The Best Reason Now To Be An Expat In Argentina...

[steveinbsas]

yes, for the same reasons people should be forced to pay for other peoples kids education / health too.

I had this conversation with my mother 45 years ago. She was married to the local school district superintendent.

State controlled or dictated education produces children (who eventually become adults) who believe in the supremacy of the state.

And that's what we have today.

When I brought up the subject of individual rights, she asked me who gives us those rights.

I stunned her (a Sunday school teacher) by not answering , "The government."

(Which is what she was thinking.)

Instead, I quoted the the Founders and answered, "God."

if the "collective" (aka the majority) on a state by state basis decides to use tax dollars to provide "health care" for some at the expense of others, that's one thing.

For the federal government to require any citizen to buy a product for any reason is another.

Its not in the Constitution and thats the point.

Just like prohibition, if anyone wants to change the Constitution they are welcome to try.

 

[steveinbsas]

http://www.theguardi...and-hindu-woman

why the fuck should religion enter healthcare.

I've made a point to never get personal here, but this time I am tempted to make an exception.

Instead, I'll ask this question:

If, for example, abortions are "covered" under "approved" health care plans under the ACA, should "religious" hospitals be required to perform them?

 

[scotttswan]

I've made a point to never get personal here, but this time I am tempted to make an exception.

:lol:

edit: nice edit steve :lol:

 

[Ries]

I'm not defending religion, I'm defending freedom. The freedom to object something on religious grounds. Let me introduce you to..... THE FIRST AMENDMENT....


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You are free to "object".
But, once a law is passed, and not overruled by the Supreme Court, you still have to obey that law while objecting, or pay the consequences, be they financial or punitive.

You can "object" to taxes all day long- but if you dont pay em, they will seize your assets.
You can "object" to laws against drugs, and buy and sell drugs- but they can still put you in jail.
You can "object" to paying for the military thru your taxes if you are a pacifist- but they still use your taxes to do it.
You can "object" to slaughtering animals for food with government money to make bacon for the troops- but your taxes will still pay for it.

The first amendment protects your right to say things- not your right to break the law.
Hindus pay taxes for killing cows, Muslims pay taxes to buy pork, Christians pay taxes that pay for Wiccan priests in the military.
Religious beliefs do not exempt you from the law, even when the law allows things your religion states as wrong.

 

[internationalguy]

If you are a Catholic doctor or nurse no one should force you to perform an abortion. If you are a catholic business owner no one should force you to purchase coverage that includes murder of babies. This is not about abortion or religion. Again, it's about freedom. I provide examples of people who are given the right to object and not have to do certain things, like Jehovah's Witnesses.

Tax objection and drugs are not a part of any legitimate religion.

 

[scotttswan]

If you are a Catholic doctor or nurse no one should force you to perform an abortion. If you are a catholic business owner no one should force you to purchase coverage that includes murder of babies. This is not about abortion or religion. Again, it's about freedom. I provide examples of people who are given the right to object and not have to do certain things, like Jehovah's Witnesses.

Tax objection and drugs are not a part of any legitimate religion.

If you are Catholic and the law quite rightly says you need to provide abortions to people who require them and you object to this. Then you shouldn't have become a gynaecologist.

Jehovas who refuse blood transfusions etc are fine, they win in the Darwin awards.

If they have kids under the age of consent and they then deny that kid life saving treatment because of their beliefs they should be tried for manslaughter.
Same goes with any other religion.

Although it shouldn't come to that and the State should forcibly treat the kid.

 

[steveinbsas]

:lol:

edit: nice edit steve :lol:

Thanks, I'm glad you got to see the original post!

 

[steveinbsas]

If you are Catholic and the law quite rightly says you need to provide abortions to people who require them and you object to this. Then you shouldn't have become a gynaecologist.

Jehovas who refuse blood transfusions etc are fine, they win in the Darwin awards.

If they have kids under the age of consent and they then deny that kid life saving treatment because of their beliefs they should be tried for manslaughter.
Same goes with any other religion.

Although it shouldn't come to that and the State should forcibly treat the kid.

If and when all hospitals are required to perform abortions the law will collapse.

But it probably will long before that,

And, who knows?

Most "black" people in the USA don't know that an original intention of the founder of Planned Parenthood was to wipe them out of existence in North America and is still keeping their numbers "in check" with abortions.

 

[internationalguy]

If you are Catholic and the law quite rightly says you need to provide abortions to people who require them and you object to this. Then you shouldn't have become a gynaecologist.

Jehovas who refuse blood transfusions etc are fine, they win in the Darwin awards.

If they have kids under the age of consent and they then deny that kid life saving treatment because of their beliefs they should be tried for manslaughter.
Same goes with any other religion.

Although it shouldn't come to that and the State should forcibly treat the kid.

That's just pathetic. And you just seem to ignore the point. It's about religious freedom. First amendment. Why can't you see that?

 

[scotttswan]

That's just pathetic. And you just seem to ignore the point. It's about religious freedom. First amendment. Why can't you see that?

yes, religious people should be allowed to deny their children treatment and let them die and Catholics should be allowed to force their religious beliefs on women who need abortions.

Its all about freedoms!