Don’t be naïve to think that “birth control” refers only to condoms - but abortion pills and the killing of innocent children. So abortions will be considered routine. As our President loves to say “Make no mistake” - this is about money. Money for Planned Parenthood. This means 17 million women will now have the right to kill any unwanted child. Just because teenagers or adults are irresponsible doesn’t give them the right to end a life that has no voice. Just my opinion.
Well, if you don't want to have an abortion you should not have one. I really think you are mistaken if you actually believe that anyone is in favor of abortion. Every woman I have know who has had one did not do so lightly. It is not a routine step and never will be for any woman, regardless of her political or religious views.
I do think it is a positive step though that women will now have access to health care services without a bunch of men telling them what they can do with their bodies. It's been a few thousand years in the making.
I’m not really interested in Middle Eastern social systems outside the Bible. But out of curiosity which ones are you referring to?
I was talking about the ones in the bible, the OT is at least partially about law and government. The NT has a lot in there about organizing the early church as a mobile nation. As a matter of history, they did not see a difference between the religious leadership and the "government." That came much (~1000 years) later. So anyone trying to teach you that the bible does not prescribe a role for government is misinformed. You might want to take some university courses in middle eastern history. But be careful, they might open your mind.
It is morally wrong for government to help because this is not the government’s responsibility – it falls on the shoulders of individuals and religious organizations (as well as NPO’s). More dependency on government isn’t what we need economically, socially, or morally. Just my opinion. But once again in this great country we are privileged to agree to disagree.
Hmm, so the government should not help people? Wow, that's an extreme view. So a poor, homeless, widow can only get help from churches? I guess she'd just have to die if she did not want to agree with your beliefs. Is that how it works? If she happens to be a hindu that does not want to convert then she has to rely on a church rather than the government?
And what's the deal with talking about non profit organizations? That's just a category the government created to provide a subsidy in the form of tax exemptions for their funding. Why is that not equally morally wrong for churches and NPOs to use the government handouts they receive in the form of tax deductibility of contributions for helping people?
I can appreciate a hard line argument for limited government. I might even agree with it in many areas. But you are not being consistent at all. As Northern Light said, you have some dogmatic views that seem to be based of little more than what you've been told to believe. Your arguments to support your views seem to be very inconsistent or simply your opinion.
That remains to be seen. A lot will depend on this next election. Some people are trying to transform America – not fix it. We’ll see what the next few years will hold.
Actually is doesn't remain to be seen. My point was that the esteemed legal scholars on the U. S. Supreme Court did not see the law as an unconstitutional infringement upon religious freedom. If they did they would have written that in their opinion. They have already issued their ruling and written opinion. There is no "to be seen." It's over. The election has nothing to do with it. There is no infringement upon religion in the view of the only people that matter on the subject.