Wifely Duties
POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Saturday, January 9, 2010 04:47
VIEWED: 62964
PAGE 8 of 19
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As I have said before and still maintain, this is not about them being punished for being 'different'. It's not about 'a few bad apples'. Grooming girl children and giving them no other choice but to be underage brides to much older men in polygamous marriages is DOCTRINE.
All religions and creeds practice polygamy every day. It's renamed adultery, fornication and divorce.
Doctors make trillion$ by selling contraception and aborticide DOCTRINE.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
"When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.
We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama’s plan will help parents make sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it."
Seems like a noble endeavor to me IF it can be done. I don't see any language that discourages having babies (if anything, it might encourage since they will be taken care of).
It's probably a little too early to tell - especially that part, "or through options established by the Obama plan."
Here's the problem, Pizmo. No public option means people have to pay for that insurance outta their own pockets. Raising kids already costs a crapload of money. Now it costs more, which means people have an incentive to have fewer kids, because they can't afford them when before they might have been able to.
There's a movement out there associated with the globalist movement that wants to see a decrease in human population. The most obvious and likely reason from this is there's less people to share resources with for the people still around.
A decrease in population sounds like a good thing, they say "none of us live forever," and "this is for our children." But considering the manipulative way they go about discouraging the birth rate and other forms of social engineering... Well, there's of course the obvious question, when a prominent leader talks about how reducing global population should be a goal (often under the facade of environmentalism - which isn't a bad cause, it's just been co-opted), the average citizen and their families should ask if they're considered to be part of that group, or whether that leader is thinking about his peers and their families (the social elite). Probably it's the later. Second, the secrecy and underhandedness about the decreased/controlled population movement suggests to me they have other reasons for wanting smaller populations that they want to conceal. And third... I don't like their methods. More than enough reason for me to oppose the movement.
DT once sent me some information about the very first feminists, who were also very into eugenics. Disturbingly so.
I consider myself feminist, I'm female, I work, and I have no intention of having children. Pregnancy looks very painful and gross. I support any woman who wants to work, they have the right to make that choice. Hopefully they would do so in a manner that does not neglect the children they have at home, it is possible, just as you would hope fathers who work don't go out and spend all their cash gambling and drinking.
I don't know if the feminist movement is still an ally of eugenics. I hope not, because the stated goal, equality between sexes, isn't a bad one. Unfortunately, there's also feminists who seem to think equality means they're entitled to a little revenge on men, which is a hateful attitude, as bad as any racist. And I have to concede that a reduction in childbirth is a result of feminist attitudes, and reduction in childbirth is one of the interests of the crowd so keen on social engineering, so that element could very well still exist.
It does no good to join in a cause that sounds worthwhile if you don't know who is directing you and why. That's how people get scammed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"There's a movement out there associated with the globalist movement that wants to see a decrease in human population."
That movement must not be very strong in well-off European countries where having children is heavily supported through medical and social policies.
"And I have to concede that a reduction in childbirth is a result of feminist attitudes ..."
No, it is mainly due to the 'demographic transition' wherein, through improved economics, women find better things to do than have children.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And it is with much satisfaction that we're watchin em fry, Rue.
A much better result than drowning their victims in the foster care system - we've recently reached a tenative alliance with the Rebecca Project due to having mutual issues with how our legal system treats victims of this kind of abuse.
http://www.rebeccaproject.org/
Tenative cause my penchant for playing rough bothers em, but I ain't in charge no more, so no matter.
Thankfully the original El Dorado case which was so badly poisoned got dropped, otherwise many of these asshats would have walked, and I was very concerned some of em mighta got a free pass outta that, but thankfully once the folks who DID wanna make it a theological war got shut out of it, things have gone a lot smoother.
I still don't buy your still-unproven assertion that it was doctrine till you find it in their own records, but in practice one can certainly make the case - but then again, any biblical based belief can be called on a number of rather nasty things from the gruesome work of torture-porn they call a Bible anyhows.
Disagreement aside though, doctrine or not, anyone deliberating acting in an exploitive or abusive fashion to kids is gonna get short shrift from me, or even whatever flak I can help toss upon them, cause some of those jackasses in texas got fried on stuff their own handed over when it came clear what the game was.
(Where exactly do you think they got the documents in question, given that the original warrants for that mess got tossed ?)
Any belief system can be exploited in such a fashion once folk start settin it above their own human instincts - and frankly, neither one of us are completely without at least a mild dash of ulterior hostility towards them and their religion even if it weren't abusive, and as such we should not pretend that we are.
That said, I do believe we can agree that these bastards aren't going to pay nearly enough for their misdeeds, but having them out of the community is progress, and it's not like the place isn't still under watchful eyes.
I just wish to hell they'd bagged these guys up by the book in the first place instead of trying to kick off a Baptist-Mormon crusade, but one can thank Judge Walther for that, grrr.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Reading thru old posts, just my $0.02: Wulf hates his mom 'cause his dad wasn't even around to take the flak.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another topic for another day.
I must try to bow out for the rest of the day, as my holiday vacation has left me with a post-vacation load of work !
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You and me both, I'm such a slacker..
We're *still* integrating that Canadian database cause the damned thing had to be rewritten almost entire due to compatibility issues, damn Excel all to hell.
I'll roast a couple bad actors in effigy for ya over lunch, tho.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
"When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.
We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama’s plan will help parents make sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it."
Seems like a noble endeavor to me IF it can be done. I don't see any language that discourages having babies (if anything, it might encourage since they will be taken care of).
It's probably a little too early to tell - especially that part, "or through options established by the Obama plan."
Here's the problem, Pizmo. No public option means people have to pay for that insurance outta their own pockets. Raising kids already costs a crapload of money. Now it costs more, which means people have an incentive to have fewer kids, because they can't afford them when before they might have been able to.
There's a movement out there associated with the globalist movement that wants to see a decrease in human population. The most obvious and likely reason from this is there's less people to share resources with for the people still around.
Hi Byte - I made those comments over a year ago (Dec 2008) before mandated insurance was even a glint in Big Ins' dirty rotten eye.
Fwiw, I can see your logic, but I don't agree with your suspicions or conclusions. You can't have exactly the same number of people on the planet year to year, so which is better for those that are alive, less or more?
I applaud China's one child policy, and by extension a reduction in future child births around the world so long as it's upfront and voluntary. Trouble is, much like there was with birthers and death panel believers, there are movements that want to make it seem like anyone who talks in favor of it is part of some kind of baby eating cult.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
No, it is mainly due to the 'demographic transition' wherein, through improved economics, women find better things to do than have children.
Same end result, a decrease in childbirth. Do you disagree? Women go to work, have less children. Demographic shift. The going to work part is part of equality of the sexes (and I admit this!) and therefore women going to work is encouraged by feminism, which causes a demographic shift. Is this WRONG?
Quote:
That movement must not be very strong in well-off European countries where having children is heavily supported through medical and social policies.
And what's the average birth rate of Europeans despite that? Low, is it? Perhaps because of social pressures and even subconscious messages about having less children for the better of the world, or even worries about the state of the world and bringing children into it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, I know those were a year old, but it had some bearing on the topic I wanted to discuss, so I addressed the comments about Obama's healthcare plan.
The problem with those policies is who it benefits, and it's not the populations the policy is instituted on.
The way I see it, it benefits the rich and those already in power, because those already in power are not having as many children anyway, so they aren't affected by the policies. But the lower classes that live a harder life and where it is less certain that their children will live to adulthood, these policies cause direct harm to them, and also exist to prevent the lower class population from exceeding a certain number that the powers that be think they can control.
That's how it is in China, the urban areas where all the power groups are (where they have undergone something like Rue's demographic transition) are unaffected, but rural areas and areas that are not Chinese ethnically but that the Chinese government claims are part of China, they are very much affected, and it is really almost a form of ethnic cleansing. The rural people of China do NOT like the one child policy. Perhaps they are selfish for wanting to have progeny that live long enough to reproduce themselves, but I don't think so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME