry sense of humour and a love of music.

"I did wonder when Scott was born how I would feel about a child who looked like a man I'd never met," admits 44-year-old Louise, who picked the father of her child from a sperm donor bank. "But now I think of his biological father as a stranger who happens to look like my son."

Scroll down for more...

Going it alone: Single mum Louise Sloan with son Scott, has written a book about how to bring up a child without a father

Scott's father - or "Green Eyes" as Louise refers to him - was Louise's second choice of sperm donor. Her first was Dreamy, a tall, dark and handsome Mr Popular with blue eyes and a degree in environmental studies, who skied for his college team.

After six or seven failed attempts to get pregnant with Dreamy - a rather soulless "union" involving vials of sperm and turkey basters - Louise dropped him in favour of Green Eyes. On the third attempt, bingo.

Today Louise, a lesbian since the age of 19, is a contented single mother and proud of it. She is blissfully happy with her handsome, easy-going little son and is utterly confident her child will suffer no ill-effects from having no father.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

many catholic women use contraceptives.

False. They are CINO if they use them.

Quote:

If their insurance takes away that right, they're removing what is available to everybody else

Then their premiums should go down. I am not familiar enough with what has been proposed but it has no bearing on Catholic Bishops upholding the Catholic prohibition on artificial birth control and defending Catholics from being involved in the transactions involved.

How do you get $100 a month without paying for it?

Quote:

Thirdly, the bishops are intruding into women's private sex lives by telling them it's wrong to use contraceptives.

Not in the least. Nobody has to be a Catholic. The Army telling people how to cut their hair is the same when its a volunteer army.

Quote:

so men are making rules against women for no practical reason except control.

They have no control in these matters. They would say they are making such rules to protect women from misogynists like you. Pop 'em a pill, block off their pipes, choke their eggs, insert devices under their skin, abort them and away you go--no risk *******.

Is control a bogeyman word to you? Do you want no controls?

Quote:

They don't restore anything by taking away something.

They restore the natural state of womanhood. Is a spayed woman natural? She's more like a blow-up doll imo.

Quote:

The teachings of any church are based on their concept of morals...

You've had all that explained to you a few times. Morals derive from pragmatic considerations. What we need, as decided by those who decide what we need, and you're a revolutionary if you dispute that, become morals to make them stick when legal sanctions are difficult to apply as they are in bedrooms. Morals don't arrive from nowhere.

Religious morals are not enforced today. There is no-one to enforce them. You can screw 3 women a day each on the pill and there's nothing the Bishops can do about it. Or the law. What on earth are you talking about?

Quote:

Why is it the churches business to determine whether a woman uses contraceptives? Why are they determined to remove a healthcare benefit for women?

The Church can make its business anything it likes. Like the NCSE can. Nobody is required to take any notice. And the Church thinks, as I do, and many hundreds of millions of others, that contraception is the opposite of a healthcare benefit. That's the nub of the argument. You're just asserting there a healthcare benefit to contraception. And taking chemical substances for other reasons than preventing conception is not contraception. It is treatment.

Quote:

So, you're saying it's an economic issue and not a religious one? ROFL

They are both the same. Read Karl Marx.

Quote:

It would be under most circumstances, but I explained why they are silly; trying to control women's sexuality, and health needs.

You explained nothing. You asserted. They are giving women their sexuality back and making them healthier. I showed why. You haven't.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You wrote,

Quote:

Then their premiums should go down. I am not familiar enough with what has been proposed but it has no bearing on Catholic Bishops upholding the Catholic prohibition on artificial birth control and defending Catholics from being involved in the transactions involved.

Do you understand the word "prohibition?" Probably not. They're trying to impose a religious restriction against free choice.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

C.I. I thought it was not only implied but obvious that I was speaking of a instance where there was a relationship going on. Sorry I wasn't clear. Of course if a single woman wants a baby on her own she has the right to do it. There are sperm banks all over the place. However, if she becomes pregnant unplanned and takes the attitude with the father (or sperm donor) that he has NO say in whether to keep the baby, AND the sex was consensual then she should support it herself. If the pregnancy was an accident and the responsibility for rolling the dice is equal, then the man should at least have a SAY in what happens. By the same token if a man is willing to accept the financial and parental duties of the child, he should have a say in the pregnancy being seen through and the baby being born.

I realize it's a tough tough situation and no two are alike and believe it when I tell you I think women should have all the access to contraception they want and it should be covered by insurance as far as I'm concerned. I also think if a man has decided he never wants to be a father he should take some incentive and responsibility and get himself fixed.

What I don't like is men deciding on women's reproductive issues OR women taking the militant "**** you I'm the one who carries it" attitude. It relegates the man to just a sperm donor and I realize that's sometimes the case, my "father" was merely my sire, no more no less. I also think it reduces the child to a bargaining chip not unlike what unfortunately often occurs in divorce.

I guess I'm just, in my way, expressing my wish we could all treat each other a little better. I know it will never happen, because no mater what, you can't stop people from screwing. Makes you wonder why God in His infinite (?) wisdom didn't make the sex act something men and women were only interested in a couple times a year when a woman went into heat. Or barring that, why we aren't programmed to find the sex act slightly nauseating after. But we're not. We're programmed to be horny on a regular basis.

Of course there are those who will say that's exactly what happens in long term marriages. Mr. Green

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

She is blissfully happy with her handsome, easy-going little son and is utterly confident her child will suffer no ill-effects from having no father.

This line in the Weathers' article bothered me enough to want to at least mention it. How anyone can be "utterly confident" of the future in anything is a mystery to me...but for this woman to suggest that she is utterly confident that her child will suffer no ill-effects from having no father" is beyond comprehension.

Don't get me wrong...I am not saying the kid WILL suffer ill-effects--and I sincerely hope he does not. But since there is so little history to go on, being utterly confident seems a large stretch.

Just sayin'!

1 Reply

@blueveinedthrobber,

If that's the case, it's my mistake, and I apologize. I speed through many of the posts, and can misinterpret stuff. It won't be the first time nor the last.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
She is blissfully happy with her handsome, easy-going little son and is utterly confident her child will suffer no ill-effects from having no father.

This line in the Weathers' article bothered me enough to want to at least mention it. How anyone can be "utterly confident" of the future in anything is a mystery to me...but for this woman to suggest that she is utterly confident that her child will suffer no ill-effects from having no father" is beyond comprehension.

Don't get me wrong...I am not saying the kid WILL suffer ill-effects--and I sincerely hope he does not. But since there is so little history to go on, being utterly confident seems a large stretch.

Just sayin'!

Women can be just as self centered and arrogant as men.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If that's the case, it's my mistake, and I apologize. I speed through many of the posts, and can misinterpret stuff. It won't be the first time nor the last.

no harm no foul Very Happy

0 Replies

@blueveinedthrobber,

You wrote,

Quote:

Or barring that, why we aren't programmed to find the sex act slightly nauseating after.

I had a good laugh on that one, because I remember my first drunk in New York when a bunch of us airmen went to Coney Island and drank beer all day. I was not only nauseated, but sick for most the the following day. I swore off drinking, but you know how that story ends. Mr. Green

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Do you understand the word "prohibition?" Probably not. They're trying to impose a religious restriction against free choice.

They are not and I've explained why they are not. Everybody has a free choice. What's the justification for prohibitions on narcotics? The resultant disorderly society isn't it and economic decline. The real free choice brigade want restrictions on narcotics removed. Do you? Are you a half-baked free-choicer as well as a half-baked evolutionist? You can't talk about free choice with qualifications. It's all or nothing. You're being devious using the expression when it suits you and not when it doesn't in order to ingratiate yourself with people who can't read properly. Like your on the side of free choice and that's a good thing eh? and you're popular. It sounds good I know but don't look into it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I speed through many of the posts, and can misinterpret stuff.

That applies to all mine. And I've known for a long time.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Aha! That's all. And it is 100% effective, you say.

Why not explain that to us.

WHAT!! Explain that to you Frank?? Good gracious!! Anybody who needs that explaining is not qualified to spout on this subject. Not that that need stop them.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

WHAT!! Explain that to you Frank?? Good gracious!! Anybody who needs that explaining is not qualified to spout on this subject. Not that that need stop them.

Does that translate into, "I can't, but I am unwilling to acknowledge that I cannot?"

1 Reply

@blueveinedthrobber,

Quote:

Women can be just as self centered and arrogant as men.

Yup...and that probably accounts for why she is so "utterly confident! Very Happy

0 Replies

@spendius,

If they were not, they didn't have to restrict anything. That's called freedom from outside influence - of any kind.

0 Replies

This thread is, I guess, pretty much dead in terms of the original topic. Thanks a lot.
I can start a new thread and those of you who derailed this one can stay here. Or, here is a novel idea, someone could start a new thread with a title that reflects whatever it is you all are talking about.
Let me know what you decide. Thanks.

3 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

I can start a new thread and those of you who derailed this one can stay here. Or, here is a novel idea, someone could start a new thread with a title that reflects whatever it is you all are talking about.
Let me know what you decide. Thanks.

Do you think that you can make any of that reality? A thread that will not be interrupted and taken off track?

1 Reply

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know