On 3/16/13 8:32 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:14:07 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:24:57 -0400, J Herring
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:46:32 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:27:32 -0400, J Herring
wrote:


If the legislation promoted the killing of babies, then the Church did as it should.

=====

If the church is gong to act as a lobbyist for a faith based belief,
then they should lose their tax exempt status. Those bingo games and
carnivals bring in a lot of revenue which has nothing to do with the
church's mission.

The Church may lobby against killing. Nothing wrong with that.

What did you say when your wife said, "Feel the baby kicking!"


=========

That's different. We've had this discussion before and I'm not going
to chase your circular reasoning. Be ready to start paying taxes on
those bingo earnings.






Oh, 'that's different' - but only when it's *your* baby!

OK, enough is enough.



Salmonbait


http://tinyurl.com/cwcrbmj

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:51:39 -0400, BAR wrote:

========

The Roman Catholic church, led by the pope, has been a regressive
force against every attempt a population control. A major portion of
the world's problems are the result of over population and it's just
going to get worse until a majority of people recognize the issue.

One of the primary teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and most other
christian churches is the sanctity of life.

====

No reasonable person would argue against the sanctity of life. The
problem arises because your particular church, and some others,
believe that life begins at conception even though there is not a
shred of scientific evidence to support that notion. That's what

Scientific evidence may not exist today that life begins at conception
but, science changes all of the time. New scientific evidence is being
found or discovered every day. When an egg and sperm merge what is the
outcome, life.

Do you have evidence that emphatically and unquestioningly supports your
belief that life does not begin at conception?

makes it a religious belief: It is based on faith. You are
entitled to your religious beliefs of course, and I support that
right. However, when you start advocating and lobbying for laws that
support your beliefs, you are trampling on the rights and beliefs of
others.

Everyone advocate and lobbies for laws that support their beliefs
regardless as to whether their beliefs are scientifically supported or
not. Laws do not have to be based upon and wholly supported by science.

No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world
just to comply with someone else's religious beliefs.

I am pro-life, my position is pro-life and I want other people to be
pro-life. Killing babies in the womb is not something I can not support.
I have never said that I want abortion abolished or to prevent others
from getting abortions.

This country is based upon the premise that everyone's voice should be
heard.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:55:57 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world
just to comply with someone else's religious beliefs.


Kinda' like Row vs Wade forcing me to pay for someone else s abortions?

The $500 abortion is a lot cheaper than 18 years of welfare and a life
time of prison costs.

The problem is that the pregnancy occurs in the first place. The purpose
of sex, ****ing, copulation or whatever term you want to use between a
man and a woman is to produce a baby. If you want to **** for fun then
you have to be prepared for the consequences of your decisions.

In article om,
says...

On 3/15/2013 12:52 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:35:56 -0400, Meyer wrote:

On 3/15/2013 12:30 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:23:30 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/15/13 12:09 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/15/2013 11:55 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/15/13 11:52 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/15/2013 11:25 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:55:57 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world
just to comply with someone else's religious beliefs.


Kinda' like Row vs Wade forcing me to pay for someone else s
abortions?

The $500 abortion is a lot cheaper than 18 years of welfare and a life
time of prison costs.


And more specifically which women in the US don't have access simply
because there is an so far unsuccessful lobby group out there?


As just one example, there is a single abortion provider in the state of
Mississippi, and next month the state will hold a license hearing on the
facility in an attempt to shut it down.

I think Kansas and several other backwards states are moving in similar
directions, and I know there are attempts in Virginia to shut down
clinics.

So, there is an answer to your question. Women of Mississippi may soon
lose the one clinic in their state that provides abortions, and
therefore they will have no access unless they have a way to get to
another state.

Perhaps you should expand your research venues.

Yes, the answer to my question is there are no women in the US who don't
have access because of the Church.

If that Mississippi clinic is forced to close, lower income women in
Mississippi will not have reasonable access to a clinic, especially
since other southern states are proceeding similarly.

There are many other methods of birth control besides killing a baby. If there's only one clinic,
then very few folks have reasonable access to it anyway (remember all the problems you mentioned
yesterday?). Can they not get medical care at their local hospital? Perhaps education is the key.


Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!

Doesn't seem to be a religious problem at all. It's the state
interfering with woman's rights.

Maybe it's the state protecting the baby's rights!


Salmonbait

--
Hope you're having a spectacular day!

It's not the state's business. There are already laws on the books
dealing with murder.

Why is an abortion not murder? When a woman who is pregnant is killed
and the baby is killed the killer can be charged with two murders.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:27:32 -0400, J Herring
wrote:


If the legislation promoted the killing of babies, then the Church did as it should.

=====

If the church is gong to act as a lobbyist for a faith based belief,
then they should lose their tax exempt status. Those bingo games and
carnivals bring in a lot of revenue which has nothing to do with the
church's mission.

If I refrain from pushing any religious beliefs can I stop paying taxes?

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:24:57 -0400, J Herring
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:46:32 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:27:32 -0400, J Herring
wrote:


If the legislation promoted the killing of babies, then the Church did as it should.

=====

If the church is gong to act as a lobbyist for a faith based belief,
then they should lose their tax exempt status. Those bingo games and
carnivals bring in a lot of revenue which has nothing to do with the
church's mission.

The Church may lobby against killing. Nothing wrong with that.

What did you say when your wife said, "Feel the baby kicking!"


=========

That's different. We've had this discussion before and I'm not going
to chase your circular reasoning. Be ready to start paying taxes on
those bingo earnings.

Why should a religious institution be denied the right to speak freely?

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 07:51:39 -0400, BAR wrote:

========

The Roman Catholic church, led by the pope, has been a regressive
force against every attempt a population control. A major portion of
the world's problems are the result of over population and it's just
going to get worse until a majority of people recognize the issue.

One of the primary teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and most other
christian churches is the sanctity of life.

====

No reasonable person would argue against the sanctity of life. The
problem arises because your particular church, and some others,
believe that life begins at conception even though there is not a
shred of scientific evidence to support that notion. That's what

Scientific evidence may not exist today that life begins at conception
but, science changes all of the time. New scientific evidence is being
found or discovered every day. When an egg and sperm merge what is the
outcome, life.

Do you have evidence that emphatically and unquestioningly supports your
belief that life does not begin at conception?

makes it a religious belief: It is based on faith. You are
entitled to your religious beliefs of course, and I support that
right. However, when you start advocating and lobbying for laws that
support your beliefs, you are trampling on the rights and beliefs of
others.

Everyone advocate and lobbies for laws that support their beliefs
regardless as to whether their beliefs are scientifically supported or
not. Laws do not have to be based upon and wholly supported by science.

No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world
just to comply with someone else's religious beliefs.

I am pro-life, my position is pro-life and I want other people to be
pro-life. Killing babies in the womb is not something I can not support.
I have never said that I want abortion abolished or to prevent others
from getting abortions.

This country is based upon the premise that everyone's voice should be
heard.

As someone who is pro life, I'd guess you are then against the death
penalty and against guns sold for killing? What about hunting? Fishing?

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 08:32:31 -0400, J Herring
wrote:

Oh, 'that's different' - but only when it's *your* baby!


No, what's diffrent is that you are talking about late term abortion.
I am not.

OK, enough is enough.

I'll gladly pay taxes on any gambling winnings I have at bingo games. Paying my taxes is not
something I do joyfully, but it *is* something I do!

I'm talking about the Catholic church losing their tax exemption and
paying taxes on *their* gambling earnings.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 09:37:01 -0400, BAR wrote:

Why should a religious institution be denied the right to speak freely?

===

There is a difference between speaking freely and hard core lobbying
efforts.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 09:36:11 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:27:32 -0400, J Herring
wrote:


If the legislation promoted the killing of babies, then the Church did as it should.

=====

If the church is gong to act as a lobbyist for a faith based belief,
then they should lose their tax exempt status. Those bingo games and
carnivals bring in a lot of revenue which has nothing to do with the
church's mission.

If I refrain from pushing any religious beliefs can I stop paying taxes?

=====

You'll have to talk with Harry about that.