# While we're talking politics...



## tinyliny

This will be interesting, and if it can be kept as civil and free from personal attack as the Barack Obama one, it will be cool.

I have decided to support gay marriage. somewhat hesitantly, but yes. I know quite a few men living as devoted couples and it seems that they should be allowed to formally cement the bonds that they live out in daily life, over the years. 
I dont' have points to argue right now. This is simply an emotional position, for sure. And, its not something I feel super strongly about, either.


----------



## Susan Crumrine

Tiny, I agree with what you said.
I am, I guess, fairly old fashioned.
But the points are valid, as far as owning community property, taxes, inheritance and other issues.
I don't see making gay marriage legal ever hurting anyone, so why not?


----------



## kait18

i think gay couples should be able to get married and be able to received the same benefits as male and female couples. but i do not think it should be done in a church setting.


----------



## Poseidon

:lol: I love memes.


----------



## Ink

LOL Poseidon, I love those! My bother sent one of them to me the other day. 




kait18 said:


> i think gay couples should be able to get married and be able to received the same benefits as male and female couples. but i do not think it should be done in a church setting.


I think that's a fair compromise, especially considering most gay people I know have been completely turned off of religion in general. Of course you would have to leave that up to each individual denomination too. I know the Episcopal church, for instance, has a much more open-minded policy regarding gays and lesbians, and I would think they'd be very open to allowing it.


----------



## kitten_Val

I don't think gay marriage should be legalized in sense of getting benefits or allow to adopt children. However I think they should be able to sign "civil agreement" so in a case of divorce or if one dies the left one has the rights as a spouse (for the house, bank account, and other things).

Personally I don't care if the person is a gay or straight. As long as he/she doesn't bug me with what they do in bed (or the interest that I don't need).


----------



## Ink

kitten_Val said:


> I don't think gay marriage should be legalized in sense of getting benefits or allow to adopt children. However I think they should be able to sign "civil agreement" so in a case of divorce or if one dies the left one has the rights as a spouse (for the house, bank account, and other things).



Would you care to elaborate why not? I'm especially curious about the not adopting children as you don't currently have to be married to do that. In fact there are plenty of gay couples raising adopted children right now. I would even argue two financially stable people in a loving same sex relationship would be a better choice to raise a child than some straight people.


EDIT: Oh and you guys feel free to bring up any other topics too, I was just using the gay marriage thing as a jumping off point.


----------



## Susan Crumrine

Personally I don't care if the person is a gay or straight. As long as he/she doesn't bug me with what they do in bed (or the interest that I don't need).[/QUOTE]

I don't care what anyone does in bed either, so long as kids and animals aren't involved. :lol:
I think a person's willingness to adopt and raise an unwanted child says much about them!
If they can provide a stable home, they should be allowed to adopt.


----------



## FlyGap

I consider myself a conservative moderate old school hippy if you can imagine such a thing! LOL!

I work in one of the most liberal industries, the music/art scene. All of my friends are hard core liberals, and most of them were raised by hippies. I live in an UBER conservative area, the bible belt, my grandmother was the head secretary of the NWA Baptist Association for 45 years! So I can fit in just about anywhere.

So, do I support gay marriage? Do I support homosexuals?
Welll, don't hit me.... but here are my thoughts.

Honestly I could care less what people do. Just as long as people do not try to shove their preference down my throat. I do believe that PEOPLE are good and bad, some wayyyyy worse than others. I have been constant friends with so many gay people in my life. I have OFTEN been mistaken for being homosexual because I'm athletic, not exactly girly, and for other reasons I can't even determine! The thing I really struggle with are the ones that openly advertise how "gay" they are. I have a friend that actually walks around with a sign around his neck advertising. Others who "act gay" around people who are uncomfortable with it. I see no point in this type of behavior. I don't parade around acting "Heterosexual" and let it be known to all. I AM NOT SAYING ALL GAY PEOPLE DO THIS! I feel like this behavior, however uncommon some may think it is does not help their argument. As for being gay in general my position would be far different if it was commonplace in nature, even though there have been multitudes of studies there hasn't been one that I can stand behind. I feel like with all the new tech and media being homosexual seems more commonplace than it actually is. So do we entirely change the history and definition of marriage for such a small population of people? 
I say we put it to a nation wide vote and let the majority of people decide. PERIOD. 

Do I openly speak out against it, no. But I personally will never support it. I do 1,000% support civil unions so NO member of society is denied benefits, rights, etc. I do so for numerous reasons. 
For instance neither my aunt nor her best friend can have children. They have lived together for years off and on between marriages LOL! Her friend has no living relatives, so in the end I know they will be living together (unless they are living with me!!) and I feel like my aunt who is her only living "family" should be able to have the same rights as say a spouse would and vice versa.
My very good friends son and his best friend (he's an orphan) have lived together forever and neither will probably end up married. They share all the bills, support one another, etc. Neither are gay, I've met their random girlfriends on multiple occasions. But neither are willing to marry. So I believe they deserve the same protection and rights as two people who have lived their lives in marriage receive.

Just my personal thoughts. Please do not get on to me, I'm just being honest.


----------



## tinyliny

so do you support gay marriage or not? I wasnt' sure .


----------



## FlyGap

Me? No. Civil Unions.
But I do strongly believe:
I feel like with all the new tech and media being homosexual seems more commonplace than it actually is. So do we entirely change the history and definition of marriage for such a small population of people? 
I say we put it to a nation wide vote and let the majority of people decide. PERIOD.


----------



## kait18

flygap - out of curiosity... what part of the marriage concept do you not want to be changed 

i know you think the benefits after one deceases should be allowed but what particulars do you think shouldn't be changed


----------



## kitten_Val

Ink said:


> Would you care to elaborate why not? I'm especially curious about the not adopting children as you don't currently have to be married to do that. In fact there are plenty of gay couples raising adopted children right now. I would even argue two financially stable people in a loving same sex relationship would be a better choice to raise a child than some straight people.


Because I'm a believer that the child needs an interaction with mom (with the female approach) and dad (with male one), especially at the younger age. I know you can adopt when you are single as well, and situations can be different. BTW, I also think certain straight couples have no business raising kids (whether own or adopted). But it is what it is.


----------



## Ink

FlyGap said:


> Me? No. Civil Unions.
> But I do strongly believe:
> I feel like with all the new tech and media being homosexual seems more commonplace than it actually is. So do we entirely change the history and definition of marriage for such a small population of people?
> I say we put it to a nation wide vote and let the majority of people decide. PERIOD.



My only problem with civil unions is that you get into the dangerous "separate-but-equal" territory that hasn't work out for us so well in the past. 
You are absolutely right that the alternative sexualities are a minority, which is why I don't think it should be decided by popular vote. Those who have a real steak in the matter are less likely to be heard. Although, I totally agree it's a matter that needs to be decided nationally one way or the other. Leaving it up to each individual state is all well and good until the couple moves somewhere their marriage isn't recognized and then what? 

I suppose I just don't see why allowing same sex marriage has to fundamentally change the definition of the word? Is marriage not two people in love making a legally binding commitment to each other? How does two people of the same sex making such a commitment cheapen it for the traditional couples? 

I take issue with the fact that people like Kim Kardashian (lol no idea how to spell that name) can get married and divorced in the span of a few months, but a gay couple who have been in a committed relationship for _years _have less of a right to get married than she does.


----------



## kevinshorses

First, there is no seperation of church and state in the constitution. The constitution says that congress shall make NO law regarding religion. That means that they can't legally establish religion in a school nor can they restrict religion in a school for example. 

Second, while I don't doubt this will be a hot button issue in the presidential election it shouldn't be. Again the constitution gives the federal government certain powers and determining who can get married is not one of them. This is a state issue and should stay a state issue. 

Finally, if you want to live your life as a homosexual then go ahead. I will die to defend your right to do so BUT don't insist that I like it and don't insist on any protected status that makes a crime against you any worse than a crime against me (hate crime legislation). I don't support gay marriage. I don't approve of homosexuals adopting children. Call me an old fashioed bigot but I just don't think it's right. I live in a very conservative state so I doubt I'll ever have to vote on it. California voted by a pretty good majority to not allow gay marriage and then some activist judges overturned it as against the constitution of California. That's for the people of California to deal with but I hope the people prevail.

One reason that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope is the fact that many churchs don't want to allow gay marriages in thier church but if gay marriage was made legal then the churches could lose tax exempt status and risk prosecution for not allowing them. That takes us back to the first paragraph.


----------



## FlyGap

The history and sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. All the other rights are to property and end of life or medical details (especially the more modern ones) which if voted so could and I feel should be protected with a civil union which is somewhat obtainable now in regards to setting up rights of attorney, wills, executior of estates. The whole deal needs to be put to a vote buy the entire nation and then laid to rest in regards to the constitution.

Can we talk about legalization of illegal substances? If so why and which ones.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ink

kitten_Val said:


> Because I'm a believer that the child needs an interaction with mom (with the female approach) and dad (with male one), especially at the younger age. I know you can adopt when you are single as well, and situations can be different. BTW, I also think certain straight couples have no business raising kids (whether own or adopted). But it is what it is.


That's fair enough, but there are so many different situations out there in which a child is being raised without either one parent or the other. And as we seem to agree even some situations with both parents involved aren't ideal. So in a perfect world I can sort of see where you're coming from, but unfortunately we don't live in one. 

If you are going to deny the right to raise children on those grounds, you would also have to take that right away from single parents. My feeling is a stable home with a same sex couple is preferable to an unstable one in either the foster system, or with unfit parents.


----------



## FlyGap

Any violent crime in my humble opinion is a hate crime, is it just a "strongly dislike" crime if you kill a person with your same ideals or ethnicity? Lol! You still got a warped reason for doing so!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Missy May

What is the argument for it?

The one I have heard most often is the "if the partner is in critical condition in the hospital", then the "partner" is denied visitation due to "non family member". That does _not_ require a marriage certificate, there are civil unions and multiple other legally binding agreements that will satisfy that "requirement" just fine.

Then there is the federal recognition as married for taxes and such. Well, again, why not move to change civil union or some other legally binding agreement that is federally recognized, not demand it be "marriage" - which is but one legally binding document in an ocean of such pieces of paper.

While a civil union may or may not be recognized over all state lines, I haven't seen any mass demonstrations to make it so. _Just_ marriage. 

I think my horse should be recognized as my child. Define child. Define human.

And, as for a comparison to slavery...slavery is a clear violation of constitutional rights, oppression, etc.,. Not offering marriage to same sex partners is not oppression nor does it impact one particular group (e.g., men, women, disadvantaged, blacks, rich, asians). 

So...there are MULTIPLE other solutions to a "union" between two people other than "homosexual marriage" so WHY FOR???


----------



## Missy May

And here is another reason I am against it...public school systems. Increasingly, public schools find it there place to teach intolerance of anyone that doesn't champion homosexuality. I don't think its there place to bring it up - period..but I am not a "more equal" member of the intolerant society. With homosexual marriage, a gay teacher can further exhibit their homosexuality w the "its great, tolerance is a _must_ and anything else will _not_ be tolerated_...oh,_ here is my honey" stuff. The intolerance of people that prefer their child NOT be subjected to this IS oppression.


----------



## Missy May

FlyGap said:


> Any violent crime in my humble opinion is a hate crime, is it just a "strongly dislike" crime if you kill a person with your same ideals or ethnicity? Lol! You still got a warped reason for doing so!!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No like button...so "like"!!!


----------



## kait18

edit : just realized i derailed to a different topic ...lol

oh yay the drug talk is back on the table 
it depends in theory i think lowering the drinking limit to 14 years of age will help minimize all the excessive drinking in 21 yo and would also lower the casualty in drinking in driving accidents. also think its unfair someone candie for this country at the age of 18 but can't even have a drink legally...

then to the narcotics. considering marijiana(Sp) is one of the most grown crops in USA i would say legalize it. but it has to be run with strict lines. must be sold out of a designated store, most be highly taxed, can only be paid for with a personal check or credit card, must have 2 forms of id to prove payment is from your account and not robbed from someone, make a phone call or to verify your record like they do when buying a gun... if there are any signs of problems such as charges related to drug use such as aggression,etc then they lose the right to buy product.. same goes for acid and shrooms... and i don't believe any of the mentioned drugs in this paragraph are addicting in themselves... the addiction that comes from these drugs is from the person finding an outlet to get out of the real world and into a temporary good place that they decide if they want.

however legalizing of cocaine and herione and such i dont think so...why i do not know i just think with all the fast addicitions they cause it could lead to a bigger problem.

now then there is ecstacy... i would say legalize this as well and make so it has be used in designated areas only ...like clubs. the club has to get a licensing to distribute it like they do for alcohol and ppl will have to be stamped on the first for verification of who comes in, a different stamp/braclet for who was served ecstacy, and who wasn't. anyone with the bracelet or stamp for taking the pill will only be served water anyone who did not take the pill can get the alcohol.. 

but everything again would have to be monitored... but that is just a quick glimps as to what i think


----------



## Ink

kevinshorses said:


> First, there is no seperation of church and state in the constitution. The constitution says that congress shall make NO law regarding religion. That means that they can't legally establish religion in a school nor can they restrict religion in a school for example.
> 
> *
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"* *Fair enough, but I think it's been pretty well established through precedent how we've interpreted this statement. *
> 
> Second, while I don't doubt this will be a hot button issue in the presidential election it shouldn't be. Again the constitution gives the federal government certain powers and determining who can get married is not one of them. This is a state issue and should stay a state issue.
> 
> *What about back in the 1950's when inter-racial marriage wasn't recognized by all states? A couple was even arrested at one point when they crossed state lines. This was a matter that had to be decided by the supreme court, and same sex marriage will most likely end up going down the same road if it isn't decided upon nationally now. *
> 
> Finally, if you want to live your life as a homosexual then go ahead. I will die to defend your right to do so BUT don't insist that I like it and don't insist on any protected status that makes a crime against you any worse than a crime against me (hate crime legislation). *I totally agree, but by the same token legislation here in TN is currently being processed that will make anti-gay bullying (in schools specifically) all but un-punishable.* I don't support gay marriage. I don't approve of homosexuals adopting children. Call me an old fashioed bigot but I just don't think it's right. I live in a very conservative state so I doubt I'll ever have to vote on it. California voted by a pretty good majority to not allow gay marriage and then some activist judges overturned it as against the constitution of California. That's for the people of California to deal with but I hope the people prevail. *Again see above statement about interracial marriage. And I've already said my peace about the whole adoption thing *
> 
> One reason that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope is the fact that many churchs don't want to allow gay marriages in thier church but if gay marriage was made legal then the churches could lose tax exempt status and risk prosecution for not allowing them. That takes us back to the first paragraph. *I honestly don't think that will happen. It's not the governments right or responsibility to force a church to recognize, let alone perform, gay marriage any more that it's their responsibility to deny the right to marry to same sex couples. *


My comments in red.


----------



## Whisper22

I don't care one way or another about the choices one makes in there life, right or wrong it will be on their head in the end, not mine. I don't support gay marriage. I think marriage in general is a religious thing, and homosexuality obviously is not. If there was some other title we could give it to give those people the same rights, fine, but I don't agree with calling it a marriage.

For some people, being religious and their relationship with God is a very important thing in their life. I think the media cheapens this by constantly spouting that religion should have nothing to do with it. If gay people don't want their relationship cheapened, don't cheapen ours. Both sides should be able to say what they want, but I think forcing their life style into religion through marriage isn't right.


----------



## Missy May

Flygap wants to talk drugs, whilst we are at it, Okay...Legalize it all. Tax any imported raw or finished materials 500%, or whatever is required to make it more expensive than american grown/prossesed. Life in prison for selling to anyone under 21! Ha!


----------



## kait18

Missy May said:


> Flygap wants to talk drugs, whilst we are at it, Okay...Legalize it all. Tax any imported raw or finished materials 500%, or whatever is required to make it more expensive than american grown/prossesed. Life in prison for selling to anyone under 21! Ha!


 
agree on taxing all importing goods, taking away nafta, and giving tax cuts for companies that actually manufacture there WHOLE product here in USA


----------



## Ink

Missy May said:


> And here is another reason I am against it...public school systems. Increasingly, public schools find it there place to teach intolerance of anyone that doesn't champion homosexuality. I don't think its there place to bring it up - period..but I am not a "more equal" member of the intolerant society. With homosexual marriage, a gay teacher can further exhibit their homosexuality w the "its great, tolerance is a _must_ and anything else will _not_ be tolerated_...oh,_ here is my honey" stuff. The intolerance of people that prefer their child NOT be subjected to this IS oppression.



This could not be farther from the truth, especially here and in other conservative states. One Town's War on Gay Teens | Politics News | Rolling Stone This article just gets my blood boiling, and as a fair warning it's pretty hard to read. And similar legislation is on it's way through in TN. Legislation that prevents teachers from even acknowledging harassment of GLBT students, because it they have to remain "neutral" on the topic. Legislation with language so vague that teachers will be powerless to help students who are being bullied or are even just confused for fear of losing their jobs. Unfortunately, many people in my area share your feelings, and it's viewpoints like that, that are allowing this mess to get pushed through. 

What's wrong with a little tolerance? I'm not asking you to agree with it, and I'm certainly not asking you to participate in it. But what's wrong with a little respect for one another?


----------



## FlyGap

I AM LAUGHING SOOOOOOO HARD!!!! Missy May!

We don't have to change the subject yet.
I agree with you 1,000% on the pressure put on children to accept some of these issues when it's not exactly something that should be discussed at their age. Which is sex, and the preference thereof. They should be ignorant of the whole deal, taught that they are too mentally and physically immature to enjoy it, and need to be shown HUGE NASTY photos of STD's!! LOL!

I'll get on the Drug Talk if anyone is ready!!

EDIT: Ink I think the problem is that the gay children flaunt the issue. They go around telling people, whereas I think a child should be silenced if they went around telling other children how much they wanted to boff the other sex. Where I went to school people just understood the difference, they didn't flaunt it. It should not be discussed at school, sexuality belongs at home. They are also taught how to interact with a society of sorts, be honorable, compete, and excell. Sex should not even be an issue unless you are talking about the dangers of and the process of birth, which all belongs at home IMHO. That's why I send my kid to private, I'm the one that handles that.


----------



## kevinshorses

I just need to make a couple more comments. For those of you that support gay marriage what about polygamy? If it's okay for Adam and Steve then what about Jack and Jill and Mary?

Also Rolling Stone is about the worst example of jouralistic integrity in the whole published world. Regardless of what they write about you can just about gaurantee that they have warped the story for thier own purposes.


----------



## Ink

kait18 said:


> edit : just realized i derailed to a different topic ...lol
> 
> oh yay the drug talk is back on the table
> it depends in theory i think lowering the drinking limit to 14 years of age will help minimize all the excessive drinking in 21 yo and would also lower the casualty in drinking in driving accidents. also think its unfair someone candie for this country at the age of 18 but can't even have a drink legally...
> 
> then to the narcotics. considering marijiana(Sp) is one of the most grown crops in USA i would say legalize it. but it has to be run with strict lines. must be sold out of a designated store, most be highly taxed, can only be paid for with a personal check or credit card, must have 2 forms of id to prove payment is from your account and not robbed from someone, make a phone call or to verify your record like they do when buying a gun... if there are any signs of problems such as charges related to drug use such as aggression,etc then they lose the right to buy product.. same goes for acid and shrooms... and i don't believe any of the mentioned drugs in this paragraph are addicting in themselves... the addiction that comes from these drugs is from the person finding an outlet to get out of the real world and into a temporary good place that they decide if they want.
> 
> however legalizing of cocaine and herione and such i dont think so...why i do not know i just think with all the fast addicitions they cause it could lead to a bigger problem.
> 
> now then there is ecstacy... i would say legalize this as well and make so it has be used in designated areas only ...like clubs. the club has to get a licensing to distribute it like they do for alcohol and ppl will have to be stamped on the first for verification of who comes in, a different stamp/braclet for who was served ecstacy, and who wasn't. anyone with the bracelet or stamp for taking the pill will only be served water anyone who did not take the pill can get the alcohol..
> 
> but everything again would have to be monitored... but that is just a quick glimps as to what i think



I love all of what you said! I actually have a plan for lowering the drinking age lol

OK, so when you turn 18 you can apply for a drinking learners permit of sorts. You can buy alcohol, but with restrictions. (i.e. can only buy from places that sell a certain percentage of food, so you're not out at bars and liquor stores, etc.). Violating terms of your permit results in losing the right to buy booze. That way we aren't just arbitrarily lowering the drinking age, but putting restrictions on it that sets people up to be more responsible and not go crazy when they turn 21. 


I have mixed feelings about marijuana, but it's so ridiculously commonplace I really don't see why they don't just make it legal so they can at least tax it and maybe cut down on crime. It looks like a nation wide medicinal marijuana bill is going to pass through congress soon if anyone is interested. (At least according to the news lol)


----------



## FlyGap

Yep Kevin, I agree. Why not just open the flood gates and include animals too while you're at it. 
I've told my husband SEVERAL times he's welcome to bring in another woman! As long as they are the ones that scrub the toilets, have a really high paying job!
I'll the the "first" wife and do the gardening, and work the horses! LOLOLOLOL!!!


----------



## Whisper22

Ink said:


> This could not be farther from the truth, especially here and in other conservative states. One Town's War on Gay Teens | Politics News | Rolling Stone This article just gets my blood boiling, and as a fair warning it's pretty hard to read. And similar legislation is on it's way through in TN. Legislation that prevents teachers from even acknowledging harassment of GLBT students, because it they have to remain "neutral" on the topic. Legislation with language so vague that teachers will be powerless to help students who are being bullied or are even just confused for fear of losing their jobs. Unfortunately, many people in my area share your feelings, and it's viewpoints like that, that are allowing this mess to get pushed through.
> 
> What's wrong with a little tolerance? I'm not asking you to agree with it, and I'm certainly not asking you to participate in it. But what's wrong with a little respect for one another?


I don't remember being told in school who I can and can't have sex with. We had sex ed where you learn about safe sex, but who it's with and whether or not it was acceptable was never an issue, I don't think that should change.


----------



## Susan Crumrine

My husband and I will become legal growers if they do legalize it.
We talked about it, on 50 acres, it would be the best cash crop we could grow.
Unless every other farmer in America jumps on it, then we will grow corn. LOL

Alcohol is just as much of a drug as marijuana is, and most people in law enforcement will tell you, much more violence comes from drinking than smoking.

(We do not use drugs, by the way, hubby just had to take a "surprise" test for his job and it happens regularly)..
He drives a semi. Funny how all the guys who work with him can drink legally as long as they don't drink and drive. (We aren't drinker's much either, we cannot handle hangovers....) They show up hung over and not in any condition to handle a semi.
I think the taxes might help our country. Look how much people pay for cigarettes now!


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

About the pot issue - it is interesting to note that the usage rates in the United States where it is illegal to grow/sell/purchase/use marijuana are higher than in Amsterdam where any adult can walk into a coffee shop, buy the stuff and smoke it without prosecution. By criminalizing something you add a stigma and a lot of people are more attracted to the stigma than the high. Plus if you legalize marijuana then you get rid of a lot of drug dealers hahahahaha AND by taxing the mother loving bajeesus out of the stuff, you create a viable income stream for the government.


And the gay marriage issue. People are people are people are people. I don't give a **** who you want to marry/have sex with/have kids with etc... as long as you are both (or "all parties are"??) consenting adults. Want 6 wives? Can you find 6 women willing to all be married to you at once?? Good on you, bud!! If women want a couple husbands, that's great too. It honestly does no harm and if all are living under one roof is cost effective and more environmentally friendly.
Marriage is first of all a legal thing and second of all a religious thing. I don't need any church to consent to me marrying who I would like to marry. One of my parents is Catholic, and the other Lutheran and neither church was too pleased about that one but city hall (who actually issues the marriage certificate) was not bothered at all. Marriage is so far removed from religion that should not even be a consideration about if a church "likes it" or not.


People are people are people.


----------



## kevinshorses

Ink said:


> I love all of what you said! I actually have a plan for lowering the drinking age lol
> 
> *OK, so when you turn 18 you can apply for a drinking learners permit of sorts. You can buy alcohol, but with restrictions. (i.e. can only buy from places that sell a certain percentage of food, so you're not out at bars and liquor stores, etc.). Violating terms of your permit results in losing the right to buy booze. That way we aren't just arbitrarily lowering the drinking age, but putting restrictions on it that sets people up to be more responsible and not go crazy when they turn 21. *
> 
> 
> I have mixed feelings about marijuana, but it's so ridiculously commonplace I really don't see why they don't just make it legal so they can at least tax it and maybe cut down on crime. It looks like a nation wide medicinal marijuana bill is going to pass through congress soon if anyone is interested. (At least according to the news lol)


I like this idea. If kids are going to drink it's best that they learn some responsibility. I would also go so far as to say that active duty members of the military cand present thier military ID and get a drink with no restrictions.

I don't agree with lowering the drinking age past 18 or 19 and I REALLY don't agree with legalizing any drug. Marijuana is a gateway to other drugs for many people. Even if it doesn't serve as a gateway it inhibits maturation of the mind. If you start using marijuana at 17 and use it regularly for 10 years you will have the same maturity as a 17 year old. I don't want to see government sanctioned drug use robbing young people of thier ambition and promise. I don't see how that benefits our country or our world.


----------



## Ink

FlyGap said:


> I AM LAUGHING SOOOOOOO HARD!!!! Missy May!
> 
> We don't have to change the subject yet.
> I agree with you 1,000% on the pressure put on children to accept some of these issues when it's not exactly something that should be discussed at their age. Which is sex, and the preference thereof. *They should be ignorant of the whole deal, taught that they are too mentally and physically immature to enjoy it, and need to be shown HUGE NASTY photos of STD's!! LOL*!
> 
> I'll get on the Drug Talk if anyone is ready!!
> 
> EDIT: Ink I think the problem is that the gay children flaunt the issue. They go around telling people, whereas I think a child should be silenced if they went around telling other children how much they wanted to boff the other sex. Where I went to school people just understood the difference, they didn't flaunt it. It should not be discussed at school, sexuality belongs at home. They are also taught how to interact with a society of sorts, be honorable, compete, and excell. Sex should not even be an issue unless you are talking about the dangers of and the process of birth, which all belongs at home IMHO. That's why I send my kid to private, I'm the one that handles that.



:lol: Yes they should! Still at what age do you broach the subject? I'm actually totally for sex ed in public schools. But it's one of those gray areas that I'v not totally formed an opinion on because I don't really have a dog in the fight. (NO kids for me; I can barely take care of myself sometimes lol). 

Maybe where you're from they do, but not around here. Ok so some of them do, but even one of my close friends is careful about who he's out to for fear of backlash and he's an adult. We live in the buckle of the bible belt too though. And regardless of weather or not they're open about it, no student should have to deal with bullying or harassment gay, straight or asexual. And if you have legislation limiting the discussion of alternative sexual orientations in public schools, the language needs to be clear enough that teachers can put a stop to it without fear of repercussions.


----------



## Susan Crumrine

Kevin do you not feel alcohol does the same thing? Most chronic drinker's I know act about 12. LOL
Why is it accepted and pot is not? They are both drugs.
I think we should outlaw everything.
I don't even smoke cigarettes, so it's no skin off my back either way.


----------



## Whisper22

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> Marriage is first of all a legal thing and second of all a religious thing. I don't need any church to consent to me marrying who I would like to marry. One of my parents is Catholic, and the other Lutheran and neither church was too pleased about that one but city hall (who actually issues the marriage certificate) was not bothered at all. Marriage is so far removed from religion that should not even be a consideration about if a church "likes it" or not.
> 
> 
> People are people are people.]


IMO Adam and Eve were the first married couple, before law, so to me that would mean it is a religious thing first then legal. The fact that marriage is so far removed from religion is precisely the problem that is being forced on those of us that look at it for what it was meant to be. It has been changed because of issues like this. No one ever sees the religious people as being held down, it's the poor gays.


----------



## Whisper22

I would love to see alcohol made illegal as well, but I guess that wont be happening any time soon. It's too important to too many people, sad really.


----------



## Ink

FlyGap said:


> Yep Kevin, I agree. Why not just open the flood gates and include animals too while you're at it.
> I've told my husband SEVERAL times he's welcome to bring in another woman! As long as they are the ones that scrub the toilets, have a really high paying job!
> I'll the the "first" wife and do the gardening, and work the horses! LOLOLOLOL!!!



New Rule: Gay marriage won't lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn't lead to hamsters voting. No court has extended the Equal Protection Clause to salmon. And for the record, all marriages are same sex marriages. You get married, and every night, it's the same sex.” 
― Bill Maher


Bahaha I thought this summed it up pretty well.

And for the record, I have no issues with polygamy. If you can find three people willing to get into a three-way or more partnership have at it! As long as I'm allowed to have two husbands :lol:


----------



## FlyGap

My biggest beef with cannabis is the fact that we can no longer grow hemp. One of the greenest most economically beneficial crops known to man!
A study was done that if the GOV planted hemp alongside the interstates it would drastically reduce the effects of motor emissions, combat other pollutions, and if they opened those areas to farmers the revenue from the hemp would provide such an economic boost that I believe would pay off our debt in a matter of years.

As for legalizing certain substances for intake... I believe God made everything and saw that it was good. It's what we do with them that makes them bad. Medicinal purposes of natural materials FAR OUTWEIGHS artificial substances and medicines. Especially for marijuana for cancer patients and is so much more beneficial and less addictive than opiates for pain management. I believe opiates have their place but what a terrible place we are in with them!! If MM was more available doctors could switch over perscriptions and we would have less of a problem.

More to come!


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

kevinshorses said:


> I don't agree with lowering the drinking age past 18 or 19 and I REALLY don't agree with legalizing any drug. Marijuana is a gateway to other drugs for many people. Even if it doesn't serve as a gateway it inhibits maturation of the mind. If you start using marijuana at 17 and use it regularly for 10 years you will have the same maturity as a 17 year old. I don't want to see government sanctioned drug use robbing young people of thier ambition and promise. I don't see how that benefits our country or our world.



A joint on the weekend is the same as having a few beers IMO. And of course any mind altering substance will alter how you develop whether it be alcohol, marijuana, Aderall, Ritalin, anti-depressants, anti-anxiety drugs and lots of other stuff that is prescribed to children by doctors.
Marijuana is less harmful to the body and brain than alcohol and (IMO) a better drug for treating depression, anxiety, etc. than many pharmaceuticals with damaging side effects.

Why is Aderall and Ritalin OK for children, but THC not OK for adults?? I wholy support its use as a medicine. And I know a lot of successful, career minded people that have used it recreationally. There is some statistic that I have seen floated around (and believe) that over 80% of high school kids have tried pot. If your argument that it is a gateway drug was true then I think the statistics for use of other easily accessible drugs like E, oxy, etc.. by "average" high school kids would be way higher than the currently low levels. Kids that want to get effed up are going to regardless of whether they have access to pot or not. Alcohol is as easy for these kids to get, and so are pharmaceuticals. Pot is just cheaper.


----------



## kevinshorses

Susan Crumrine said:


> Kevin do you not feel alcohol does the same thing? Most chronic drinker's I know act about 12. LOL
> Why is it accepted and pot is not? They are both drugs.
> I think we should outlaw everything.
> I don't even smoke cigarettes, so it's no skin off my back either way.


I don't drink or smoke either. I think the effects of alcohol are not the same as marijuana. Maybe it's because of my limited experience with drugs and drug users but I see people that drink a lot that can function much better than the average pot head. I think we should fight the war on drugs like we want to win it. I think we should build a fence along both borders and then patrol it. I think National guard and Army reserve units should be called up to do it. And none of this unarmed BS either. They should deploy just like if they were patrolling the Afgan or Iraqi border. It is completely within our power to stop 90+% of illegal drugs from entering our country if we could get the political will to do so. This would also have the added benefit of slowing illegal immigration.


----------



## Ink

Whisper22 said:


> IMO Adam and Eve were the first married couple, before law, so to me that would mean it is a religious thing first then legal. The fact that marriage is so far removed from religion is precisely the problem that is being forced on those of us that look at it for what it was meant to be. It has been changed because of issues like this. No one ever sees the religious people as being held down, it's the poor gays.


What about Buddhists, Hindus, or any of the other religions that aren't based in the old testament? (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all from the same origins and technically worship the same God by the way) What about Atheists or agnostics? Should they also not be allowed to get married?


----------



## kait18

kevinshorses said:


> I like this idea. If kids are going to drink it's best that they learn some responsibility. I would also go so far as to say that active duty members of the military cand present thier military ID and get a drink with no restrictions.
> 
> I don't agree with lowering the drinking age past 18 or 19 and I REALLY don't agree with legalizing any drug. Marijuana is a gateway to other drugs for many people. Even if it doesn't serve as a gateway it inhibits maturation of the mind. If you start using marijuana at 17 and use it regularly for 10 years you will have the same maturity as a 17 year old. I don't want to see government sanctioned drug use robbing young people of thier ambition and promise. I don't see how that benefits our country or our world.


 
if you lower it before they start drinking then they are forced to get all the kicks of excitement out before they start driving... most europeans drink from a young age.. they still party but there is also not the same need to go get wasted on a certain birthday and let loose...


----------



## kait18

Ink said:


> What about Buddhists, Hindus, or any of the other religions that aren't based in the old testament? (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all from the same origins and technically worship the same God by the way) What about Atheists or agnostics? Should they also not be allowed to get married?


i dont think atheists or agnostics should be allowed to get married in the church setting either... you do't believe in the god or the higher power so why do you need/want the church's approval..other than having the fairytale wedding like in the movies coming out of big churches


----------



## FlyGap

I would do anything for kids to have at least as much access to cannabis instead of resorting to inhaling bath salts, whipped cream, glue, and drinking alcohol. You can't OD or fry your brain on Cannabis.

Edit: I've seen 6 year olds in Germany roller skate up to their parents table, take a swig of beer and skate off. If we took out the regulations you get rid of the stigma (anebel's right) and the overwhelming urge to "be bad" or experiment. In my parents home I had free access to the liquor cabinet and I hardly ever touched the stuff. Because it was no big deal, when my friends acted all stupid over it I called them out. Immature babies! My parents taught me so well that I saved many a life!


----------



## kevinshorses

There's pretty good arguements on both sides of the pot issue. I'm not real fired up about it either way. I can see where it would be helpful for treating certain medical problems.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

kevinshorses said:


> I don't drink or smoke either. I think the effects of alcohol are not the same as marijuana. Maybe it's because of my limited experience with drugs and drug users but I see people that drink a lot that can function much better than the average pot head. I think we should fight the war on drugs like we want to win it. I think we should build a fence along both borders and then patrol it. I think National guard and Army reserve units should be called up to do it. And none of this unarmed BS either. They should deploy just like if they were patrolling the Afgan or Iraqi border. It is completely within our power to stop 90+% of illegal drugs from entering our country if we could get the political will to do so. This would also have the added benefit of slowing illegal immigration.



My friend's dad just lost his job because he is an alcoholic. She is so depressed and has been for years that her weight has fluctuated to over 250 lbs and then down to below 80 lbs. She has to phone the hospital's help line to determine if she is over-exercising and under eating and had to basically check herself into rehab. Her dad did not even notice. That is not "functioning better than a pot head" at least a pot head would care enough to notice when someone has lost over 160 lbs in a couple months.
Alcoholics are so much worse than pot heads. I have never seen a pot head fly into a rage and break a door or pound a hole into the wall.

The "zero-tolerance" approach hasn't worked in the US, and it hasn't worked in Canada. I'll re state again, in Amsterdam where the drug is legally distributed, the usage rates are LOWER than in the US, where it is illegal.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

FlyGap said:


> I would do anything for kids to have at least as much access to cannabis instead of resorting to inhaling bath salts, whipped cream, glue, and drinking alcohol. You can't OD or fry your brain on Cannabis.



Oh gosh that bath salts thing is scary - there was some TV special on it and it was terrifying!! Or the computer duster Uuuuggghhhhaaahhh.. so gross and weird.


----------



## Ink

Thanks everyone for keeping things polite! We may not be able to come to a consensus, but I believe good points have been made on both sides. It's good to know we can have a mature discussion about some difficult issues. 

Let's throw another one into the mix:
What do you guys think about the birth control debate that's been going on?


----------



## kevinshorses

You may have a valid point and it will probably happen someday. It's not something I'm too worried about either way.


----------



## Faceman

Ink said:


> You are absolutely right that the alternative sexualities are a minority, which is why I don't think it should be decided by popular vote. *Those who have a real steak in the matter are less likely to be heard.*


You know, considering the topic, I could have a field day with that, but won't...:wink:

As you might expect, I oppose marriage between homosexuals, but support civil unions. 

Someone early on in this thread said they had heard no valid argument to oppose same sex marriages. But that is the WRONG QUESTION. The proper question is not why shouldn't we permit same sex marriage, but why should we? Marriage is traditionally a union between a man and a woman. What is wrong with tradition? We have given up far too many traditions in our insane quest to be politically correct as it is. Assuming they are recognized properly, a civil union can provide every single benefit a marriage can. Marriage is a heterosexual ceremony, institution, and tradition. Homosexuals are people like everyone else and are perfectly capable of establishing their own ceremony, institution, and tradition...there is no need for us to alter our tradition to accommodate them...


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

Ink said:


> Thanks everyone for keeping things polite! We may not be able to come to a consensus, but I believe good points have been made on both sides. It's good to know we can have a mature discussion about some difficult issues.
> 
> Let's throw another one into the mix:
> What do you guys think about the birth control debate that's been going on?


I say free birth control and abortions for everyone!!

I was put on BC at a young age for other hormonal issues and it is free through my insurance. I love it hahaha and contrary to popular belief I did not immediately go out and start having casual sex. My other options to BC included some really scary drugs with nasty side effects to deal with my hormonal issues so I'm glad I live in a place where BC was an option for me!

On the abortion thing I think it's a great option for people to have out there. I am personally super careful in my relationships but I know of other people who have opted for abortions as they knew at the time that they were not financially, emotionally, etc.. in the right place to raise a child. I personally would like to be in a very stable place in my life where I have a well of saving before having children. The other case where abortions are a good option are when rape and/or incest are involved.
However, I also know a lot of people who have made the personally chosen never to get an abortion, which is the great thing about a "pro-choice" outlook, not getting an abortion is OK too!! It's completely up to the woman what she wants to do with her body and her life.


----------



## Susan Crumrine

As far as the "gateway" drug, Kevin.
I did my share of experimenting through high school and college.
I always said no to pot, to scared to try it...until one time when I was drinking and I was not thinking clearly, then I tried the marijuana. I would never have the courage to try it straight.
I think alcohol is the real gateway drug.


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

Gay marriage - I think that civil unions should be all that the government issues, same rights across the line, basically like the courthouse ceremony lots of people do now. I do not think that the government should be allowed to force a church/religion to endorse gay marriage or any other type of marriage for that matter. That's just as bad, in my opinion, as saying that gays aren't allowed to "marry" while heterosexuals are. 

Drugs - I think that marijuana should be legalized, but not acid/shrooms/meth/coke/etc. My reasoning has to do with the immediate effects of the drug. Marijuana is relatively harmless (at least no more so that alcohol or cigarettes) while acid/shrooms run the risk of seriously screwing up your mind and meth/coke/heroin/etc are very very addictive and dangerous. This is my experience, I know many marijuana users who are very successful in the short and long run. I also know several lazy as heck potheads who barely get by, but frankly as long as they're adults and aren't leaching off the rest of us I could care less. I also know of several people who literally lost their minds on shrooms/acid and never got them back... Meth/coke/herion/etc? A great majority of people that get involved never get out. Cigarettes are far more dangerous and hazardous than marijuana in my opinion and experience. 

Lowering the drinking age.. Yes and no. I think 21 is no better than 18, frankly I don't know many 21 year olds that are any more mature than an 18 yr old. In my opinion, I think that it would be more conducive to allow drinking from a relatively young age (early teens) in the presence of a parent. That way (in theory anyways) the drinking would be in a controlled atmosphere and it would also lessen attraction of rebellion against your parents/society/etc. I really don't agree with allowing teens to drink without an adult directly supervising..


----------



## kait18

i think the abortion arguements are ridiculous. who has the right to tell me i can't have an abortion... ok fine i won't so then you/government/tax payers can pay for all my medical costs and my child... 

its called freedom to do what is best for you and no one should tell you what to do to your body... i don't think its right to have an abortion without the consent of the father... however ultimately they have no say either since it doesn't effect there body.

and that would be great to tell a rape victim who is pregnant sorry sweety you have to keep the monsters child until birth..sorry not fair to them at all they never asked for anything. 

birth control... government should back out of this to... why are they interfereing with personal issues... these issues can be handled by every individual female without the help of any male help...


----------



## FlyGap

Ink said:


> Let's throw another one into the mix:
> What do you guys think about the birth control debate that's been going on?


The problem with this is that they are forcing the issue onto religious organizations that provide healthcare, that cannot according to their religion condone those actions, to offer these services. The thing is people can now go and get alternative healthcare or public services to do so without interfering with religion. So you want it, go get it elsewhere. It is affordable, covered when there is a risk of life at stake, and easily obtainable.

My stance on BC. I believe that prevention is ok (taking a pill is the same as obstaining), abortion due to convenience sake is not. I was told I could not have children, didn't want them, was on BC, was in a terrible place financially and career wise when I found out I was Preggers with my soon to be husband. WHAT! I had her, my one and only, and she almost killed me weighing in at over 11 pounds!! The fact is murder is illegal. I do believe that in the first month an embryo can be considered just that, any longer, NO. So really I believe that the time limit needs to be reduced. Any woman who is sexually active has every available opportunity to prevent and in almost all cases detect early pregnancy. So to wait or eliminate a pregnancy in a later term when the embryo is now a child with a functioning brain and motor system is murder.

As far as rape or even casual sex is concerned there is the morning after pill and multiple other procedures that will act the same as BC. Offering abortion to rape victims is not a valid PRO argument any longer.


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

Birth control - Personally, I think that every child beyond puberty should be fitted with an IUD (non hormonal) or the non-hormonal equivalent for men (read an article about this yesterday but can't find it) until they're 25.. However, that also goes way beyond the acceptable bounds for government in my opinion. I think that it should be legal, but not paid for by the government and the government should be able to force a business to pay for it either. 

Abortion - Again I think it should be legal, but not paid for by the government. 

Back to the drug thing, I do think that all welfare recipients should have to pass a drug test. I also think that they should be on birth control until they are no longer receiving aid.


----------



## Whisper22

kait18 said:


> i dont think atheists or agnostics should be allowed to get married in the church setting either... you do't believe in the god or the higher power so why do you need/want the church's approval..other than having the fairytale wedding like in the movies coming out of big churches


Kait18 pretty much said what I would have.


----------



## Ink

Faceman said:


> Someone early on in this thread said they had heard no valid argument to oppose same sex marriages. But that is the WRONG QUESTION. The proper question is not why shouldn't we permit same sex marriage, but why should we? Marriage is traditionally a union between a man and a woman. What is wrong with tradition? We have given up far too many traditions in our insane quest to be politically correct as it is. Assuming they are recognized properly, a civil union can provide every single benefit a marriage can. Marriage is a heterosexual ceremony, institution, and tradition. *Homosexuals are people like everyone else and are perfectly capable of establishing their own ceremony, institution, and tradition...there is no need for us to alter our tradition to accommodate them...*


Now that's the first real argument that I can wrap my head around, but I still say you get into dangerous territory with the separate-but-equal compromise. And _if _that's what it boils down to, I hope great care is taken to ensure it is equal to marriage in every way but name.

But then again traditions can and have changed to accommodate a changing society. Marriage itself has changed in some areas since the beginning of the institution. Arranged marriages, dowries, and even taking the husband's last name in some cases have by and large gone by the way-side. I'm sure there are more, but I'm no historian :wink:


----------



## Whisper22

IMO abortion is only ok in a rape type situation. So you don't want a kid, why not adoption? I will always view it as murdering a child, therefore it can never be right in my eyes. I think the excuses for choosing abortion most often are lame and selfish. Screw the right to choose, I think a fetus has the right to live, and if you are going to make the decisions that put you in that predicament in the first place, you should absolutely be held accountable instead of just getting rid of the problem.


----------



## Missy May

Ink said:


> This could not be farther from the truth, especially here and in other conservative states. One Town's War on Gay Teens | Politics News | Rolling Stone This article just gets my blood boiling, and as a fair warning it's pretty hard to read. And similar legislation is on it's way through in TN. Legislation that prevents teachers from even acknowledging harassment of GLBT students, because it they have to remain "neutral" on the topic. Legislation with language so vague that teachers will be powerless to help students who are being bullied or are even just confused for fear of losing their jobs. Unfortunately, many people in my area share your feelings, and it's viewpoints like that, that are allowing this mess to get pushed through.
> 
> What's wrong with a little tolerance? I'm not asking you to agree with it, and I'm certainly not asking you to participate in it. But what's wrong with a little respect for one another?


Have ya been to California -_ lately_?

I don't think _any of it_ belongs in school. I would be equally offended if someone said, "say kiddies, I am a heterosexual...and this means...". Schools are NOT _suppose_ to be a social proving ground for gay acceptance or any other "social experiment" - they were _suppose_ to be for the _education_ of people's _children_. This is why home school and private school attendance is going up on a consistant basis. 

What is wrong w a little tolerance? Nothing, at all!!! Its intolerance I don't like, as in the "tolerance" being mandatory b/c any difference of opinion is NOT _tolerated_. Think I am kidding? Again, have ya been to the golden state, lately?


----------



## kait18

birth control and the day after pill are not 100% there is still a chance of getting/staying pregnant

then you have the few women that can't tell there pregnant.. they still have there time of the month when pregnant, they don't show any signs of pregnany weight gain, maybe afew pounds here and there but won't get the normal prego belly...

so i think the abortion would/should stay open for the later date... nothing is 100%


----------



## Ink

MN Tigerstripes said:


> Back to the drug thing, I do think that all welfare recipients should have to pass a drug test. I also think that they should be on birth control until they are no longer receiving aid.


Now there's an idea! You might be able to get the drug test approved, but unfortunately I think we'll run into some trouble with the constitution with the birth control :lol:

I think looking at it from an entirely economical perspective, insurance companies should _want_ to cover birth control. It is quite a bit cheaper than covering doctor visits for a 9 month pregnancy and delivery. I always thought it was silly that they don't (at least mine doesn't lol). I take mine mainly for medical reasons also and that should definitely be taken into consideration.


----------



## kait18

Whisper22 said:


> IMO abortion is only ok in a rape type situation. So you don't want a kid, why not adoption? I will always view it as murdering a child, therefore it can never be right in my eyes. I think the excuses for choosing abortion most often are lame and selfish. Screw the right to choose, I think a fetus has the right to live, and if you are going to make the decisions that put you in that predicament in the first place, you should absolutely be held accountable instead of just getting rid of the problem.


 
so what happens if you used birth control and then found out you were pregnant?? you thought you were protected and find out it didn't help..

happened to my sister twice on two different brands... she didn't have an abortion either time but she thought she was protected since she was on bc


----------



## kait18

MN Tigerstripes said:


> Back to the drug thing, I do think that all welfare recipients should have to pass a drug test. I also think that they should be on birth control until they are no longer receiving aid.


 
i still think if drugs are legalized they should be tested to get welfare... if you can afford the drugs you don't need welfare..

same should go for every job.. drug testing especially in the commerial driving sector as they are heavy machinary at the hands of only one person who could inflict harm on many others


----------



## Whisper22

kait18 said:


> so what happens if you used birth control and then found out you were pregnant?? you thought you were protected and find out it didn't help..
> 
> happened to my sister twice on two different brands... she didn't have an abortion either time but she thought she was protected since she was on bc


BC has never been 100% effective and I'm pretty sure doctors make that clear. Unless there is a medical reason preventing you from carrying a baby, you should have it and give ut up for adoption if you don't want it.


----------



## FlyGap

LOL! Oh I know!
My very best friend thought she had a tumor when she found out she was 6+ months pregnant. She did cycle, was obviously hormonal, and had your typical "bloating" but she found it odd that it never went away! Crazy, but I know it happens. So why not in weird later terms should it just be accepted to give the child up for adoption instead of killing it? The baby did not ask to be made, they can hear the mothers heart beat, her voice, preemies are being saved earlier and earlier. But as long as it's in the belly it's not alive and subject to be eliminated because it's not convenient? 
There are THOUSANDS of people who would love to give that child a good home instead of seeing it thrown in a trash can. They are having to resort to importing children from overseas while we just dispose of ours. I really think it's an atrocity.


----------



## kait18

Whisper22 said:


> BC has never been 100% effective and I'm pretty sure doctors make that clear. Unless there is a medical reason preventing you from carrying a baby, you should have it and give ut up for adoption if you don't want it.


so then add in a broken condom... 
you still tried to protect yourself and now your in a predictament...dont think someone should be forced to carry fetus to birth when they were trying to be safe 

ps..the only reason i am not for carrying the baby full term is because i have a complete fear of doctors and anything growing inside of me...


----------



## CLaPorte432

I support gay marriage. Maybe its my younger age being 23 and growing up in a world where gays and lesbians are more open and accepted? My feeling is..........its not my business what other people do. I wouldnt want any stipulations put on me so why support the stipulations on them?

I dont have a problem with gays and lesbians adopting children as well. A lot of the time, they are better parents then straight couples. 

Its just not my place to judge others because they are different.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kait18

FlyGap said:


> LOL! Oh I know!
> My very best friend thought she had a tumor when she found out she was 6+ months pregnant. She did cycle, was obviously hormonal, and had your typical "bloating" but she found it odd that it never went away! Crazy, but I know it happens. So why not in weird later terms should it just be accepted to give the child up for adoption instead of killing it? The baby did not ask to be made, they can hear the mothers heart beat, her voice, preemies are being saved earlier and earlier. But as long as it's in the belly it's not alive and subject to be eliminated because it's not convenient?
> There are THOUSANDS of people who would love to give that child a good home instead of seeing it thrown in a trash can. They are having to resort to importing children from overseas while we just dispose of ours. I really think it's an atrocity.


 
if there are thousands of families out there willing to take in a new born they should also be willing to help the children given up who are older that need homes... there are still kids without families so why bring in more..

makes me think of the crazy dog and cat population..not enough wanted homes so we pts innocent pregnant mothers and puppies and then sick and elderly .. thats disgusting but we still do it... just because its right to carry them doesn't mean someone should be forced to ..even if they had there cake and ate it to ...


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

Ink said:


> Now there's an idea! You might be able to get the drug test approved, but unfortunately I think we'll run into some trouble with the constitution with the birth control :lol:



I know I know. :lol: This is in my ideal world though, I really don't like having adults that already can't support themselves and their families having kids. One of my cousins just had her third.. They are supported by the state almost entirely. Good people, but the hubby voluntarily quit a well paying job to work the family business. I don't have a problem with that (I'm doing the same except I don't get any aid) but they keep having kids when they can't support themselves as it is..


----------



## Whisper22

kait18 said:


> so then add in a broken condom...
> you still tried to protect yourself and now your in a predictament...dont think someone should be forced to carry fetus to birth when they were trying to be safe
> 
> ps..the only reason i am not for carrying the baby full term is because i have a complete fear of doctors and anything growing inside of me...


People know condoms break and they too are not 100% effective. IMO sex should be saved for marriage and then maybe there wouldn't be so many "what its". Even if a married couple doesn't want a baby, same things apply.


----------



## Ink

Missy May said:


> Have ya been to California -_ lately_?
> 
> I don't think _any of it_ belongs in school. I would be equally offended if someone said, "say kiddies, I am a heterosexual...and this means...". Schools are NOT _suppose_ to be a social proving ground for gay acceptance or any other "social experiment" - they were _suppose_ to be for the _education_ of people's _children_. This is why home school and private school attendance is going up on a consistant basis.
> 
> What is wrong w a little tolerance? Nothing, at all!!! Its intolerance I don't like, as in the "tolerance" being mandatory b/c any difference of opinion is NOT _tolerated_. Think I am kidding? Again, have ya been to the golden state, lately?



I can see how it would be more... acceptable(?) there in Cali being a much more liberal state, for kids to be more open about their sexuality. I don't think it should be "you must agree with this way of life or be punished." But it can be a fine line between openly disapproving of someone's sexual orientation and outright harassment. All I'm saying is that you can't be so against even mentioning it that kids can't get help if they need it. The lines of communication need to stay open, especially in high school. When you say it's not OK to even talk about, you're essentially saying it's shameful and wrong. GLBT kids get that enough here in the bible belt as it is.


----------



## Susan Crumrine

kait18 said:


> i still think if drugs are legalized they should be tested to get welfare... if you can afford the drugs you don't need welfare..
> 
> same should go for every job.. drug testing especially in the commerial driving sector as they are heavy machinary at the hands of only one person who could inflict harm on many others



believe me my hubby gets tested regularly, (cdl A) I think three times last year and they just tested him today.


----------



## Whisper22

MN Tigerstripes said:


> I know I know. :lol: This is in my ideal world though, I really don't like having adults that already can't support themselves and their families having kids. One of my cousins just had her third.. They are supported by the state almost entirely. Good people, but the hubby voluntarily quit a well paying job to work the family business. I don't have a problem with that (I'm doing the same except I don't get any aid) but they keep having kids when they can't support themselves as it is..


Instead of the government paying for abortions, maybe they should pay for vasectomies


----------



## FlyGap

I agree 1,000%.
The sad fact is that they aren't "puppies" any longer. They are older and have witnessed things that few people have been exposed to. Things that some or most people cannot handle dealing with. I know first hand how injured mentally these kids can be and it's downright scary. I'm not saying all. Another downfall is that in many cases foster children can be given back to a parent if they clean up enough. It is a terrible situation.


----------



## kait18

Whisper22 said:


> People know condoms break and they too are not 100% effective. IMO sex should be saved for marriage and then maybe there wouldn't be so many "what its". Even if a married couple doesn't want a baby, same things apply.


same here.. but thats not our world anymore. people are more open about sexually endeavors and because of this there is alot more unwanted pregnancies ..i still don't think its right to get an abortion but i don't believe in tell others they can't when it effects there life not mine


----------



## kait18

FlyGap said:


> I agree 1,000%.
> The sad fact is that they aren't "puppies" any longer. They are older and have witnessed things that few people have been exposed to. Things that some or most people cannot handle dealing with. I know first hand how injured mentally these kids can be and it's downright scary. I'm not saying all. Another downfall is that in many cases foster children can be given back to a parent if they clean up enough. It is a terrible situation.


i think if i new i actually trusted this system of fostering and adoption more to the extent of it actually helping the children stay in a more positive atmosphere then i wouldn't be so against taking away someones right to abort...


----------



## Whisper22

kait18 said:


> same here.. but thats not our world anymore. people are more open about sexually endeavors and because of this there is alot more unwanted pregnancies ..i still don't think its right to get an abortion but i don't believe in tell others they can't when it effects there life not mine


People are more open because society supports the behavior. What happens if we stop supporting it?


----------



## kait18

Whisper22 said:


> People are more open because society supports the behavior. What happens if we stop supporting it?


start with mtv and that horrible show 16 and pregnant or with jersey shore 

if we could stop supporting it then it would make a huge difference.. i definitely agree with you there


----------



## Missy May

Well, if you can afford it...you, too can commit murder, aka late term abortion. There is no known disease in which removing a dead 8-9 month old fetus will be any less "life threatening" than a live one.


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

Whisper22 said:


> Instead of the government paying for abortions, maybe they should pay for vasectomies


I don't think the government should pay for either one.. I think that couples like my cousin's family should either pay the $20 a month for birth control or abstain or use condoms until they can support themselves.


----------



## Whisper22

Almost all of television would have to go away. Sad but true.


----------



## Ink

FlyGap said:


> I agree 1,000%.
> The sad fact is that they aren't "puppies" any longer. They are older and have witnessed things that few people have been exposed to. Things that some or most people cannot handle dealing with. I know first hand how injured mentally these kids can be and it's downright scary. I'm not saying all. Another downfall is that in many cases foster children can be given back to a parent if they clean up enough. It is a terrible situation.



I was watching something on the news where they were talking about kids in the foster system being given back to their families only to be taken away again for continued abuse. It's so sad. Hopefully they can reform the system to prevent that from happening as much in the future. 

I know if I ever decide to have kids, I plan on adopting. I don't feel the need to contribute to the world's population and honestly the idea of giving birth terrifies me!

I think abortion is a necessary evil. I think first and foremost people need to be educated on safe sex practices, and should be made aware of every other option out there before resorting to it. Making it illegal will only drive it back into the alley-ways (so to speak). At least now it can be regulated.


----------



## Whisper22

MN Tigerstripes said:


> I don't think the government should pay for either one.. I think that couples like my cousin's family should either pay the $20 a month for birth control or abstain or use condoms until they can support themselves.


I agree, I was just kidding. I am a fan of abstaining until marriage all the way.


----------



## kait18

Missy May said:


> Well, if you can afford it...you, too can commit murder, aka late term abortion. There is no known disease in which removing a dead 8-9 month old fetus will be any less "life threatening" than a live one.


i know i will get my head ripped off lol but what if you were the carrying mother and found out your life was threatened by having this baby and that having a c-section /or normal birth was to risky... 

if we made abortion illegal then mothers who face this risk will have no alternative but to give birth and pray baby and her survive..


----------



## Ink

Missy May said:


> Well, if you can afford it...you, too can commit murder, aka late term abortion. There is no known disease in which removing a dead 8-9 month old fetus will be any less "life threatening" than a live one.


When I was researching the topic for a public speaking class, I read somewhere that you can only get an abortion in the first trimester unless there was a life-threatening medical reason. At 8-9 months there should be no reason not to deliver a live baby unless something went horribly, horribly wrong in the process.


----------



## Whisper22

kait18 said:


> i know i will get my head ripped off lol but what if you were the carrying mother and found out your life was threatened by having this baby and that having a c-section /or normal birth was to risky...
> 
> if we made abortion illegal then mothers who face this risk will have no alternative but to give birth and pray baby and her survive..


I think it goes without saying that exceptions can be made for special cases. If it were your life or the baby's should be your choice, but as a mother, I personally would take the risk. Now, your party life vs the baby's life is just not the same.


----------



## Ink

kait18 said:


> i know i will get my head ripped off lol but what if you were the carrying mother and found out your life was threatened by having this baby and that having a c-section /or normal birth was to risky...


See that's the thing. If you are close enough to term, they would have to try and save both of you. You've gotta get it out one way or another, and at that point I would think they'd do what they could to save both. If you're not, and they have to terminate the pregnancy, then that's something entirely different.


----------



## Missy May

Ink said:


> When I was researching the topic for a public speaking class, I read somewhere that you can only get an abortion in the first trimester unless there was a life-threatening medical reason. At 8-9 months there should be no reason not to deliver a live baby unless something went horribly, horribly wrong in the process.


Thats my point. If you can "get" a "medical reason"...why would it not simply be removed live, if possible. That is not how the procedure goes. First trimester is the law...I am ok w that for other people's freedoms, not my own beliefs. Past that, I think it needs some serious scrutiny.


----------



## FlyGap

In medical life threatening situations insurance even covers the mother and that is totally acceptable. Always has been.

Like I said I had an 11 pound baby. Got pregnant when I was told I couldn't and really shouldn't. I was heavily monitored, had a c-section. I am 5'2 and only weighed 120 lbs when I concieved, how I had an 11 pound baby I'll never know, and neither did the doctors, I didn't have a single other complication. Totally blew the "fish bowl" theory outta the water!
When they delivered her the doctor in her 40 years of practice had never done a c-section with a baby's eyes open! She could also hold her head up! I had a 3 month old! LOL!

Adoption is fantastic and if I were more of the motherly family sort I would do it too! Especially since it would kill me now if I got pregnant again. I just have to be super careful, have an IUD and take every other precaution possible. Which is the reasonable thing to do instead of murdering a child because I was careless.
BC used in several combinations is 100% effective. Using at least three methods will rule out an "accident". All of which are free at the local clinic if one needs it.


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

Those of you against abortion.. What do you think about drug addicts carrying babies to term while they're using?


----------



## kait18

Whisper22 said:


> I think it goes without saying that exceptions can be made for special cases. If it were your life or the baby's should be your choice, but as a mother, I personally would take the risk. Now, your party life vs the baby's life is just not the same.


but now if you make it illegal the law can interrupt it as clearly being illegal. 

no one thought somewho who took coffee from mcdonalds and spilled it on there lap could win but hey maybe a father who wanted the child more so then his wife could win the battle she murder his child no matter what stage of the abortion... the whole thing is once you put legislature around it...some one will take advantage of it in a negative way.


----------



## kait18

MN Tigerstripes said:


> Those of you against abortion.. What do you think about drug addicts carrying babies to term while they're using?


personally think they should be forced to abort... but hey i am the beddy downer here lol


----------



## AQHSam

Ink said:


> Moreover, marriage is not purely a religious institution. It is a social contract first and a religious one second. There are certain rights and ties to another person that can only be gained through marriage. How is it fair to deny these rights to an entire group of people just because you don't agree with their way of life? Atheists are allowed to get married. Why not gays and lesbians?


As a member of the uptight Roman Catholic religious sect, and as someone who is going through marriage classes within the Catholic Church...

I view my upcoming marriage first and foremost as a religious sacrament that fulfills my convenant with God. 

Phew. Wow. That's the most I have said about my religious beliefs this decade. The Catholic Church (to my knowledge) is the only religious organization to call marriage a sacrament and holy.

Outside of the Catholic sacrament of marriage, the only TIES you speak of are social and financial in nature, hence your reference to social contacts. 

How a married couple reports their taxes, provides insurance for each other, and wills, estates, and probate are geared towards the married couple. Agreed. Additionally, these laws and benefits suck even if you are single and not in a relationship or living with someone of the opposite sex.

Digress: While I agree that single opposite gender couples have the OPTION to take advantage of these benefits by marrying, some probably should not have. If I had a nickel for every couple that married out of convenience or because they felt they had to in order to enjoy a better way of life. Well, for most, that didn't work out so well.

Many states have allowed legally binding financial and social contracts between persons of the same sex that wish to take advantage of these social benefits. Many companies offer insurance to partners of a same sex employee.

I'm all for legal reforms so that same gender couples can take *advantage *of the social and financial benefits that a married (opposing gender) couple have enjoyed through the decades. 

But, (cough cough) in its purest form marriage should never be considered a social or financial contract. 

Our divorce rate as a nation is so high because many people (even those within the protestant faith) call marriage a social contract. Easy to enter. Easier to exit.

You can't have both and not be two-faced. You can't ask for strong family values and a reduction in divorce rates AND call marriage a social contract.


PS - I am one of those people that use the word "you" to refer to society in general and not any one poster or person.


----------



## Susan Crumrine

I just don't think I could do it. I have close friends and family who have, there seems to be quite a few women who regret the decision. I know of many women who had terrible guilt after finally giving birth, (later in life) ....and realizing they terminated a child, not just an inconvenience.
I thank God, I had the wisdom at 18, to realize this. It was a struggle, but I did it and I made a good life for us.


----------



## FlyGap

MN Tigerstripes said:


> Those of you against abortion.. What do you think about drug addicts carrying babies to term while they're using?


I think it's sick. But those people knew they were addicts and should have prevented it, which is their right. They had plenty of time to abort in the first month, take the morning after pill, etc. Now the mother and the baby are in the "system" and we have to pay their way.


----------



## Ink

kait18 said:


> personally think they should be forced to abort... but hey i am the beddy downer here lol


I'm slightly inclined to agree with you. Those people have zero business having children. IF not outright aborted at least taken away from them when it's born. But then you have to deal with all sorts of complications that will arise from the drug use. That's just a bad situation all the way around.


----------



## FlyGap

AQHSam, I'm a Baptist/Luthren/Christian yeah, messed up huh! But I and other protestant's believe marriage is a Holy sacrament and binding with God. I'm not sure what's going on with that?
We joined in a union under God, what God brought together, let no man divide...

Don't Catholics have a way to get forgiveness?


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

FlyGap said:


> I think it's sick. But those people knew they were addicts and should have prevented it, which is their right. They had plenty of time to abort in the first month, take the morning after pill, etc. Now the mother and the baby are in the "system" and we have to pay their way.



Here's the thing though. Many woman who are heavy drug addicts do not have a period or they are highly delusional (or crazy whatever you'd like to call it). Addicts aren't rational people in the slightest and very often the last thing on their mind is whether or not they are going to get pregnant or not. Trying to remember to take the pill when you've been high for a week, up for 3-4 days straight, and you don't even know what day it is, really isn't realistic unfortunately. 

I personally know of at least 20 pregnancies that occurred while the mother was actively a drug addict. Some of them ended up aborting (very close to the limit) others genuinely didn't know until it was too late. Some of those babies were lucky, others were not... 

It's a hard one for me, I don't particularly like abortions, but I also have a hard time stomaching bringing a child into the world the cards completely stacked against them. :?


----------



## Whisper22

MN Tigerstripes said:


> Those of you against abortion.. What do you think about drug addicts carrying babies to term while they're using?


Not every situation can be perfect, but I still don't support it.



kait18 said:


> but now if you make it illegal the law can interrupt it as clearly being illegal.
> 
> no one thought somewho who took coffee from mcdonalds and spilled it on there lap could win but hey maybe a father who wanted the child more so then his wife could win the battle she murder his child no matter what stage of the abortion... the whole thing is once you put legislature around it...some one will take advantage of it in a negative way.


If it's written in the law that an exception can be made for cases where a life is at stake, I don't see what the problem would be.


----------



## AQHSam

FlyGap said:


> AQHSam, I'm a Baptist/Luthren/Christian yeah, messed up huh! But I and other protestant's believe marriage is a Holy sacrament and binding with God. I'm not sure what's going on with that?
> We joined in a union under God, what God brought together, let no man divide...
> 
> Don't Catholics have a way to get forgiveness?


Thanks for the religious lesson! Yes. We can go through the sacrament of reconciliation and ask for absolution of our sins and perform our penance. My last penance was 25 hail mary's. I was a baaaaaaaaad girl. :wink:

One reason I didn't think the Protestants considered it a sacrament has to do with the Catholic form of record keeping.

I had to send of for my baptism record and it has each of the sacraments I have participated in (baptism, communion, confirmation and it lists my non-Catholic marriage annullment. (cough cough). After April, it will officially list my marriage as a record of sacrament.

Come to think of it, I guess the root of marriage did stem from the idea of a financial contract between families.

Huh. Gonna think on that one.


----------



## Ink

AQHSam said:


> As a member of the uptight Roman Catholic religious sect, and as someone who is going through marriage classes within the Catholic Church...
> 
> I view my upcoming marriage first and foremost as a religious sacrament that fulfills my convenant with God.
> 
> Phew. Wow. That's the most I have said about my religious beliefs this decade. The Catholic Church (to my knowledge) is the only religious organization to call marriage a sacrament and holy.
> 
> Outside of the Catholic sacrament of marriage, the only TIES you speak of are social and financial in nature, hence your reference to social contacts.
> 
> How a married couple reports their taxes, provides insurance for each other, and wills, estates, and probate are geared towards the married couple. Agreed. Additionally, these laws and benefits suck even if you are single and not in a relationship or living with someone of the opposite sex.
> 
> Digress: While I agree that single opposite gender couples have the OPTION to take advantage of these benefits by marrying, some probably should not have. If I had a nickel for every couple that married out of convenience or because they felt they had to in order to enjoy a better way of life. Well, for most, that didn't work out so well.
> 
> Many states have allowed legally binding financial and social contracts between persons of the same sex that wish to take advantage of these social benefits. Many companies offer insurance to partners of a same sex employee.
> 
> I'm all for legal reforms so that same gender couples can take *advantage *of the social and financial benefits that a married (opposing gender) couple have enjoyed through the decades.
> 
> But, (cough cough) in its purest form marriage should never be considered a social or financial contract.
> 
> Our divorce rate as a nation is so high because many people (even those within the protestant faith) call marriage a social contract. Easy to enter. Easier to exit.
> 
> You can't have both and not be two-faced. You can't ask for strong family values and a reduction in divorce rates AND call marriage a social contract.
> 
> 
> PS - I am one of those people that use the word "you" to refer to society in general and not any one poster or person.


I find it interesting that Jewish custom allows for divorce, and Catholicism does not considering the latter descended from the former. Doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion, just an observation.
Now, I don't think marriage is something that should be entered into lightly or exited lightly, but circumstances and people change. I'm not trying to discount the importance of the religious aspect of marriage for some people. But not everyone is religious, or even the same religion. I'd be interested to know how divorce rates differ based on religious affiliations. I don't think it necessarily fair to say an atheist couple will be more likely to get divorced than a Catholic one. Look at my family for instance (we were until recently Catholic): My dad was married and divorced with two children when he met my mom. They were able to get the first marriage annulled on no grounds other than they knew who to talk to. And the politicians who are calling for the return to "strong family values" generally aren't the ones supporting gay marriage :wink:


----------



## Westernairesfly

If you look at the Bible, here is what is says about homosexuality:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor *homosexual offenders* nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. THey must be put to death; their blood will be on their own head."

Homosexuality is not OK. Remember Sodom and Gamorrah? Those cities were burned because their sexual immorality was so great.


----------



## Whisper22

AQHSam said:


> The Catholic Church (to my knowledge) is the only religious organization to call marriage a sacrament and holy.


Mormons believe the same.


----------



## Ink

Westernairesfly said:


> If you look at the Bible, here is what is says about homosexuality:
> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor *homosexual offenders* nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
> 
> Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. THey must be put to death; their blood will be on their own head."
> 
> Homosexuality is not OK. Remember Sodom and Gamorrah? Those cities were burned because their sexual immorality was so great.


Thank you for that, people had been telling me it mention that somewhere in the New Testament, but I didn't know where it was. I figured it'd be somewhere in acts or the letters section. I like how it specifically says male prostitutes, I guess they were cool with female ones? 

It says a lot of fun things in Leviticus, I'm at work so I can quote anything directly, but you know. Part of Jesus's teachings was to get away from being so pinned down in the rules and rituals that you forget the actual point (paraphrasing here obviously) Which is why modern christians discount so much of the Old Testament. You've got to look at Paul's letters in a historical context too. I can't really get into right now because I gotta go.

Regardless, that's not the point. It's that the government isn't responsible for deciding it's right or wrong.


----------



## kait18

Whisper22 said:


> Not every situation can be perfect, but I still don't support it.
> 
> 
> 
> If it's written in the law that an exception can be made for cases where a life is at stake, I don't see what the problem would be.


just cause the law states something doesn't mean it can't be twisted... it happens all the time.


----------



## FlyGap

Yeah, I don't see how Christian faith can condone it in any way. People do have the ability through Jesus to repent if they are truly sorry. Which they could even do on their deathbeds.
But it's not my place to judge, nor anyone else's. 

I agree, if they want a term for it make one up. Don't redefine mine.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FlyGap

How do you guys feel about ethanol? Using an enormous cost deficient crop as fuel, especially when it's counter productive AND raises the cost of food? Do you think that the world sees us differently for doing so?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faceman

Ink said:


> I find it interesting that Jewish custom allows for divorce, and Catholicism does not considering the latter descended from the former. Doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion, just an observation.


It depends upon the situation. There are situations under which a marriage can be annulled. Even though I had been married previously for 10 years, I fell into one of those situations.

I am not Catholic, but Mrs. Face is. She wanted to get married in the Church, so I went through a procedure to seek an annullment from the Catholic Church. It took about a year and the decision was made in Rome (I don't think annullments go to Rome any longer, although I could be mistaken), and after receiving the annullment we got married. Here we were, almost 33 years ago...


----------



## Faceman

FlyGap said:


> How do you guys feel about ethanol? Using an enormous cost deficient crop as fuel, especially when it's counter productive AND raises the cost of food? Do you think that the world sees us differently for doing so?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yup...they see us as stupid. And they are right...


----------



## Missy May

MN Tigerstripes said:


> Those of you against abortion.. What do you think about drug addicts carrying babies to term while they're using?


Well, I am not against first trimester being legal, however, as far as druggers go its another reason drugs should be legalized - if it were USP grade and monitored doses it would at least be better than pregnant druggers on street drugs.


----------



## Missy May

Okay...gotta run over :happydance: and see how the obama thread is doing.

Okay, yawn, back.


----------



## Ink

Faceman said:


> It depends upon the situation. There are situations under which a marriage can be annulled. Even though I had been married previously for 10 years, I fell into one of those situations.
> 
> I am not Catholic, but Mrs. Face is. She wanted to get married in the Church, so I went through a procedure to seek an annullment from the Catholic Church. It took about a year and the decision was made in Rome (I don't think annullments go to Rome any longer, although I could be mistaken), and after receiving the annullment we got married. Here we were, almost 33 years ago...


Interesting that's very similar to what my parents went through. But then an annulment isn't exactly the same thing as a divorce. 

You and your wife are a very cute couple btw 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thesilverspear

If I were gay, how does my choice to get married to another woman (calling it whatever I want; it's a social construct no matter how you look at it) effect you in any way? 

That's along the same lines as saying, "You can't eat meat because I'm a vegetarian."


----------



## Missy May

thesilverspear said:


> If I were gay, how does my choice to get married to another woman (calling it whatever I want; it's a social construct no matter how you look at it) effect you in any way?
> 
> That's along the same lines as saying, "You can't eat meat because I'm a vegetarian."


How does it affect a gay person to try to change the laws such that civil union is recognized federally, instead of marriage, in any way?


----------



## thesilverspear

It effects them if they want to call their union a "marriage." It should be their choice what they call it. Using Christianity as a reason to forbid them usage of that word is a weak argument, given that people who practice other religions, or no religion, also use the word "marriage" to describe their partnerships. At the same time, straight people who don't want to call their partnership a marriage shouldn't have to, but they should be able to get the same benefits.


----------



## Missy May

They are free to call a civil union anything they choose. Marriage is a legal term, much like divorce. A civil union that is recognized across all state lines is not good enough, no they "want" the term or nothing! A civil union is the exact same thing legally, just not called "marriage", not good enough? Christianity, directly or indirectly, can be injected into the argument, but it need not be. From _early_ times, marriage protected women and children....and it protects the state, then and now, from having to support _more_ "unwed" or "desserted" mothers and offspring. Perhaps we should just remove all federal and state funding for children and women, since that marriage thing is just some christian right wing whacko "ownership" of a word!!!


----------



## Allison Finch

I simply didn't have time to read all of the pages. 

As to gay marriage....

North Carolina will be making a HUGE decision this May. We will be voting on a Constitutional amendment that will make it illegal to recognize gay marriage OR any form of civil union. This has far reaching ramifications. It will put the children of gay couples on a totally unprotected level. I have a woman friend who is in a long term relationship with another woman. One has had two children within this relationship. If this law passes, it will make it impossible and illegal for her partner to have any legal rights with these children. It is essentially ripping this family apart legally. I will ABSOLUTELY vote against this!! I see no harm to any family "values" if people who are committed to each other are allowed to have legal status. What sad sad lives the people who are so hateful must have..

Drugs

As for marijuana, I see it as a somewhat better drug than alcohol. The govt. simply makes enough money on alcohol-hence it is legal. Go ahead and tax it and legalize it for all I care. It would make my job as a cop so much easier.

As for harder drugs, not so much. It is the addiction issue I have against the legalization of these. We are so willing to give addictive drugs to out children, just to keep them manageable? That is too sad....

Birth control.

I find it interesting that insurance companies have always paid for Viagra but not birth control. How can I expect any different from insurance OR religious organizations that are, primarily, ruled by men.

I am pro-choice, period. I will never be in the position to need an abortion (I hope) but would never deny one to a person desperate enough to feel that they need one. For a religious organization to mandate whether a woman can get simple contraceptives is just beyond my tolerance level.


----------



## outnabout

FlyGap said:


> Can we talk about legalization of illegal substances? If so why and which ones.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I feel very strongly that illegal substances such as marijuana, cocaine, and other recreational drugs be legalized for the simple fact that if someone wants to use, they will break any law to do so. Why the heck are alcoholic beverages legal? They are just as dangerous as other drugs for addiction. And I do drink alcohol. I have no desire to use other recreational drugs for health reasons, and I certainly do not think it is emotionally healthy! I do not appreciate paying taxes to the feds to attempt to control drug trafficking. it is a monster out of control thanks to the U.S. drug market. The biggest joke of all is the border fence our governor is having built in my state. I need to find the cartoon about the fence for you all to see. 
I think the drug control issue is similar to the welfare mess we are in. Why are we wasting our tax dollars on people who have no intention of becoming productive citizens and contributing to society?


----------



## outnabout

Allison Finch said:


> Birth control.
> 
> I find it interesting that insurance companies have always paid for Viagra but not birth control. How can I expect any different from insurance OR religious organizations that are, primarily, ruled by men. QUOTE]
> 
> Always true.


----------



## Missy May

No religious organization can stop anyone from purchasing anything, including birth control and pork....they may not hand it out at the service though, or pay for it to be handed out. A bit of a difference, there.


----------



## Faceman

outnabout said:


> Allison Finch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth control.
> 
> I find it interesting that insurance companies have always paid for Viagra but not birth control. How can I expect any different from insurance OR religious organizations that are, primarily, ruled by men. QUOTE]
> 
> Always true.
> 
> 
> 
> I find that statemenet offensive - as well as uninformed, irrational, and discriminatory. Whether an insurance or religious organization is run by men or not is absolutely irrelevant.
> 
> In the first place, Viagra is used to treat medical conditions. Birth control is not. Why should insurance companies pay for birth control? That doesn't even make sense.
> 
> In the second place, if your intimation is, as it appears, that insurance pays for ED drugs because men run the insurance companies and there is some great conspiracy among men to preserve their virility, that is the most outlandish thing I think I have ever heard. You hear lots of things around the water cooler, but that one honestly takes the cake.
> 
> If you have some pesonal vendetta against men, please take it elsewhere...
Click to expand...


----------



## thesilverspear

This is just too easy, guys. Birth control is, in fact, used to treat a variety of medical conditions, including debilitatingly painful periods, PMS symptoms such as migraines and severe mood swings, ovarian cysts, and hormonal imbalances. Earlier in this thread, Anebel described her own experiences using birth control pills as treatment for a medical condition she had.


----------



## FlyGap

I support Allison's view on this.
I have a medical condition where if I became pregnant it could kill me but no ED is going to kill a man, actually the opposite if they take the Viagra. There are several medical conditions that require the use of bc.
As for it being a vendetta, well I agree somewhat, but I think it's more of a cost issue more than anything else. The whole idea that we must force a company to provide a service is what I'm against.
We were looking into different insurance plans recently and one company was offering us some great rates until we looked at the fine print!! They didn't cover cancer!!! Probably the number one reason I want it!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thesilverspear

I also think Faceman has inadvertently and beautifully illustrated Alison's point; not that there is a vast male conspiracy "to preserve their virility," which is indeed silly, but that many men are making these decisions based on what they THINK birth control does and their moral qualms about recreational sex, rather than the complex and multifaceted reality that they clearly can't be bothered researching.

I suppose, nevertheless, that there is a point to be made about Western society's rather long and sordid history of controlling female sexuality and the fact that the invention of contraceptives increased parity between men and women. Now women could also have no-strings-attached sex, which had previously been the preserve of men.


----------



## kait18

do men really think all birth control is - is a pill women take to not get pregnant???


----------



## Lockwood

thesilverspear said:


> This is just too easy, guys. Birth control is, in fact, used to treat a variety of medical conditions, including debilitatingly painful periods, PMS symptoms such as migraines and severe mood swings, ovarian cysts, and hormonal imbalances. Earlier in this thread, Anebel described her own experiences using birth control pills as treatment for a medical condition she had.


Told myself I wasn't going to comment on another political type thread, but....
I'm another woman who has had to take BC for some very serious medical reasons when I was younger that had nothing to do with the repercussions of pregnancy at the time. It was not covered by insurance either.

Like Flygap, if I get pregnant again it could kill me this time. Did some serious damage the first time(being pregnant, not the giving birth part) and I could not carry to term so my son was a preemie.
ED won't kill anyone. Pregnancy can.


----------



## AQHSam

I have a friend in South Carolina that put herself in a very bad situation a few years ago. She went out with or *dated* a man for a very brief time who was legally married but claimed the marriage was in name only. Next thing she knows he is back with his wife and the wife is threatening to sue her for alienation of affection under some South Carolina state law dating back to, idunno, the 1700s. Within the law (as I remember her explaining), the scorned spouse can sue the person the other spouse cheated with. It doesn't require the married couple to divorce. 

My friend does have a small but healthy nest egg and since the man pursued her relentlessly (and they were not as financially secure) she felt it was a setup. The lawsuit never came to fruition, but he can now stalk her and torment her life.

It was very scary for her because the tort law allowed them to go after her with no limits. It was the first time I came across a state law where adultry was illegal and the non-married person was held accountable for the illegal nature of the act.


----------



## kait18

AQHSam said:


> I have a friend in South Carolina that put herself in a very bad situation a few years ago. She went out with or *dated* a man for a very brief time who was legally married but claimed the marriage was in name only. Next thing she knows he is back with his wife and the wife is threatening to sue her for alienation of affection under some South Carolina state law dating back to, idunno, the 1700s. Within the law (as I remember her explaining), the scorned spouse can sue the person the other spouse cheated with. It doesn't require the married couple to divorce.
> 
> My friend does have a small but healthy nest egg and since the man pursued her relentlessly (and they were not as financially secure) she felt it was a setup. The lawsuit never came to fruition, but he can now stalk her and torment her life.
> 
> It was very scary for her because the tort law allowed them to go after her with no limits. It was the first time I came across a state law where adultry was illegal and the non-married person was held accountable for the illegal nature of the act.


now that is messed up... not blaming the cheater ..he did wrong by his family and by your friend...


----------



## Ink

Faceman said:


> outnabout said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that statemenet offensive - as well as uninformed, irrational, and discriminatory. Whether an insurance or religious organization is run by men or not is absolutely irrelevant.
> 
> In the first place, Viagra is used to treat medical conditions. Birth control is not. Why should insurance companies pay for birth control? That doesn't even make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I for one started on birth control when I was fairly young (14 or 15 I think). I started taking it for _entirely_ medical reasons, to control irregular cycling that was happening every couple of weeks as opposed to every month. I was not at all sexually active at that age (heck I didn't even start _dating _until college). But my parents insurance did not cover it then and my insurance doesn't cover it now.
> The problem is that many women use birth control for the medical benefits and not simply as a means of contraception so they can go out and have sex with anything that moves, and the majority of men do not take the time to educate themselves to these facts. I also find it _very _insulting that the congressional hearing discussing the issue had NO women on the panel to voice their opinions on the matter. WTF congress! I believe a certain war was started by deciding things for a group of people without giving them representation. :?
Click to expand...


----------



## Allison Finch

> =Faceman;1430956]
> 
> I find that statemenet offensive - as well as uninformed, irrational, and discriminatory. Whether an insurance or religious organization is run by men or not is absolutely irrelevant.
> 
> In the first place, Viagra is used to treat medical conditions. Birth control is not. Why should insurance companies pay for birth control? That doesn't even make sense.


There are quite a few medical conditions treated by birth control. It is not simply to prevent pregnancies. The fact that you do not know that is showing as narrow a view as most people considering Viagra "recreational" (which it mostly is).



> In the second place, if your intimation is, as it appears, that insurance pays for ED drugs because men run the insurance companies and there is some great conspiracy among men to preserve their virility, that is the most outlandish thing I think I have ever heard.


Wow, what a strong reaction. Just saying....

*Ask the Health Insurance Expert*
Why do some insurance companies cover Viagra but mine does not cover prescription contraceptives?
It's not fair that some health insurance companies are covering Viagra but my company doesn't cover prescription contraceptives.

It's true that many health insurers started covering Viagra after men began scrambling for this impotency "wonder drug" and yet they don't cover contraceptives. But there's been a movement afoot to make it an equal playing field.

There are 24 states that have enacted laws requiring group health insurance companies to cover prescription contraceptives if they cover other prescription drugs and devices, and other states have similar proposals pending, according to the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C. The National Conference of State Legislatures reported in 2009 that mandates in two states, Texas and Virginia, require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their group health plans. Some laws prohibit insurance group plans from excluding contraceptive services and supplies. Other states also recognize an exemption for employers that object to contraceptive coverage for religious reasons. And several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage.



Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia have mandate exemptions based primarily on "religious reasons" for insurers and employers. Opponents of these laws say they will drive up the cost of health insurance. Advocates contend that the estimated cost of $30 per month for birth control is much cheaper than the cost of unplanned pregnancies.



> You hear lots of things around the water cooler, but that one honestly takes the cake.
> 
> If you have some pesonal vendetta against men, please take it elsewhere...


I have absolutely no vendetta against men. I am a happy heterosexual woman. I am NOT, however, blind to the sex based inequities in the insurance industry.

To say that there is no place for birth control is ludicrous. Insurance companies are all about paying for preventative medicine. That is why they pay for my mammograms. It is cheaper for them to pay for prevention or early treatment than to pay for late treatments.

The same for unwanted pregnancy. It is cheaper paying for the birth control that paying nine months of doctors care and delivery.

So, why the difference? Good question.

Sorry, but this just seems to be the typical response I see from this issue


----------



## FlyGap

Well, most insurance companies do not cover pregnancy either. If you want coverage you have to pay for it at least a year in advance, my SIL's plan cost $180 a month for 18 months (prior to conception). So I believe the costs are null and the companies are saving a bundle by denying both forms of care, BC and Pregnancy, unless you get a said plan that covers it.

The problem with the whole darn thing is that the GOV has gotten involved, removed the free market aspect as in constricting trade over state lines etc, and then scaring the whole industry with other regulations and enforcements. And driving up our overall costs. Along with all the other problems.... If we allowed and put our capitalist powers to work, women could control the entire industry by only purchasing plans that offered BC and pregnancy coverage.


----------



## Ink

FlyGap said:


> The problem with the whole darn thing is that the GOV has gotten involved, removed the free market aspect as in constricting trade over state lines etc, and then scaring the whole industry with other regulations and enforcements. And driving up our overall costs. Along with all the other problems.... If we allowed and put our capitalist powers to work, women could control the entire industry by only purchasing plans that offered BC and pregnancy coverage.



Well, the thing with letting the capitalism do it's things is, not everyone has control over their health insurance plan. Many, if not most people get it through their work, and while you may have the option to choose what kind of coverage to get under that company, you really don't have a say over what insurance company it is. Purchasing health insurance on your own is often times prohibitively expensive. So while in theory it would be great to vote with our dollars, the way the system is set up now, it's just not possible. Something needs to change. I don't know what exactly the answer is, but I don't think we'll get there without at least some government reform.


----------



## FlyGap

I agree with that.
But there are enough women in the workplace that need to go to their employers with cost effective alternatives and change what they have. We do have the power with our dollars, problem is it takes time and action.

I know how expensive it is because I am self employed. My husbands family owns their own business (9 people) and I'm the one that researches insurance plans that we all get under and we are switching plans all the time to get better coverage and rates. So it can be done. Just takes time.


----------



## Missy May

Since birth control pills contain 2 active ingredients, by and large, it would necessarily have to be those ingredients that would have any other medical use - not the sugar placebos. So, is it those ingredients combined necessary for all other medical conditions, or just one of them in some cases, having the patient just expose themselves to synthetic unnecessary hormones for no real reason when prescribed birth control? Most any compound can be manufactured and perscribed for an "intended use"....and the dose targeting a completely different "use" isn't ordinarily based on an entirely separate and unrelated use. For example, for all conditions benefiting from taking bc....would they take a placebo for 7 days, too....b/c if they needed it for birthcontrol, they would?


----------



## Faceman

thesilverspear said:


> I also think Faceman has inadvertently and beautifully illustrated Alison's point; not that there is a vast male conspiracy "to preserve their virility," which is indeed silly, but that many men are making these decisions based on what they THINK birth control does and their moral qualms about recreational sex, rather than the complex and multifaceted reality that they clearly can't be bothered researching.
> 
> I suppose, nevertheless, that there is a point to be made about Western society's rather long and sordid history of controlling female sexuality and the fact that the invention of contraceptives increased parity between men and women. Now women could also have no-strings-attached sex, which had previously been the preserve of men.


Faceman rarely does anything inadvertantly, and is not stupid...:?

Taking BC for a medical condition is not the same as taking it only to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which is of course what the vast majority of BC is taken for. If it is taken for a medical condition then of course insurance should pay for it - and ours does. But if it is taken solely for birth control reasons I see absolutley no reason why insurance should pay for it....


----------



## Missy May

What percentage of the population works for a Catholic organization, I wonder? BC is about $30-50/month.
On the other hand, what is the percent of addicts? Many insurance companies cover some part of rehab..a lot more than 30 bucks/mo. WHY? None of this is "free", insurance and taxes aren't going down.


----------



## MHFoundation Quarters

Missy May said:


> For example, for all conditions benefiting from taking bc....would they take a placebo for 7 days, too....b/c if they needed it for birthcontrol, they would?


I'm one of those people that takes it for medical reasons and have to take the real stuff not synthetic. With mine, there is no placebo pills for that week, just don't take any at all. 



Faceman said:


> he same as taking it only to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which is of course what the vast majority of BC is taken for. If it is taken for a medical condition then of course insurance should pay for it - and ours does. But if it is taken solely for birth control reasons I see absolutley no reason why insurance should pay for it....


Mine works that way too. I can see both sides to whether they should cover it or not, but I do support them covering it for one main reason. There is a massive difference in cost to the insurance company to prevent pregnancy versus covering the medical costs from the resulting pregnancy. My bc is $10/month, my bill from the hospital for my daughter's delivery 42k, that's not including prenatal care & visits. It' would take a long time to spend 40 grand on bc.


----------



## Faceman

Allison Finch said:


> There are quite a few medical conditions treated by birth control. It is not simply to prevent pregnancies. The fact that you do not know that is showing as narrow a view as most people considering Viagra "recreational" (which it mostly is).
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what a strong reaction. Just saying....
> 
> *Ask the Health Insurance Expert*
> Why do some insurance companies cover Viagra but mine does not cover prescription contraceptives?
> It's not fair that some health insurance companies are covering Viagra but my company doesn't cover prescription contraceptives.
> 
> It's true that many health insurers started covering Viagra after men began scrambling for this impotency "wonder drug" and yet they don't cover contraceptives. But there's been a movement afoot to make it an equal playing field.
> 
> There are 24 states that have enacted laws requiring group health insurance companies to cover prescription contraceptives if they cover other prescription drugs and devices, and other states have similar proposals pending, according to the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C. The National Conference of State Legislatures reported in 2009 that mandates in two states, Texas and Virginia, require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their group health plans. Some laws prohibit insurance group plans from excluding contraceptive services and supplies. Other states also recognize an exemption for employers that object to contraceptive coverage for religious reasons. And several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage.
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia have mandate exemptions based primarily on "religious reasons" for insurers and employers. Opponents of these laws say they will drive up the cost of health insurance. Advocates contend that the estimated cost of $30 per month for birth control is much cheaper than the cost of unplanned pregnancies.
> 
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no vendetta against men. I am a happy heterosexual woman. I am NOT, however, blind to the sex based inequities in the insurance industry.
> 
> To say that there is no place for birth control is ludicrous. Insurance companies are all about paying for preventative medicine. That is why they pay for my mammograms. It is cheaper for them to pay for prevention or early treatment than to pay for late treatments.
> 
> The same for unwanted pregnancy. It is cheaper paying for the birth control that paying nine months of doctors care and delivery.
> 
> So, why the difference? Good question.
> 
> Sorry, but this just seems to be the typical response I see from this issue
> 
> McCain: Viagra or Birth Control - YouTube


Please see my post above, and kindly don't tell me what I know or don't know. My original post pertained to straight birth control - not birth control meds prescribed for medical conditions. I didn't qualify that, but saw no need to as it should be understood.

To be redundant, I see no reason for insurance to pay for straight birth control. It drives up the cost for all people insured for the benefit of a very few. Birth control is voluntary and it is prophylactic (no pun intended). Where do you draw the line? Should insurance pay for my bottled water that I drink because I don't want to drink my well water? How about buying my vitamins and other supplements I take voluntarily to better my overall health? How about paying for my Benedryl I take when the pollen count is high or when I need a good night's sleep?

And as an aside, what percentage of girls/women that take birth control meds are single, where it is not appropriate in the first place?

This is as prime example of exactly what is wrong with government mandated health care...whether you are on one side or the other of this particular issu, government has no business dictating what care is provided or who pays for it. That opens a Pandora's box that quite frankly has some rather scary monsters inside...


----------



## kait18

Faceman said:


> Please see my post above, and kindly don't tell me what I know or don't know. My original post pertained to straight birth control - not birth control meds prescribed for medical conditions. I didn't qualify that, but saw no need to as it should be understood.
> 
> To be redundant, I see no reason for insurance to pay for straight birth control. It drives up the cost for all people insured for the benefit of a very few. Birth control is voluntary and it is prophylactic (no pun intended). Where do you draw the line? Should insurance pay for my bottled water that I drink because I don't want to drink my well water? How about buying my vitamins and other supplements I take voluntarily to better my overall health? How about paying for my Benedryl I take when the pollen count is high or when I need a good night's sleep?
> 
> And as an aside, what percentage of girls/women that take birth control meds are single, where it is not appropriate in the first place?
> 
> This is as prime example of exactly what is wrong with government mandated health care...whether you are on one side or the other of this particular issu, government has no business dictating what care is provided or who pays for it. That opens a Pandora's box that quite frankly has some rather scary monsters inside...


i dont understand your difference between straight birth control and medical birth control vs viagra and medical viagra... all birth control is a medicine... 

i personally dont see any need to have viagra as a medicine... sorry a guy can't get up..i hear relaxing and getting stress free will solve that problem ... its just to help older gentlemen get off because they are no longer in there prime and that was the main reason for it from the beginning..

birth control was not always just for pregnancies. it regulates a womens cycle so it doesn't come to often or not often enough, helps reduce cramping an pains that limit us from getting up during the day or functioning because of the severe pain and many other reasons. to me there are more medical benefits to having birth control given through insurance then what viagra does.. 

but i do not agree with the gov forcing the insurance companies or businesses to provide it...


----------



## Ink

Faceman said:


> Please see my post above, and kindly don't tell me what I know or don't know. My original post pertained to straight birth control - not birth control meds prescribed for medical conditions. I didn't qualify that, but saw no need to as it should be understood.
> 
> *What if one uses it for both reasons? Where do you draw the line of what constitutes a "medical reason". As stated before I take it for mainly medical purposes. Should I not have my BC covered because I also use it as a contraceptive? I think part of what we're getting at too, is that if the company covers Viagra then it is awfully hypocritical not to cover BC for women. *
> 
> To be redundant, I see no reason for insurance to pay for straight birth control. It drives up the cost for all people insured for the benefit of a very few. Birth control is voluntary and it is prophylactic (no pun intended). Where do you draw the line? Should insurance pay for my bottled water that I drink because I don't want to drink my well water? How about buying my vitamins and other supplements I take voluntarily to better my overall health? How about paying for my Benedryl I take when the pollen count is high or when I need a good night's sleep?
> 
> *There's quite a big difference between covering an over-the-counter medication that is relatively inexpensive and a prescription drug that some people may not otherwise be able to afford.*
> 
> And as an aside, what percentage of girls/women that take birth control meds are single, where it is not appropriate in the first place?
> 
> *Not appropriate is an entirely personal opinion. I'm actually of a mind that intimacy is an important part of a relationship, and it's better to determine if you're compatible in those areas before tying the knot. Much the same as I feel it's a good idea to live with someone for at least a little bit before deciding if you can put up with them long-term. The point is, people are going to have sex, regardless of weather or not you think it's appropriate. I'd much rather those people be safe and use preventative measure to ensure no unwanted children result from their "promiscuity" *:wink:
> 
> This is as prime example of exactly what is wrong with government mandated health care...whether you are on one side or the other of this particular issu, government has no business dictating what care is provided or who pays for it. That opens a Pandora's box that quite frankly has some rather scary monsters inside...
> *I agree with you here to an extent. I think we're going to have to tread very carefully with how we change things, but I do think somethings are going to have to change. I'd much rather see reform go the direction of making health care more affordable for the average person to afford on his or her own. Then like FlyGap was saying we can let the consumers decide the issue with their wallets. *


Comments in red.


----------



## FlyGap

What about mental health issues? Most insurance plans do not cover them in any way. Mine doesn't. So why does the government not go after that also, WHY IS IT BC, tons of Americans are requiring medication for those ailments.

Different medical topic.
How do you guys feel about vaccinating children? Just now a new study came out that *1 in 80* children have a form of Autism. Autism is now DIRECTLY linked to vaccinations. The government is now providing assistance to Autism victims because they mandate that your child MUST be vaccinated to attend school unless you get a waiver for the reasons you guys know. To get assistance you have to prove the timeline in which your child became symptomatic and link it to the vaccinations, then you have to sign (per my understanding and research) a document stating that you will not disclose your settlement details.

My child is not vaccinated, nor are most of the children at her private shcool.
She will be vaccinated before she goes to college for meningitis. 
My very close family friend's daughter recently got shingles at the age of 10! And several other children in our area that were vaccinated in the same time frame with the same vaccination. That is very unheard of, this is due to the vaccine. The chicken pox vaccine it VERY flawed, it is also MUCH MUCH better that children go through the virus at a young age than possibly contracting it as an adult.
Also, the area doctors sent out a major release for children to come back in and get vaccinated with another batch. Well, the parents said HELL NO. IF you didn't get it right the first time, what's it going to do the second time around?!

I agree that if vaccinations were not available and have not been used for years we would be in a terrible situation. Polio, small pox, etc. have been eradicated here due to them. But, now we are seeing that the current ones are riddled with side effects and damaging our children but we are doing nothing about it.

How do you feel?


----------



## kait18

FlyGap said:


> What about mental health issues? Most insurance plans do not cover them in any way. Mine doesn't. So why does the government not go after that also, WHY IS IT BC, most Americans are requiring medication for those ailments.
> 
> Different medical topic.
> How do you guys feel about vaccinating children? Just now a new study came out that *1 in 80* children have a form of Autism. Autism is now DIRECTLY linked to vaccinations. The government is now providing assistance to Autism victims because they mandate that your child MUST be vaccinated to attend school unless you get a waiver for the reasons you guys know. To get assistance you have to prove the timeline in which your child became symptomatic and link it to the vaccinations, then you have to sign (per my understanding and research) a document stating that you will not disclose your settlement details.
> 
> My child is not vaccinated, nor are most of the children at her private shcool.
> She will be vaccinated before she goes to college for meningitis.
> My very close family friend's daughter recently got shingles at the age of 10! That is very unheard of, this is due to the vaccine. The chicken pox vaccine it VERY flawed, it is also MUCH MUCH better that children go through the virus at a young age than possibly contracting it as an adult.
> 
> I agree that if vaccinations were not available and have not been used for years we would be in a terrible situation. Polio, small pox, etc. have been eradicated here due to them. But, now we are seeing that the current ones are riddled with side effects and damaging our children but we are doing nothing about it.
> 
> How do you feel?


i did research on the mmr vaccine not even a month ago and there is no direct link between the vaccines and autism..there is a greater link to autism in children from parents heating up formula in plastic bottles and things like that then there are to the vaccines.

the only link they have between autism and the vaccines is the age...the age where autism is noticed in children is around the same time children are required to get there first to second set of shots...

however i don't think children that young should be vaccinated personally. i think it would make them alot stronger and healthier to wait atleast til they are around 1. with all the vaccines coming out of the works new forms of the viruses are coming up and becoming stronger and soon there will be no medical way to stop it... so i think vaccines should kind of be put on hold until children are of an older age.

oh side note 1 in every 88 children have autism. in the last decade the autism rate has increased to 78%... heard these statisics today ..not sure if they are true haven't searched it yet but just throwing it out there.


----------



## FlyGap

The MMR is measles, mumps, and Rubella. Not the Chicken Pox or Polio vaccination.
I agree, studies do suggest it does have something to do with the time frame in which it is given.
As for outside contaminates those could provide millions of variables that could cause Autism. We are all riddled with teflon, bpa, mercury, and thousands of minerals. Because you cannot test everyone and rule out what specific substance could be causing autism who knows. Thing is most Autism patients are normal until they receive the vaccinations.
We now have a much higher ability to treat and prevent death for children and people who contract these diseases. So I believe at risk patients (ones that already have health problems and are weak) should be vaccinated, and those in areas where the diseases have higher occurrence rates.

Anyone who has children and themselves for that matter REALLY need to educate themselves on the dangers of different substances, additives, etc. If we all gave a darn and didn't purchase items with them we could eradicate them from being used. Until a new study came out on the next one! LOL!


----------



## kevinshorses

Why should insurance pay for any medication? I think it would bring helath care costs WAY down if insurance only paid for major medical things. For example if you fall off your horse and break your arm insurance should pay to set the broken arm but NOT for the pain meds. If insurance companies didn't pay for doctor office visits then the doctors wouldn't charge $100 per visit because nobody would go. Have you ever wondered why the vet can take an x-ray for $50 but a doctor charges $200? Insurance companies cause the price of things to go up. Price autobody work for another example. It costs more to replace a fender on a car than it does to completely rebuild the transmission because insurance companies pay for the fender and the owner has to take the transmission out of pocket.

If you want to make affordable healthcare then reform the tort system so that doctors don't get thier *** sued off for every mistake. Allow interstate sale of helath insurance so that monopolies are broken up and there is true competition in every state. The healthcare crisis can be fixed without changing the actual healtcare system which is among the best in the world. The only complaint people have is that they are paying too much so rather than have the government take over everything how about we make a few changes to lower the cost while also increasing competition. 

I think it's laughable that people honestly believe that anything will improve if the government takes over. What has the government EVER done in the history of our country as cheaply and efficently as the private sector? Do you honestly believe that I would be here talking on my tiny mobile phone and using my highspeed internet connection if the phone system had not been deregulated?

The government that governs least, governs best.


----------



## kait18

FlyGap said:


> The MMR is measles, mumps, and Rubella. Not the Chicken Pox or Polio vaccination.
> I agree, studies do suggest it does have something to do with the time frame in which it is given.
> As for outside contaminates those could provide millions of variables that could cause Autism. We are all riddled with teflon, bpa, mercury, and thousands of minerals. Because you cannot test everyone and rule out what specific substance could be causing autism who knows. Thing is most Autism patients are normal until they receive the vaccinations.
> We now have a much higher ability to treat and prevent death for children and people who contract these diseases. So I believe at risk patients should be vaccinated, and those in areas where the diseases have higher occurrence rates.
> 
> Anyone who has children and themselves for that matter REALLY need to educate themselves on the dangers of different substances, additives, etc. If we all gave a darn and didn't purchase items with them we could eradicate them from being used. Until a new study came out on the next on! LOL!


 
very true but even with the polio, small pox, and other vaccines they all have risks but i do not think autism is one of them. i think the rise in autism comes from the need to have all these vitamins as a mother to stay healthy and the vitamins in baby food..including breast milk and formula. i agree with staying healthy but i think there is to much put into it... mercury, iron, and all the other minerals you can name. 
i don't think children should be vaccinated personally. children who come down with certain things such a chicken pox are better off then trying to be kept from getting it. the polio, small pox i agree we still need to be vaccinated for it but i think it can wait til children are in elementary/middle school before getting it. 

if we keep giving children all the vaccines when there little we are just going to encourage the viruses to make a new strain that will be more deadly and possibly will not have any medical cure


----------



## kevinshorses

There is no link between Autism and vaccines. That was a bunch of junk science that the media used to scare people. It's been proven to be false. The reason the number of children diagnosed with Autism has risen is the same reason the rate of women diagnosed with breat cancer and men diagnosed with colon cancer has increased. More awareness combined with better diagnostic tools equals more diagnoses.


----------



## kevinshorses

kait18 said:


> if we keep giving children all the vaccines when there little we are just going to encourage the viruses to make a new strain that will be more deadly and possibly will not have any medical cure


Vaccines don't work that way. If you said antibiotics then you could be right.


----------



## kait18

kevinshorses said:


> Vaccines don't work that way. If you said antibiotics then you could be right.


hmm never thought of it that way.. i always heard they could make a new strain by being prevented to actually take over the system... but definitely could be wrong there... will go look that up


----------



## kevinshorses

Vaccines stimulate your immune sytem to make antibodies just like if you had the disease. Some diseases like the flu mutate rapidily and are hard to vaccinate against while others mutate very slowly if at all and vaccines are very effective against them.


----------



## FlyGap

Mothers and Fathers are the ones that are raising the concerns. Not scientists and the very large drug companies and not the media. Why on earth would the media force this issue? Yes, I do agree that outside environmental influences could be the cause, in conjunction with the vaccines.

I agree Kate. The age and the timeframe is to fault, along with the ingredients.
They say mercury is bad for pregnant women, then pump (tiny amounts) into our babies? Why?

I got into a heated debate with a family friend because she felt I was evil not taking the chance vaccinating my daughter when her daughter being vaccinated is what is going to prevent mine from contracting the disease. It's just personal beliefs and I was willing to take the advantage. It's a Selfish stance, but one I took. When I had my daughter there the statistics were 1 in 160, now the lower one at 1 in (was it 88?) 80ish. LOL!

Did you know that all babies are vaccinated for hepatitis B as soon as they are born? It is highly unlikely they will contract the disease unless the mother was having lots of unprotected sex or using needles? Even though mostly all mothers are tested during pregnancy for it they still give it to the baby. Insanity.
There have been no major studies on the future effects on children, but still we keep pumping it into them. Not my baby!


----------



## Faceman

Ink said:


> Comments in red.


Ink, I am tech challenged and can't figure out how to multiquote, so will respond to a couple of your points - all of which are good points.

If BC is used for both reasons, IMO the medical reason takes precedence and the birth control reason is secondary.

Cost is not an issue - the issue is principle, not cost. One either believes the cost of birth control for non medical reasons is something that should be shared by the general population or not. In my case I believe that is a cost that should be a "user cost" and born by the individual - not by higher insurance premiums and/or higher taxes by everyone else.

As to the moral issue, my opinion is basically the same as yours, but I don't feel it is my responsibility to bear the costs of someone else's intamicies. To be a bit trite, I think people should pay to play.

Lastly, you're darn right something needs to change. But government taking over health care, either directly or indirectly thorugh insurance companies, is not the answer. There has to be a logical middle ground somewhere, but I'm afraid politics are preventing us from reaching it...


----------



## Faceman

kait18 said:


> i don't think children should be vaccinated personally. children who come down with certain things such a chicken pox are better off then trying to be kept from getting it. the polio, small pox i agree we still need to be vaccinated for it but i think it can wait til children are in elementary/middle school before getting it.


I would suggest your thinking might be backwards. Polio and small pox are almost eliminated, and most people don't even get smallpox vaccinations anymore. Chicken pox on the other hand is still common, and can be dangerous to children. What's more, having chicken pox makes one susceptible to shingles later in life, which can be extremely painful and very protracted...


----------



## kait18

Faceman said:


> I would suggest your thinking might be backwards. Polio and small pox are almost eliminated, and most people don't even get smallpox vaccinations anymore. Chicken pox on the other hand is still common, and can be dangerous to children. What's more, having chicken pox makes one susceptible to shingles later in life, which can be extremely painful and very protracted...


they might be almost eliminated but there is always a possibility it can come back and come back stronger then before... do i think its an immediate threat now.. no but i do think it will be a threat later on when people stop taking the vaccines completely... i just don't think children need to be vaccinated at such a young age for it.. i think they can wait until the child is atleast in elementary grades and i think all adults should still be vacinated so that anyone handling the young children are not carrying the virus/disease.

as for the chicken pox leading to shingles... well thats a chance to take as a child. i had chicken pox and never had the chicken pox vaccine and never had shingles. i have known quite afew friends same age as me who were vacinated when we were little with the chicken pox vaccine and later on in adulthood around their 20th birthdays they came down with shingles straight away with no sign of ever having chicken pox. from just my experiences i would rather not vaccinate for chicken pox just from the severity of things my friends went through.

children so young just don't need it pumped into them right away if all adults are vaccinated


----------



## kait18

kevinshorses said:


> Vaccines stimulate your immune sytem to make antibodies just like if you had the disease. Some diseases like the flu mutate rapidily and are hard to vaccinate against while others mutate very slowly if at all and vaccines are very effective against them.


i am trying to find the source where it said vaccines also add to a mutation of a virus/disease but am having no luck. but i do see your point. thanks for pointing that out


----------



## AQHSam

As a child of the 60s....

I had chicken pox. I remember parents purposely exposing their kids to chicken pox to get it over with. The biggest concern was with an adult who never had them as a child from coming into contact with the virus. Otherwise, it was treated like a summer cold. SOmething that had to be dealt with and managed.


----------



## Missy May

On vaccines.
I do not ever get a "flu shot" b/c I do not want anything injected in my arm that even has the tiniest of tiny chance of being produced by an 8a set a side, no thanks. If I worked in the medical field or were otherwise compromised, the risks would change, and I would get it.
Then there is smallpox...one cannot voluntarily get the vaccination (oldest vaccine known to mankind) unless they are a select few. This is b/c of lawyers and the anti crowd....and b/c its been proclaimed as "wiped out" by the ever all knowing CDC, which begs the question, why would anyone get the vaccine if it is "extinct"? Because it is not... and rest assured if it ever gets loose, it won't just attempt to infect those that have been vaccinated.
The chicken pox vaccine is a little questionable. Supposedly 100 deaths a year occured due to chickenpox, and if school children are vaccinated we are magically all protected? About 60 people die each year from bee stings, by comparison. Yet, if smallpox got loose, the death toll could be in the tens of millions or higher.


----------



## Tennessee

Okay. I'm a little late here but figured I would offer my opinions anyways.

Gay Marriage:
I am a part of a very devoted Christian family. Needless to say, they all believe that marriage should consist of a man and a woman. I'm not sure if it is the age difference or if I am just a naturally open minded person, but I personally believe that gay marriage should be legal in the United States. Although I understand the traditional marriage was to be between a man and a woman in a religious setting, the traditional ways of a marriage have fell to the wayside. I think a prime example of this is the divorce rates. Do you honestly believe it is traditional for about 50% (and please correct me if I am wrong on this number, this is just the most recent one I have read) of marriages to fail and end in divorce? If we are basing marriage on the typical religious beliefs, then a lot of people are not being very true and traditional to their religion, no? For that matter, I know some gay couples that are more faithful and dedicated to their relationship than some married couples I know. It seems like people think that if gay marriage is legalized that our country will fall prey to complete chaos and havoc. I don't think this will be the case at all. In fact, I would assume that things would carry on as normal. 

Drugs
As a teenager that goes to a school where more than 40% of the student population frequently uses marijuana, I truly believe it should be legalized. Before you jump on me for saying this, I believe that, for the younger users anyways, they aren't necessarily using the drug for the "high" effect. Rather, they smoke the pot because it is illegal and they think it makes them look cool. I think that by legalizing it and regulating it properly, it could be beneficial in various ways. For one, it would cut down on crime rates. Secondly, it could be taxed and although it wouldn't solve our debt problem completely, it could be very helpful as revenue for the government. Thirdly, I think that if it were legal that you would actually notice a drop in frequent users, or at least a drop in the youth age group. 

Birth Control
I'm not going to offer much of an opinion on this one because I have not done very much independent research on the matter. I do find it strange, however, that Viagra is covered by insurance, and birth control is not. I do not personally use birth control, but if I were to be put on it for medical reasons (and for my peers it is very common to regulate menstral cycles), I would hope that insurance would cover it. It seems a bit unfair to me that males can get covered for Viagra, and women are left out in the cold. 
That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about the government forcing Catholic organizations to offer it when it blatantly goes against their beliefs. 

Abortion
I am very pro-choice, and would not like to ramble on and on about this matter (and trust me, I could very well do so), but I live by the statement: Don't like abortions? Then don't have one.



There ya go. $.02 from a younger perspective


----------



## Ink

Tennessee said:


> I am a part of a very devoted Christian family. Needless to say, they all believe that marriage should consist of a man and a woman. *I'm not sure if it is the age difference or if I am just a naturally open minded person*, but I personally believe that gay marriage should be legal in the United States.



I think it's interesting that you say this, because by and large I feel like the majority of younger people (let's say teens to twenty-somethings) are beginning to lean more toward the acceptance of gay rights. It's certainly not all of them mind you, but I think more so than our parent's generation. 
We had this debate in my public speaking class in college and nearly the entire class was for legalizing same sex marriage, and the one or two who were opposed were not very vocal about it. Conversely though, I should mention that when the issue was brought up in my little brother's high school government class the majority of students were against and only a few argued for. So I guess it all depends on who you talk to, but I'd be very interested to see what the results would be of a survey broken down by age. 

Anyway, thank you for sharing your thoughts Tennessee


----------



## AQHSam

*


Tennessee said:



Abortion

Click to expand...

*


Tennessee said:


> *I am very pro-choice, and would not like to ramble on and on about this matter (and trust me, I could very well do so), but I live by the statement: Don't like abortions? Then don't have one.*




I won't. It is my choice, just as you say. 

But, I don't want to pay additional insurance premiums and have higher deductables to cover the cost of YOUR abortion.

I don't care if another woman has an abortion. But, I don't want the money I contribute to insurance to be used in that manner. If she wants an abortion; she can pay for it out of pocket OR pay a higher premium for that type of coverage.


----------



## AQHSam

Tennessee said:


> Gay Marriage:
> I*I think a prime example of this is the divorce rates. Do you honestly believe it is traditional for about 50% (and please correct me if I am wrong on this number, this is just the most recent one I have read) of marriages to fail and end in divorce?*


Nope, it is not traditional. And I am a divorced person. I can also say it was very cheap, easy, and convenient to get that divorce. 

For the record, my marriage ended because of complacency. Not abuse. Where abuse is present, divorce should be allowed and should be swift. For the rest of us, maybe it should require a little more effort.

One reason divorce is so high is that as a culture we have become very selfish. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. 

It has to do with our values toward our community, our families, our society. A very low percentage of middle-age people today have their parents living with them. Opposed to the 40s and 50s, where most couples in their middle age years had one or more parents living in their home. Now we throw our old in nursing homes or assisted living residences. We even buy special insurance so we can do that.

We indulge our children with every whim and then wonder why they are always holding a hand out and are still living at home at the age of 30.

We are hooked on thrill rides, thrill adventures and are bored when things are "routine."

We have lost our sense of wonderment. We no longer stare at Niagra Falls amazed at the shear volume of water that cascades over the edge. We visit Niagra Falls and wonder where the closest 3-D movieplex is. We think the guys jumping off a side of the mountain in the mountain dew commercials are boring.

I could go on for several more paragraphs, but you get my gist.


----------



## Missy May

AQHSam said:


> I won't. It is my choice, just as you say.
> 
> But, I don't want to pay additional insurance premiums and have higher deductables to cover the cost of YOUR abortion.
> 
> I don't care if another woman has an abortion. But, I don't want the money I contribute to insurance to be used in that manner. If she wants an abortion; she can pay for it out of pocket OR pay a higher premium for that type of coverage.


Well put! I am willing to make an exception - a rape victim - I would go along w insurance covering that. 

Otherwise, its the "no one is responsible for their own actions" mentality, which is pervasive. People are free to have one and darn sure don't want their freedom to have sex or an abortion "threatened".....but they would have noooo problem threatening someone else's right to their property (money, in this case) to pay for an abortion.


----------



## Tennessee

AQHSam said:


> I won't. It is my choice, just as you say.
> 
> But, I don't want to pay additional insurance premiums and have higher deductables to cover the cost of YOUR abortion.
> 
> I don't care if another woman has an abortion. But, I don't want the money I contribute to insurance to be used in that manner. If she wants an abortion; she can pay for it out of pocket OR pay a higher premium for that type of coverage.


Oh I completely agree that you nor anyone else should have to pay for other people's abortions. 



AQHSam said:


> Nope, it is not traditional. And I am a divorced person. I can also say it was very cheap, easy, and convenient to get that divorce.
> 
> For the record, my marriage ended because of complacency. Not abuse. Where abuse is present, divorce should be allowed and should be swift. For the rest of us, maybe it should require a little more effort.
> 
> One reason divorce is so high is that as a culture we have become very selfish. It has nothing to do with gay marriage.
> 
> It has to do with our values toward our community, our families, our society. A very low percentage of middle-age people today have their parents living with them. Opposed to the 40s and 50s, where most couples in their middle age years had one or more parents living in their home. Now we throw our old in nursing homes or assisted living residences. We even buy special insurance so we can do that.
> 
> We indulge our children with every whim and then wonder why they are always holding a hand out and are still living at home at the age of 30.
> 
> We are hooked on thrill rides, thrill adventures and are bored when things are "routine."
> 
> We have lost our sense of wonderment. We no longer stare at Niagra Falls amazed at the shear volume of water that cascades over the edge. We visit Niagra Falls and wonder where the closest 3-D movieplex is. We think the guys jumping off a side of the mountain in the mountain dew commercials are boring.
> 
> I could go on for several more paragraphs, but you get my gist.


The reason I mentioned that is because someone brought up the idea that our marriage today is based on tradition, and tradition should not be changed. I was pointing out that if we were truly keeping marriage traditional that divorce rates would not be so high, because after all marriage is a "religious" thing, and typically divorces are looked down upon. Or at least, they are in Christianity, which is the most popular religion of choice in the United States. 
I may be chasing a rabbit here, but I don't think that the rules of marriage in the US should be based around religion because our nation does not have an official religion. Sure, many claim that our country was founded on "Christian values" (which actually most of our founding fathers were deists, but that is for another argument), but we are a melting pot, and should respect the minorities. 

I do agree with you when you say that we are a selfish nation. It's pretty sad that we, as a people, look for the betterment of ourselves rather than looking to improve society and help others. I could go into a whole other rant about that, though. hah.


----------



## Missy May

Tennessee said:


> Oh I completely agree that you nor anyone else should have to pay for other people's abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I mentioned that is because someone brought up the idea that our marriage today is based on tradition, and tradition should not be changed. I was pointing out that if we were truly keeping marriage traditional that divorce rates would not be so high, because after all marriage is a "religious" thing, and typically divorces are looked down upon. Or at least, they are in Christianity, which is the most popular religion of choice in the United States.
> I may be chasing a rabbit here, but I don't think that the rules of marriage in the US should be based around religion because our nation does not have an official religion. Sure, many claim that our country was founded on "Christian values" (which actually most of our founding fathers were deists, but that is for another argument), but we are a melting pot, and should respect the minorities.
> 
> I do agree with you when you say that we are a selfish nation. It's pretty sad that we, as a people, look for the betterment of ourselves rather than looking to improve society and help others. I could go into a whole other rant about that, though. hah.


Marriage long pre-dates christianity,long, long, long. What minorities (as in minority religions or ethnic groups) do not believe in marriage?

As for the idea that most of our founding fathers were deist, this must be something the public schools are teaching as I increasing see people state this as a "fact". Each and every one of the founding fathers was literate, most wrote profusely, and most all of their writings are in English. There is a great DEBATE if some were, which means it is not a "fact" that _most_ were, and is not agreed on by scholars that study their writings and white papers. Either way, they all were products of western culture which was greatly shaped by Christianity.


----------



## FlyGap

I guess that is a new thing to me too. I guess because they didn't use the words "One Nation under God and Jesus" is the reason?
Is there anything that states that they didn't believe in Christianity, just worshiped a "god"? I guess the whole mason thing? Hmmm?

As far as Abortions go with rape... A woman has every right to go get a D&C immediately after being accosted. Why wait until there is a fetus and then go and get it chopped out? I'm not trying to change anyones mind on this, but as a mother and a human being (aren't we supposed to be the compassionate informed ones?) please go and research what exactly happens and when. I really struggle with WHY exactly the procedure is even considered today _(especially later term)_, honestly with all the BC and different procedures available... Abortion seems quite distasteful and barbaric.
This has nothing to do with Religion. Not a single thing, but quite honestly I believe it is one of the most selfish actions a person can take. Hey, I don't want a baby because it's not the right time for me, so I'm going to kill it. Whoopsie.

I have several friends who have had abortions. I think I'm the only one in my close group that hasn't.

One got pregnant and her and her boyfriend decided to terminate (she figured it out when she was around 3 months along). Well, two years later they ended up getting engaged. Three weeks before the wedding the man got into a terrible car accident and died. My friend cries almost every day three years later and wishes they hadn't done it, not that he is dead, she cries over the baby she could have had with/from him.

Another friend had a similar thing happen, aborted the child late in the first trimester then later they got engaged and married. She has not been able to conceive and is currently undergoing IVF.

Another very close friend had THREE abortions with her current boyfriend. Now they are talking about getting married! Well, she has developed severe thyroid problems and is on a host of medications. Most of which she cannot take during pregnancy. She wholeheartedly regrets each one.

If ya gonna have a one night stand, be on the pill, bag it, withdraw, and go take a morning after if ya don't love the guy. Why take the chance?
For the reason of: Medical, rape, addiction, insanity... fine. Being of sound mind, and unfortunately a woman, just think about it.
I'm sorry this was brutal.


----------



## thesilverspear

I've read the Federalist Papers. Have you?

I'll find some relevant literature and give you the citations tomorrow. 

It's actually stuff I learned at university. Even worse! The brainwashing grounds of liberals.


----------



## thesilverspear

Right... to quickly address points made in an earlier post, marriage was and is not intended to "protect women and children." At least in Western society, its aetiology lies in contracts transferring property from one family to another and if you're lucky, increasing your land holdings. The argument that allowing gay people to call a civil union a marriage would equate to women and children losing legal protection is a pure fallacy, if there ever was one. 

Your most recent post asks "what minorities or ethnic groups do not believe in marriage?" So by your newest logic (which seems to contradict your previous assertions), you are saying gay people should be deprived of something granted to every other group in the US and that it is not ONLY a Christian thing.


----------



## Tennessee

Missy May said:


> Marriage long pre-dates christianity,long, long, long. What minorities (as in minority religions or ethnic groups) do not believe in marriage?
> 
> As for the idea that most of our founding fathers were deist, this must be something the public schools are teaching as I increasing see people state this as a "fact". Each and every one of the founding fathers was literate, most wrote profusely, and most all of their writings are in English. There is a great DEBATE if some were, which means it is not a "fact" that _most_ were, and is not agreed on by scholars that study their writings and white papers. Either way, they all were products of western culture which was greatly shaped by Christianity.


"As the government of the *United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion*,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Found in the 1797 US Treaty with Tripoli
I bolded the part that I feel to be the most useful to this debate. 


I think people get that idea that because they spoke of a god meant that they automatically worshipped the Christian God, which is not necessarily the case. Our country was TRULY founded on the idea of religious freedom, which is I guess how I should have stated that in the first place.



thesilverspear said:


> I've read the Federalist Papers. Have you?
> 
> I'll find some relevant literature and give you the citations tomorrow.
> 
> It's actually stuff I learned at university. Even worse! The brainwashing grounds of liberals.


I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not, but either way I'd love to read whatever literature you can direct me to. I love learning about history!


----------



## Missy May

FlyGap said:


> I guess that is a new thing to me too. I guess because they didn't use the words "One Nation under God and Jesus" is the reason?
> Is there anything that states that they didn't believe in Christianity, just worshiped a "god"? I guess the whole mason thing? Hmmm?
> 
> As far as Abortions go with rape... A woman has every right to go get a D&C immediately after being accosted. Why wait until there is a fetus and then go and get it chopped out? I'm not trying to change anyones mind on this, but as a mother and a human being (aren't we supposed to be the compassionate informed ones?) please go and research what exactly happens and when. I really struggle with WHY exactly the procedure is even considered today _(especially later term)_, honestly with all the BC and different procedures available... Abortion seems quite distasteful and barbaric.
> This has nothing to do with Religion. Not a single thing, but quite honestly I believe it is one of the most selfish actions a person can take. Hey, I don't want a baby because it's not the right time for me, so I'm going to kill it. Whoopsie.
> 
> I have several friends who have had abortions. I think I'm the only one in my close group that hasn't.
> 
> One got pregnant and her and her boyfriend decided to terminate (she figured it out when she was around 3 months along). Well, two years later they ended up getting engaged. Three weeks before the wedding the man got into a terrible car accident and died. My friend cries almost every day three years later and wishes they hadn't done it, not that he is dead, she cries over the baby she could have had with/from him.
> 
> Another friend had a similar thing happen, aborted the child late in the first trimester then later they got engaged and married. She has not been able to conceive and is currently undergoing IVF.
> 
> Another very close friend had THREE abortions with her current boyfriend. Now they are talking about getting married! Well, she has developed severe thyroid problems and is on a host of medications. Most of which she cannot take during pregnancy. She wholeheartedly regrets each one.
> 
> If ya gonna have a one night stand, be on the pill, bag it, withdraw, and go take a morning after if ya don't love the guy. Why take the chance?
> For the reason of: Medical, rape, addiction, insanity... fine. Being of sound mind, and unfortunately a woman, just think about it.
> I'm sorry this was brutal.


Ah good point on the rape victim! Didn't think of that. But, I would still reserve it for insurance coverage in the event the individual was too mentally distraught to do a d&c right away....and all the other reasons you named.

Actually, yes, there is clear documentation of _some_ of the founding fathers either being deist, or discussing its validity at length. That is a bit of a stretch from "most" of them. I know Christians that are _extremely_ well versed in other religions and admire some of their teachings, and can quote them w ease - which could be mistaken for "convert" if taken out of context.


----------



## FlyGap

I totally get that. Of course it's for any denomination, any religion, BUT UNDER A GOD. Meaning that our actions and morals are being watched, not that we *shouldn't have any* and that this country was founded for people to do whatever they want. 

As for Gay marriage... I'm not one of those crazy religious people that believe they will go to hell for their actions. I do believe that they are introducing a relatively new set of social morals in a very short period of time and expecting to be accepted as quickly. As for interracial marriages, been happening for centuries, here with Native Americans before the issue even became an debate. Slavery and second class citizens (casts and indentured servants), been happening forever and we deemed it to NOT be ok. For a man and a man to set up a household, raise children, and receive all the benefits thereof, and kiss and hold hands in public, not so much. I know homosexual's have been around for probably as long as humans _period_, but to expect an entire society to completely change their social and marital foundation, in a historical timeframe of SECONDS? 
Well, just put it to a vote.


----------



## Missy May

thesilverspear said:


> Right... to quickly address points made in an earlier post, marriage was and is not intended to "protect women and children." At least in Western society, its aetiology lies in contracts transferring property from one family to another and if you're lucky, increasing your land holdings. The argument that allowing gay people to call a civil union a marriage would equate to women and children losing legal protection is a pure fallacy, if there ever was one.
> 
> Your most recent post asks "what minorities or ethnic groups do not believe in marriage?" So by your newest logic (which seems to contradict your previous assertions), you are saying gay people should be deprived of something granted to every other group in the US and that it is not ONLY a Christian thing.


Since not all people were wealthy, land holdings and large dowries were not the concern of all people. However, even poor people and primative tribes (w no land holdings) understand/understood the importants of responsibility when it comes to having a family...hence the _tradition_ of marriage.

The question was directed at the use of the word MINORITIES, please check that out.... perhaps gays are now legally recognized as a minority - I don't know, but I am sure you do. I am also sure gays are recognized as a minority by the _traditional_ sense of the word.


----------



## Missy May

By the way, silverspear, I wasn't going to mention this before in one of your post in response to me...and I can't remember if it were on this thread or the other political one. I like to keep it civil.......but, people that believe they can read minds are not considered sane. It goes beyond "pure fallacy", its dillusional.


----------



## Missy May

Tennessee said:


> "As the government of the *United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion*,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
> Found in the 1797 US Treaty with Tripoli
> I bolded the part that I feel to be the most useful to this debate.
> 
> 
> I think people get that idea that because they spoke of a god meant that they automatically worshipped the Christian God, which is not necessarily the case. Our country was TRULY founded on the idea of religious freedom, which is I guess how I should have stated that in the first place." end Tennesssee's Quote
> 
> 
> I share the opinion of many that some of the founding fathers were geniuses in the true sense of the word. I think fact they wanted to ensure there was no possibility of ever having the nation ruled by Christian doctrine was made clear time and time again, including in the example you provided. Freedoms could not survive if that happened, and they knew that all to well. That is a bit different from saying few of them were Christian (and I _know_ you have since clarified you did not mean that). If they had all been athiest, it wouldn't matter to me. The fact would still remain that they and the document they produced were products of western culture.


----------



## dbarabians

I missed this thread due to business matters.
On gay marrriage: Marriage is alegal matter and married couples enjoy 750 rights granted upoun signing a legal document.
If you get married by a religous cleric and do not take a signed piece of paper top the court house you are not legally married. Thsi is a civil matter.
There were no marriages in the Old testament. Women did not have a say. Men did not have only 1 wife and were allowed as many hand maidens as they could keep. To imply that marraige is divinely inspired is romanticizing the matter. Equal protection under the law is a conerstone of our constitution.
If we are allowed to deny the rights to anyone what rights can soceiety deny you?
Another couples relationship has no bering what so ever on yours. It can neither improve it or lessen it.
On birth control. The birth control works pretty effectively if used properly and every time it is almost fool proof.
CODOMS DO NOT BREAK. If you think that they do go buy one and fill it with water. They are virtually indestructable. They do however come with an expiration date and get old so they need to be replaced.
Abortion. As a jew I believe that the life of the mother supercedes the life of the child UNTIL that child breathes then it is equal to the mother. The Torah tells us that after the child breathes it receives a soul and becomes a person..
Every child is to be loved and an abortion is not some simple decision for any woman to make. This should be up to her and her Dr not the government.
I always find it funny that men are usually the most vocal opponents of a womans right to choose. If it were up to me I think only women should vote on the matter.
Great discussion and very intelligent. Shalom


----------



## outnabout

thesilverspear said:


> I also think Faceman has inadvertently and beautifully illustrated Alison's point; not that there is a vast male conspiracy "to preserve their virility," which is indeed silly, but that many men are making these decisions based on what they THINK birth control does and their moral qualms about recreational sex, rather than the complex and multifaceted reality that they clearly can't be bothered researching.
> 
> I suppose, nevertheless, that there is a point to be made about Western society's rather long and sordid history of controlling female sexuality and the fact that the invention of contraceptives increased parity between men and women. Now women could also have no-strings-attached sex, which had previously been the preserve of men.


Faceman, I have never hated men, and as a matter of fact was raised with several brothers and spend more time with men than women. I accept that it is indeed a "man's world" and got over it a long time ago. However, silverspear has hit the nail on the head with her reference to Western phobias about women's sexuality. Everything changed with the birth control pill. Our entire society changed! IMO, not for the better. However, the phobias about sexuality prevail in this country. Several decades ago when the pro-choice issue was really hot, there was a saying that if men were the baby-carrying gender, abortion would be a sacrament. That hits hard and smarts, but this was the train of thought, an indication of how controlled women sometimes feel by men when it comes to their sexuality. 
I am just trying to shed light on silverspear's observation, not bash men!


----------



## Whisper22

" As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments.

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments. 

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777."

WEIRD


----------



## Faceman

outnabout said:


> Faceman, I have never hated men, and as a matter of fact was raised with several brothers and spend more time with men than women. I accept that it is indeed a "man's world" and got over it a long time ago. However, silverspear has hit the nail on the head with her reference to Western phobias about women's sexuality. Everything changed with the birth control pill. Our entire society changed! IMO, not for the better. However, the phobias about sexuality prevail in this country. Several decades ago when the pro-choice issue was really hot, there was a saying that if men were the baby-carrying gender, abortion would be a sacrament. That hits hard and smarts, but this was the train of thought, an indication of how controlled women sometimes feel by men when it comes to their sexuality.
> I am just trying to shed light on silverspear's observation, not bash men!


I'm not sure how much I buy into the "man's world" philosophy. I think the gender dominance issue is quite complex. I'll offer two trains of thought, for what it's worth - just my thoughts understand.

First, I am an old fart, and am old enough to have seen a lot of changes in our society. I agree that is was still a "man's world" 60 or 70 years ago. Women were relegated to housewife/mother, and were pretty much at the mercy of men. However WWII changed much of that when women went to work while the men were off to war, and it has kept on changing ever since. Women are much more independent now, have the ability to work at almost any career choice if they so choose, and are far less passive in their perssonal relationships. The "pay gap" between men and women, although still there, has narrowed substantially over the years, and in the majority of careers there is no difference between compensation to men and women. There are assuredly still some stigmas in the workplace toward women - primarily absenteeism and stability, but as an employer for many many years, I'm not sure I would classify that as discriminatory. It is discrimination when you are acting on the basis of perception, but it is not discrimination when you are acting on the basis of facts, and the simple fact is women statistically have a higher incidence of absenteeism and they are more subject than men to relocate to follow their spouse. I'm not passing judgment on those things, just saying that those are things an employer must take into consideration.

Second, understand that I was a Loan Officer and Public Information Officer for the SBA for over 15 years. A substantial part of my job was to empower women and minorities through small business ownership. In that capacity, I served as a women's advocate, and worked with thousands of women in my career, helping them to start and expand small businesses. It has always been my observation that both women and minorities often use their "status" as an excuse, or crutch. A large part of my mission was to not only help them overcome real barriers, but to overcome perceived barriers as well.

To tie those things together, women are faced with two realities. First, is the "real" gender issue, and second is the "perceived" gender issue. The perceived gender issue is completely understandable, which many men simply don't understand. Women have been suppressed for as long as their have been women - somewhere around 2 million years. Some of that is due to culture and some to simple biology and the niches that men and women occupied prior to becoming civilized - so long that much of it has become instinct. Men and women both have instincts, and they are not always identical. While it is true that many of the barriers created by gender have been torn down, women as a gender are so used to being suppressed for literally thousands of generations, that it is not easy to shake off the innate resentment and accept that the playing field is not that unlevel any longer.

To summarize, yes it is still a "man's world" to a degree, but only to a small degree...at least in my opinion. Yes, there are still some issues and barriers that women face and men don't - there is no question about that, and in the case of some of those issues I'm not sure what can be done about them. Women bear the children, and as a group are intrinsically less free to determine their own destiny than men, and are more vulnerable than men...and I am clueless how to resolve that.

So yes, I agree with you it is a "man's world" to a degree, but it is in a woman's best interest to view the gender issue as it really is today, and not to use her gender as an excuse or crutch to either limit her boundaries or accept a destiny that is less than it could be...


----------



## kitten_Val

kait18 said:


> so i think the abortion would/should stay open for the later date... nothing is 100%


I'm somewhat disagree with it because 1) the abortion on late date is very hard on woman (both health and emotional-wise), and 2) after 24 weeks the baby can make it (with the help of the hospital). So IMHO after 24 weeks it'd be an intentional killing. I think a woman should be given an option till 20 weeks or so (when you also do all those tests on abnormalities in fetus).


----------



## kait18

FlyGap said:


> \
> As far as Abortions go with rape... A woman has every right to go get a D&C immediately after being accosted. Why wait until there is a fetus and then go and get it chopped out?


 i am not sure how long it takes to get dna from a fetus. but until they have a way to get dna off the fetus i would say the rape victim should carry until that point. that way they have hard evidence of who it was an won't wrongful accuse anyone

i know i am arguing the whole pro abortion thing but i just don't see where others have the right to tell someone else that they can't have one. it might be selfish, it might not be either way its someone elses body not ours. i could never get an abortion but i sure don't want my right to get one taken away just because some want to tell me what to do with my body. i also think the government should not fund the abortions.


----------



## kitten_Val

kait18 said:


> i know i am arguing the whole pro abortion thing but i just don't see where others have the right to tell someone else that they can't have one. it might be selfish, it might not be either way its someone elses body


Well, the problem is you (general you, of course) have LOTS of time till 5 or 6 months to decide if you want a baby or not (I believe DNA can be done around 4 months). Again, passed the point when baby already can make it on its own (outside the uterus) the woman actually killing the real human. To me it's the same is giving a birth and then deciding to get rid of the baby because "he's too loud"/"too much money needed"/whatever.


----------



## kait18

kitten_Val said:


> I'm somewhat disagree with it because 1) the abortion on late date is very hard on woman (both health and emotional-wise), and 2) after 24 weeks the baby can make it (with the help of the hospital). So IMHO after 24 weeks it'd be an intentional killing. I think a woman should be given an option till 20 weeks or so (when you also do all those tests on abnormalities in fetus).


i dont necessarily think just because they can survive in the hospital at 24 weeks gives it any reason to be a born.. early births cause those children to face many challenges those first few months and sometimes later in life. 
i don't think forcing them to be kept alive is the answer. 

if babies were made to live right after conception then there wouldn't be the 9 month waiting period of making sure they are fully developed which would take away any abortion argument. but until the baby is breathing and eating on its own i don't consider it murder. the baby is still living off the mother in the womb and therefore is still apart of her even if it has its own organs. 

here is a twist so if getting an abortion is murder and illegal and can be prosecuted then it might be a far stretch but with how the law is turned now a days, what if then a mother who miscarriages was then prosecuted for killing her baby. 
(i know far stretch but think about what happens when abortion is taken away from people)

there can be more women throwing themselves down the stairs, or punching there stomach region or have someone else inflicting the blows to kill the fetus. then you have the women who are unforunate and lose the baby by no fault of there own. the whole thing will be maddness with how lawyers can spin the truth to make it wrong. 

either way your taking the life of the baby. if one way is wrong then all ways are wrong. it can't just be one way. 

ok so please ridicule the above


----------



## Missy May

kait18 said:


> ok so please ridicule the above


First trimester, _three months_, 90 days, and one can't decide? 

There is no reason one can't put an infant up for adoption if they were just unable to make up their mind in the first 90 days. And, if one doesn't want to give birth, _maybe_ they should use birth control.


----------



## FlyGap

I won't ridicule anything!

The thing I believe is that a woman, if she did the things you mentioned, is actively trying to kill. Which is murder, and therefore subject to prosecution or (I'll add mental evaluation also). What EXACTLY makes the child "not a human or person" because they are inside a body? We protect fish eggs, turtle eggs, habitats of all kinds, yet as long as the baby is still inside they are nothing more than a bunch of worthless cells?
They have a brain, motor skills, have been shown in utero reacting to and recognizing sounds, light, etc. Even before their eyes are developed they explore their surroundings by touch. No, they don't have any experience of breathing air, they have never ingested food on their own, but is that a lack of being a person? A baby still depends 1,000% on a mother outside the womb for existence, except for the breathing thing.

As far as D&C goes a woman has the ability to immediately go and have a rape kit done which will determine DNA. I of course have never been raped, blessings and prayers for those who have, but the excuse or action of waiting until later term for DNA is not a valid argument for Pro choice. Again, TODAY we have enough viable options to prevent pregnancy. Therefore no longer needing the "right" to kill a baby in the womb. Yes it is my body, I have every right to prevent conception, by abstinence, BC, etc. Again the practice is barbaric.

No religious views on this, actually my religious views contradict my moral ones on this subject! LOL!


----------



## kitten_Val

kait18 said:


> if babies were made to live right after conception then there wouldn't be the 9 month waiting period of making sure they are fully developed which would take away any abortion argument. but until the baby is breathing and eating on its own i don't consider it murder.


In fact 9 months is not quite true. If you look at the pregnancy calculator it's something like 8 months for twins, 7 months for triplet, etc. Several of our friends delivered WAY before the 9 months (1 at just little over 6 months). And mind you it happened years ago (when the medicine was not nearly at the level it is now). All babies grew up in healthy people without any abnormalities. 

I agree with FlyGap here: when the baby can survive and woman suddenly decided to get rid of it for some _selfish _reason, I'd call it an active attempt to kill. 

P.S. I can think of situations when the abortion on late stage may be the only option (like some strong health reasons), but those are exceptions and the decision is made with the doctor's advise.


----------



## dbarabians

As Mental Health Professional I have had many clients. Some of them victims of sexual assualt.
To compel a woman who has suffered such a violent and degrading act to carry a child is inhumane and immoral. No one can predict the lasting devastation such an act encompasses. No one knows how they will react until it happens to them. Requiring a woman to carry a child by her attacker is a constant reminder of her assualt. Has some one who has been raped suffered enough?
Treating a fetus as a full fledged human being IMO is dangerous and misleading. Shalom


----------



## equiniphile

Faceman said:


> In the first place, Viagra is used to treat medical conditions. Birth control is not. Why should insurance companies pay for birth control? That doesn't even make sense.


Sorry to get personal on y'all, but I have had problems with ovarian cysts for a long time. I was in the hospital every month puking into trash bins because of how bad they were; I had one that was 6x6cm. My OBGyn put me on BC to treat the condition, and I haven't had a problem with it since. So yes, BC is used to treat medical conditions.


----------



## FlyGap

"primarily absenteeism and stability"
This is a huge stigma that has been proven to be terribly flawed. I cannot for the life of me find the study that was published "recently" about this idea. But it stated that women, especially single mothers, are FAR more reliable in the workplace. Due to the obvious reason that they are the sole providers for their families, and cannot afford to take unnecessary sick, personal, and vacation days.
My mother was a single parent, she worked her way up the corporate ladder and was hugely successful. Of course that made my brother and I latch key kids, I remember being 8/9 with chicken pox laying in bed all day alone at home. My mom couldn't stay home and care for me. I was also made to go to school ill or covered in poison ivy because no one would be home to take care of me, suck it up girl. My brother was worthless, running the streets, stealing, vandalizing and a constant headache for my mother, he still is. I support her decision, she is my role model of how successful a single mother and any woman can be. But our situation also defined my ideas on how important having a stable home and how the loss of our family circle impacts our children

The whole feminist movement has backfired on women, families, and children. Actually society as a whole has broken down to a point that everyone is suffering. The whole idea was that women could and should be able to have the exact same rights as their male counterparts in the workplace and society. Now the whole idea has been so construed that EVERY social role has been thrown out the window. 

Women working outside of the home in almost every aspect is obvious in all facets of history. Hunters and gatherers, farmers, gosh the list is endless. Thing is the breakdown of the family core is really what is to fault. Historically mothers have always been able to fall back and depend on the family circle to care for children, or have servants, nannies, whatever to support their roles in society. Now we have grandparents off miles away, and dumped in centers, or too selfish to support working women. The role of women as working in the home has been so demeaned that they are ridiculed and expected to provide equal amounts (or at least as much possible) of income in order for the family to exist. SEVERAL times I have been told that the importance of staying/working at home is an antiquated idea and no longer possible in today's world. The importance of family values has been tossed out in favor of materialism. Grandmothers are either working or too busy "enjoying the good life" instead of taking care of their grandchildren and supporting family units. We dump our kids off at centers and most of the time just leave them at home to fend for themselves. Women have always had jobs, and raised children, and taken care of their spouses, and run the household, and been the moral/religious teachers, and held the fabric of society together.

Of course a woman is capable (even more competent than men) of doing virtually anything. Their brains are highly more developed than mens in many areas, they are far superior in seeing the whole picture, multitasking, hell, they are better drivers too!! LOL! Women are far (in general) more selfless and aware of the needs of others in such a capacity that they work for the better of all instead of themselves. This is all proven in multitudes of studies. 

I'm not saying that the majority of women have not become selfish, they have. They are more focused on material things rather than how their children are being raised, their spouses are cared for, and their lack of caring for their elders. Again the whole thing has backfired on us.

Men, well, don't get me started on them!!!


----------



## Faceman

equiniphile said:


> Sorry to get personal on y'all, but I have had problems with ovarian cysts for a long time. I was in the hospital every month puking into trash bins because of how bad they were; I had one that was 6x6cm. My OBGyn put me on BC to treat the condition, and I haven't had a problem with it since. So yes, BC is used to treat medical conditions.


This was covered in several posts you evidently didn't read...


----------



## equiniphile

I'll admit I jumped the gun and read up to that post, where I responded. I've now read the rest of the thread.

I find it interesting how variant statistics are from here to the classroom. We have been taught that BC would be 100% if taken regularly, and here, I'm seeing that that is not true. We are also taught that condoms break often, which is also evidently untrue....

I know it was mentioned a while ago, but we have been shown gruesome STI photos. I'd be interested in seeing if this is commonplace, or just shown in the minority of schools.


----------



## Faceman

FlyGap said:


> "primarily absenteeism and stability"
> This is a huge stigma that has been proven to be terribly flawed. I cannot for the life of me find the study that was published "recently" about this idea. But it stated that women, especially single mothers, are FAR more reliable in the workplace. Due to the obvious reason that they are the sole providers for their families, and cannot afford to take unnecessary sick, personal, and vacation days.


I don't much care about "studies". I was a manager for 27 years in both the private and public sector. I never had a man miss 6 weeks due to a pregnancy, 6 weeks for a hysterectcomy, miss time regularly for menstruation, and never had one leave because his wife was transferred, necessitating hiring and training a new employee. I have had lots of women in all the above categories. I have noticed more men are staying home occasionally to take care of sick kids, but by far the majority of the time it is the woman.

Studies are studies..some are absolutely objective, but the vast majority have a bias, an origin with an agenda, are unscientific, or draw inappropriate conclusions. 

Once again, I don't think any of those things are "at fault" issues, but they have to be considered nonetheless by a prospective employer. They are not serious issues with very large corporations of course, but they are with small businesses, which make up over 90% of all businesses, and employ about half of all people...


----------



## Faceman

equiniphile said:


> I'll admit I jumped the gun and read up to that post, where I responded. I've now read the rest of the thread.
> 
> I find it interesting how variant statistics are from here to the classroom. We have been taught that BC would be 100% if taken regularly, and here, I'm seeing that that is not true. We are also taught that condoms break often, which is also evidently untrue....
> 
> I know it was mentioned a while ago, but we have been shown gruesome STI photos. I'd be interested in seeing if this is commonplace, or just shown in the minority of schools.


Condoms do break - you were taught correctly. Whoever said earlier they don't is wrong. I know from first hand experience...:?


----------



## FlyGap

dbarabians said:


> As Mental Health Professional I have had many clients. Some of them victims of sexual assualt.
> To compel a woman who has suffered such a violent and degrading act to carry a child is inhumane and immoral. No one can predict the lasting devastation such an act encompasses. No one knows how they will react until it happens to them. Requiring a woman to carry a child by her attacker is a constant reminder of her assualt. Has some one who has been raped suffered enough?
> Treating a fetus as a full fledged human being IMO is dangerous and misleading. Shalom


dbarabians I feel for those women and support them and no I have never been in their situation, but have friends that have.
But, we send out service men and women to the battle front and EXPECT them to be able to make life altering decisions everyday on whether or not to kill an enemy in mere seconds. The effect on them changes their lives forever and the repercussions last for a lifetime. But we can't expect a rape VICTIM to make a decision within a month.
I'm not inserting my personal religious views into this topic, and nor should anyone else. Like you have stated many times our religion has no and should not have any basis on American society.

Faceman I agree with you on all of your experience. I've worked in small and corporate business and I've seen it all too. I also feel like excuses are made for gender now more often than used to.
My stance is that society and support has broken down as well as our work ethics. Leading to all kinds of ramifications.


----------



## Missy May

dbarabians said:


> As Mental Health Professional I have had many clients. Some of them victims of sexual assualt.
> To compel a woman who has suffered such a violent and degrading act to carry a child is inhumane and immoral. No one can predict the lasting devastation such an act encompasses. No one knows how they will react until it happens to them. Requiring a woman to carry a child by her attacker is a constant reminder of her assualt. Has some one who has been raped suffered enough?
> _Treating a fetus as a full fledged human being IMO is dangerous and misleading._ Shalom


It isn't by law, for the first trimester, so I don't understand the problem? I think rape victims are just that - victims. As I said earlier, I think all insurance should cover a rape victim's abortion and all other medical. I even go so far as to say if they do not - then don't cover gun shot and knife wounds, concussions, or broken bones or counseling from any attack. But, three months to get an abortion (or D&C type procedure "just in case" as flygap said 0, is available, is legal, and should be covered.


----------



## kitten_Val

dbarabians said:


> To compel a woman who has suffered such a violent and degrading act to carry a child is inhumane and immoral. No one can predict the lasting devastation such an act encompasses. No one knows how they will react until it happens to them. Requiring a woman to carry a child by her attacker is a constant reminder of her assualt. Has some one who has been raped suffered enough?


So are you saying waiting for 6+ months after being raped to decide if you want a child or not is what you've seen? You know that sounds neither right nor something common.

If you are raped and getting rid of the fetus, I'd expect you to do it ASAP (and that's something I think should be paid by insurance). I have no problem with artificial abortion in 1st trimester or on 4th-5th months if tests are saying the fetus has abnormalities you don't want to deal with. Yes, that must be up to the woman. But later in pregnancy getting rid of the fetus just because you decided you don't want it anymore is not right. Again, you had _plenty _of time to decide.


----------



## Missy May

Here is one I am sure everyone will love....women in the military. Whatever. I have heard so many people say "well, I know women that could fight as well as any man". I always ask, "Really....and did that particular female sign up?" While some combat position are restricted, I simply do not feel the US military should be a social proving ground. Believe me, they are treated as "more equal"...and the taxpayer has paid out the whazoo for "tolerance" for their "presence", too. There are few things the constitution requires the government to do - defense is one of them - and it is 100% funded by the taxpayer. We don't purchase prop planes with gunners - instead we buy combat jets capable of supersonic speeds, loaded w precision weapons, etc., because they are currenlty the best available and it is a matter of defense. There are plenty, plenty of jobs women _can_ do in the military, but lowering bars for physical fitness so they can show the world "woman can do it all just as well as any man" is insane, as well as putting them in jobs they are not suited. Although they have plenty of female employees, I haven't notices the NFL being forced to allow women to play football, and weapons aren't even included in the sport. If you can't get it on hand to hand with a "realistic" opponent you shouldn't be in a war zone.


----------



## FlyGap

Agreed. If a job requires a certain amount of physical skill that isn't met, then no go. I don't care what field or profession, and am especially adverse to quotas.

I have no clue though whether or not an entirely female brigade has been given the opportunity to fight and see how they do. I do believe women have strengths over men in a combat situation. I DO NOT BELIEVE that war and combat is a laughing matter or an arena of sorts to test the theory.
So hmmmm.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faceman

One good thing...with the tech advances, there are a lot more jobs in the military now that women are perfectly capable of doing, and doing well. Back in my time it was mostly just slugging it out on the ground. Aren't we lucky technology has advanced wars from hacking at each other with swords and axes to mass destruction at the push of a button?...:?


----------



## Allison Finch

Faceman said:


> As to the moral issue, my opinion is basically the same as yours, but I don't feel it is my responsibility to bear the costs of someone else's intamicies. To be a bit trite, I think people should pay to play...


And yet you argue it is OK for men to get their viagra with insurance? At least that was what I got from your post that said;



> In the first place, Viagra is used to treat medical conditions. Birth control is not. Why should insurance companies pay for birth control? That doesn't even make sense.


You don't see an inconsistency here? BC is to prevent pregnancy (I know you know that). To compare the two drugs as a form of "recreational medication" is an interesting comparison. The medical issues surrounding pregnancies can be pretty costly to Insurance companies. Viagra? well....maybe some people take it for nonrecreational purposes, but I bet that is a small proportion of those getting it from their insurance companies. So, if women can't get their BC from their insurance companies, the same should go for a MUCH more purely recreational drug for men.

No vendetta, just showing a little angst at the unfairness.


----------



## Missy May

Haha Faceman..."pay to play". I guess it _is_ true...nothing is for free! 
I am laughing also b/c before this very stimulating debate about BC and viagra - I didn't know insurance covered the later. It does seem a bit odd.
But, I am not sure "men" decided that, since I don't know what the genders are of all those in the positions of power with all insurance companies, as well as any associated regulatory commissions. I am guessing its coverage is affected by the word "dysfunction" (sorry, had to use it in order to make my point). If both components in BC were repackaged singularly or in combination and sold as "hormones for x, y, z condition", I am sure it would be covered too - if it is not already.


----------



## Faceman

Allison Finch said:


> And yet you argue it is OK for men to get their viagra with insurance? At least that was what I got from your post that said;
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see an inconsistency here? BC is to prevent pregnancy (I know you know that). To compare the two drugs as a form of "recreational medication" is an interesting comparison. The medical issues surrounding pregnancies can be pretty costly to Insurance companies. Viagra? well....maybe some people take it for nonrecreational purposes, but I bet that is a small proportion of those getting it from their insurance companies. So, if women can't get their BC from their insurance companies, the same should go for a MUCH more purely recreational drug for men.
> 
> No vendetta, just showing a little angst at the unfairness.


I see no inconsistency at all - most likely because there is none.

Only 8% of Viagra is taken by men under 40. Viagra is used primarily by men well over 40 to treat medical conditions, most notably in men with diabetes, arteriosclerosis, and those experiencing side affects from blood pressure and other medications. On the flip side, over 15% of birth control pills are used by teenage girls.

Unfairness? You don't see me complaining about insurance paying for hormone therapy for menopausal and post menopausal women, or prescription creams for post menopausal women that no longer have natural lubrication. Why don't I complain about those? Because they are medical conditions.

Birth control, except in rare situations where it would be physically dangerous to a woman's life, IS NOT A MEDICAL CONDITION. I am reasonably literate, but honestly I can't think of a more simple way to state it without being condescending, which is not my intent.

With that being said, that doesn't mean that Viagra isn't being sometimes abused in ways that I would be opposed to insurance covering it. We all know that some doctors will prescribe any dang thing you want, and my understanding is that Viagra is being used in some cases by young boys/men at parties, and you and I both know there are probably some married guys that use it when they mess around with other women. But those are exceptions to the rule, just as valid medical conditions are the exception to the rule with birth control. 

In summary, there may be differing opinions and views, but there is certainly no inconsistency between supporting treating a medical condition for a man (or woman) in order that they can have sexual relations and opposing providing birth control when it is readily available in any drugstore at nominal cost...


----------



## Faceman

Missy May said:


> Haha Faceman..."pay to play". I guess it _is_ true...nothing is for free!
> I am laughing also b/c before this very stimulating debate about BC and viagra - I didn't know insurance covered the later. It does seem a bit odd.
> But, I am not sure "men" decided that, since I don't know what the genders are of all those in the positions of power with all insurance companies, as well as any associated regulatory commissions. I am guessing its coverage is affected by the word "dysfunction" (sorry, had to use it in order to make my point). If both components in BC were repackaged singularly or in combination and sold as "hormones for x, y, z condition", I am sure it would be covered too - if it is not already.


Yeah, Mrs. Face works for the VA and when the VA was deciding whether or not to pay for Viagra, there was a big bruhaha about it. If I remember correctly, and my memory is not what it used to be, they started out paying for it, then stopped due to objections from the public, but then resumed it.

But, as I said in my last post, we also pay for women that have sexual dysfunctions due to medical conditions, so I don't wee why such a distinction is being made about Viagra.

With my luck, by the time I need it insurance won't cover it, and Mrs. Face and I will have to take up Cribbage or Dominos or something because I'm so cheap... :lol:


----------



## equiniphile

I know this topic has branched away from drinking age, but I do believe that military members should be able to drink. If you're old enough to die for your country, you should be old enough to have a beer.


----------



## tlkng1

What I don't get in this whole birth control argument is that for a long time many have said that birth control is the responsibility of the woman. So, make it unaffordable or even worse, unaccessible like some of these organizations would love to do, and now who is responsible for birth control...the men????

Birth control or not, the stands some of these moron representatives/governors/lobbyists/fanatics are taking are just plain scary and some of it has nothing to do with birth control. I would love to get my hands on the person that invented the time machine that is bringing these "people" forward in time from the Dark Ages.


----------



## outnabout

equiniphile said:


> I'll admit I jumped the gun and read up to that post, where I responded. I've now read the rest of the thread.
> 
> I find it interesting how variant statistics are from here to the classroom. We have been taught that BC would be 100% if taken regularly, and here, I'm seeing that that is not true. We are also taught that condoms break often, which is also evidently untrue....
> 
> I know it was mentioned a while ago, but we have been shown gruesome STI photos. I'd be interested in seeing if this is commonplace, or just shown in the minority of schools.


STI photos? What is STI?


----------



## dbarabians

Womens health issuee have always and continue to take second place to that of men.
Faceman working at the VA I think that you would see first hand the second class status women face the VA. Womens programs are severly underfunded and staffed.
No men do not take maternity leave but they do die younger have far more injuries and take greater risk with their health.
Reproductrive health is the respoinsibilty of everyone. Yet in this country we allow the women to shoulder most of the burden.
I am the father of 2 daughters and womens health care is very important to me. Shalom


----------



## Tennessee

FlyGap said:


> Agreed. If a job requires a certain amount of physical skill that isn't met, then no go. I don't care what field or profession, and am especially adverse to quotas.
> 
> I have no clue though whether or not an entirely female brigade has been given the opportunity to fight and see how they do. I do believe women have strengths over men in a combat situation. I DO NOT BELIEVE that war and combat is a laughing matter or an arena of sorts to test the theory.
> So hmmmm.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


They have what are called FETs. Female Engagement Teams. I am far from an expert on these, so I would suggest Googling more info about it.



I 100 percent support the idea of women in the military. I will hopefully be one of them by the end of the year.


----------



## equiniphile

outnabout said:


> STI photos? What is STI?


 STDs/STIs, same thing. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that kids should be shown nasty pictures of STIs to discourage them from unsafe sex.


----------



## outnabout

equiniphile said:


> STDs/STIs, same thing. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that kids should be shown nasty pictures of STIs to discourage them from unsafe sex.


Haha... as a high school teacher I can assure you that very few things will deter teenagers from having sex if they want to. 
There are fewer and fewer pregnant teens in the suburban schools I've been in for the past decade or so. In urban schools, that isn't the case. Teens get BC now, thank goodness, and unfortunately some get abortions or their parents force them to get abortions.


----------



## equiniphile

outnabout said:


> *Haha... as a high school teacher I can assure you that very few things will deter teenagers from having sex if they want to.*
> There are fewer and fewer pregnant teens in the suburban schools I've been in for the past decade or so. In urban schools, that isn't the case. Teens get BC now, thank goodness, and unfortunately some get abortions or their parents force them to get abortions.


Very true. However, I think it's great we're being educated on more than just the pregnancy aspect of sex. So many high schoolers are clueless about STDs and think that just because someone doesn't have a sign around their neck saying they have [fill in the blank disease], they must not have anything.


----------



## Missy May

equiniphile said:


> I know this topic has branched away from drinking age, but I do believe that military members should be able to drink. If you're old enough to die for your country, you should be old enough to have a beer.


 
Well, first - its an all volunteer military, you can easily have a beer first and then join. 

Second, what? Your taxpayer dollars went into shaping a "zero tolerance", teetotaling military "culture". Yep, don't smoke or drink at any age - and you'll be a healthier human being when you die fighting.


----------



## kevinshorses

That's true. If I depended on my body to keep me alive I would make sure my body was in tip top shape. Drinking and smoking are bad for you and it's best if you abstain from that but if you don't want to then you should be able to have a drink at 18.


----------



## kait18

Missy May said:


> First trimester, _three months_, 90 days, and one can't decide?
> 
> There is no reason one can't put an infant up for adoption if they were just unable to make up their mind in the first 90 days. And, if one doesn't want to give birth, _maybe_ they should use birth control.


birth control isn't 100% and neither are condoms  i know people who have gotten pregnant while using both and both proved to not help in that one instance.


----------



## outnabout

equiniphile said:


> Very true. However, I think it's great we're being educated on more than just the pregnancy aspect of sex. So many high schoolers are clueless about STDs and think that just because someone doesn't have a sign around their neck saying they have [fill in the blank disease], they must not have anything.


Just like some adults, in total denial :?


----------



## kevinshorses

kait18 said:


> birth control isn't 100% and neither are condoms  i know people who have gotten pregnant while using both and both proved to not help in that one instance.


They either weren't using them right or they're lying!


----------



## Ladytrails

Interesting thread. A couple of tidbits - BC for birth control reasons is not treating a 'disease' - pregnancy isn't considered a disease. But, BC to treat a medical condition or its symptoms (endometriosis or PMS) is different in the eyes of the medical community and thus insurance. Ironically, also, insurance companies will pay for Viagra as other posters have said, because it's dealing with symptoms of medical conditions/diseases. But, they won't usually pay for infertility treatments - though infertility IS a medical condition/disease. I remember in the 90's the insurance company where I worked paid for a 90+ year old man to spend a long time in ICU with an infection caused by his penile implant that he got in his 80's. He finally had to have it removed, healed up, and we paid again for it to be replaced. In his 90's. Now, sorry, but that is a medical condition (the 2nd one) that isn't really needing to be treated! Give me a break. 

And, pass it on - this isn't something that the pharmacies or doctors will tell you -- St. John's Wort and certain other natural supplements and herbs will DECREASE the effectiveness of birth control pills (and other hormones, too - like thyroid replacement). Some chemicals, heat and cold will destroy the integrity of latex. So, if your lady is taking herbs and if your condom is in your pocket, you might just wanna kiss and hold hands


----------



## kait18

kevinshorses said:


> They either weren't using them right or they're lying!


nope condom broke for one and the birth control for the other girl had a wrong dosage and had to be recalled. 

neither was the fault of boy or girl. they tried to be safe and in both cases failed to prevent the pregnancy.


----------



## Missy May

equiniphile said:


> Very true. However, I think it's great we're being educated on more than just the pregnancy aspect of sex. So many high schoolers are clueless about STDs and think that just because someone doesn't have a sign around their neck saying they have [fill in the blank disease], they must not have anything.


I don't have a problem with sex education, per se. However, when only the "mechanics" of something is presented, stds, and then BC methods...I have to wonder if "with whom", or abstinance is presented well enough. There is no telling unless you sit in every sex ed class. This is why I think it should be standardized material and available on the internet for parental review. Is it just fine to have recreational sex w anyone and everyone...if so, are std's the only thing you should be concerned with? Most husbands and wives don't think so, so why should the attitude w kids ever be, "ah, well, they are going to do it, so we might as well educate them on how and what to use". What kind of message is that, really? People that don't care about their children don't care what they are taught at school, which can greatly affect the quality. In this case, the quality would be somewhat a subjective call, but it is a parent's child, not the school's. Sex education has been around for decades - I do not think teen pregnancy has plummeted since it was implemented.


----------



## MakeYourMark

I had a great health teacher. He was very specific about meeting state standards, but really took it to another level. He covered all of the eating/exercise/relationship stuff and we didn't get to "Sex Ed" until about halfway through the semester. He showed a lot of videos and we did projects and covered a lot of things. It is, in a lot of high schools, required that you take health and geography. I took it freshman year.

Definitely could be one of those subjects that could lead to some bad teachers, though!!


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Womens health issuee have always and continue to take second place to that of men.
> Faceman working at the VA I think that you would see first hand the second class status women face the VA. Womens programs are severly underfunded and staffed.
> No men do not take maternity leave but they do die younger have far more injuries and take greater risk with their health.
> *Reproductrive health is the respoinsibilty of everyone*. Yet in this country we allow the women to shoulder most of the burden.
> I am the father of 2 daughters and womens health care is very important to me. Shalom


I don't work for the VA - Mrs. Face does. However there is a certain amount of truth to what you say - at the VA. Before we moved to Branson when I retired, Mrs. Face was the Cancer Manager for one of the VA's regions, which has 10 hospitals in 4 states. Her region was pretty state of the art when it came to lung and prostate cancer, but woefully deficient when it came to breast or ovarian cancer. However, that shouldn't be the biggest of surprises considering the low number of women in the military in relation to men, and the few number of such cases they get. It would, after all, be a bit far fetched to expect all VA hospitals to have Oncologists specializing in women's cancer with the low number of cases they have. I just use cancer as an example, but the same would be true with many women's health issues.

However, I disagree strongly with your statement I bolded. I am 64 years old, married, and monogamous. Your "reproductive health" is your problem - not mine. It is not my responsibility any more than my high blood pressure is your responsibility. That is an entitlement attitude...which you are entilted to have (no pun intended), but you won't find an entitlement attitude in my house. Your health care is your responsibility - not mine, and it certainly shouldn't be the government's


----------



## Allison Finch

Gee, Face...women make up 20% of todays military. That's one soldier in five. So that is a good reason to deny adequate care for female soldiers. That's a pretty high percentage, in my book.


----------



## kevinshorses

kait18 said:


> nope condom broke for one and the birth control for the other girl had a wrong dosage and had to be recalled.
> 
> neither was the fault of boy or girl. they tried to be safe and in both cases failed to prevent the pregnancy.


If the condom broke YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!! As far as the condom goes. It may actually be REALLY right!


----------



## dbarabians

Healthcare is everyone's concern.
The federal government is the largest provider of healthcare in the country.
If you go to the emergency room you will be treated if you have health insurance or not. If you do not the federal, state and local governments pay your bill. What you do not have access to is preventive healthcare.
preventive healthcare cost far less and takes less time.
Our public healthcare system is overburdened. This limits healthcare for those of us that have insurance. They go hand in hand.
Reproductive healthcare is everyones concern becuase unplanned pregnancies burden not only our healthcare but education and social services. the cycle repeats itself.
European countries that distribute contraceptives and educate their populations on Sex do not have the same problems we do.
There are minoritiy communities where unwed mothers are the norm. Creating a permenant underclass. this effects us all and burdens our country financially.
This country cannot address its finacial deficets without taking steps to solve this problem.
Great debate and very civil and informative. Shalom


----------



## Missy May

dbarabians said:


> Healthcare is everyone's concern.
> The federal government is the largest provider of healthcare in the country.
> If you go to the emergency room you will be treated if you have health insurance or not. If you do not the federal, state and local governments pay your bill. What you do not have access to is preventive healthcare.
> preventive healthcare cost far less and takes less time.
> Our public healthcare system is overburdened. This limits healthcare for those of us that have insurance. They go hand in hand.
> Reproductive healthcare is everyones concern becuase unplanned pregnancies burden not only our healthcare but education and social services. the cycle repeats itself.
> European countries that distribute contraceptives and educate their populations on Sex do not have the same problems we do.
> There are minoritiy communities where unwed mothers are the norm. Creating a permenant underclass. this effects us all and burdens our country financially.
> This country cannot address its finacial deficets without taking steps to solve this problem.
> Great debate and very civil and informative. Shalom


I am not sure what the connection between reproductive health care and unplanned pregnancies is? This country has dumped bazzillions into the welfare of people from birth to the next generation...and they didn't exclude "reproductive healthcare" and the numbers of "unplanned pregnancies" went UP. You can lead a horse to water, but if they roll over and do the back-stroke, well, now ya got something!

Besides, if you pay unwed mothers more - the more children they have, I question the "unplanned" part after child number one.

This country has an unacceptable deficit because of it is over burdened w social programs, not b/c it has to few!!! 

Wanting everyone to have the same standard of living is called communism, and some european countries have tried that, too (be it unwillingly) - I don't find that a compelling argument to institute it here.


----------



## cmarie

Well Miss May communism is the perfect system if it worker but it doesn't because people are greedy by nature. If you look at it as it was intended to be everyone was equal.


----------



## tlkng1

kevinshorses said:


> They either weren't using them right or they're lying!


No, contraceptive methods do not always work. The mother of a friend of mine had a tubal ligation (tubes tied) after her third child...supposed to be permanent right? She had two more children. 

Add in the report a few months ago of the recalled birth control where the formula or whatever it was wasn't strong enough to do what is was supposed to do.


----------



## dbarabians

Missy May reproductive heatlcare encompasses Birth control.
Greater access to BC less unwed mothers less demand for welfare and better opprutunities for the needy.
The 2 of us are agreeeing that personal responibilty needs to be reaffirmed.
The children of unwed mothers become unwed mother themselves. They live in poverty and they are far more likely to not finish highschool or become gainfully employed. Those are the facts.
Stopping the cycle which repeats itself generation after generation is essential if we are to reduce the assistance programs funded by the government.
Stopping them 100% is unrealistic. Our goals should be a large reduction in the number that are in need
Missy sorry for the Typos!!!! Shalom


----------



## FlyGap

Tlkng1, after tubal litigation women are supposed to go in for a dye test. Did she do that? I was going to have one but I have a problem with being put under so I had to opt for the IUD. My doctor stressed that there was a possibility that I could still get pregnant if I did it. Two women in her office put off the dye test and both women got pregnant. So they were doing it wrong, AND your friend should have had her procedure redone after "oops" number 1.

Asking people to be responsible for their BC and children is hardly like asking them to fly to the moon. I struggle with adding MORE and STRICTER laws and guidelines to protect people. We say sure you can drink... but you can't drive because you could possibly kill someone. I don't have a single problem saying sure you can have sex, but IF you get pregnant you only have a tiny timeframe to KILL your baby. I don't even like that, but I can compromise.

Edit: As for the the pill not being effective... I AGREE! I and my brother are both pill and diaphram (sp) babies.
My daughter is a pill baby AND I was told by THREE doctors that it would be virtually impossible for me to conceive. I also NEVER wanted children and didn't have a problem with not being able to have one, it was inconvenient for me at the time, but I wasn't about to kill a child. I sucked it up and became a great mother.


----------



## Faceman

Allison Finch said:


> Gee, Face...women make up 20% of todays military. That's one soldier in five. So that is a good reason to deny adequate care for female soldiers. That's a pretty high percentage, in my book.


If one wants to use statistics, one should use the right statistics. Veterans facilities are used for veterans, and are only available to veterans that have served in combat theaters and those that are indigent.

In the first place, the proper statistic is that there are aproximately 25 million veterans, out of which 1.8 million are women. That is 7.2%. I didn't bother to look up how many women are in the military today as that is irrelevant - although it will be in the future. 

In the second place, of the existing veterans, the percentage of women that have served in combat theaters is far less than men, meaning the population of women veterans eligible for VA healthcare is even lower than the 7.2% - likely more in the area of 2% or 3% at most.

There are in the neighborhood of 170 VA medical facilities and 700 VA CBOC clinics in the nation. It is unrealistic to expect that number of facilities to have specialists to serve 2 or 3 percent of the population eligible to use VA healthcare.

I realize you do not know this kind of stuff because you aren't asssociasted with the VA, so I'm am not being critical, but rather am just pointing out the facts so you understand the situation better. Assuming the number of women in the military continues to escalate, and assuming there continue to be combat theaters enabling vets to qualify for VA care, it is certainly possible that in the future if the number of qualifying women vets increases, then increasing healthcare services targetting women specifically will become an issue. At the current time though, it is obviously not cost efficient and the VA will likely continue its policy of outsourcing that type of care to better qualified civilian facilities. I might also note that the outsourcing is free of cost to the patient. No qualifying veteran is left without qualified care...your statement intimating adequate healthcare is denied to women soldiers is absolutley incorrect...


----------



## kait18

kevinshorses said:


> If the condom broke YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!! As far as the condom goes. It may actually be REALLY right!


not necessarily... if you keep a condom in a wallet for to long and then use it there is a high chance of it breaking during use.


----------



## Missy May

dbarabians said:


> Missy May reproductive heatlcare encompasses Birth control.
> Greater access to BC less unwed mothers less demand for welfare and better opprutunities for the needy.
> The 2 of us are agreeeing that personal responibilty needs to be reaffirmed.
> The children of unwed mothers become unwed mother themselves. They live in poverty and they are far more likely to not finish highschool or become gainfully employed. Those are the facts.
> Stopping the cycle which repeats itself generation after generation is essential if we are to reduce the assistance programs funded by the government.
> Stopping them 100% is unrealistic. Our goals should be a large reduction in the number that are in need
> Missy sorry for the Typos!!!! Shalom[/QUOTEand the amount increases w each child they have]
> 
> There couldn't be an "greater access" to BC than there is! And, you keep forgetting one extremely important fact, the vast majority of unwed mothers in poverty are on some form of welfare and the amount _*increases*_ w each child they have. And, their children are raised knowing this fact. One could _easily_ argue that it is this "incentive" that creates the cycle. And it is inarguable that if one fell on hard times and needed help....._no one_ in the government would come find them, and the _access_ and process they would have to go through to ultimately obtain welfare would be far, far, far more difficult than the effort required to obtain some form of BC!!!
> 
> Everyone is for a reduction in the number of those in poverty. However, the results are in...having _anyone_ decide they know better what to do with individual citizen's money when it comes to poverty (i.e., huge amounts of tax dollars for costly and ineffective welfare programs) is NOT the solution.
> I will ask you again....why not let people exercise their freedom to choose to adopt and care for welfare families, and let the rest of the population have their freedoms _returned_ to choose - not to?
> 
> Poverty in the US would hardly qualify for same in N. Korea, or 100 years ago in the US. Do we just keep raising the bar on "poverty" and paying people not to work? Joblessness, wage declines and dollar devaluation in this country will/has creat(ed) poverty. When no one has a job to generate the tax dollars necessary to support government welfare programs, what do we do?
> 
> BTW, I admire anyone that volunteers to help those in need. I volunteer at and donate to the local animal sanctuary, _which is entirely on its own - no government assistance_ and it has been able to buy more facilities, lease a larger and better located building for its thrift store, and help _more_ animals. Individuals _*are *_charitable on an individual basis, the animals are being well taken care of _all _without government assistance.
> 
> I am not against welfare in the spirit it was sold to the public and enacted - but it has morphed into something unrecognizable from its original "intent" because people think "more" is the solution.


----------



## FlyGap

Raising Children.

So so so many times I've heard "Well, that's just the way they are...", "Well, they are 18 now so what do I care, they are an adult.", "Don't make them mad, it won't help anything.", "Not my kid, not my problem.", "Kid, Kid, Kid, Kid, Kid, Kid, Kid...." when they are doing something wrong instead of grabbing up the "Kid" in the first place instead of giving them a resounding no! "Well, such n such happened to them so BE NICE!"

Do you feel like your child is YOUR responsibility after they reach the age of 18? Do you feel like it's your place to step in and STOP a problem regardless of circumstance or age?

I feel like the excuses we make for our children only make situations worse, our kid our responsibility throughout our lifetime. There will NEVER be a day when I look at my kid and think, well she's such n such age so she'll have to work it out. I take pride in raising my child and making sure she's as fit as one can be to contribute to society and make me proud. I believe that I will always be FAR superior to her regarding my experience and will always be responsible in guiding and supporting her throughout her lifetime. Of course she will have to strive to be successful and independent. But it's my responsibility to instill these values in her.

"Back in the day" most people worked in small family circles on farms or in family businesses. The parents taught the children a trade, taught them how to survive and raise their own children. Now we dump them off to caretakers, expect them to learn about life from schools with no regards to how we have provided for them. Families are broken, children are sloughed off and in my recent experience used as trophies, rarely seen except for when a mom pulls out her cell phone to show them off to coworkers. Sickening. Grandmothers treat their children like the parents do instead of how they were taught. "Well, her mom doesn't spank her, or get on to her, so neither will I." WHAT! My Grandparents took me out so many times, I had to go cut my own switch on numerous occasions, BUT YOU AREN'T gonna do the same? And let these little HEATHENS run all over you? It's not your problem because your are just a Grandmother? WTH!

I strive to work as hard as possible in our family business to have a foundation and a fall back for my kid if she so chooses to follow in my footsteps. A farm that will support her and her family if she decided she loves it, a home where she is ALWAYS welcome. Historically children have been supported by their parents until they moved away with their spouse or the children stayed and worked and lived on the farm. Why do we have the attitude now of dumping off our kids at 18 to fend for themselves, or that it's a bad thing to support them well into their 30's... AS LONG AS THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING to a lively hood.

My brother frustrates me to no end mooching off and expecting money and a home from my parents. My family supports him and doesn't make him take a hike or do better for himself. They enable him and say... "well he's 30 now, can't tell him what to do!!!!" YES YOU CAN! Cut the tether and make the kid earn a living! But no, they come up with EXCUSES on why to allow his behavior. Why are we making excuses for our children? Why are we all in tune with feelings, and emotions, and situations? Who CARES! Why do we not take action and punish our own children and tell them that those things DON'T matter. Why do we listen for two seconds when a person says they have "daddy issues", or they were abused as a child, or they were bullied, or their parents never had time for them, or yadda yadda? SO WAS I. Who cares?!

As my signature goes, "You can get a lot farther with a ladder than you can with crutches!" So CLIMB out of your hole, ditch your crutches and do SOMETHING with yourself.

That was weighing on me, sorry for the soapbox.


----------



## Missy May

Exactly Flygap!!! Since their theory that "never correcting a child w force will produce superior beings" didn't work, they located drugs, dope them up and make up new "medical conditions" for normal behavior - like, ADHD. 

I have to say, though, most all of my teenage daughter's friends are very well mannered and their maturity level seems far above what I remember it being overall in "my day"...all apples to apples. Kids have a lot more info thrown at them these days is my explanation. I am often impressed by these young adults. She attends a private school. I think it shows that it is the level of interest and caring that parents take in their child's development that determines their behavior, not the child.


----------



## dbarabians

Facman you do not have to be a combat veteran to access healthcare at a VA facility. You don't even have to be service connected.
There are different categories of veterans and many are able to access halthcare.
I am a medically retired Capt from the USAF.
I was diagnosised with Cancer in 1985, Retired from the USAF and am very eligible to access heatlhcare at the VA.
I also volunteer and advise the Mental Health Advocacy Group at the Dallas VA.
At the Dallas VA 1.5 million patients a year are treated. If you have served in the US Armed Forces for 60 days or more you may be eligible for care.
I was fortunate after being diagnosis improperly and not treated I was told basically 6 month to a year to live. That was 27 years ago.
Funny 5 years after retiring from the USAF I became an Isreali citizen.
When told about the mandatory military service I had no problem. Brought up the cancer . I was basically told if I can fire the gun I could serve. LOL Made Capt there too. Shalom


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Facman you do not have to be a combat veteran to access healthcare at a VA facility. You don't even have to be service connected.
> There are different categories of veterans and many are able to access halthcare.
> I am a medically retired Capt from the USAF.
> I was diagnosised with Cancer in 1985, Retired from the USAF and am very eligible to access heatlhcare at the VA.
> I also volunteer and advise the Mental Health Advocacy Group at the Dallas VA.
> At the Dallas VA 1.5 million patients a year are treated. If you have served in the US Armed Forces for 60 days or more you may be eligible for care.
> I was fortunate after being diagnosis improperly and not treated I was told basically 6 month to a year to live. That was 27 years ago.
> Funny 5 years after retiring from the USAF I became an Isreali citizen.
> When told about the mandatory military service I had no problem. Brought up the cancer . I was basically told if I can fire the gun I could serve. LOL Made Capt there too. Shalom


Sorry, but you are way out of date. The VA changed its policy some time ago. A vet that has not served in a combat theater and is not low income qualified does NOT have access to VA care. I would have to check with Mrs. Face, but there may be some grandfathering where vets that were being treated prior to the change may still be being treated, but that is their current SOP nonetheless. Personally I think the new eligibility guidelines suck - it makes me very angry, but they are what they are. My assumption is it was done for cost purposes because of the large increase in veterans due to the conflicts in the middle east, and having to limit services, but that is just a guess...don't really know for sure and haven't looked into it...


----------



## Cinder

> "Back in the day" most people worked in small family circles on farms or in family businesses. The parents taught the children a trade, taught them how to survive and raise their own children. Now we dump them off to caretakers, expect them to learn about life from schools with no regards to how we have provided for them. Families are broken, children are sloughed off and in my recent experience used as trophies, rarely seen except for when a mom pulls out her cell phone to show them off to coworkers. Sickening. Grandmothers treat their children like the parents do instead of how they were taught. "Well, her mom doesn't spank her, or get on to her, so neither will I." WHAT! My Grandparents took me out so many times, I had to go cut my own switch on numerous occasions, BUT YOU AREN'T going to do the same? And let these little HEATHENS run all over you? It's not your problem because your are just a Grandmother? WTH!


My Grandparents were never the ones to punish me. It was always my own parents, which to me as a child was a far scarier thought. At the end of the day, I was going home with my parents! I'm not trying to insult anyone's way of raising children here but it sounds odd to me that you would have a child go get their own implement for their physical punishment (in regards to "I had to go cut my own switch on numerous occasions"). Besides for ONE memory of my mom threatening to spank me and maybe being spanked once as a child, I wasn't physically punished. It was always verbal and the farthest my parents had to go with me were threatening to take away something I liked. As a child, when I got the "look" I knew to behave or else! :lol:

Sorry for randomly popping in but I just wanted to add my two cents to that.


----------



## tlkng1

Faceman said:


> If one wants to use statistics, one should use the right statistics. Veterans facilities are used for veterans, and are only available to veterans that have served in combat theaters and those that are indigent.
> 
> .


Incorrect..I retired in 2008 after 24 years of active duty and was never in a combat theater and am not indigent. Retirees can use the VA system but there may be some related cost. For example, due to a few duty related injuries I can get those injuries treated for free at a VA clinic/hospital. Any other injury I can have treated, if I can wait that long, and the cost is split between the VA and TRICARE..I may have a smaller fee. 

If I see a doctor at a military medical facility that accepts retirees, there is still no cost. For example, I recently had a tooth pulled, last month actually, at Bethesda, the National Naval Med Center, now the Walter Reade something or other, at no cost.


----------



## Faceman

Well, not exactly incorrect - more like not wanting to write 5 pages of eligibility guidelines. The only way to try to explain the system is to summarize. If you, or anyone else wants to take the time (good luck), here are the eligibility guidelines. It is absurdly complicated, with all kinds of categories. Rather than continue to banter such a complicated issue around, suffice it to say that not all veterans are eligible for VA healthcare. Most veterans are aware of that, but the civilian population generally isn't.

VA Health Care Eligibility | Military.com

The bottom line is the VA serves 5 million veterans each year according to the CBO, and there are 25 million veterans, so you do the math. Of course with that being said, there are an unknown number of eligible veterans like myself who are eligible but choose not to use VA facilities. I would be remiss if I hazarded a guess as to how many that was.

VA healthcare is really squirrely and unpredictable. Some doctors and some facilities are excellent, and others are pitiful. Personally, I consider the agency inefficient and poorly managed. For the most part it is a political football - as many federal agencies are...


ETA - Oh, forgot to add that, as I'm sure you know, a lifer is not the same as a veteran that serves a hitch or two...


----------



## dbarabians

Faceman I gotta disagree. The organization I volunteer with helps many veteran access healthcare at the VA. There may be some cost involved but no one is turned away due to lack of ability to pay. I assure you this is so. Shalom


----------



## Missy May

dbarabians said:


> Faceman I gotta disagree. The organization I volunteer with helps many veteran access healthcare at the VA. There may be some cost involved but no one is turned away due to lack of ability to pay. I assure you this is so. Shalom


There is a difference between signing up and the quality of care at each individual facility. I believe the later was Faceman's point. And, I agree.


----------



## tlkng1

I don't use VA facilities either as the one near me is one of those that is pitiful. I prefer a military treatment facility or to use my TRICARE at a place I can trust a little more. With dental however, insurance coverage, as in the lack thereof in any dental plan, is ridiculous so if I need any major procedures I only go to a dental present MTF.


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> Faceman I gotta disagree. The organization I volunteer with helps many veteran access healthcare at the VA. There may be some cost involved but no one is turned away due to lack of ability to pay. I assure you this is so. Shalom


You have neither understood what I have said nor read the regs I posted. You have it exactly backwards. INABILITY TO PAY IS A QUALIFIER...not a disqualifier. The people that don't qualify are those that make too much money and otherwise don't qualify under the various categories.

The VA has oscillated a couple of times on income guidelines, but the bottom line is a veteran (not retiree) that makes $100K or $150K a year and is not in one of the listed categories is not eligible for VA healthcare. I don't agree with that policy, but they didn't ask for my opinion or vote. I think the VA should be abolished as it is a political football, and a white elephant, but if we are going to have it, ALL veterans should be served. How much money a person makes after they get out should, in my opinion, not be a factor to be considered. Whether we are in a special category or not, or whether we make a lot of money or not, we all made sacrifices to serve our country.

There are good things and bad things about the VA healthcare system, just as there are good and bad things about most things. Most VA hospitals are located at and associated with teaching hospitals, so the VA is involved in a ot of research. They were on the forefront of computerizing charts, and are considered on the leading edge in telehealth, which is the futrue of all healthcare. But on the down side they are a government organization - rift with inefficiency and deadwood. Prior to taking over the cancer program, Mrs. Face was in Quality Management, which is sort of the "internal affairs" of the system, and she can tell some horror stories. The inefficiencies, errors, and omissions that end up translating to poor patient care, injury, and death, are really scary. All hospitals have similar problems, but IMO they are far more prevalent in the VA system...exactly what you would expect from a government organization.

CBO, which is notorious for its poor accounting and assessment record, states the overall healthcare cost for veterans would be $65 billion in the private sector as compaed to the $48 billion VA healthcare budget. I believe that is a grossly biased estimate, and doesn't include the massive value of post retirement benefits for VA employees, nor does it include the value of VA assets that could be sold, which is a number so big I wouldn't even know how to estimate it. In my opinion, and let me stress that it is only an opinion, it would be more cost efficient in the long run to disolve the VA healthcare system, and simply pay for the healthcare of all veterans out-of-pocket (by the government), and under that system vets could get their healthcare wherever they wanted and receive (overall) better healthcare...in other words, better care at lower cost...


----------



## kevinshorses

Anyone that wants to see into the future of government paid healthcare (Obamacare) can look at the VA system because that's the reality of healthcare outside the free market system. Of course the bad things about it will be multiplied many times.


----------



## dbarabians

Faceman, I never said everyone is eligilbe for care at the VA. _ said it depends on the category of the veteran. If someone is rated 60% or above regardless of thier income they are not charged. I happen to have the Veterans Benefits Guide for about the last 8 years and work closely with the Social Worker at a homeless shelter to get Veterans Qualified. I am also well known to the benefits counselors at the Dallas VA VBA office._
_If a veteran needs healthcare we can get them treated , It does take a while and it can be very frustrating but it can be done._
_I agree the system drastically needs to be improved._
_Budget cuts and hiring freezes are making it more difficualt for all veterans to be treated. Shalom_


----------



## Faceman

dbarabians said:


> _Budget cuts and hiring freezes are making it more difficualt for all veterans to be treated. Shalom_


And there is something we certainly agree on. The VA is so understaffed it is absurd, and it affects patient care due to lack of staff and fosters low morale among existing staff that are overworked. However that is a two-edged sword. To increase funding would help improve services and care, but it would also make an intrinsically inefficient system more expensive, which would make the overall concept of a separate VA healthcare system even more impractical than it already is...


----------



## Allison Finch

Faceman said:


> In the first place, the proper statistic is that there are aproximately 25 million veterans, out of which 1.8 million are women. That is 7.2%. I didn't bother to look up how many women are in the military today as that is irrelevant - although it will be in the future.


I think I stated that there are 20% women in today's military, not veterans. But, today's soldiers are tomorrows veterans, no?

And, you are right...I really do have no knowledge of the VA health system. I was reacting to your assertion that women were receiving poorer care.



> don't work for the VA - Mrs. Face does. However there is a certain amount of truth to what you say - at the VA. Before we moved to Branson when I retired, Mrs. Face was the Cancer Manager for one of the VA's regions, which has 10 hospitals in 4 states. Her region was pretty state of the art when it came to lung and prostate cancer, but woefully deficient when it came to breast or ovarian cancer. However, that shouldn't be the biggest of surprises considering the low number of women in the military in relation to men, and the few number of such cases they get. It would, after all, be a bit far fetched to expect all VA hospitals to have Oncologists specializing in women's cancer with the low number of cases they have. I just use cancer as an example, but the same would be true with many women's health issues.



I didn't see anything related to outsourcing. It just sounded like the women were out of luck. Glad to hear those provisions are being made. Thanks for the info!


----------



## Allison Finch

Faceman said:


> In the first place, the proper statistic is that there are aproximately 25 million veterans, out of which 1.8 million are women. That is 7.2%. I didn't bother to look up how many women are in the military today as that is irrelevant - although it will be in the future.


I think I stated that there are 20% women in today's military, not veterans. But, today's soldiers are tomorrows veterans, no?

And, you are right...I really do have no knowledge of the VA health system. I was reacting to your assertion that women were receiving poorer care.



> don't work for the VA - Mrs. Face does. However there is a certain amount of truth to what you say - at the VA. Before we moved to Branson when I retired, Mrs. Face was the Cancer Manager for one of the VA's regions, which has 10 hospitals in 4 states. Her region was pretty state of the art when it came to lung and prostate cancer, but woefully deficient when it came to breast or ovarian cancer. However, that shouldn't be the biggest of surprises considering the low number of women in the military in relation to men, and the few number of such cases they get. It would, after all, be a bit far fetched to expect all VA hospitals to have Oncologists specializing in women's cancer with the low number of cases they have. I just use cancer as an example, but the same would be true with many women's health issues.



I didn't see anything related to outsourcing. It just sounded like the women were out of luck. Glad to hear those provisions are being made. Thanks for the info. I do feel better.


----------



## FlyGap

Cinder said:


> My Grandparents were never the ones to punish me. It was always my own parents, which to me as a child was a far scarier thought. At the end of the day, I was going home with my parents! I'm not trying to insult anyone's way of raising children here but it sounds odd to me that you would have a child go get their own implement for their physical punishment (in regards to "I had to go cut my own switch on numerous occasions"). Besides for ONE memory of my mom threatening to spank me and maybe being spanked once as a child, I wasn't physically punished. It was always verbal and the farthest my parents had to go with me were threatening to take away something I liked. As a child, when I got the "look" I knew to behave or else! :lol:
> 
> Sorry for randomly popping in but I just wanted to add my two cents to that.


Cinder I agree, parents should be the ones to teach their children. But, it's the grandparents who should teach their children (the parents) how.
Just this weekend I was at a family function at my in-laws and a 10 month old was trying to play with a lamp AND pull it off a table by the cord. The parents kept telling the kid "no no, no no, no no, no no, no no....." I wanted to run over there and say a STERN NO! Move the kid off and be done with it, but I would be crucified if I did so. It was Grandmas place, supposedly the matriarch of the family, to show the parents HOW to deal with it. I did step in after a while of this (parents were too busy shoving their face) and moved the lamp and told the kid NO. Done deal. I got dirty looks but the kid didn't go back over there.

There was also an 11 year old boy there that wanted to roughly wrestle with my 7 year old daughter. Ummm, NO! When they got started his dad was eating, sitting RIGHT next to the kids and he did NOTHING. I had to step in and tell them all that that type of behavior was NOT acceptable, especially in a room full of people.

I have a 2 year old nephew that barely says 1 word, uh oh. His parents play games all day and hardly talk to the kid. I've brought up his speech development with his parents, to my parents, and TRUST me if it were my kid they would be all over me. For him, not so much, they just say "different strokes for different folks." "Not my place", yadda yadda. The entire family is responsible for the rest. I wasn't rude to my brother and SIL, but all the kid can say is "Ahhhhhhhh Uhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!"

It takes an entire family to raise a family, something that isn't being done today.


----------



## FlyGap

I didn't really address the spanking issue you mentioned.

I 1,000% agree with you that it is the parents responsibility to teach their kids to behave around anyone, especially their elders. It's the "My house, my rules" that's being ignored. Like you, I was an angel for my grandparents because I knew I would be in Deeeeppppp trouble it I acted out around them.
But it's also the grandparents responsibility to raise their children to be good parents.

My BIL and MIL will not let me watch my nephew. Not because they fear that I will spank him, but because I won't listen to his excuses or allow him to back talk me in front of my daughter. Once I got on to him for yelling at me and he physically attacked me. Who got in trouble? Me, for calling him out and telling him the simple word... NO.

I only got 2 spankings by my grandparents, once for sticking a D battery to my cousins tongue and then convincing my little brother to eat a bucket of fishing minnows!!! I was never bad for them again!!


----------



## Cinder

> Cinder I agree, parents should be the ones to teach their children. But, it's the grandparents who should teach their children (the parents) how.
> Just this weekend I was at a family function at my in-laws and a 10 month old was trying to play with a lamp AND pull it off a table by the cord. The parents kept telling the kid "no no, no no, no no, no no, no no....." I wanted to run over there and say a STERN NO! Move the kid off and be done with it, but I would be crucified if I did so. It was Grandmas place, supposedly the matriarch of the family, to show the parents HOW to deal with it. I did step in after a while of this (parents were too busy shoving their face) and moved the lamp and told the kid NO. Done deal. I got dirty looks but the kid didn't go back over there.
> 
> There was also an 11 year old boy there that wanted to roughly wrestle with my 7 year old daughter. Ummm, NO! When they got started his dad was eating, sitting RIGHT next to the kids and he did NOTHING. I had to step in and tell them all that that type of behavior was NOT acceptable, especially in a room full of people.
> 
> I have a 2 year old nephew that barely says 1 word, uh oh. His parents play games all day and hardly talk to the kid. I've brought up his speech development with his parents, to my parents, and TRUST me if it were my kid they would be all over me. For him, not so much, they just say "different strokes for different folks." "Not my place", yadda yadda. The entire family is responsible for the rest. I wasn't rude to my brother and SIL, but all the kid can say is "Ahhhhhhhh Uhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!"
> 
> It takes an entire family to raise a family, something that isn't being done today.


And:



> I didn't really address the spanking issue you mentioned.
> 
> I 1,000% agree with you that it is the parents responsibility to teach their kids to behave around anyone, especially their elders. It's the "My house, my rules" that's being ignored. Like you, I was an angel for my grandparents because I knew I would be in Deeeeppppp trouble it I acted out around them.
> But it's also the grandparents responsibility to raise their children to be good parents.
> 
> My BIL and MIL will not let me watch my nephew. Not because they fear that I will spank him, but because I won't listen to his excuses or allow him to back talk me in front of my daughter. Once I got on to him for yelling at me and he physically attacked me. Who got in trouble? Me, for calling him out and telling him the simple word... NO.
> 
> I only got 2 spankings by my grandparents, once for sticking a D battery to my cousins tongue and then convincing my little brother to eat a bucket of fishing minnows!!! I was never bad for them again!!


Yeah, I agree it takes a whole family to raise children! I never really thought of the grandparents as showing the parents how to raise children, but now that you say it I agree with you. 

The nephew that can only say one word is a scary thought! If his parents are neglecting him to that extent, wouldn't his social functions also be off? I don't know, it's just a thought.


----------



## MHFoundation Quarters

FlyGap said:


> I 1,000% agree with you that it is the parents responsibility to teach their kids to behave around anyone, especially their elders. It's the "My house, my rules" that's being ignored. Like you, I was an angel for my grandparents because I knew I would be in Deeeeppppp trouble it I acted out around them.
> But it's also the grandparents responsibility to raise their children to be good parents.


I absolutely agree Fly. It never fails to amaze me at the behavior of many children (and sadly their parents as well) when we are at school or sports functions with my daughter. 

I'm not against spanking and my daughter has gotten a couple, but most of the time if the ground rules are laid down they don't give reason to have to spank. 

I too can remember very clearly the 2 spankings I got from my grandparents. The one from my grandma was for getting in the creek in my easter dress. The one from my grandpa is a very funny story (that I might have shared on here in the past) we were at a horse show, my sister & I really disliked that he dipped skoal. We emptied his can and filled it back up with dried up horse manure. He got it to his lip and we ran like the dickens laughing the whole way. We did eventually have to go back to the truck & trailer and he was waiting...with a doggin' bat.


----------



## kevinshorses

Cinder said:


> And:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I agree it takes a whole family to raise children! I never really thought of the grandparents as showing the parents how to raise children, but now that you say it I agree with you.


It really only takes one (preferably two) engaged, responsible adults to raise a child. Not only does it not take a family but other family butting in will do more harm than good. My kids know that if I'm around I'm thier boss but they better listen and be respectful of other adults. If I'm not around then they better do what they're told because I'll come back eventually. My FIL and I get along pretty well until he starts to boss my kids or my dog then sometimes we get a little heated up. My oldest is 11 and my FIL has finally decided to let me parent how I see fit. While I don't mind some advice it had better wait until after I've finished with the discipline.


----------



## FlyGap

Very funny MHF!!! 

Yeah Cinder, the kid is in a WORLD of trouble right now. At 11 he's going to the shrink. He got into TERRIBLE trouble at school while being bullied, can't say why but he made a stupid outburst. In class the teachers can't stand him, everything always ends up being his fault.
According to the Shrink... We should nurture the child, build him up because of all the bullying. But what's not being addressed is WHY IS HE BEING BULLIED? He has no respect for his teachers and back talks them, he is a "one upper", nearly a sociopath. He is being raised by my BIL and MIL because his mother took off when he was 5. Sure I feel sorry for the kid, my dad left too. No contact, no child support, I have a step mom with my EXACT maiden name out there somewhere and I've received her GY bills!! Ewwww!
I had a family that wouldn't let me use my "crutches", and set me up to conquer the world. Poor kid doesn't have a chance. Unfortunately no one will let me help him out, after the "incident" I really don't trust him as far as I can chuck him.

EDIT: Kevin, I'm not saying parents should butt in. But when there is a serious problem, it's the families responsibility to assist. Like say you are a drug addict, your kids are being neglected, the grandparents need to get you help and help the children.
The MIL in question was a hard *** with her kids, they walked a straight line, even more so with others. Now she has the attitude that "she's just the grandma and should just get to have fun with the kid", when she's raising him! If I or the school, or anyone else tries to help or give advice... for behavior that she has fostered, well, get ready to duck. Same goes for many other situations I've seen that are far removed from my circle.


----------



## Missy May

Well, I read an article many moons ago that at first seemed rediculous, at best. Then I read the entire thing and changed my mind.....and I thought it was somewhat relavent to the parent discussion, here. The theory was that AC had a huge impact on our society, and coupled w TV, it had a measurable adverse impact. Sounds insane, BUT, the article went on to point out that prior to AC and TV people in cities sat outside to get away from the heat, and consequently talked regularly w their neighbors, as well as disciplined children that were playing in their collective yards. When AC and TV became the "norm", this ended and people focused on a box (I hate tv) and not their "neighborhood" in general, and they often had no idea who the kids in the street belong to, or their neighbor's names, theeeennn came the "can't discipline anyone else's child" sort of thinking. And, wala, where the greater percent of the population lives (cities), the fabric of the society declined. Interesting theory, by and large - it makes sense.
As for allowing my own parents to discipline my child. I don't think so. Nor do I think they have any advice that would be "value added". That is because I am perfect in every way :wink:....but, by an large, I think a lot of parents are so lacking that _any_ common sense advice would be of benefit, and their kids are so poorly mannered that they need a good butt kicking (I guess I can say that :think:, yeah).


----------



## FlyGap

HaHA!! I believe that makes perfect sense.

A long time ago My daughter threw a fit in the grocery store when I wouldn't let her ride in the cart (she didn't fit in the seat). I had warned the kids that IF they acted out in the store I would tan their hides, I also made them recite the proper ways to act while in public and tell me the DO NOTS and the reprocussions (which I always make them do before we go in).
So as soon as we got in the door she broke down. So I promptly swatted her tail all the way back to the car and sat in it till she calmed down. MAN was I glad DHS wasn't anywhere around, got some dirty looks too from the other ladies while I was "beating" my beautiful little girl and dragging my nephew, who was agging it on, by the arm!
After that day she is a complete angel!


----------

