birth control

  • Thread starter Thread starter emilyt67
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Whitacre_Girl said:
The problem here is which morals can we enforce? The 10 commandments would be a reasonable place to start…but oops…there goes freedom of religion. (struck down at the first commandment)

The thing is, the laws of this nation were founded on ideas that are derived from the Bible, but ensure freedom for non-christians. Non-abortifacient birth control does not deprive anyone from life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness. Abortion, rape, murder, and theft do.

It’s the same reason why pre-marital sex, adultery, masturbation, and consuming some drugs (nicotine, caffeine, alcohol) are legal. In this country we are free to subscribe to any morals we wish, so long as we do not infringe on the basic human rights of another…at least, that they way it was meant to be. And hopefully will be again when Roe v Wade is overturned.

The truth is, the highest moral is to serve God and Christ. Should we make that law? It doesn’t work in America. While I agree that a Catholic theocracy might be a more comfortable place to life at times (and probably more successful), it certainly wouldn’t work for the non-catholics. So until we are willing, ready, and able to drive out all the non-catholics in America, we can not pass such laws.
Click to expand...
I can’t believe there is anyone that actually thinks like this.
 
markomalley said:
One simple example is the current crisis in “social security.” Declining fertility rates are resulting in fewer workers paying in for each beneficiary. This, combined with the increase in expected lifespan, are the two reasons why social security is going to exhaust all its so-called reserves by around 2041 (I say “so called” because, those “reserves” are just debt that one part of the government owes another part; therefore, they aren’t really reserves at all).
Click to expand...
That theory implies that more population equals more employees, since people only contribute to Social Security when they’re working. Currently, we have more available workers than we have jobs, and it appears that we’ll be in that situation for a long time, perhap permanently.

Even if we could employ everyone, the problem with Social Security is that it’s essentially a Ponzi scheme. As you note, it takes more than one current worker to pay for the benefits of one SS recipient. Any such system is unsustainable; and you can’t reproduce your way out of that - the math just doesn’t work. The problem is compounded when Congress increases benefits without a corresponding increase in income.

The solution is to phase out SS entirely, making each worker responsible for funding his/her own retirement.
 
TedDC said:
That theory implies that more population equals more employees, since people only contribute to Social Security when they’re working. Currently, we have more available workers than we have jobs, and it appears that we’ll be in that situation for a long time, perhap permanently…
Click to expand...
How long is a long time? Our current birth rates do not hold to that view. In fact if it were not for immigration our population would be shrinking. It is the same story for all countries Western countries, including China. If Japan keeps its current birth rates it will be in dire straights.
TedDC said:
Even if we could employ everyone, the problem with Social Security is that it’s essentially a Ponzi scheme. As you note, it takes more than one current worker to pay for the benefits of one SS recipient. Any such system is unsustainable; and you can’t reproduce your way out of that - the math just doesn’t work. The problem is compounded when Congress increases benefits without a corresponding increase in income…
Click to expand...
As well as use if for programs it was not intended to fund.
TedDC said:
The solution is to phase out SS entirely, making each worker responsible for funding his/her own retirement.
Click to expand...
The Federal government already has a great program that should be opened up to all Americans. Thrift Savings Program is managed by the Federal government and government workers contribute into it. Each person owns their own account.
 
Chemical contraceptives should illegal as those of us who do not want them are forced to consume them in our drinking water. Those who want to poision themselves should be legally forced to deal with the waste products.
 
Whitacre_Girl said:
The truth is, the highest moral is to serve God and Christ. Should we make that law? It doesn’t work in America. While I agree that a Catholic theocracy might be a more comfortable place to life at times (and probably more successful), it certainly wouldn’t work for the non-catholics. So until we are willing, ready, and able to drive out all the non-catholics in America, we can not pass such laws.
Click to expand...
And good luck with that 🙂
 
TedDC said:
*Originally Posted by markomalley
One simple example is the current crisis in “social security.” Declining fertility rates are resulting in fewer workers paying in for each beneficiary. This, combined with the increase in expected lifespan, are the two reasons why social security is going to exhaust all its so-called reserves by around 2041 (I say “so called” because, those “reserves” are just debt that one part of the government owes another part; therefore, they aren’t really reserves at all). *

That theory implies that more population equals more employees, since people only contribute to Social Security when they’re working. Currently, we have more available workers than we have jobs, and it appears that we’ll be in that situation for a long time, perhap permanently.
Click to expand...
Exactly. How can declining fertility rates contribute to fewer workers contributing to the social security pot, when there aren’t enough jobs to go around all over the country as it is? If people kept popping out kids, it would just create a bigger unemployment percentage and further burden medicaid.
 
Rence said:
If people kept popping out kids, it would just create a bigger unemployment percentage and further burden medicaid.
Click to expand...
God sends every child as a gift.

This is a very un-Christian way to describe the gift of a child.
 
Originally Posted by Whitacre_Girl
The truth is, the highest moral is to serve God and Christ. Should we make that law? It doesn’t work in America. While I agree that a Catholic theocracy might be a more comfortable place to life at times (and probably more successful), it certainly wouldn’t work for the non-catholics. So until we are willing, ready, and able to drive out all the non-catholics in America, we can not pass such laws.
Click to expand...
hellopeople said:
I can’t believe there is anyone that actually thinks like this.
Click to expand...
Rence said:
And good luck with that 🙂
Click to expand...
It seems a couple of people are having an issue with your last comment. Whitacre Girl.
It would appear that they believe that you are actually advocating “driving out all non-catholics”, which, of course, you are not.
I’m surprised that “hellopeople” and “Rence” can read such a thing into your statement considering everything you had written before that. Quoted below.
The problem here is which morals can we enforce? The 10 commandments would be a reasonable place to start…but oops…there goes freedom of religion. (struck down at the first commandment)
Click to expand...
The thing is, the laws of this nation were founded on ideas that are derived from the Bible, but ensure freedom for non-christians. Non-abortifacient birth control does not deprive anyone from life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness. Abortion, rape, murder, and theft do.
Click to expand...
It’s the same reason why pre-marital sex, adultery, masturbation, and consuming some drugs (nicotine, caffeine, alcohol) are legal. In this country we are free to subscribe to any morals we wish, so long as we do not infringe on the basic human rights of another…at least, that they way it was meant to be. And hopefully will be again when Roe v Wade is overturned.
Click to expand...
Of course all of the above was clipped from their responses. Just another example of how things taken out of context can be misunderstood.

peace
James
 
JRKH said:
It seems a couple of people are having an issue with your last comment. Whitacre Girl.
It would appear that they believe that you are actually advocating “driving out all non-catholics”, which, of course, you are not.
I’m surprised that “hellopeople” and “Rence” can read such a thing into your statement considering everything you had written before that. Quoted below.

Of course all of the above was clipped from their responses. Just another example of how things taken out of context can be misunderstood.

peace
James
Click to expand...
Yes this is a prime example of taking things out of context, which is really not your fault as sometimes written messages on forums don’t bring out the tone that our voices do when we speak. Sorry about that, I should have tried harder to convey what I was trying to say.

My comment of , “And good luck with that” to Whitacre Girl’s last sentence, it was an addition to the sentence and was directed to those people on this forum who have said just that.

My comment was not wishing Whitacre Girl good luck in irradicating the U.S. of noncatholics 🙂
 
hellopeople said:
I can’t believe there is anyone that actually thinks like this.
Click to expand...
40.png
Rence:
And good luck with that
Click to expand...
I think you guys totally missed the entire point of that post. I was trying to point out how utterly ridiculous it would be to try to enforce such laws, and how it would destroy the very foundation that America was built on. America is a country who values freedom of religion, and to pass laws that force morals based on religious principles utterly violates that. Yes, at times living in a Catholic theocracy may be more comfortable (we don’t have to deal with jerks getting on the news/forums/school/etc and passing laws or publishing things that are downright insulting) but I ultimately wouldn’t want to ever live in one. I lived in a “theocracy” type setting for 4 years, and they were nearly the worst 4 years of my life.

The truth is, you can’t outlaw things just because you think they are wrong because God says so. While I agree contraception is wrong, it’s not my job to try to force other people not to sin and make their lives miserable until they agree. It’s MY job to show them the love of God and let God change their lives. This is why I will also never support any law that tried to criminalize sodomy or same-sex relations. It’s why I support things like allowing gays to have certain rights (not marriage. I support separate but equal). It’s not our job to make their lives so miserable that they feel they have to change. It’s our job to love them to Christ.
 
No, Whitacre Girl, you missed MY point, which was in support of your point, but it was my fault for not communicating it well enough .🤷 Sorry about that. See my last post above. I’ll try to do better so I don’t miscommunicate what I’m trying to say. I know you support separation of Church and State and freedom of religion.
Whitacre_Girl said:
I think you guys totally missed the entire point of that post. I was trying to point out how utterly ridiculous it would be to try to enforce such laws, and how it would destroy the very foundation that America was built on. America is a country who values freedom of religion, and to pass laws that force morals based on religious principles utterly violates that. Yes, at times living in a Catholic theocracy may be more comfortable (we don’t have to deal with jerks getting on the news/forums/school/etc and passing laws or publishing things that are downright insulting) but I ultimately wouldn’t want to ever live in one. I lived in a “theocracy” type setting for 4 years, and they were nearly the worst 4 years of my life.

The truth is, you can’t outlaw things just because you think they are wrong because God says so. While I agree contraception is wrong, it’s not my job to try to force other people not to sin and make their lives miserable until they agree. It’s MY job to show them the love of God and let God change their lives. This is why I will also never support any law that tried to criminalize sodomy or same-sex relations. It’s why I support things like allowing gays to have certain rights (not marriage. I support separate but equal). It’s not our job to make their lives so miserable that they feel they have to change. It’s our job to love them to Christ.
Click to expand...
 
 
Rence said:
No, Whitacre Girl, you missed MY point, which was in support of your point, but it was my fault for not communicating it well enough .🤷 Sorry about that. See my last post above. I’ll try to do better so I don’t miscommunicate what I’m trying to say. I know you support separation of Church and State and freedom of religion.
Click to expand...
Oh thanks I’m sorry about that. 😊 TOTALLY my bad. 👍 to you!
 
When did it become chic for Christians to stop believing that God’s laws apply to all mankind?
 
kage_ar said:
When did it become chic for Christians to stop believing that God’s laws apply to all mankind?
Click to expand...
Easy, since God first gave law to the Jews. The law was only applicable to circumsized Jews. God’s laws apply to his people. If they are not his people (even in christianity) then they have a bigger problems than contraception, theft, or even murder. The target is to bring people in, then they are responsible for following the law. There are several passages in scripture that talk about this, especially in the Old Testament when the law was more rigid. When we see the destruction of places for not following God’s laws, they are all cities in a circumsized Jewish nation that fall away from God or genetically Jewish (since the OT laws includes anyone born of Abraham.)

I suppose a more appropriate question is to ask when it became chic to force people to follow laws set down by a God they don’t recognize. This is the new development in the history of Judaism/Christianity.
 
The Church’s insistence on “natural” law requires those who believe in it to act like animals with none but accidental say so regarding birth in the form of the alleged “rhythm” non-method. And for all the birth dearth people, please tell my why, if there is such a thing, the world population is in total increasing by the second? (see math.berkeley.edu/~galen/popclk.html) The irresponsibility of the Church and its believers in this matter are staggering. Hitler was right: “It is great luck for leaders that men don’t think.”
 
Whitacre_Girl said:
I suppose a more appropriate question is to ask when it became chic to force people to follow laws set down by a God they don’t recognize. This is the new development in the history of Judaism/Christianity.
Click to expand...
You might care to learn the doctrinal teaching of the Church called “Natural Law”. The CCC gives you a quick, high level introduction, then, you can read the appropriate documents.

**SECTION ONE
MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT **
CHAPTER THREE
GOD’S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE ARTICLE 1

[1954](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1954.htm’)😉 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5 scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm#1954
 
Detales said:
The Church’s insistence on “natural” law requires those who believe in it to act like animals with none but accidental say so regarding birth in the form of the alleged “rhythm” non-method. And for all the birth dearth people, please tell my why, if there is such a thing, the world population is in total increasing by the second? (see math.berkeley.edu/~galen/popclk.html) The irresponsibility of the Church and its believers in this matter are staggering. Hitler was right: “It is great luck for leaders that men don’t think.”
Click to expand...
NFP is not the rhythm method and has a rate as good as many “Modern” contraception methods without the side effects.

The reason the total population is increasing is because, Africa, the Middle East and India are still expanding. Europe is importing Muslim labor, and Japan is just abandoning unneeded housing.

If you want to live in a National Socialist state, well stick around the US, we are almost there.

Nationalized Banking (Done)
Nationalized Auto Industry (Done)
Nationalized Student Loans (Done)
Nationalized Health Care (Done)

Lets see…If we Nationalize larger business’s they can capture large Agri businesses (Not yet done) and if the reinstate Capital Gains they can end the individuals ability to feed them selves of family farms. (Takes effect soon)

Lets see they can require passports for all travel and tie you getting them to crimes and then just expand the number of crimes to exclude issuance… (Done Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative)

They can print a LOT of money to let inflation tax the middle class into irrelevancy. M1 was 800 million in 2007 and now at 2.3 Trillion)

chartingstocks.net/2009/03/chart-of-the-us-money-supply-1917-2009/

Unfortunately the chances are if you are in your 30’s you will get to experience true socialism in this country by the time you are in your 50’s, and you will spend all of your families legacy paying for foreign labor to run a dying country when you are in your 70-80’s do to a global shortage of labor that some of the links in a prior post point to. The only way I could see us getting around this is if we have truly awesome robots, but we are not even close to having robots that are capable of caring for childless elderly people.

God Bless You…and our country…
 
Whitacre_Girl said:
I think you guys totally missed the entire point of that post. I was trying to point out how utterly ridiculous it would be to try to enforce such laws, and how it would destroy the very foundation that America was built on. America is a country who values freedom of religion, and to pass laws that force morals based on religious principles utterly violates that. Yes, at times living in a Catholic theocracy may be more comfortable (we don’t have to deal with jerks getting on the news/forums/school/etc and passing laws or publishing things that are downright insulting) but I ultimately wouldn’t want to ever live in one. I lived in a “theocracy” type setting for 4 years, and they were nearly the worst 4 years of my life.

The truth is, you can’t outlaw things just because you think they are wrong because God says so. While I agree contraception is wrong, it’s not my job to try to force other people not to sin and make their lives miserable until they agree. It’s MY job to show them the love of God and let God change their lives. This is why I will also never support any law that tried to criminalize sodomy or same-sex relations. It’s why I support things like allowing gays to have certain rights (not marriage. I support separate but equal). It’s not our job to make their lives so miserable that they feel they have to change. It’s our job to love them to Christ.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t want to live in a Catholic Theocracy. In fact, I don’t think I would want to live under any theocracy…but if I had to choose one I would probably choose a Buddhist one. I feel like I have more faith in the dali lama than the pope to be honest when it comes to matters of morality and politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top