Your "belief" is not more important than my reality.

[girlsmiley]

I only take all of that Viagra to keep me from rolling out of bed at night.

And I suppose you only tell lies like that so that your nose will grow long so that the chicks don't slide off.

I'm on to you, Fucker.

 

[StrangeLife]

Then you need to be prepared to pay A LOT more for people not to go hungry, cold or without medical attention. And I mean a lot more because unless you want to keep paying for generations you gotta break the chain somewhere and get someone into college and the high paying jobs that come after. Otherwise you really have set up that chain of poverty the Right likes to speak about so often instead of at least breaking the chain if not giving the people a viable way out.

And I can do all that by subsidising other peoples sex-lives? Wow.

It's a spectacle, watching the hole getting deeper.

Keep digging.

You voyeur, you....

 

[Tryharder62]

Okay. First, this is completely irrelevant. Hobby Lobby did not bring this case to court claiming that the ACA was unconstitutional. You say that you know the facts, but that is clear that you don't care to understand the facts that contradict your beliefs. Hobby Lobby is arguing their case under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

From your source:
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;

They will be seeing if it violates the First Amendment.

I don't have a platform. I offered my opinion. I have listened to yours.

 

[bronzeage]

In some way I would like to connect "fair" with "charity" because I believe in a safety-net... a fixed limit to how deep anybody can sink. Nobody should go hungry and nobody should go without medical attention.

http://s29.postimg.org/3nbzq741z/nobc.jpg

There is nothing fair about that at all. It's just you being altruistic and not understanding the meanings of the words you use.

 

[girlsmiley]

And I can do all that by subsidising other peoples sex-lives? Wow.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[StrangeLife]

Pregnancy "just happens" mostly in the bible?

I'm sorry, what?


You ridiculous fool. You said fault. Pregnancy is not anyone's fault. It's just what happens because science, dumbass. We all know how babies are made and it has diddly squat to do with the bible.

Forget the Bible-stuff. I was trying to be a smart-ass and fell flat. It happens.

But to the subject at hand....

We are talking unwanted pregnancy here, and when something unwanted happens, logic dictates that it's either an accident or somebody's fault. Let's deal with the ones that are caused by somebody's fault.

According to some debaters in this thread, the fault is all mine, for failing to finance their birth control, so they can have sex without worrying about paying $3 for a pack of Trojans. I mean, surely we can't expect a girl to... like.... you know... maybe informing Douche of The Day (tm) that he ain't getting any unless he serves the tube-steak in a wrap?

Why is it so wrong to hold people responsible for their own actions? I mean, it's no secret you'll get pregnant if you have sex with somebody unprotected right? It's also no secret that your life will suck like a Dyson on steroids for the next two decades if you get pregnant without education or sufficient means, right? Thus if a girl decides that getting poked for five minutes by Joe from the Hood without protection is worth 20 years of suck, then why is that my fault?

What should I do? Tattoo "Idiot" on her forehead? Castrate Joe? Shoot them both? They're making a deliberate choice exchanging 20 years of financial progress for $3 of birth control. It's stupid, but it's their right to do so. "Freedom" is a double edged sword and includes the freedom to be a self-destructive airhead.

Like I said - quit trying to find someone to blame. Better still, be a better smartarse. Get the ratio right. At the moment you're 1000 parts arse and zero parts smart.

Once again I suspect you might be right. Because I seriously don't get the logic - yet everybody else seem to. http://s17.postimg.org/5tc4xn8gb/684_59a8c19ad602c5d5b3149cef52540c113.gif

 

[Garnate]

I hate condoms. Necessary evils.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I hate condoms. Necessary evils.

Me too. I don't know why they make them so small.

 

[Sean Renaud]

And I can do all that by subsidising other peoples sex-lives? Wow.
:

It goes a pretty far way yeah. Every unwanted pregnancy you prevent is one less person on welfare and/or in prison. It's one more person who has a few more years to become financially stable before having a child. So yes you can do all that by "subsidizing" other people's sex-lives. Mostly because you're not doing that, they'll have sex regardless and all of human history supports that. What your subsidizing is birth control that prevents amongst other things babies.

 

[StrangeLife]

There is nothing fair about that at all. It's just you being altruistic and not understanding the meanings of the words you use.

Well, them thar words be mighty big ya know. Can't know everything.

But ok - you're claiming that I'm supposed to be altruistic and help those less fortunate? I'm ok with that, but you're not asking me to help them get medical attention, nor to feed them. You're asking me to pay them to have sex. And if I refuse, they're gonna do it anyway and then it's suddenly my fault when they get pregnant???

WAIT! Now I get it! This is the Twilight Zone, right? You guys all actors pretending to be insane and in a minute William Shatner is going to tell me that there's something outside on the wing...

I don't think that word means what you think it means..

sub·si·dized, sub·si·diz·ing, sub·si·diz·es
1. To assist or support with a subsidy.

Paying for other people's birth control is equivalent to paying for their sex lives, since you don't really need birth control for playing Pinochle...

 

[girlsmiley]

Forget the Bible-stuff. I was trying to be a smart-ass and fell flat. It happens.

But to the subject at hand....]

Happens to you a lot.

"logic dictates that it's either an accident or somebody's fault"

Pregnancy isn't anyone's fault. Get that through your thick head.

 

[girlsmiley]

Paying for other people's birth control is equivalent to paying for their sex lives

So women should pay for the sex they have with men?

You're not very bright, are you?

 

[StrangeLife]

I hate condoms. Necessary evils.

Agreed - but they're better than nothing. And observing the guys reaction when you bring up the subject can tell you a lot about him and his personality.

It goes a pretty far way yeah. Every unwanted pregnancy you prevent is one less person on welfare and/or in prison. It's one more person who has a few more years to become financially stable before having a child. So yes you can do all that by "subsidizing" other people's sex-lives. Mostly because you're not doing that, they'll have sex regardless and all of human history supports that. What your subsidizing is birth control that prevents amongst other things babies.

And we're once again back at the entrance to the highly dangerous slippery slope called government controlled fertility. Because "control" follows "subsidising" as reliably as diarrhea follows my wife's goulash. I'm reminded of the saying, that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Because the idea sounds enticing, yet my guts tells me it's very wrong.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I assume you can show some consistent evidence of this claim? It seems that when people make these claims there is little if any evidence to support the claims.

 

[Garnate]

Agreed - but they're better than nothing.

Incorrect, depending on your idea of what better is. lol

Me too. I don't know why they make them so small.

Har har

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Love the fetus. Hate the child. Control the woman.

StrangeLife, I hope you can see that this is your position is its simplest form.

When you love the fetus, hate the child and control the woman, you might be a Christian. (said in the Jeff Fosworthy 'you might be a redneck' twang)

 

[Lorilei]

Love the fetus. Hate the child. Control the woman.

StrangeLife, I hope you can see that this is your position is its simplest form.

You might be a Christian. (said in the Jeff Fosworthy 'you might be a redneck' twang)

I have to believe he's just playing devils advocate for kicks. I don't know why he thinks it's funny, though.

 

[StrangeLife]

Happens to you a lot.

"logic dictates that it's either an accident or somebody's fault"

Pregnancy isn't anyone's fault. Get that through your thick head.

"Unwanted" pregnancy is somebody's fault Smiley. Well unless it's an accident. But it has to be one or the other. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't be unwanted. Instead it would be deliberate and in that case birth control would not be an issue anyway.

So women should pay for the sex they have with men?

Is that more outrageous than asking me to pay for sex I'm not even having? I mean, at least the girl in question gets to have sex for the money. I'm not getting anything - not even a thank you.

So next time you happen to score mr. Right-now you can call me:

"Hi Strange. I need you to send me some cash... he looks fit so we better go for a 10-pack... that'll be 13 bucks. Oh I'm out of Astroglide too - just make it a round 50, ok? And better be snappy or I'll send Phelia over to beat you up."

There is something fundamentally skewed here...

You're not very bright, are you?

That is a distinct possibility - I'll grant you that. Either I'm the smartest person in this thread or I'm as stupid as a sack of kitty litter. Because when you see stuff that nobody else can see, it means that either you are insane or they are. The rules of democracy dictate that I am the stupid one...

 

[girlsmiley]

...and ignore. Bye!

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

And we're once again back at the entrance to the highly dangerous slippery slope called government controlled fertility. Because "control" follows "subsidising" as reliably as diarrhea follows my wife's goulash. I'm reminded of the saying, that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Because the idea sounds enticing, yet my guts tells me it's very wrong.

Exactly. So after decades of subsidizing the population explosion, we are now using birth control.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

...and ignore. Bye!

C'mon, Smiley.

Don't you like being told and/or reminded in somewhat coded language, that your womanhood and the worth of your vagina is less than his manhood and the worth of his penis?

http://www.teen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/week-in-review-james-franco-gifs-imgur.gif

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I have to believe he's just playing devils advocate for kicks. I don't know why he thinks it's funny, though.

Why he thinks it is funny? I think we have to call on Stormy Weathers and take 7 minutes and 44 seconds of your life to really answer that question.

 

[UrsulaX]

julybaby04,

I realize we have all moved on, but I couldn’t resist responding to the following post: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=55588570&postcount=251

On abortion and religious beliefs:
I’ve indicated elsewhere that the validity of the beliefs the Greens expressed is irrelevant as far as the court is concerned, so we agree on that point.

On the threat of Hobby Lobby closing:
You frequently allude to Hobby Lobby’s potential closure, but that outcome is unlikely given the company’s option to stop providing health insurance, which is arguably less costly than providing it. When Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Kennedy acknowledged that during the March 25th hearing, Paul Clement argued that providing health insurance coverage was part of the plaintiffs’ religion, as well. In response to further probing from Justice Ginsburg, however, he hedged by saying cost analysis and beliefs concerning health coverage in general were not the focus of the litigation before changing the topic to the government’s “compelling interest.” No one pretended the corporation would go out of business, and I do not think you could fault the ACA if that happened. (It’s worth mentioning that Sotomayor had an interesting response when Clement claimed exemptions for grandfathered plans undermined the compelling interest argument. After noting that such plans were short-lived thanks to frequent policy changes, she observed, “Your own client changed its policy, and that's why it's not grandfathered. And he changed it to drop contraceptives it was covering.”)

On Hobby Lobby in general:
Your perspective on Hobby Lobby’s power is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, you acknowledge that Hobby Lobby’s freedom threatens employees, who apparently have no recourse but to suffer the whims of their employers. Representative government would seemingly offer them an alternative, but you liken bureaucratic inconvenience to authoritarian oppression and negate any role citizens could play in fashioning a more amenable government. On the other hand, you prize individual liberties while regarding potential threats to those freedoms more favorably than systematic attempts to protect certain rights through legislation. I will not pretend the government is a bastion of civic responsibility, but I am confused as to why anyone would side with two of the most corruptive influences: big business and religion.

On Medicaid and Medicare:
I did not claim everyone could qualify for these.

On the Affordable Care Act, compromise, and Republican support:
To be honest, I know more about healthcare in South Korea than I know about the ACA (which should illustrate how little I know about both). However, I have read that the individual mandate was a compromise for advocates of a single payer system; the former was chosen to appeal to Republicans who had supported similar bills in previous administrations. A variety of different sources acknowledge this (e.g., http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein, http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...nservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...re-insurance-mandate-has-long-checkered-past/, http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/R...-irony-of-Republican-disapproval-of-Obamacare). A number of Democrats would have preferred a different plan. They took advantage of their majority, however, and Republicans did not win enough seats to stop them. Republican opposition does not reflect the merits of the bill any more than opposition from Democrats would reflect the merits of legislation under a Republican administration. Both parties have been attempting to reform healthcare for years, so it is difficult to distinguish sincere objections from political wrangling. Regardless, the budget deficit ensured that healthcare reform of some sort was inevitable. Perhaps ACA is not the best option. So what? The Hobby Lobby case is not about the weaknesses of the rules and regulations, but a for-profit corporation wanting to woo employees with healthcare benefits that do not cover the full package the law entitles them. Honoring the unverifiable beliefs of a few would marginalize collective efforts to improve and regulate industry and public health through research and analysis. It could have broader implications for other cases, as well (perhaps even those concerning limited liability, as some have suggested).

On the rights of individuals to self-destruct:
Arguing that individuals should be left to their own devices is a bit like relying on drivers to resolve traffic jams. Actors often undermine their own interests because their perspective is too limited to optimize the system that affects them.

On your independence:
Your assertion that you have avoided the health insurance debacle entirely makes me wonder where your tax dollars and monthly premiums are going.

On bursting my liberal-colored bubble:
If you want to erect a wall between us by using labels pejoratively, that’s your prerogative. Should we ever meet in a more respectable forum where we are actually trying to establish some common ground as real-world people with more mundane, specific goals, I assume we will both leave our respective bubbles behind.

 

[StrangeLife]

Love the fetus. Hate the child. Control the woman.

StrangeLife, I hope you can see that this is your position is its simplest form.

When you love the fetus, hate the child and control the woman, you might be a Christian. (said in the Jeff Fosworthy 'you might be a redneck' twang)

I hardly qualifies as a christian and if I had wanted a woman to "control", boy did I choose poorly

But my personal life and Jeff Fosworthy aside, I am pro choice (and frankly of the opinion that only people with a uterus should have any say in fetal matters), I love my kids and I'm advocating freedom for women to do whatever they want with themselves.

Including jeopardising their future by sleeping bareback with some bum they just picked up in a club.

I have to believe he's just playing devils advocate for kicks. I don't know why he thinks it's funny, though.

Thanks Lori.... for at least giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Smiley and Phelia are probably closer to the truth though, because I am beginning to realize that there are things I am simply not wired to understand. http://s17.postimg.org/5tc4xn8gb/684_59a8c19ad602c5d5b3149cef52540c113.gif

And for the record, the fact that I have a tendency to goof on occasion doesn't indicate that I'm ridiculing the problem. It's a regrettable personality flaw of mine... but on the plus side I'm fun at parties...

 

[Lorilei]

julybaby04,

I realize we have all moved on, but I couldn’t resist responding to the following post: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=55588570&postcount=251

On abortion and religious beliefs:
I’ve indicated elsewhere that the validity of the beliefs the Greens expressed is irrelevant as far as the court is concerned, so we agree on that point.

On the threat of Hobby Lobby closing:
You frequently allude to Hobby Lobby’s potential closure, but that outcome is unlikely given the company’s option to stop providing health insurance, which is arguably less costly than providing it. When Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Kennedy acknowledged that during the March 25th hearing, Paul Clement argued that providing health insurance coverage was part of the plaintiffs’ religion, as well. In response to further probing from Justice Ginsburg, however, he hedged by saying cost analysis and beliefs concerning health coverage in general were not the focus of the litigation before changing the topic to the government’s “compelling interest.” No one pretended the corporation would go out of business, and I do not think you could fault the ACA if that happened. (It’s worth mentioning that Sotomayor had an interesting response when Clement claimed exemptions for grandfathered plans undermined the compelling interest argument. After noting that such plans were short-lived thanks to frequent policy changes, she observed, “Your own client changed its policy, and that's why it's not grandfathered. And he changed it to drop contraceptives it was covering.”)

On Hobby Lobby in general:
Your perspective on Hobby Lobby’s power is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, you acknowledge that Hobby Lobby’s freedom threatens employees, who apparently have no recourse but to suffer the whims of their employers. Representative government would seemingly offer them an alternative, but you liken bureaucratic inconvenience to authoritarian oppression and negate any role citizens could play in fashioning a more amenable government. On the other hand, you prize individual liberties while regarding potential threats to those freedoms more favorably than systematic attempts to protect certain rights through legislation. I will not pretend the government is a bastion of civic responsibility, but I am confused as to why anyone would side with two of the most corruptive influences: big business and religion.

On Medicaid and Medicare:
I did not claim everyone could qualify for these.

On the Affordable Care Act, compromise, and Republican support:
To be honest, I know more about healthcare in South Korea than I know about the ACA (which should illustrate how little I know about both). However, I have read that the individual mandate was a compromise for advocates of a single payer system; the former was chosen to appeal to Republicans who had supported similar bills in previous administrations. A variety of different sources acknowledge this (e.g., http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein, http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...nservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...re-insurance-mandate-has-long-checkered-past/, http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/R...-irony-of-Republican-disapproval-of-Obamacare). A number of Democrats would have preferred a different plan. They took advantage of their majority, however, and Republicans did not win enough seats to stop them. Republican opposition does not reflect the merits of the bill any more than opposition from Democrats would reflect the merits of legislation under a Republican administration. Both parties have been attempting to reform healthcare for years, so it is difficult to distinguish sincere objections from political wrangling. Regardless, the budget deficit ensured that healthcare reform of some sort was inevitable. Perhaps ACA is not the best option. So what? The Hobby Lobby case is not about the weaknesses of the rules and regulations, but a for-profit corporation wanting to woo employees with healthcare benefits that do not cover the full package the law entitles them. Honoring the unverifiable beliefs of a few would marginalize collective efforts to improve and regulate industry and public health through research and analysis. It could have broader implications for other cases, as well (perhaps even those concerning limited liability, as some have suggested).

On the rights of individuals to self-destruct:
Arguing that individuals should be left to their own devices is a bit like relying on drivers to resolve traffic jams. Actors often undermine their own interests because their perspective is too limited to optimize the system that affects them.

On your independence:
Your assertion that you have avoided the health insurance debacle entirely makes me wonder where your tax dollars and monthly premiums are going.

On bursting my liberal-colored bubble:
If you want to erect a wall between us by using labels pejoratively, that’s your prerogative. Should we ever meet in a more respectable forum where we are actually trying to establish some common ground as real-world people with more mundane, specific goals, I assume we will both leave our respective bubbles behind.

I don't know where you've been hiding, but I truly hope you stick around.