Jump to content

Storm Rider

Contributor
  • Content Count

    7,013
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Storm Rider

  1. I concluded a long time ago that if the APA was taking on a stand on anything - then it is a good bet that most folks are going to be against it. They consistently demonstrate how educated individuals can evolve into idiots in a very short time given enough opportunity to study further. If the APA is going to put out any declaration of any kind, it should first be run through a group of mothers from the country; those with feet firmly planted in the soil. If it does not pass this group, then the APA would have nothing to say.
  2. Dang it! I could have turned this into a good attack on the Church and its history. Party-pooper, party-pooper.
  3. Now you are just creating a story out of whole cloth. The American anti-abortion movement was started by "Small groups of Catholic doctors, nurses, lawyers, and housewives joined together to oppose liberalization. In 1967 the National Council of Catholic Bishops aided their campaigns with support, money, and the formation of the National Right to Life Committee." Falwell and company came very late to the game. Come on, stop the nonsense. Either study it out and get the facts or stop making wild accusations. I know you are better than this.
  4. Dan, this makes no sense. This is the first time I have ever encountered someone make or take such a position. Not once in my life time, in any conversation about human sexual relations, have I hard a woman or a man say, "I really like to have sex, but boy it ticks me off when a man ejaculates!" Not once; not even hinted at. You seem to be conflating birth control with having sex. Further, you are making it the primary responsibility of the male for birth control. Why? Two people have sex and both are equally responsible. To say that men are more responsible, which you have stated a few times, seems both condescending and demeaning to females - are they not capable of taking care of themselves and need the big, strong, superior male to do it for them? Just a strange way of thinking I have not heard before.
  5. Hello, I tend to avoid the extremes. Given the number of times people have sex in a given day, can we just agree that rape is a very small percentage? If two people chose to have sex together, they are both are responsible and should both be involved should a child result. I am serious about this - if a man makes a baby that man must be financially held accountable for that child. If a man gets three different women pregnant then sterilize him. He has proven he is not capable of making proper decisions and society should not be responsible for his complete lack of control. The same for a woman.
  6. Dan, my dear friend, you are stretching at this. A woman engages in sex because she wants to engage in sex. She is a competent, thinking being in the same way her male partner is. They both choose to have sex with one another. The female does not have more responsibility any more than the male has more responsibility. The mere fact they both choose to engage in sexual intercourse necessitates a beginning and an end. The simple reality of a female having previously released her egg and the the male ejaculates in no way affects who is responsible. Overwhelmingly privileges the man? Dan, really, get off the feminist Kool-Aid, it leads to a dead mind. The laws are written and both are affected. Who do they favor? It all depends on what law and at what time. The next time you being to question that, talk to a man that has gone through a divorce about the rights he has versus those of the mother. Or, when a one night stand turns into a lifetime of giving a stranger funds for a child they created whether the child actually receives the benefits or not. This is a topic where both can point fingers and it serves little purpose.
  7. Pot meet kettle - LOL and you turn around and use textbook, feminist jargon. Men are the "primary if not unilateral responsibility" - Friend, you do know how babies are made right? Okay, please go back and reread that part about an egg and a sperm. That man thing is just 1/2 of the mix. What on earth have you been reading?!? This is just scary silly. What is so hard about discussing something that takes place between two individuals and a joint problem? It is not unilateral. The argument is consistently, if a woman carries the baby it is her decision 100%, but, boy, let that child enter into the world and, "Daddy, get out your checkbook!" I think both parties should bear responsibility at all times and laws should be written in accord with that position. That includes care for the child as well as what is happening to the child during gestation.
  8. Just curious, have you ever met a perfect human? Have you ever met a perfect woman? I have not. We have laws that govern humans; we restrict their actions, we force them to act in specified ways. Yet, when it comes to a woman, then somehow this benighted, all-knowing being takes over and we should just trust to do what is best for society? Why? We are talking about the human that chose to engage in activity that would result in a pregnancy. If she was such a superior being, why did she just chose not to get pregnant. I know a method that is 100% guaranteed to never put any individual or couple in a situation where they will be pregnant. Which brings up a second issue - that individual female did not get pregnant by herself. Where is her partner's input in all this? He is financially liable once the baby is born, but somehow loses all rights during gestation. Why? Who wrote that in the book of thou shalt and thou shalt not? I wish society and humans were so perfect as you propose. I wish that women were so noble that we could trust them to choose what is best for the human race. What we trust them to do is to take care of themselves up to the point that they are not making decisions for another being. Simply because that being is dependent upon her for a gestational period, does not obliviate that individual's rights.
  9. This border issue is interesting to me. My professional career was in real estate investment management. I have an expert, intimate understanding of what it costs to build and maintain multifamily housing. FIrst, we are talk about a foreign people that are essentially invading another country in the attempt to abuse that nation's laws to gain entry i.e. asylum for economic benefits. Somehow, you assume that we need to magically have hundreds of thousands of family units available because these same individuals have children in tow - now many of those children belong legally to the adults is in question. Where does this money come from? Who is ready to spend the billions of dollars to construct the housing so that we can just willy-nilly care for illegal immigrants? I am unaware of a single, major US city that does not have a homeless problem. You posit that we need to care for foreigners and ignore our own homeless. Why? If we could, it would be better to immediately load every illegal entry into the nation that would be sent to shelters, back on airplanes, trains, buses and take them back to their country of origin. It is not feasible for any country on the face of the earth to house illegal aliens. No nation can afford this degree of onslaught. Much better that our do-nothing Congress immediately institute a workable immigration policy, perfect the asylum laws, allow for a viable green card system, etc. to accommodate a feasible number of immigrants to the nation. Lastly, the only individual responsible for children entering into this nation illegally are the adults who brought them. No one else. I support a single-payer, national health policy that supports comprehensive health care for each citizen. If an individual demonstrates they are incapable of caring for the children they bring into this world - male and female - I have no problems sterilizing those individuals. With a national health policy, I see no need for abusers of the system. To be clear, I have a niece with three children under the age of six, unmarried, was unsure who the father was of the first child, and two other children came from the same man. The man is responsible for numerous children from multiple women and he should be sterilized along with those mothers that have similarly demonstrated an inability to care for multiple children out of wedlock.
  10. Dan, I don't think it is a question of your statement being true or not, but its validity of being used as a comparison is significantly narrowed. This topic is challenging due to the layers of undercurrent issues that come into play: abortion, end-of-life choices; euthanasia, etc. are just the beginnings of a long list. What is evident in the initial post - the vast majority of the scientists agreed on when life begins - when an egg is fertilized. We may argue that point, but these scientists have made a conclusion. Further, scientific conclusions can be thrown out the window when applied to personal rights, specifically women's rights. Scientists are willing to forfeit any scientific conclusions IF they conflict with their political views. This scares the dowad out of me and makes me doubt almost any study if there are political implications that can be attached. It turns out that scientists are just as irrational and human as the rest of us. Individual Latter-day Saints may have a range of positions regarding abortion. Some think what was found in spiritual thought of ancient Israel has an impact on what we should think today. Others posit that the science of today can allow us to take a more sure foundation upon which to build our personal opinions outside what the Church has clearly stated on the topic. For me, I am concerned about how we as individuals that recognize each other as children of God, can ever easily conclude that we can choose to end the life of a child at any age from cell fertilization forward. I find anyone that stands of the "rights" position on a slippery slope. If we can make a decision on when to end a child's life in the womb, we can eventually make a decision to end the life of anyone should their life become a significant inconvenience.
  11. Those situations are all restricted to specific circumstances. It is never, "Geez, grandma is getting old and it is so inconvenient to take care of her; I say let's bump her off." The authority to pull the plug is very narrowly granted.
  12. Americans, and Western Europeans, can be very shortsighted in their thinking. Their concept of the what the world is doing is really limited to what "I" am doing and what the media is telling them. Our society has the misfortune of being led about by the nose ring of media opinions. Living in the Middle East for almost eight years led me to think that religion is, was, and remains a focal point of community life. Islam has an extremely firm grip on cultural life and Christianity and Hinduism, as well as others, also were as active as possible. Attempting to make a snapshot of religious life in America and then make long-term prognostications is fraught with challenges. Religion will remain a vital influence of both Western culture and our communities. False forms of Christianity will catch fire and then fall away or fail completely. Religion will remain vital as long as the individual encounters God and is able to respond to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The social activism's pounding drumbeat will be silenced in favor of the next, new cause célèbre and its attendant drumbeat. The green beans will still need to be picked, the sun will rise, and we each will seek to engage with God. I turned off the news a long time ago and I find our home more peaceful.
  13. Do you remember that face that Danny Ainge used to make when things didn't go his way? That is the face I see when I read this comment above I put in bold type. It is the mindset of a whiner. No, Danny, sometimes crap happens and folks collide. No, they are not trying to hurt you, but they are trying to actually play the game to the best of their ability. Now, wipe that whiny face off and let's play ball.
  14. Sounds like a common sense ruling. I know that is almost unheard of anymore, but I am gladdened that common sense at least occasionally is used in the Law. Now, if we just get it into the Legislative Branch, we might actually begin to govern better.
  15. It has gotten rather uninteresting. The LGBTQ ad nauseum threads have at least slowed to a trickle, the feminists/priesthood for women has almost gone away, and we don't have the Evangelical drive-bys we use to get. I also wonder if folks have simply chosen other things based on their positions. Our society is fractured based on political and social agenda topics. People are not interested in hearing conflicting opinions; our universities are anything but milieus respecting freedom of expression. They have evolved into gutter-warrens of echo-speak...."If you think like me then you may talk. If you don't then we will stone you to shut you up!" The news media is anything and everything but the news. They chase the dollar and have devolved into opinion speak about topics in the news, but don't report the news. Members of the church have followed along and come in all variations of thought and belief. Oneness seems a foreign concept unless it is twisted to mean we can all be different and just call ourselves one.
  16. I agree that if a survey was sent to her, then I can understand a response. It is the part about going to the news that sets me off.
  17. There was a saying I heard recently that made me laugh, "Not my monkeys and not my zoo." It helped me to understand that I did not need to worry about things over which I have no control. I could talk a good deal about how this atrocious problem in the Catholic Church is and how impossible it would be for the Holy Spirit to reside where this type of abuse is taking place. Calm's comment above is valid, IF I was asked about it then I might say something depending upon the type of question it was and what I thought the motivation of the individual was. But, to go out and protest another church....not my monkeys and not my zoo.
  18. I appreciate that most of the time you project a positive approach to those who find fault or to criticize the Church. However, I tend to place myself in the situation and ask what I would do? For example, though I have closely followed the sexual abuse problems within the Catholic Church, I would never write a letter stating that I am a non-member and that I am flummoxed at the actions of the Pope or some of the archbishops lack of inaction or completely ignoring the problem. It would never occur to me to take that position. I guess I may also be a more negative person than you also. I try to understand what motivates people to take a certain action. Why would someone spend their time, emotions, and energy on a specific cause when they are not related. For me, "Something is rotten in the state Denmark!"
  19. Let me get this straight, an inactive member is concerned about an organization (s)he no longer cares about? Why? How much of a complete whiner do you have to be to complain about something you don't care about? Get that woman a life!
  20. I will try once - read all my posts. Then just stop with the snide comments.
  21. Calm, do you understand what I mean when I say free form dreadlocks? No one that wears free form washes their hair regardless of race. It is impossible to wash because of the of the purpose of the free form dreadlocks. The point is, if this young lady wanted to work in the temple, I would guess the TP would say no and he should say no due to cleanliness of wearing free form dreadlocks. When I looked at the picture of the young man, he appeared to be wearing free form dreadlocks, which I know you don't wash. Based on that, cleanliness is why it would be appropriate to say, "No". Saying yes to a temple worker wearing free form dreadlocks would be a double standing, not racist.
  22. Our friend's daughter was white, not black. Her dreads were free form, rather than braids. Even this speaker in the video above seems to distinguish between free form dreadlocks and locs. I have never seen braids of any length on any person appear unclean or unkempt. There is a difference between cultural ignorance and simple ignorance or misunderstanding.
  23. Sanctimonious blather. It would seem you would give up on that.
  24. Some of our friends had a daughter that decided to grow dreads. She never washed her hair, ever. After a year or so she finally cut them off because they got too heavy for her. Are you telling me that not washing your hair is clean? Just curious.
×
×
  • Create New...