in my lutheran community all priests are married, the female organist is living in a relationship with another woman (and nobody cares), the youth church is pretty explicit, but everyone knows how to use contraception, and about that abortion bit, each to his own.
Finally something we agree on.
People are all pro-choice these days and whats funny is pro-choice isn't pro-choice at all, because the fate of the child is decided by someone other than the baby itself.
I wonder what it would feel like for some of these pro-choice people to be told that they were only a few alcoholic drinks away or an impulsive turn away from being aborted.
The only real acceptable situation where abortion would be an acceptable is if either baby or mother will be harmed and that includes physically and psychologically speaking (IE, woman gets sexually assaulted and conceives a child).
Abortion should be a last resort and a not a get out of jail free card for hard work.
The act of intercourse is to create offspring pleasure just happens to be a bi-product. In most cases sex isn't something you want just to pass time, it's an animalistic instinct that's programmed into all our brains to pro-create but to an extent in modern society one shouldn't partake in orthodox sexual intercourse unless one is aware and willing to bear the consequences of having a child.
And for the record no, I'm not in the slightest bit religious.
As a taxpayer I don't want to pay for a stupid slut's second child by the second father. There is no punishment for having a child you cannot support, in fact the welfare check only gets bigger every time she gets knocked up. Many young women here in Texas think having a child young and not having to work is preferable to working full time.
Why should other people be punished for someone else having a child that that person can not support? What is fair about taking money from one person who earned that money and who might like to use it to improve the lives of their children and give it to someone who behaved irresponsibly. If you don't want the child to suffer then take it from the mother and give it to someone who will be a better provider and better example of a responsible person. If society rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior then it ends up with lots of bad behavior and very little good behavior. Oh, wait, we are already there.
No, it is not fair to the child born to a mother who produces nothing for which to be financially rewarded and, therefore, be able to take care of herself and her child. That mother has done her child an unkindness by her selfishness. You cannot make things fair. A bureaucrat in some government agency can not make things fair. A politician after votes can not make things fair. All you and they can do is shift the suffering around to different groups or individuals. This is not "fairness". If you want to help the mother, the child, and the taxpayers then place the child in a home sponsored by a charitable institution. The mother is not rewarded for her actions and can start trying to become a better citizen. The child will be cared for and probably be given better moral training than she would get from her mother. Society will be rewarded because other women will learn that there are unpleasant consequences for their actions. And society will also be rewarded for being productive and giving to charity rather than being robbed by the government. This is not an ideal solution but there are no ideal solutions, only trade offs.
I don't know what you have heard or read so I can not judge your opinion that what I said was the most stupid thing you have heard. But "most stupid" is a bit harsh I would think. Please enlighten me on how you would go about making things "fair" for the hypothetical mother and child we were discussing. Maybe we are not both using the same definition of "fair". Certainly you could give the child more benefits by taking property from someone else. But who has the wisdom to determine what the exact amount that would be in order to be "fair". As Dr. Thomas Sowell says, "What is one person's fair share of what another person has earned?" I think people should be given charity but I don't think they are entitled to it. And no one should be threatened with force to relinquish their property on the pretext by a third party that it is charity.
I never said people are "supposed to suffer" or anything about "focusing suffering on the poor". That people do suffer or thrive based on their decisions and actions should be an obvious fact. The innocent should be helped but not by government. Those who are not innocent should be allowed to learn from their mistakes. If not, they just make more and worse mistakes. Some forms of kindness are the worst things you can do for some one.
And who decides what's the good or bad behaviour? And who decides which people should be allowed to procriate or not?
Surely, if someone does something wrong now, it's because something went wrong in their development, so whose fault is that? Or are you going to dig yourself in even deeper shit by saying some people just aren't fit to live in our society?
then maybe you should move somewhere where thats nto what government is for:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
i suggest your friends in saudia arabia or most of africa
Or are you just part of the ignorant masses........... ?
Nearly half of Americans incorrectly think President Obama started the the bank bailout program, otherwise known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a new poll shows.
Just 34 percent of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center correctly said that TARP was enacted by the Bush administration. Almost half -- 47 percent -- think Mr. Obama started the bank bailout, according to the survey, conducted July 1-5. There was no partisan divide on the issue. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013452-503544.html
Do learn that there really is no difference between your parties, they just can't actually tell you that for obvious reasons !
promoting general welfare means creating an environment where people can create prosperity for themselves, not giving them cash.
What if we had spent that trillion dollars building colonies on Mars and making the next step into a multi-planet civilization? How many jobs could be created making that dream a reality? Instead democrats are more interested in building up their voting base of government funded quasi-children than progressing as a species.