Jump to content


Photo

abortion and obamacare


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
239 replies to this topic

#41 Ryrin

Ryrin

    Captain General

  • Members
  • 11,522 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Field of Merrilor

Posted 15 February 2012 - 07:18 AM



Face it, The bible was written during a time, where the world population was under a billion. Under a couple of million perhaps.Hell if you go by the bible a population under a HOUNDRED.

Do you realy believe, the bible wouldn't have laws about population control in the face of mass starvation?


The answer is simple: I would gladly refuse to obey or worship any god that demanded arbitrary population controls. Life is not meant for the few, the lucky elite, or the priviledged but for all. I have a hard time accepting your god of utilitarian efficiancy.


who said it was my god?
I'm talking about the cold hard truth of a possible future.

If the catholics had it there way, no one would know what a condom, a birth control pill, or an abortion is. And would want everyone to have 30 children each.

Try to sustain that kind of population for another 10 generations on earth without some kind of control.



Exactly. And what kind of "life" is meant for all? My husband and I chose to limit our fertility so our sons could have a good quality of life.

Posted Image


#42 Ryrin

Ryrin

    Captain General

  • Members
  • 11,522 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Field of Merrilor

Posted 15 February 2012 - 07:20 AM

my personal beliefs, masturbation is a natural practice; primates and canines masturbate. having sex for other reasons than procreating is not a sin, Dolphins as well as primates have been observed having sex for fun.


It also occurs in nature that the parents will eat their young. Humans should be allowed to do so as well. It occurs in nature after all.


You are confusing cannibalism with sexual practices. Apples and oranges.

Posted Image


#43 SinisterDeath

SinisterDeath
  • DM - Staff
  • 15,912 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 February 2012 - 08:50 AM

And would want everyone to have 30 children each.


Or.. you know.. don't have sex unless you're willing to face the possibility of raising a child?


So you expect, a oouple to be married for the rest of there lives, only to have sex 2 times, and have 2 children (max in that scenerio) and be celebid for the rest of there lives? And if they masterbate so they don't have children.
THEY GO TO HELL?

Yea, that systems really screwed up, and outdated.

gallery_6827_296_97964.jpg


#44 Red2111

Red2111

    DM's Red Headed Step Child

  • DM - Staff
  • 15,047 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Mississippi

Posted 15 February 2012 - 11:01 AM

And flip side with, say, Sanatorum running for the republican nomination, he wants to ban Abortions nation wide, pretty much make contraceptives illegal. Whats the difference between legslating one religions 'ideologies' versus legislating the opposing viewpoint ideology?


theres no difference betwen this and what Obama is doing. imo, both are an over step of the gov and pushing ones morals and religious beliefs on another.


And face it, 20-50 years from now, they are Going to have to legislate the number of kids couples can have. Its going to happen eventually.


in other countries maybe, but there will never be enough support int eh USA to get legislation like this put itno law without a mass revult. and not to sound conceited, but i'm only concerned with laws or possible legislation that affect my country.


We still have laws that allow the government to draft people into the military against their will.
Yet, we don't practice it unless a situation actually calls for it.. right?


theres a difference in this. imo its a civic duty of every citizen to be willing to fight for their country and if need be give their life to ensure their country survives. i have nothign against this legislation and wish they woudl amend it to include females as well.

The whole health-care debate comes straight down to a symantic issue.

You have those that view Health Care as Insurance and a Buisness.
And those that View Health Care as a Right, and 'insurance' as the method in which you obtain it.

If the GOVERNMENT can provide Health care Cheaper than the PRIVATE SECTOR, theres something wrong with the PRIVATE SECTOR.
Nothign the Government does, is EVER CHEAPER!
If they make it cheaper, private sector has to make be able to compete.


depends on if the legislation is aimed to stall the private sector or to boost it. the current legislation is aimed to stall out and do away with private insurance in 20 years which is the main problem i have with it and why it's going to get thrown out in April.

i do agree with the underlined statement. but i feel that both sides can agree that its better for Healthcare to be privatized with set restrictions in place by the government to prevent it from becoming again what it is now. treating it as a private business and not a government service will lead to better and cheaper goods & services. just compare our current helathcare pre Obama care to that of Canada's and you'll see what i mean.


Really think of the health insurance companies like the Oil Industry Tycoons. You have a few people controlling the resources, artificially inflating the prices to there own ends. You add in a new party? THat party all of a sudden starts selling it cheaper? The other partys have to compete. Thats called Capitalism.
If you don't have any competition, and several party's all selling the same product? You still basically have a monopoly.


i agree but the government shoudl not be the new party to enter into it. i never stated competition is bad, as a consumer competition is my best friend. what i disagree with is having the Fed Gov being one of those that is a Competitor, especially when the ageda behind this legislation is for a Single Payer Medicaid for all type of system.


Health-care reform laws need to affect more than just insurance. They have to affect everything from Education costs, to wages, to malpractice insurance, even to LAW SUITS against doctors/hospitals!
Only then can health insurance costs truelly go down. People are always afraid of higher costs now when it means lower costs in the future.


very true. but if yoru goign to raise costs in the immediate future to reap lower costs in the long term you need to factor in if the economy can handle those higher costs until the demand/supply cycle reallocates itself and settles. otherwise your just setting it up for failure.


If I told you, There were shingles & insulation, that could reduce your energy bill by 90%, but they cost 50x what the normal costs? Your obviously going to look towards the cheaper alternative. But, if your saving, $90 every month on electricity, over 20 years? You just got your money back.
Same goes for Health-care. More people get it, The more the price of health-care in the future goes down, as many ilnesses could be prevented before they cost even more money to treat.


and again, to use your example to further my point. if those shingles cost $120 a pop and you can't afford that, your not goign to buy them even thoguh the alternative will ikely not save you money and will have to be replaced sooner. sure you wnat the one thats goign to lower your bill for 20 years, but your coing to wait until it's affordable and wont bankrupt you.

i can further my example in terms of buying tires as well if i'm not being clear enough.


If an Abortion costs $5000 (thats probably low these days) And a condom costs $0.90 (give or take $0.25) and that single condom, or that single birth control, could prevent a $5000 procedure?
If a simple dentist visit could prevent a tooth-removal that can cost upwards of $1,200?
If you increase the supply, and lower the demand, you force the price to go down.


once again, i agree; but it's not up to the government to dictate that people buy the condom. they can highly suggest it, but they can not force you; nor shoudl they ever be allowed to force a citizen to buy something, and i'm sick of politicians trying this sort of stuff becuase they think they know whats best for me. try telling me that to my face and i'll gladly bite my thumb at you, a sentament majority of americans share btw.


Private companaies know that if they keep demand high, and supply low? They'll always get a premium. ANd if they refuse to actually pay for procedures that could save someones life, or simply prevent an ilness from becomeing even more severe?
How many people died before health insurers allowed chemo therapy even after it had become a proven technique? how many people died before health insurers allowed bone marrow transplants even after it became a proven technique and nolonger experimental?



i also agree, and this is wher the Governments role comes in; to make sure companies are being fair o their customers (keeping in mind that they shouldn't regulate so much that it causes business to lose alot of revenue becuase then the service will no longer be provided by anyone but the government)


i never said the healthcare system like it was, was perfect and didn't need to be fixed. i've only stated that obamacare is the wrong approach and is more abotu the governemnt seizing control of citizen rights and a private industrie than fixing the problem.
Posted Image

siggies by: Ama, Mashi, Frog, Ithi, and Boopsy <3 u all

#45 Red2111

Red2111

    DM's Red Headed Step Child

  • DM - Staff
  • 15,047 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Mississippi

Posted 15 February 2012 - 11:15 AM

as for abortion. if the fetus cannot survive outside the wombs body then imo it's not murder.


If you leave a week old baby alone and without food or care, it will die because it cannot survive on its own. Should we then be able to kill week old babies because they cannot survive on their own. What difference is there between care in the womb and care by a new mother? The only difference is that people are more adverse to killing something that looks like a baby and one that looks like a fetus.


i'm talking about body developement, Sam. once a fetus developes the organs where it can live outside of the enviroment a womans womb creats then to me thats when abortion should be considered murder; as that fetus has then developed into an individual human being. otherwise it's nothign more than a parasite imo.

obviosuly i agree that leaving a child out the elements is murder.

but no church, gov or person has a right to tell a woman what she can and cant do to her body, especially since a fetus/child acts like a parasite on her body.


But a fetus is not the woman's body. The fetus does not have the same genetic makeup as the mother, it has its own seperate DNA. A woman's arm, leg, finger, or any other part of her body is her own DNA. A fetus/baby is a distinct new individual. Therefore, it cannot be considered only "her body". Also, a newborn can be considered a parasite as well as it must suckle on the woman's breast for several months. Does that mean she has the right to kill it if she choses?


it's not about genetics Sam, it's about the ability to survive on an instincual level. until it deveolpes the organs which allow it to survive outside of the womb it's nothing more than a parasite feeding off the mother for life support.

the difference between a newborn and an undeveloped egg is that the newborn can survive in anothers care. a fetus attached to a womans womb must develope to a certian point before it can be removed



There are so many people out there, that are uneducated about birth control, and are very likely to have an abortion, simply because they can't handle what having a child would mean to them.


The more reason to ban it.


banning it will just make more peopel want to do it and lead to really unsafe practices (like what used to happen before Roe vs Wade) whether you agree with it or not, it's a womans right to decide what happens to her body and no one has the right to tell her otherwise on a federal level.

if anything, this means theres more reason to educate people so they can see how unmoral and disgusting the practice is. banning it will not gie you the desired effect of doing away with it. look at what happened with prohobtion in the 20's
Posted Image

siggies by: Ama, Mashi, Frog, Ithi, and Boopsy <3 u all

#46 Jon Paul

Jon Paul
  • Members
  • 643 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow, Scotland

Posted 15 February 2012 - 11:20 AM

until it deveolpes the organs which allow it to survive outside of the womb it's nothing more than a parasite feeding off the mother for life support.


Are you sure you want to start with that line of reasoning? One could easily turn that logic to any human that needs the support of others to live.. disabled people, for example. Just kill them, they're parasites, can't live on their own without the help of others and society at large. The edlerly? Nah. Another parasite. Lets get rid of them as well.

But there's more than just individual parasites. There's collective parasites like the Jews, sucking the lifeblood from good, staunch, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant nations. And the Irish, that's another set of parasites.

It's an absolutely disgusting mindset to have.

Edited by Jon Paul, 15 February 2012 - 11:20 AM.

We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder,
We danced among the lightning bolts,
And tore the world asunder.

#47 Red2111

Red2111

    DM's Red Headed Step Child

  • DM - Staff
  • 15,047 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Mississippi

Posted 15 February 2012 - 11:28 AM

FYI, within my religion sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her.


In Catholicism the right belongs to both spouses. It's called the marital debt and it belongs to both the man and the woman and is not the exclusive property of either. And I am not saying that sex should not be pleasurable, it should be. I am saying that pleasure should not be the goal of sex. The end of sex is procreation.


the underlined is wrong - the end of Sex is the orgasim (as that signifys the end of the sexual act for both sexes), the main POINT of sex is procreation. get it right because they mean two totally different things.


i'm gonna have to agree with Paul on this one. its a mutual right on both parties, no one should "control" sex in a relationship. relationships are about sharing, yes you have an alpha and an omega, but you share both in the responsabilities of a relationship and in the pleasure. it's as much the womans responsability to make sure her husband is pleasured as it is the males respobonsability. anything else is very selfish and will lead to discontent and likely adultry.

my agreement with Paul ends there though. because Sex is used for more than procreation as far as i'm concerned. it's a very important part of a relationship to keep that bond and to reaffirm affection for your partner.



my personal beliefs, masturbation is a natural practice; primates and canines masturbate. having sex for other reasons than procreating is not a sin, Dolphins as well as primates have been observed having sex for fun.


It also occurs in nature that the parents will eat their young. Humans should be allowed to do so as well. It occurs in nature after all.


your missing the point. the bible paints sex as a human sin (sex for joy and masturbation) the fact that these acts exist in the natural world ouside of human influence just proves this ideology false imo. i never said that just because it happens in nature that we should be acceptable in society. just cuase dogs eat their own fecies doesn't mean i want poo served in resturuants ya know.
Posted Image

siggies by: Ama, Mashi, Frog, Ithi, and Boopsy <3 u all

#48 Red2111

Red2111

    DM's Red Headed Step Child

  • DM - Staff
  • 15,047 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Mississippi

Posted 15 February 2012 - 11:32 AM

until it deveolpes the organs which allow it to survive outside of the womb it's nothing more than a parasite feeding off the mother for life support.


Are you sure you want to start with that line of reasoning? One could easily turn that logic to any human that needs the support of others to live.. disabled people, for example. Just kill them, they're parasites, can't live on their own without the help of others and society at large. The edlerly? Nah. Another parasite. Lets get rid of them as well.

But there's more than just individual parasites. There's collective parasites like the Jews, sucking the lifeblood from good, staunch, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant nations. And the Irish, that's another set of parasites.

It's an absolutely disgusting mindset to have.



theres a major difference between an undeveloped egg thats been fertalized but has no conciousness nor the ability to survive outside of the womb and the disabled; and i'd appreciate it if you wuldn't assume that i have such a lack of compassion for human life just because i disagree with you on this. your jumping to conclusions and making very absurb conclusions.
Posted Image

siggies by: Ama, Mashi, Frog, Ithi, and Boopsy <3 u all

#49 Hiarthbeorn

Hiarthbeorn

    The Oddly-eyed One

  • Members
  • 3,014 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 February 2012 - 11:48 AM



Face it, The bible was written during a time, where the world population was under a billion. Under a couple of million perhaps.Hell if you go by the bible a population under a HOUNDRED.

Do you realy believe, the bible wouldn't have laws about population control in the face of mass starvation?


The answer is simple: I would gladly refuse to obey or worship any god that demanded arbitrary population controls. Life is not meant for the few, the lucky elite, or the priviledged but for all. I have a hard time accepting your god of utilitarian efficiancy.


who said it was my god?
I'm talking about the cold hard truth of a possible future.

If the catholics had it there way, no one would know what a condom, a birth control pill, or an abortion is. And would want everyone to have 30 children each.

Try to sustain that kind of population for another 10 generations on earth without some kind of control.


You did when you declared the necessity of population stability to be so self-evident that religious traditions would include mandates for population control were they written now. Humanity has suffered enough religious abuses without creating dictates for how many children a family may have lest they run afoul of the priesthood.

I generally agree that if we are to be good stewards, we cannot expand indefinitely. But I do not and will not put religious impetus behind holding rates and population stability. I'm perfectly fine with contraception (condoms, pills, procedures or implants). I am not fine with abortions and I am definitely not fine with abortion as contraception. However many children you decide to have or not have is your business and not the business of the state or the church. And I can also set aside my own beliefs to let someone make an admittedly ugly decision for themselves because my belief does not trump their autonomy and, for that matter, neither should coersive law trump reproductive desire.

But here are some numbers for you: U.S. birth rates have steadily declined and continue to decline while European birth rates have been in constant decline for years, partly in response to both cultural attitudes and the trauma of the twentieth century. In contrast, African and Middle Eastern rates are steadily increasing and while I can't find numbers on South America or Asian countries, I'd be willing to bet both continents (with the exceptions of North Korea, China and Japan) are steadily expanding. Because you're talking about longview population numbers over the next ten generations and because you've already mentioned legislation restricting birth rates elsewhere in this thread, you seem to be flirting with something larger than just "responsible contraception" but I don't want to accuse you of something nasty. I'd like you to expand on those ideas.

And if you want to propose that Western nations demand that the rest of the world stop breeding, you may do so and I'll happily disagree with that position.

Posted Image


“This is the rule of our Mysteries: Nothing Divulged to the Uninitiate: the Supreme is not to be a common story, the holy things may not be uncovered to the stranger, to any that has not himself attained to see." - Plotinus

#50 Hallow

Hallow

    The Suzerain of Night

  • Members
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oslo, Norway

Posted 15 February 2012 - 11:58 AM

D&D hasn't been this active in months! Fun :biggrin:
"HAIL THE MARINES!"
- Heavies of the Bonehunters

"I saw in their faces the erosion of her will, and they bore it. They bore it as they did all else. These Malazans, they shame the gods themselves..."
— Aranict

Debates & Discussions Moderator. PM me if you have any questions.

#51 Hiarthbeorn

Hiarthbeorn

    The Oddly-eyed One

  • Members
  • 3,014 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 February 2012 - 12:00 PM

I'm beginning to regret asking the original question in Popery. Meh.

Posted Image


“This is the rule of our Mysteries: Nothing Divulged to the Uninitiate: the Supreme is not to be a common story, the holy things may not be uncovered to the stranger, to any that has not himself attained to see." - Plotinus

#52 Red2111

Red2111

    DM's Red Headed Step Child

  • DM - Staff
  • 15,047 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Mississippi

Posted 15 February 2012 - 12:19 PM

I generally agree that if we are to be good stewards, we cannot expand indefinitely. But I do not and will not put religious impetus behind holding rates and population stability. I'm perfectly fine with contraception (condoms, pills, procedures or implants). I am not fine with abortions and I am definitely not fine with abortion as contraception. However many children you decide to have or not have is your business and not the business of the state or the church. And I can also set aside my own beliefs to let someone make an admittedly ugly decision for themselves because my belief does not trump their autonomy and, for that matter, neither should coersive law trump reproductive desire.


Here Here and well put!!
Posted Image

siggies by: Ama, Mashi, Frog, Ithi, and Boopsy <3 u all

#53 Ryrin

Ryrin

    Captain General

  • Members
  • 11,522 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Field of Merrilor

Posted 15 February 2012 - 05:37 PM

until it deveolpes the organs which allow it to survive outside of the womb it's nothing more than a parasite feeding off the mother for life support.


Are you sure you want to start with that line of reasoning? One could easily turn that logic to any human that needs the support of others to live.. disabled people, for example. Just kill them, they're parasites, can't live on their own without the help of others and society at large. The edlerly? Nah. Another parasite. Lets get rid of them as well.

But there's more than just individual parasites. There's collective parasites like the Jews, sucking the lifeblood from good, staunch, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant nations. And the Irish, that's another set of parasites.

It's an absolutely disgusting mindset to have.



Yes, I am sure that is a good line of reasoning. Something the size of a kidney bean, that cannot survive on it's own, should not be compared to a human being living outside of the womb. Now, that's a faulty mindset to have.

Edited by Ryrin, 15 February 2012 - 05:38 PM.

Posted Image


#54 Ryrin

Ryrin

    Captain General

  • Members
  • 11,522 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Field of Merrilor

Posted 15 February 2012 - 05:38 PM

I'm beginning to regret asking the original question in Popery. Meh.



You shouldn't.

Posted Image


#55 Ryrin

Ryrin

    Captain General

  • Members
  • 11,522 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Field of Merrilor

Posted 15 February 2012 - 05:41 PM

banning it will just make more peopel want to do it and lead to really unsafe practices (like what used to happen before Roe vs Wade) whether you agree with it or not, it's a womans right to decide what happens to her body and no one has the right to tell her otherwise on a federal level.

if anything, this means theres more reason to educate people so they can see how unmoral and disgusting the practice is. banning it will not gie you the desired effect of doing away with it. look at what happened with prohobtion in the 20's


I don't believe that most people look forward to having an abortion and that banning it will make more people "want to do it."

Edited by Ryrin, 15 February 2012 - 05:41 PM.

Posted Image


#56 chuckievi

chuckievi

    Debates & Discussions Mod

  • Members
  • 2,156 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 February 2012 - 05:54 PM

Page 3 and I haven't had to intervene yet? What the deuce is going on in this thread? :unsure:

#57 Hiarthbeorn

Hiarthbeorn

    The Oddly-eyed One

  • Members
  • 3,014 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 February 2012 - 06:29 PM

Mutually Assured Drama, sir.

Posted Image


“This is the rule of our Mysteries: Nothing Divulged to the Uninitiate: the Supreme is not to be a common story, the holy things may not be uncovered to the stranger, to any that has not himself attained to see." - Plotinus

#58 SinisterDeath

SinisterDeath
  • DM - Staff
  • 15,912 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 February 2012 - 10:37 PM

You did when you declared the necessity of population stability to be so self-evident that religious traditions would include mandates for population control were they written now. Humanity has suffered enough religious abuses without creating dictates for how many children a family may have lest they run afoul of the priesthood.


The point I was getting at, is if you bleieve the bible word for word, They were in a time where the population was less than 20.
Of course it would say go forth and spread your seed, and populate the earth! Why? Its about survival.
Everything in the Bible comes down to survival. Every comandment, is escentially about reducing conflict, reducing the rate at which people kill each other over stupid things, and escentially keep humanity to keep on populating.

But does it say anywhere in the bible (aside from maybe revelations) what happens when there is no longer any food to support the current population? Let alone a population that could double in 2 years?


I generally agree that if we are to be good stewards, we cannot expand indefinitely. But I do not and will not put religious impetus behind holding rates and population stability. I'm perfectly fine with contraception (condoms, pills, procedures or implants). I am not fine with abortions and I am definitely not fine with abortion as contraception. However many children you decide to have or not have is your business and not the business of the state or the church. And I can also set aside my own beliefs to let someone make an admittedly ugly decision for themselves because my belief does not trump their autonomy and, for that matter, neither should coersive law trump reproductive desire.


I wasn't saying you had to put your religion behind it. I'm simply saying that if the 'bible' was written today, the context would be different. Issues that were of Importance THEN would not be of IMPORTANCE today! Perhaps, they would have more importantce on SELF CONTROL, and only having 'sex' during marriage, and not before, or outside of, then they currently do, more of an 'emphasis' on it. Perhaps there'd be something about abstaining from 'sex', so as to not 'have more children then they can feasibly take care of'. Put more emphasis on actually raising the children they have, in the best possible situation.

You also have to remember, during biblical days? What was the child mortality rate? 50%? 20%? EVen if they had 10 kids, 'maybe' only 4? 5? survived to adulthood?

But here are some numbers for you: U.S. birth rates have steadily declined and continue to decline while European birth rates have been in constant decline for years, partly in response to both cultural attitudes and the trauma of the twentieth century. In contrast, African and Middle Eastern rates are steadily increasing and while I can't find numbers on South America or Asian countries, I'd be willing to bet both continents (with the exceptions of North Korea, China and Japan) are steadily expanding. Because you're talking about longview population numbers over the next ten generations and because you've already mentioned legislation restricting birth rates elsewhere in this thread, you seem to be flirting with something larger than just "responsible contraception" but I don't want to accuse you of something nasty. I'd like you to expand on those ideas.


If actually get people to understand, that contraceptives can prevent births, if actually used properly, and prevent religions like Jon Paul from making people believe they'll go to hell for using a condom, It will prevent abortions which I think the catholics HAVE to agree, is the 'far greater' 'crime'. If we can prevent abortions, and prevent people from having kids (through birth control education) who would other wise have Abortions, or throwing there kids in dumpsters, or simply child neglect, perhaps any type of 'law' in the future that would actually 'limit' births wouldn't ever have to be enacted.

I'm sure the government has a nice round number that if the U.S.A hits, they would start to float the idea around before tossing a ton of money at it to enforce it. But if the education is there, it may never have to be a possibilty.

Catholics WANT people to CONTROL themselves. Abstane from sex, ect, ect. Why should we as a society, suffer from people who can't control themselves becuase catholics want to ban condoms? Its a pipe dream either way, that people will have enough self-restraint to actually use condoms, or actually be prepared to have children when they are actually ready, financially, emotionally, ect... Its just as big of a pipe dream for catholics to believe adults won't have sex with each other. To put it one way. Its the animal in all of us, waiting to be unleashed. Somethings can be controled, others are simply a controlled fall.

And if you want to propose that Western nations demand that the rest of the world stop breeding, you may do so and I'll happily disagree with that position.


Oh, I don't think we'll have to. If anything, like with china, we'll see countries enforcing it themselves, and I don't believe the U.S is immune to growth. (our economy isn't helping our birth rates mind you.) But with child mortality rates probably well under 1% in the U.S, the average age being around 75-80 now, with the average adult couple having 2+ children? Its bound to go up... albit slowly. We may find our selves in the position where food > oil is the worlds most expensive commodity. And if that happens, you can bet theres going to be people profitting off of starvation.

gallery_6827_296_97964.jpg


#59 Hallow

Hallow

    The Suzerain of Night

  • Members
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oslo, Norway

Posted 16 February 2012 - 03:43 AM

Page 3 and I haven't had to intervene yet? What the deuce is going on in this thread? :unsure:


Considering it's about religion (and it's even got Obama in the thread title!) I'm as shocked as you :tongue:
"HAIL THE MARINES!"
- Heavies of the Bonehunters

"I saw in their faces the erosion of her will, and they bore it. They bore it as they did all else. These Malazans, they shame the gods themselves..."
— Aranict

Debates & Discussions Moderator. PM me if you have any questions.

#60 Mr Ares

Mr Ares

    We're here.

  • Members
  • 7,138 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Mictlan

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:02 AM

FYI, within my religion sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her.


In Catholicism the right belongs to both spouses. It's called the marital debt and it belongs to both the man and the woman and is not the exclusive property of either. And I am not saying that sex should not be pleasurable, it should be. I am saying that pleasure should not be the goal of sex. The end of sex is procreation.

No, procreation is an end of sex, not the end. There's no reason why sex for pleasure should be considered wrong, other than your belief that God doesn't like it. But people have spent thousands of years arguing over the existence of a god or gods, and what he/she/it/they would want in the event of their existence, so that's not really a good reason for anyone to give up on sex. You consider it a sin. I don't, nor is there any reason why I should, and the same is probably true of most people.

"I have no followers, I have only brothers and sisters, all in the name of cause. People are sheep, you understand me? They can't lead themselves, they need to be led. People buy and sell fear. They worship war, they crave war. But I'm not afraid of their wars, I CREATED WAR! And I think it's time for the masses to wake up, wake up, WAKE UP! And look at this LIE they're living in, man! The world is deteriorating between their toes, and they do nothing about it. They only stand there, they whisper and wonder but never do anything about it! But I've seen it all in my dreams and in my thoughts, and above everything else I understand. This is not the beginning.....it's the end."