Text 35546, 211 rader
Skriven 2016-08-02 01:57:53 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 35537 av Tim Richardson (5275.fidonews)
Ärende: No Restrictions
=======================
Hello Tim,

 TR>>> ok...a little update here, Joe.

 TR>>> Some idiot leftist babe who was in college at the time (law school,
 TR> no
 >> less)
 TR>>> testified in front of a Congressional committee in favor of birth
 TR>>> control being paid for by taxpayers (something to do with the
 TR> Obamacare
 TR>>> thing in progress at the time).

 >> Birth control is expensive, if having to pay out of pocket.

 TR> At the time this babe testified (which by the way wasn't in front of a
 TR> regular *Congressional* committee...but in front of a *democrat* steering
 TR> and Policy committee) the average price for over-the-counter birth control
 TR> was about $8.00

It is more than the cost of birth control pills.  There is the cost
of doctor visits.  IUDs and other contraceptive devices.  Problems
during pregnancies.  There is also the cost of parental control.
If a woman is living at home with mom and dad and gets herself
preggers, what is she going to do?  If mommy and daddy do not want
her to have the kid, then she is forced to have an abortion against
her will.  How is that pro-life?  Who is going to pay for the cost
of raising that kid?  Conservatives crow about being pro-life, but
deny funding for childcare.  Can't have it both ways.  If one is
pro-life, one must be pro-life from the moment of conception to the
moment of natural death, inclusive of everything in-between.

 TR> That's not "...expensive, if having to pay out of pocket."

Birth control is expensive.  Babies are even more expensive.
You cannot control sex, as the few who have tried have found out.
Not even the use of chastity belts works for a very long period
of time.  I mean, think about it.  Sex is fun.  Anybody who
tries to keep others from having fun is going to be in for a
rude surprise.

 TR> If you can't afford to protect yourself from an unwanted pregnancy...why
 TR> should taxpayers have to foot the bill?

Because they would have no choice.  It is either pay for birth
control now, or pay for babies later.  Now which bill would you
prefer taxpayers having to pay?

 TR> Number one.

 TR> And number two....not only does it violate the Catholic position against
 TR> artificial birth control...we're talking about sex without being married.
 TR> Which is another violation of the Catholic belief.

Not everybody is Catholic.  Not everybody is Christian.  But that
is not the issue.  Catholics do not have a right to impose their moral
values on anybody else.  Ditto with Christians.  Or Jews.  Or Muslims.
Or those of any other religious faith, or no faith.  Everybody has
equal rights, under our Constitution.  At least in theory.  As such,
nobody should be denied any of those rights.

 TR> So...here's a gal who goes to a *Catholic* university not only insisting
on
 TR> violating the Catholic Church's creed against artificial birth control,
but
 TR> also one of  the Church's strict stances against pre-marital sex activity!

The average age of an individual becoming sexually active
in this country is age 17.  Once an individual starts having
sex, he/she is not likely to stop having sex.  Only half of
the couples who are having sex are married.  Why should those
who are not married bother to sign a legal document that binds
them?  In today's world, it is not male/female relationships
that make a bond.  It is anything goes relationships that
make a bond.  Marriage is no longer a sacrament, but a legal
document that binds.

Common law marriages are common throughout the USA.  Except in
one state, which refuses to recognize such as being valid.  And
you know what state that is - Louisiana.

If two people live together for a certain length of time, they
are considered legally married.  In every state except Louisiana.

This is important to remember, because that is the next step
the same-sex revolution will be going in.  Recognition of common
law marriages as legally binding for same-sex couples.

And then we can all move on to orgies.  Just like Caligula
and the Romans.  Won't that be grand?

 TR> She's pretty much thumbing her nose at the Catholic Church, AND the
Catholic
 TR> university she attends. A wonder she didn't get expelled and all her
credits
 TR> up to then from Georgetown voided!

Georgetown is a private university.  She can afford it.
But I think she graduated, and is now practicing law.

 TR>>> She `claimed' (and I was watching the hearing on CNN at the time) to
 TR>>> have over 300 sex partners per year! And she was adamant that
 TR>>> *taxpayer-paid* insurance should pay for both HER birth control AND
 TR>>> abortion, should she need one.

 >> Sounds reasonable.  Access to quality healthcare is the first of
 >> all human rights.

 TR> Oh yeah....one of the left's favorite go-to's; "...access to quality
health
 TR> healthcare...".

Bernie Sanders made it a major issue of his campaign.  And he won't
be the last, as future campaigns of other candidates take up his cause.

 TR> Right! Doing sex prior to having a husband has nothing whatever to do with
 TR> `access to quality healthcare'.

Infant mortality is a main cause of death in third world countries.
Access to quality health care has resulted in much lower rates of
infant mortality, and longer lifespans in the industrialized world.
This has nothing to do with whether a woman is married or not married.
But everything to do with having access to quality health care.

 TR> I've asked these two questions before, and got as many intelligent
`answers'
 TR> to them as I get when I ask a few simple questions on  the `global
warming'
 TR> scam:

 TR> First...if a woman isn't smart enough to either use a birth control method
 TR> herself, and/or insist her sex partner use one...what makes anyone think
 TR> she's smart enough to make t he decision to have sex in the first place?

You don't have to be smart to have sex.

 TR> Second...if a woman doesn't have the lousy $8 or $10 over-the-counter
birth
 TR> control costs, why is she even having sex in the first place, knowing full
 TR> well that an unwanted pregnancy is possible?

You cannot legislate morality.  Your morality and somebody else's
morality may be very different, and probably are.  Telling others how
to live their lives will never work.  Not now.  Not ever.

It used to be that women would have as many children as they could
bear because when their children grew up they would be able to take
care of them when they got older.  In fact, that is what people in
this country did, for a long time, until FDR came along and started
the social security program, thus giving old folks a pension to live
on when they retired.

 TR> And third...if she has unprotected sex and GETS pregnant...what makes
anyone
 TR> believe that, if she wasn't smart enough to use birth control or insist
her
 TR> sex partner use it and she winds up pregnant, that she's smart enough to
now
 TR> make a life or death decision about the *human* she is now carrying in her
 TR> womb?

Keeping women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, is not the answer.
It takes two people to earn enough income to run a household, and the
addition of children makes things even more expensive.  That is why so
many young couples wait forever before getting married, if they choose
to marry at all.  And many decide to remain childless, rather than
absorb the high cost of raising a child (or number of children).

OTOH, maybe African Americans were smart.  Have as many children
as humanly possible.  Expand the gene pool.  Increase their numbers
so that a person of their own color can be elected president ...

 TR> These questions, much like the questions on the`global warming' scam I've
 TR> asked on occasions, go unanswered. In fact...I've never even seen or heard
 TR> of them being asked in any Congressional hearing on the matter. Strange!

Congresscritters are not interested in talking about sex.  Don't
believe me?  Just ask US Senator David Vitter.  He'll tell you.

 TR> A half-baked school drop-out doesn't have the brains or common sense to
use
 TR> some sort of birth control when she makes the decision to have unprotected
 TR> sex....but has the intelligence to decide to abort (murder) a human baby!

Medical decisions are made between a doctor and his/her patient.
The patient does not have to be smart.  It is the doctor's job to
understand.  Whether the doctor is able to explain to the patient
is another matter.

 TR> And don't come back with that `it's only a `polyglot' crapola; the photos
of
 TR> dr. `death' are all too vividly remembered. I hope somebody kills the
 TR> son-of-
 TR> a-bitch in prison.

See there?  The doctor fully understood.  The patient was left
in the dark, having no idea of what was going on.  So please.  Do
not blame the patient.  It really was not her fault.

 TR> (Note to Kracht, Croasmun etal: Yeah! I said that!)

Nobody should have to serve more than 20 years in the slammer.
Not even Charles Manson.  But we are so vindictive of a society
that we will never forgive anybody for what they have done, or
accused of having done.   It took a jury almost an entire year
to find Charles Manson guilty.  Although eligible for parole,
he will never be released.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)