Will God have a role in how you vote?

[Abrupt]

I'm failing to seeing how stating that banning contraception and abortions while limiting governmental assistance isn't the best isn't an accurate statement. It's accurate to say that no contraception means more unplanned pregnancies. It's accurate to say that banning abortions would lead to more unwanted children and/or harm done to mothers who will terminate the pregnancy in unsafe ways. It's also accurate to say that without governmental assistance more people would lack a minimal quality of life because they wouldn't have food to eat, a safe place to sleep at night or clothing to wear. What part of that is leaning towards towards inaccuracy to the truth?

I simply said I wouldn't any of the Republican candidates because I don't agree with their social views. That's not to say that I agree with the democratize views either. I don't think that the government should dictate what I choose to do with my body.If I want to have sex without getting pregnant than I have the right to use contraceptives. If I want to choose to abort the fetus growing in my body then that should be my choice. It should also be my right to get an abortion in a regulated environment instead of through unsafe methods. I think it should a person's choice not to bring children in the world that aren't wanted and wouldn't have a good quality life because  they can't or won't be adequately taken care of. No woman should be forced to take care of children that she doesn't want just like you shouldn't be forced to pay for it. I'm sorry that I actually think that defenseless  children shouldn't be force to go without basic needs like shelter and food because people like you feel like it's not your responsibility.I surely hope you would feel the same way if you lost your job and didn't have the means to provide those basic needs for your family.

Please remember that your reality is not that of those around you. You can't accurately judge a person until you have been in their situation.

It is because you said Republicans want to ban contraceptives.  When you make a statement like that without citing any proof of a single republican wanting to ban contraceptives you lose credibility.  Your statement is untrue and that makes you either ignorant, or a liar.  You can tell us which it is.  Do not propose to dismiss your remark as simply an error, as a malignment of that extent is intolerable.

"It's accurate to say that no contraception means more unplanned pregnancies. It's accurate to say that banning abortions would lead to more unwanted children and/or harm done to mothers who will terminate the pregnancy in unsafe ways.

Your logic is flawed and unproven.  I actually speculate that a ban on abortions would lead to less unwanted to children and less harm done to mothers who decide to kill their children within the womb.  Personally I have no pity on a woman who would kill her own child so such sympathy ploys as to my concerns for the well being of such a worthless person.  Wouldn't it be great if men and women took some personal responsibility for their actions and controlled their promiscuity enough to actually use contraceptives instead of barebacking (using the logic of if something happens they don't have to worry as can get the baby killed for free).  

It's also accurate to say that without governmental assistance more people would lack a minimal quality of life because they wouldn't have food to eat, a safe place to sleep at night or clothing to wear. What part of that is leaning towards towards inaccuracy to the truth?

 

This is also flawed logic and unproven to the degree you suggest.  I suspect that without government assistance the bulk of this people would endeavor to pursue gainful employment and would be far better off than they are now and it would go a long way to restoring America.  There is no stronger motivator than a hungry belly, trust me as I know.

I don't think all government assistance is 'wasted' as I am sure some is helpful but most of it isn't (and it isn't an enumerated power of the federal government anyways so they should have no hand in it -- although the states could if they chose to).  If it were removed federally, though, the private charities would take over and perform the role they have always played and do it more efficiently and with much less waste and fraud and abuse than the federal government does.

Use all the contraceptives you want to, just don't ask me to pay for them.  Kill your children as often as you wish just don't ask me to pay for it and don't expect any sympathy or compassion or even understanding in that manner.  Yes it is your choice whether or not to bring children into the world, and I think they teach people where babies come from so you cannot perform that act without understanding the risk and then later pretend you didn't know where babies came from and use that as an excuse for infanticide.  Wow you shift from killing babies to invoking the image of "defenseless children".  They don't get much more defenseless than from within the womb, but their they have their mother for protection -- or should have and are supposed to have.  If I lost my job, I still retain my knowledge of how to hunt and how to fish and how to raise a garden.  If all else fails I also know how to steal.  What I will not do is lay my burdens and my crimes onto another person and then insult the very benefactor that I never even had the common decency to be beholden to.

Yes, I do realize that what I see and feel and experience is not the same as others.  I know that when things get tough I also wish I had help as well and would take any that I had the opportunity to beg, borrow, or steal.  I don't fault that in other people either, even if I gripe about it.  You, though, also have to understand the way of others around you just as much.  To me, an abortion out of convenience (i.e. not one from a rape or one from an actual real life or death situation) is worse than if the mother birthed her baby and than took the newborn child in her hands and strangled him on the spot.  At least in the later she has to face what she does and cannot deny the action and she has to actually do the deed herself and take onto her the responsibility that is hers alone.  I do imagine that sounds harsh to you, and I imagine that any woman that has had an abortion would likely hate me for saying such things.  I don't intend the remarks to be mean spirited, but instead I want to show just how appalling and horrific I see the act.  You could drown a hundred dogs and a thousand cats in front of me and that wouldn't even compare to the sadness and disgust I would feel at one abortion committed out of convenience.  If I feel that way, why should I have to pay for the act and why should I have to provide assistance to any mother that could ever even contemplate the act?  The act rips such a hole through my heart and the pain is worsened when I realize that I am being forced to be complicate in the act by no desire of my own and nobody ever seems to care about the pain such things cause to those like me.

[sigmapi1501]

Wow man. That was ugly. Ugly, sexist and just angry. You're inner hillbilly really came out there.

[ladavia89]

Rick Santorum said in an interview: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special."

There is a video to the interview here if you don't believe mehttp://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/?mobile=nc

If you're going to call me ignorant or a liar you should possibly make sure that there is no truth behind my statements. I personally will do a few seconds of research before I call someone out for lying if it is something that I think is untrue but can't prove it. You should try it some time. But I'm just going to point out that I never said that the government should be paying for birth control or abortions. I said that it would be unwise to ban them.  You are entitled to your views but you can't push your morals on others as law. If people want to do things to their own bodies they are entitled to do so. Every woman is entitled to do whatever she chooses with her body just like you have the same right. She has the right to do whatever she wants to anything on or in her body that she pleases. It's not actually hurting you or anyone else.  Who it does hurt is that woman who is forced to have that  child and that child once it's in the world because it can't be taken care of. There are already enough unwanted children in the world. I guess you would rather them be born and live life in the foster system until they age out.

People aren't actually being taught about sex and contraception. They're being told not to have sex so they don't know how to properly use it or where to get it. Lack of contraception typically leads to pregnancy and stds. You can try to tell me that it doesn't. Making abortions illegal wouldn't stop it. It's proven that abortions are actually higher in places around the world where it's illegal and most of them are unsafe methods. Heaven forbid woman go back to using hangers to terminate.

You must honestly live in some lala land if you think that all people have the ability to gain employment during a recession where people are regularly being laid off. I guess people could resort to stealing from others and begging in hopes that others feel sorry enough for them to help.  Does it honestly make more sense to you that people should commit criminal acts that will send them to jail where guess what you're still paying to take care of them. We're living in a time where people with jobs still can't afford necessities but you expect those without to survive without any assistance. You would rather people commit criminal acts to end up in jail where you'll still be taking care of them. How is stealing not putting your crimes on other?

You obviously have your views that aren't exactly realistic in this society but you are entitled to them.  Your family can have all the children they want but you have no right to force that on others

[cnalvarez]

For many yes Religion will play a role.  Ironic how separation of Church and state was envisioned to keep religion out of politics, yet the United States was founded on the belief of God as being the supreme power.  People can argue until the sun comes up about how Religion plays no roles in politics and how it's not supposed to, however never has our country been so challenged as it is now, at a time when nay-Sayers have tried everything in their powers to remove GOD from the arena.  Take GOD out of society and produce a GOD-less society, no wonder we are in the mess we are in now. 

From the constitution of the United States, to the Pledge of Allegiance, GOD was a main focal point in our Government long before any of us were thought of.  Sad that some people want to shout off about their rights, when others don't have the right to pray in schools etc.  Time to bring GOD back!

I want a GOD fearing president, one who takes serious matters before GOD before deciding how to handle them. 

~  My opinion, don't get all bent out of shape people!

[falcon9]

Take GOD out of society and produce a GOD-less society, no wonder we are in the mess we are in now. 

Would you prefer an overt theocracy?

From the constitution of the United States, to the Pledge of Allegiance, GOD was a main focal point in our Government long before any of us were thought of. 

No, "god" was not a "main focal point" in the founding of the United States as a nation; it constituted four out of twenty-eight of the 'founding principles' used to frame the constitution, (one of which were used in the actual constitution). The first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It specifically does not establish any religion constitutionally.

The pledge of allegiance is considered to be an oath, (also called plight), is either a statement of fact or a promise calling upon something or someone that the oath maker considers sacred, usually "god", as a witness to the binding nature of the promise or the truth of the statement of fact. It is not a legal requirement in court to swear an oath to tell the truth by invoking "god" as one can legally affirm that they will do so without mentioning an undefined deity.

Sad that some people want to shout off about their rights, when others don't have the right to pray in schools etc. 

It's also "sad" that some xtians belief that they have the "right" to impose their religious beliefs in schools which obtain government funding.

Time to bring GOD back! I want a GOD fearing president, one who takes serious matters before GOD before deciding how to handle them. 

Fortunately, such an overtly theocratic presidency cannot form under the provisions of the constitution.  A president has the same freedom of any citizen in regards to having or not having religious beliefs however, permiting a particular, (xtian), superstituous 'faith' to overtly influence political policies should be met with as much opposition as one who held satanic beliefs.

[tzs]

No!!!

[Falconer02]

People can argue until the sun comes up about how Religion plays no roles in politics and how it's not supposed to, however never has our country been so challenged as it is now, at a time when nay-Sayers have tried everything in their powers to remove GOD from the arena.  

This is an absolutely naive post. The reason we're having so many problems is because we're spoiled compared to past societies-- technology is highlighting our problems and there are a lot more people alive than in the past looking at what this technology highlights. We've had major problems in the past too-- much worse than what we have today. World Wars ring a bell? Our current problems aren't because of some invisible deity being taken out of gov't.

Sad that some people want to shout off about their rights, when others don't have the right to pray in schools etc.

Examples?

I want a GOD fearing president, one who takes serious matters before GOD before deciding how to handle them.  

I choose the opposite-- I want a president who's smart and respects all religions. I want a president who won't allow a completely irrational belief system to sway what should be his rational decisions. If you're willing to let a man who favors mythology over rationality into one of the most powerful seats in the world, it's not a wonder why we're in such a mess.

[falcon9]

I want a president who's smart and respects all religions. I want a president who won't allow a completely irrational belief system to sway what should be his rational decisions. If you're willing to let a man who favors mythology over rationality into one of the most powerful seats in the world, it's not a wonder why we're in such a mess.

I concur completely.  Where would we find such a candidate though, the Vulcan Acedemy of Science?

[sigmapi1501]

I concur completely.  Where would we find such a candidate though, the Vulcan Acedemy of Science?

I like when they say, "Are you out of your Vulcan Mind?!"

[Abrupt]

Wow man. That was ugly. Ugly, sexist and just angry. You're inner hillbilly really came out there.

I agree it was ugly, but there is no way to talk about killing a baby that isn't ugly.  If you know of one please tell it to me in a cheerful and happy manner.  How was anything I said considered sexist?  Angry -- well heck yeah.  I wasn't as angry as I could have been.  When someone tells me in an oh so casual manner about how she should be able to kill her baby if she feels like it and in the very next sentence accuses me of not fulfilling my responsibility of taking care of "defenseless children" that I had no hand in the creation of you are damned right I am going to be angry.  Hell, I am angry that that doesn't bother you to hear someone make a statement like that.

[Abrupt]

Rick Santorum said in an interview: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special."

There is a video to the interview here if you don't believe mehttp://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/?mobile=nc

If you're going to call me ignorant or a liar you should possibly make sure that there is no truth behind my statements. I personally will do a few seconds of research before I call someone out for lying if it is something that I think is untrue but can't prove it. You should try it some time. But I'm just going to point out that I never said that the government should be paying for birth control or abortions. I said that it would be unwise to ban them.  You are entitled to your views but you can't push your morals on others as law. If people want to do things to their own bodies they are entitled to do so. Every woman is entitled to do whatever she chooses with her body just like you have the same right. She has the right to do whatever she wants to anything on or in her body that she pleases. It's not actually hurting you or anyone else.  Who it does hurt is that woman who is forced to have that  child and that child once it's in the world because it can't be taken care of. There are already enough unwanted children in the world. I guess you would rather them be born and live life in the foster system until they age out.

People aren't actually being taught about sex and contraception. They're being told not to have sex so they don't know how to properly use it or where to get it. Lack of contraception typically leads to pregnancy and stds. You can try to tell me that it doesn't. Making abortions illegal wouldn't stop it. It's proven that abortions are actually higher in places around the world where it's illegal and most of them are unsafe methods. Heaven forbid woman go back to using hangers to terminate.

You must honestly live in some lala land if you think that all people have the ability to gain employment during a recession where people are regularly being laid off. I guess people could resort to stealing from others and begging in hopes that others feel sorry enough for them to help.  Does it honestly make more sense to you that people should commit criminal acts that will send them to jail where guess what you're still paying to take care of them. We're living in a time where people with jobs still can't afford necessities but you expect those without to survive without any assistance. You would rather people commit criminal acts to end up in jail where you'll still be taking care of them. How is stealing not putting your crimes on other?

You obviously have your views that aren't exactly realistic in this society but you are entitled to them.  Your family can have all the children they want but you have no right to force that on others

Let me see, you posted a link of a republican who advocates defunding taxpayer provided contraceptives.  I agree with this, if people cannot afford to purchase contraception then they don't need to be fooling around -- it is that damn simple.  Tell me just how that constitutes a ban?  Tell me how one republicans statement is all republicans statements?  Can I use your same logic and take a democratic statement and apply it to every democrat and present it falsely in a way it was never put in the first place?  My charge against you stands, and you have not shown any evidence that republicans want to ban contraceptives.

You do know that a woman doesn't have to have unprotected sex if she doesn't want to, or do liberals teach that a woman has submit to a man on demand?  Men are dogs (being one, I know this) and we will pay the .50 cents for a prophylactic without complaining one bit.  If one is fooling about with men cheaper than that then they really need to try to raise their standards just a tiny bit more than the poorest of bums off the street (I apologize a bit for how that might sound.  I am not really saying that about you at all so please don't take it to heart.  I am using that as a form of humor to convey the absurdity of the jist of what you stated and to present it back at you in a way that parallels what you said but draws a distinction that nobody would want to claim practice in and could only agree with my statements.  Again, I am not saying that about you, I am saying it about the way you present the argument that contraceptives are some dire needed taxpayer funded item).  You must understand that I have a soft spot for children.  They are innocent and it is our responsibility to protect them.  Something just seems terrible and sick about a mother, who's natural and ultimate responsibility is to protect her young, repeatedly having children and then killing them via abortion all the while claiming it to be her right.  This saddens, appalls, disgusts, and infuriates me to a terrible degree  -- I don't understand how a woman can so casually do this.

I am saying that charities in America will always step up to provide for the needy.  I personally would prefer to be allocate my tax dollars to those that I knew needed it instead of having the government waste much of it by giving it to those that claimed they needed it, instead of those that actually did need it.  I know times are tough and I am sympathetic to it and I do not belittle those on government aid.  When I see those on aid using drugs daily and sporting gold and ridiculously overpriced and trendy clothes and fashion items I get quite a bit jaded.  I used to do volunteer work helping build homes for those in need until one day one of the people we were building for showed up in his BMW wearing a nicer suit than any I owned and more jewelry than any man has a right to own and reeking of the good herb that was out of my price range.  I looked from his well manicured nails to my dirt and cement encrusted ones and I decided that enough was enough and I left and have never viewed charity so naively since.

[sigmapi1501]

Dude. Stick to fiscal responsibility issues when you promote your republican beliefs.  When you start talking about social issues your tone borders hate speech.  Using the term "killing her baby" when discussing a woman exercising her right to chose is barbaric. Or, do you only point to the constitution and our laws in place when they support your flat earth point of view?

[Abrupt]

Dude. Stick to fiscal responsibility issues when you promote your republican beliefs.  When you start talking about social issues your tone borders hate speech.  Using the term "killing her baby" when discussing a woman exercising her right to chose is barbaric. Or, do you only point to the constitution and our laws in place when they support your flat earth point of view?

I am not promoting republican beliefs, I am promoting my own beliefs.  I am not a republican but am a conservative and probably closest to a libertarian.  I am registered as a republican though, but that doesn't make me property. 

Nothing I have said is hate speech.  And I use the term that was most appropriate for the act.  You haven't suggested a kinder way of saying infanticide (I will use any term you wish if it is accurate to the deed).  I don't understand how you can say my desire to protect the lives of children is 'barbaric'.  Flat earth point of view?  Why is it such that a liberal will always resort to insults and labels and trying to box in anyone that disagrees with a position they hold to?  Heck with the liberal it doesn't even have to be a position they hold to, if they see someone of conservative value holding a position the liberal will immediately become an opponent of that position.

I am not sure what you expect from me.  I am being honest and saying it as I see it.  If we disagree then we disagree and can put forth our points in argument, but to resort to insults as the first tendency o faction seems to suggest your position is weak to you.

[sigmapi1501]

How can you be a libertarian but want abortion illegal?

[tzs]

How can you be a libertarian but want abortion illegal?

It really doesn't matter, the fact is that its the woman's choice alone and that's the way it should be, no matter what political views you have.