Posts made by raphjd

And you people complain that I'm too negative when it comes to gay issues.

Do you see why I'm the way I am?

I wonder if Dollywood staff would insist that a person turn their shirt inside out if it said some pro god shit, since that would offend atheists.

No need to answer that, it was a sarcastic rhetorical question.

Just the usual serve overload and reset, as far as I can tell.

Put some chili seeds in your lube, that'll spice things up.  :cheesy2:

Until Obama ran for US Senate, he supported full gay marriage, then he didn't.

If we take this concept to it's full conclusion, then no one should be allowed to give blood.

Black men are the least likely to admit they are gay, yet black males are the highest group for gonorrhea and HIV.

Black women are the highest female group with HIV and 2nd highest in total group behind black men with HIV.

Women are the highest group for several STDs and 2nd for gonorrhea (see above).

Here's a chart for HIV infection by race/gender in the US; hXXp://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/

If we look at Africa, then no black person should ever give blood.

If we look at Alaska, no one should be allowed to give regardless of race or gender.

It not medical groups that are keeping this law on the books, it's politicians that are doing it, while ignoring the medical industry.

NOTE: Except where noted, I'm using US figures.

I hope you are being sarcastic.

I warned of this ages ago and everyone said I was being too negative.

Here's where I do the  "I told you so" dance.

Sadly, there are people that believe gay blood turns you gay.

YES, having a baby is a choice.

To deny the economics of the situation is to deny reality.

We don't live in a moneyless utopia.

Obama doesn't give a shit about us.

Repealing DADT helps less than 10,000 Americans, while ENDA would help millions of Americans.  Repealing DADT is little more than a token gesture.

We also have to remember that Obama supported full gay marriage until he ran for Federal office.  Now he only supports 2nd class citizenship.  Imagine that, a black Jim Crow.

As it is now, the system works the same if the mother wants to put the baby up for adoption or keep it.

Anyway, bringing a baby to full term is a lot more expensive than an abortion, so based on sheer economics, the choice is clear.  Not to mention that a child born into poverty will die in poverty. Class mobility is extremely rare.

The US and UK allow for contractual adoptions (ie surrogates, etc), which would allow for the adopting parents to pay.  However, if you go through the state's adoption process, then that's not an option.

Besides forcing a rape victim to carry the baby (extremely cruel), why should a business have to pay maternity leave so the woman can be forced to give birth to the rape baby?

Who is going to pay the medical bills and the maternity leave to bring the child to full term?

I'm surprised that no one has noticed the poetic irony that this happened in Limerick.

It's not sensationalism as you claim.  Every catholic source bangs (excuse the pun) on and on about procreation/sex and that is the link between the 4 things {gay sex, abortion, contraception and masturbation).  So there is your direct link by your church.  The official church stance is that all sex is only for procreation, thus banning gay sex, abortion, contraception and masturbation.  As a catholic, you should be able to see that link, so I'm confused why you don't get it.

Do you have any concept of how many premature babies survive if they are born before the 24 week mark in a country with good medical care?  Extremely few survive and of those that do, extremely few make it into adulthood and of those, extremely few make it into adulthood semi-functional (meaning they don't have to be fully cared for).

A study that started in 2005 and ended last year said it cost the US $50 Billion (YES, that's with a B) to raise all the 2005 premies to the age of 5, well of those that survived that long.  That's just over $142 for every man, woman and child in the US just for the 2005 premies for those 5 years.  Of course the costs keep building up because many of them have life long health issues that go along with being a premy.  That doesn't even count the cost to businesses due to lost work, etc, etc.  For some reason, I haven't found out what yet, the number of premature babies are increasing by 20% a decade since the 1950s.

In ancient times, kids weren't counted as human until they reached 1yo and not fully human until they reached 7yo.  This was due to the high death rates.  In fact, these people wrote most of your holy text.

So you (you support their stance, despite saying you don't always) and "Right to Life" want to continue to force the woman to suffer the trauma of the rape for another 9 months.  WOW, you people are truly heartless.  Ironically enough, extremely high percentages of "right to life" people also support the death penalty.

Who are the sexists in China?!  It's not the government, but the individual people that decided they didn't want girls.  Even with this personal choice of the people involved, women still make up, on average year to year, 52.8% of the world's population.  Imagine what the number would be like if the Chinese didn't want only boys.

Like MrMazda, I also took a friend to have an abortion and I would do it again for anyone that asked.  Though the circumstances were very different.  She was already disowned by her family for wanting to continue to go to school, her boyfriend dumped her when she told him she was pregnant, etc, etc, etc.  She could barely make ends meet as it was and a baby would have destroyed everything she had struggled for.

Yes, this is a forum to discuss ideas.

Maybe you should have clarified when you might find it acceptable for abortions to take place.

I didn't ignore your concern for the unborn.  I mentioned the UK law about abortion and the reasoning behind it; ie under 24 weeks a fetus can't survive on it's own and in virtually every case won't survive even with the best medical care.

As to your question about why is homosexuality and abortion always linked?  Maybe you should ask your church why that is.  After all, this thread (see thread title) is about church teachings and whether or not people agree with it.

"We're not like other lesbians, going to bars," she explained in a New York Times interview.
"We're lesbians together.  We're homers."

That's a bigoted stereotype of the GLBT community, as most of our gay/lesbian friends don't go to bars.

A few weeks ago, we went to the bar for the first time in nearly 2 years.

Your church hates you because you are gay or at the very least because you have gay sex.  Having sex is a choice, just like abortion.

As for abortion, how dare you tell a rape victim that she must carry the offspring of her rapist.  What about the product of incest?

Even Papa Bush, while President, said he wanted ALL abortions to be illegal (including for rape, incest and health of the mother), but admitted that he would send a family member to another country to have an abortion to side step his ideal anti abortion laws for the US.

The UK allows abortions up to 24 weeks, because a baby born before that is not viable on it's own.  Abortions can be done after 24 weeks if 2 doctors agree it's for the mother's health.

The catholic church only allows sex that creates more catholics.  That is why it hates gay sex and abortions, because neither fills it's coffers and power base.