Good for you. It's true enough that they aren't meant to be viewed that way but many people do and why should we help those who would take advantage of them? Why are conservatives always so eager to defend those who would pervert the institutions they all profess to dearly love to oppress and suffocate people?
In the US, if someone with cancer for example, doesn't have insurance or any way to pay for it, then they just die don't they?
We were not talking about human sacrifices. We were talking about what marriage is and isn't. You said you wanted government to stay out of regulating marriage but it's okay with you if they tell otherwise law abiding citizens what they can and can't believe about it. You can't have it both ways.
Christians ARE Jews, They are a sect of Judaism or the word "sect" is meaningless. And the OT is as much part of Christianity as the Bible itself.
I repeat; you can't use religious freedom to allow you to do illegal things. You're not allowed to persecute others who don't follow your religious beliefs even if one of your religious beliefs is that you must persecute others who don't agree with you. You can and MUST have it both ways, you cant have the freedom to violate somebody else's freedom, or nobody will have any.
And I repeat: you can't have it both ways. You can't persecute people just because you think they are persecuting people. Either you are against persecution or you're not. It seems to me that you are okay with persecution as long as the right people are being persecuted. Ask yourself: is going to another shop to get your cake more of a hardship that being run out of business by a tyrannical government?
Ask yourself, is ignoring Abortion or Gay marriage more of a hardship than complaining and fighting against it? Is allowing no prayer in school harder than fighting to allow it or making "In God We Trust" a mandatory signage in schools?
If you want to talk about something else, fine, I'm trying to nail the question of freedom down, and don't bother trying to tell me you are talking about freedom because you are just throwing a red herring into the mix.
Okay, I'll bite, for me, ignoring abortion worked for me until my own kid was aborted. The bottom line is that your need to exterminate the unborn hurt both me and my offspring because neither I nor my offspring have a place on your subjective scale of importance. So somebody was injured by your politics because I ignored you for too long. That won't happen again, because if it's up to you, you will see to it that your designated victim group wins just because I am on the other side. What's funny is that if even if I was black I'd be on the other side, so you don't care about justice. The point is, you don't care about what is fair, you care most about having your own way for whatever reason, and I'm on to you. So you can keep your phony guilt trip.
maybe in the future science will come up with a way for you to risk your life to make a baby, until then only the women can make that choice
Actually, you are lashing out on everyone but the woman who wronged you and yourself for creating the situation. You also seem to think you know all about me based on the anger or dissatisfaction you carry and are totally off base....Truth is I simply do not care what you do or had to deal with....I just think everyones private life is their own and other people should ****.
Actually I know all I need to know about you from your abusive and dense comments about who you think you are and who you think I am. "My wife is prettier than yours, you say"? Seriously? What are you, five years old? If there is anything wrong with my mental acuity it's from thinking that I could have a conversation with the likes of you.
I don't get your logic here. The fact that a decision was made that is now regretted is definitely NOT a justification for making that choice illegal for everybody in the USA. Beyond that, I'm absolutely against the approach of using law in this way. I would certainly work to reduce the number of abortions, but I object to this method of doing that. Let's rmember that there are no laws against abortion in Canada, yet they have a far lower abortion rate. And, there are reasons for abortion that I see as fully legitimate - rape and incest, for example.
Let's try this on for size: how about the fact that I am not the only one this has ever happened to. Using your logic, Rosa Parks would still be in the back of the bus. I'm sure that will sail right over your head.
I don't know the ins and outs of that. I will say that just about ANY approach to treating cancer is incredibly expensive. The cost of treatment is going to be out of reach to the more than 40% of Americans who don't pay personal income tax, for example. Suggeting we have medical solutions, but choose to treat only half the country is a disgusting statement when you consider that ALL other first world nations treat ALL their citizens.
I KNOW you are not the only one this has happened to - to some degree at least. I made my statement fully aware of that. That's still not a justification for making a law restricting the choice of all women in all circumstances. Beyond that, we TRIED the idea of laws restricting all abortion, and it was a bloody disaster. You got civil rights totally backwards. There, we made law that gives Rosa Parks CHOICE. it was a clear case of deciding that bigots couldn't band together to restrict choices made by Rosa Parks and others.
Wow, you want to regulate everyone else because of your bad choices. And supporting the right of choice isn't a desire to exterminate. Try a rational argument sometime.
There are bigots and then there are bigots, and it's funny, it never occurs to bigots that THEY are the bigots.
Yes, I'm a lily white US citizen of early American lineage. To my knowledge, that's true. I don't believe you can walk into and ER with cancer and no means of payment and say "Fix me." I think the best you would get would amount to outpatient treatment of immediate symptoms - like pain. I don't know what they would tell you. They may organize transfer to a hospice - but, I don't know who would pay for that if the patient can't. I'm sure this comes up. This stuff is hidiously expensive, so having someone who can't pay is probably not rare. If anyone knows more, please post it!
In other words, I'm right and you have no response. Supporting the right of choice is not a desire to kill babies. And your claim otherwise is nothing but crackpot rw brainwashing.
abortions are mostly used by lazy moms who want to exterminate their babies, because they don't want to take care of their responsibilities. the bad choice appears to be not regulating everyone else.