Would the Republican presidential candidates restrict access to birth control?

[velkyn]

"Unionizing" the INDIVIDUALS that are pro-lifers under the same umbrella may be a flawed approach. Not all or perhaps even many are apart of the "larger movement." Using terms like "pro-life movement" IMO, uses too broad a brush in attempting to charactorize a not necessarily homogenious group of individuals and their beliefs. Many pro-life folks are in fact women; why do you feel they want themselves oppressed?

They may be women but they are also religious idiots.  In my experience, these women are simply ignorant.  They have been taught that women are only women if they have children and that they are not worth anything unless they do that.  So they cling to the ideal that being pregnant is all that they have and that all women should bear their burden.  It’s not the child it’s their worth in society that they care about. 

[Ivellios]

I've seen this a lot. Women are treated that if they aren't married and with children there is something wrong with them. So they get together with a guy that beats her, and/or abuses her mentally and emotionally. Then one day, 5 to 15 years of a miserable hell, she realizes that suffering all that **** isn't worth it, finally splits then thinks that ALL men are complete douchbags and ***holes.

But by then she's produced for her parents grandkids, and as long as they have grandkids, who cares about her? She fufilled her 'duty' so as long as she's doing that, she's 'supposed' to be happy.

But... now she's single and as you know, if a woman is single it means there's something wrong with her.

Then the cycle repeats.

Let's take from the "objective morality" of the bible what it has to say about this:

If you have sex without the intention of getting pregnant it's a sin.
If you have sex with your husband, you (and he) must leave the village until the next sunset, and cannot work or have any social contact.
If a woman has a period, it's a sin.
If a woman gives birth to a boy, it's a sin.
If a woman gives birth to a girl, it's twice as bad of a sin.

As far as I can tell, the only loophole is to get pregnent, and 'accidentially' have a miscarriage.

They've got women so covered she cannot do anything without garunteeing she's going to sin at least once a month for an involuntary biological function. Yup, punish women for the sin of being born a woman. How "All-Loving" God is, isn't he?

[screwtape]

Why can't there be more John Stossels,

Because being an ignorant asshole on that scale is so difficult, most people do not have enough time, ambition or malice to achieve it.

Many pro-life folks are in fact women; why do you feel they want themselves oppressed?

For the same reason women in oppressive islamic countries think it is right that they wear burkhas and cannot go out in public without a male relative escort.  It was the culture in which they were raised and have not questioned it.  They have very parochial views and have not considered the broader opportunities that may be available to them.

Let's take from the "objective morality" of the bible what it has to say about this:

If you have sex without the intention of getting pregnant it's a sin.
If you have sex with your husband, you (and he) must leave the village until the next sunset, and cannot work or have any social contact.
If a woman has a period, it's a sin.
If a woman gives birth to a boy, it's a sin.
If a woman gives birth to a girl, it's twice as bad of a sin.

I am pretty sure you have misunderstood at least three of these.  Since you say this is biblically supported, I recommend you find the passages you think support these claims and look into them a little more.

[Ivellios]

I am pretty sure you have misunderstood at least three of these.  Since you say this is biblically supported, I recommend you find the passages you think support these claims and look into them a little more.

Lev 12 deals with Atonement after Childbirth and the 2 varying 'unclean' periods depending whether the child is male or female.
Lev 15:19-31 deals with the second set of sacrifices offered in Lev 12 for the sin & burnt offering for the 'monthly flow.'
Lev 15:16-18 Deals with semen emissions. Being 'unclean' till the next evening.

I was told when people were 'unclean' they had to segregate themselves from society and yell out "unclean, unclean" if anybody drew near. As touched upon in 'The Tutor' ep 1. "... I'll be in the forest for the next seven days..."

I'll retract what I said about the other until I can find it (and post it's verses)... I just did a quick scan of Exo-Deut. My eyes hurt.

Unless Atonement has nothing to do with sin, and/or sin means something completly different in OT & NT...

[Truth OT]

Why can't there be more John Stossels,

Because being an ignorant asshole on that scale is so difficult, most people do not have enough time, ambition or malice to achieve it.

Is that so? Please elaborate and share with us the what's and why's of your assertation.

[screwtape]

Lev 12 deals with Atonement after Childbirth and the 2 varying 'unclean' periods depending whether the child is male or female.
Lev 15:19-31 deals with the second set of sacrifices offered in Lev 12 for the sin & burnt offering for the 'monthly flow.'
Lev 15:16-18 Deals with semen emissions. Being 'unclean' till the next evening.

I was told when people were 'unclean' they had to segregate themselves from society and yell out "unclean, unclean" if anybody drew near. As touched upon in 'The Tutor' ep 1. "... I'll be in the forest for the next seven days..."

I'll retract what I said about the other until I can find it (and post it's verses)... I just did a quick scan of Exo-Deut. My eyes hurt.

Unless Atonement has nothing to do with sin, and/or sin means something completly different in OT & NT...

In judaism being ritually impure (ie, cleanliness) is not the same as sin.  The jews were and still are maniacally obsessed with the idea of purity.  Meaning, they wish to control all genitalia.

[Ivellios]

Lev 12 deals with Atonement after Childbirth and the 2 varying 'unclean' periods depending whether the child is male or female.
Lev 15:19-31 deals with the second set of sacrifices offered in Lev 12 for the sin & burnt offering for the 'monthly flow.'

Atonement according to Jewish Tradition[1] is to scapegoat someone/something via casting your sins upon them then sacrifice, cast out (Yom Kippur), or for Christians, the "Final Atonement" the murder of Jesus.

I did make the distinction that unclean =/= sin by mentioning the semen emissions. A man ejaculates, he's "unclean." A woman menstrates or gives birth, she's "unclean" AND she must provide a SIN offering, or for giving birth, a yearling[2] for Atonement.

Why is it that seemingly every single person stops at the "unclean" portion, and therefore never make it to the "sin offering" part but me?

Edit: And for the mother (biologically) what difference does it make whether the child is male or female? ie. Why 1 week, then 30 days if male and 2 weeks then 60 days if female?

1.	as to my understanding
2.	if she can afford it

[screwtape]

Is that so? Please elaborate and share with us the what's and why's of your assertation.

It's true.  Stossel is a gigantic, talking anus.  He thinks the 'stache and hair plugs conceal that fact, but they don't. 

why?  Do you <3 John Stossel?   

[screwtape]

Why is it that seemingly every single person stops at the "unclean" portion, and therefore never make it to the "sin offering" part but me?

It must be that we are all stupid.  It must be that the only person in the forum who has even a modicum of brains is TruthSeeker. 

Or it could be the footnote I read when I looked up Lev 12 on Biblegateway:

lev 12:6 ...a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.[a]

Footnotes:
a.Leviticus 12:6 Or purification offering; also in verse 8

Bold mine.  So, there is more than one way to look at it.  Let's not get all douchey and make this personal, okay? 

The bible also talks about being fruitful and multiplying.  I do not think the idea that having children is sinful comports with that.  I understand, the bible is self contradictory in many, many places.  But one of the constant themes of the OT is the directive to reproduce like there is no tomorrow.  It makes more sense to me that some old jew who had seen a child birth said "ew.  That's disgusting," and made up some rule about the mother staying away from the temple until her crotch healed.  Maybe, maybe not.  But it makes more sense to me than having children is a sin.

 

[Truth OT]

Is that so? Please elaborate and share with us the what's and why's of your assertation.

It's true.  Stossel is a gigantic, talking anus.  He thinks the 'stache and hair plugs conceal that fact, but they don't. 

why?  Do you <3 John Stossel?

I simply like libertarian ideas he espouses. I could care less about him on a personal level.

[velkyn]

Is that so? Please elaborate and share with us the what's and why's of your assertation.

oh that he lies constantly in things that can really hurt people.  I find that quite a bit of "assholery". 

[screwtape]

I simply like libertarian ideas he espouses. I could care less about him on a personal level.

Ah, I see. So, in D&D terms, you are chaotic evil[1].  That actually totally explains your stance on child abuse[2] and the 8th amendment to the Constitution.

1.

as defined by 3.5 rules - "A chaotic evil character [ed. - libertarian] does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos [ed. - libertarianism], he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people [ed. - libertarians] can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him."  Has Libertarian and Ron Paul written all over it.

2.

that is, corporal punishment

[Truth OT]

I simply like libertarian ideas he espouses. I could care less about him on a personal level.

Ah, I see. So, in D&D terms, you are chaotic evil[1].  That actually totally explains your stance on child abuse[2] and the 8th amendment to the Constitution.

1.

as defined by 3.5 rules - "A chaotic evil character [ed. - libertarian] does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos [ed. - libertarianism], he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people [ed. - libertarians] can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him."  Has Libertarian and Ron Paul written all over it.

2.

that is, corporal punishment

D&D is Dungeons and Dragon I suppose right? I am totally unfamiliar with it other than the old 80's Saturday morning show that I found unbearably boring, so forgive me if I respond in the, "Dude, what the hell you talking bout" kinda way.

But on a more serious note, why is it that libertarian ideas are considered as "chaotic evil?" The way I see it is kinda like this:

1. I don't want some authority dictating to me what I can and cannot do. In other words, I am a rational, capable, able-bodied adult that means my neighbor no harm, so leave me the hell alone.

2. I understand that as humans we are all dependant on the same things for our survival and sustainance, so some degree of communal (communist in the truest, not political sense) rules and concessions are necessary, but don't take that stuff too far.

3. Don't make stuff/organizations with the power to pass and enforce rules too big and design and expect them to affect change and make a difference on an individual level. Doing that is extremely inefficient and ultimately often proves wasteful and takes away individual liberty.

4. If the stuff ain't for me, and the stuff ain't for you, why does it have to belong to a government? Can't the stuff just be ownerless until someone acquires and utilizes it so that aquisition and utilization won't be hindered by bureaucratic red tape?

5. You wanna talk evil, interest is what's evil. Stop devaluing the money supply of the collective populice with usury! It only creates wealth for lenders while shifting the burden of impossible total repayment from one non-lender to the next continuously creating more and more class separation within a population by always having someone behind the 8-ball having to put in work not for the purposes of survival and sustainence, but rather to first pay another just so the worker can get UP to zero. That's some crony-capitalism bullshit!

6. Deregulate most stuff! Come up with specific, testible, and varifiable ways to protect the air, the water supply, and the food generating land that we need to survive. Then tell businesses, "hey, doing this or that will f-up our water supply, so chill out or we go buss yo' ass for f'in up stuff we all need that don't belong to you."

7. Stay the hell out of other folks affairs! Stop being the world's policeman and mind your own damn business as much as possible and only and very rarely involve yourself in international affairs, especially military when necessary (trade nonwithstanding of course).

[velkyn]

6. Deregulate most stuff! Come up with specific, testible, and varifiable ways to protect the air, the water supply, and the food generating land that we need to survive. Then tell businesses, "hey, doing this or that will f-up our water supply, so chill out or we go buss yo' ass for f'in up stuff we all need that don't belong to you."

ROFL.  Have you heard of the Cuyahoga river?  It burned when we didn't have regulation.  This is only one example of how private industry doesn't give a damn and won't just meekly say "oh gee, sure we'll do that"   I'm wondering if you really think that a private citizen can compete against a corporation with no government regulation to oversee and provide power on their side.

[Truth OT]

6. Deregulate most stuff! Come up with specific, testible, and varifiable ways to protect the air, the water supply, and the food generating land that we need to survive. Then tell businesses, "hey, doing this or that will f-up our water supply, so chill out or we go buss yo' ass for f'in up stuff we all need that don't belong to you."

ROFL.  Have you heard of the Cuyahoga river?  It burned when we didn't have regulation.  This is only one example of how private industry doesn't give a damn and won't just meekly say "oh gee, sure we'll do that"   I'm wondering if you really think that a private citizen can compete against a corporation with no government regulation to oversee and provide power on their side.

First, please realize that the expressions of these ideas are done so in a 'from top of my head' manner. Secondly, I did not say end all regulation, in fact I described what I felt should be subject to regulation (the usage of and influence on air, food, water).

[velkyn]

6. Deregulate most stuff! Come up with specific, testible, and varifiable ways to protect the air, the water supply, and the food generating land that we need to survive. Then tell businesses, "hey, doing this or that will f-up our water supply, so chill out or we go buss yo' ass for f'in up stuff we all need that don't belong to you."

ROFL.  Have you heard of the Cuyahoga river?  It burned when we didn't have regulation.  This is only one example of how private industry doesn't give a damn and won't just meekly say "oh gee, sure we'll do that"   I'm wondering if you really think that a private citizen can compete against a corporation with no government regulation to oversee and provide power on their side.

First, please realize that the expressions of these ideas are done so in a 'from top of my head' manner. Secondly, I did not say end all regulation, in fact I described what I felt should be subject to regulation (the usage of and influence on air, food, water).

which illustrates what I've noticed about a lot of libertarians.  They want what only what they approve of being controlled and everything else let alone.   Which would lead to a million different versions of libertarianism.  For example, that fellow John Stossel.   In the wiki article about him, he's quoted as saying "But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer."  Magical?  Really? And this from someone who claims to be such a myth buster.  The 1800s were a lovely example of how the markets work unregulated. We had crashes, few workers rights, the aforementioned burning rivers and other environmnental messes, etc. 

[Truth OT]

which illustrates what I've noticed about a lot of libertarians.  They want what only what they approve of being controlled and everything else let alone.   Which would lead to a million different versions of libertarianism. 

Your point maks sense, but answe me this:
What is wrong with there being multiple versions? Also, why must one homogenous version dominate?
Do you think that there is a way reasonable people can come to an agreement on what things need regulation? At the most basic level air, food, and water are things we cannot do without at all, so is it not common sense that at minimum these things must be protected/regulated?

For example, that fellow John Stossel.   In the wiki article about him, he's quoted as saying "But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer."  Magical?  Really? And this from someone who claims to be such a myth buster.  The 1800s were a lovely example of how the markets work unregulated. We had crashes, few workers rights, the aforementioned burning rivers and other environmnental messes, etc.

Being that dude is an agnostic I have my doubts that his using the phrase "magical" was intended with any mystical connotation. It sounds like he just believes the market does a better job at regulating itself and protecting consummers than government does. That sentiment is not incorrect as his focus seemed to be purely on the market and its effect on consumers. It doesn't, however, take into account working conditions, what labor law should entail, etc., so those issue would need to be addressed to an extent as a part of another only slightly related conversation.
 

[screwtape]

But on a more serious note, why is it that libertarian ideas are considered as "chaotic evil?"

to explain that, you have to understand that chaotic evil is an alignment that is used to describe peoples' (characters') personality types.  It uses a two axis system. 

One axis describes a person in terms of how well they function in organizations.  People who adhere to laws, rules and work well within hierarchies and organizations are considered "lawful".  Those who are more mavericky, individualistic, rebellious or otherwise antisocial, are "chaotic".  In between, you have "neutral".  Libertarians don't want no gummit tellin' them what to do, so, they are firmly Chaotic.

The second axis has to do with altruism.  People who are interested in helping others or benefitting all of society are "good".  People who are selfish, greedy, or possibly hurtful are "evil".  In between is "neutral".  Libertarians are all about themselves and screw everyone else, let them earn it, the lazy cocksuckers.  At my most charitable I would call them neutral-leaning-toward-evil.  But let's face it, really, they are evil.   

Thus, chaotic evil. 

Other examples:
Robin Hood - classic Chaotic Good.
Superman - classic Lawful Good.  Often known as "Lawful Stupid".
Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Hitler - Lawful Evil
Dick Cheney - Neutral evil - he is willing to use the law or step outside it to achieve his evil ends.
Judge Dredd - Lawful Neutral.  He only considers the rules, not the morality of them.

It is an imperfect system, deliberately black and white to suit the absolutist views of teenage boys, so don't get too riled by it.

The way I see it is kinda like this:

1. I don't want some authority dictating to me what I can and cannot do. In other words, I am...

...Chaotic.

2. I understand ..., but don't take that stuff too far.

Chaotic with shades of evil. You - the general plural you, libertarians - think you are islands.  You accept the benefits of society (possibly without realizing it) but do not accept the obligations that come with them.  Those obligations are a forfeit of some of your freedoms and some taxes.  That is the cost of living in a stable, civil society.  In that respect, you (still plural) are scamming the system.  Which I find immoral, and thus shading toward evil.

3. Don't make stuff/organizations with the ...

Chaotic.

4. If the stuff ain't for me, and the stuff ain't for you, why does it have to belong to a government? Can't the stuff just be ownerless until someone acquires and utilizes it so that aquisition and utilization won't be hindered by bureaucratic red tape?

That is neither chaotic or evil.  It's just poorly thought out.  How does someone "acquire" it?  Who is eligible to "acquire" it?  Could anyone just stick their flag in the ground and say, "Mine!"? Is there a limit to how much one person can "acquire"?

You see, in a representative republic, like we have, we the people are ostensibly the government.  Or rather, the government is there to represent us and our interests.  If the government is not paid for and owned by the ultra-wealthy and corporations (which it is due to poor regulation), then the "stuff" whereof you speak is not owned by no one, it is owned by all of us jointly.  Public parks.  Roads.  Utilities.  Mineral rights.  Natural resources.  All of it all of ours. We have been conned over the last couple of decades into thinking that this sort of public commons is bad.  It is not.  It is the very foundation of our society.  If everything is private, then we lose our common connections with each other.

The biggest assholes in America - in my opinion - are Alaskans who bitch about socialism.  Each one of them receives a check every year from oil companies for drilling on state (that is, publicly owned) land.  Probably the most lucrative socialistic endeavor of any of the states. 

5. You wanna talk evil, interest is what's evil.

... I think you put too much stock in Ron Paul's understanding of economics.   

6. Deregulate most stuff! Come up with specific, testible, and varifiable ways to protect the air, the water supply, and the food generating land that we need to survive. Then tell businesses, "hey, doing this or that will f-up our water supply, so chill out or we go buss yo' ass for f'in up stuff we all need that don't belong to you."

You say "deregulate" and then talk about what you think needs to be regulated.  You named some very valid reasons why we have regulations.  Mainly they are for health and safety issues.  But it also includes other kinds of protection.  You know, every financial mess and scam we have had since 1980 (and they have been getting progressively bigger) has been due to lack of regulation.  I think you are not as libertarian as you think.

Can you name one specific regulation that you think should be abolished, off the top of your head?  Most people who have a hard-on for deregulation cannot.  They just think regulation in general is bad, in an abstract sense.  It is an ideological thing, like religion.  They just believe it without any data or evidence to support it.  It got that way because they have been told over and over and over for the last 30 years by right wingers that it is bad.   

I think it was nogodsforme who had a list of countries with regulation and countries without.  You don't want to live in the countries without.

7. Stay the hell out of other folks affairs! Stop being the world's policeman and mind your own damn business as much as possible and only and very rarely involve yourself in international affairs, especially military when necessary (trade nonwithstanding of course).

That does not fit in the D&D alignment system.  But I think it is good policy.

[velkyn]

which illustrates what I've noticed about a lot of libertarians.  They want what only what they approve of being controlled and everything else let alone.   Which would lead to a million different versions of libertarianism. 

Your point maks sense, but answe me this:
What is wrong with there being multiple versions? Also, why must one homogenous version dominate?

  I can think of one big one (there are probably more) Because people think that their way is the best way and everyone else’s way isn’t. Sucks not to have protections of the few from the many in this supposedly libertarian paradise. We’ll have a thousand little war lords in their walled cities declaring what should and shouldn’t be controlled.  How can the society, the one you evidently don’t like but do enjoy some of the benefits from, work in a lack of structure like this?   Screwtape makes a good point, you want to be “free” but you still suck at the pap of that bad ol’ gov’t.  You drive on roads, you use infrastructure, etc.   

Do you think that there is a way reasonable people can come to an agreement on what things need regulation? At the most basic level air, food, and water are things we cannot do without at all, so is it not common sense that at minimum these things must be protected/regulated?

Ah, there’s the caveat “reasonable people”. And who are those people, TOT?  My definition of reasonable or yours?  And we know that “common sense” is highly overrated.  There was no magical growth of common sense in the times there was no regulation so why make belive it will happen now?  One of the biggest isues right now is and will be water.  Who has it, who needs it.  We can see already that the western states are showing just how much they don’t care about anyone “downstream”.

Being that dude is an agnostic I have my doubts that his using the phrase "magical" was intended with any mystical connotation. It sounds like he just believes the market does a better job at regulating itself and protecting consummers than government does. That sentiment is not incorrect as his focus seemed to be purely on the market and its effect on consumers. It doesn't, however, take into account working conditions, what labor law should entail, etc., so those issue would need to be addressed to an extent as a part of another only slightly related conversation.

Oh people can be agnostic and have some idiotic other ideas. Agnostic is only to a god, not to lots and lots of woo.  Regardless, he and other libertarians, have yet to show that the market does this magical “better job” at all.  Saying it and showing it are two entirely different things.  And the market does entail all of those things that you would try to split off.  Again, we have plenty of evidence that his claims are not correct.  It’s an Ayn Rand fantasy that you both seem to live in. 

[Azdgari]

What is wrong with there being multiple versions? Also, why must one homogenous version dominate?

The problem is that only one can be in effect at any given time.  Something cannot in practice be simultaneously regulated and unregulated on the same point.  Law of non-contradiction and all that.

[Azdgari]

Oh people can be agnostic and have some idiotic other ideas. Agnostic is only to a god, not to lots and lots of woo.  Regardless, he and other libertarians, have yet to show that the market does this magical “better job” at all.  Saying it and showing it are two entirely different things.  And the market does entail all of those things that you would try to split off.  Again, we have plenty of evidence that his claims are not correct.  It’s an Ayn Rand fantasy that you both seem to live in.

Further, he was only talking about protecting consumers.  The market may well do that pretty well, but unfortunately, humans are not only consumers.  We are, at the same time, workers.  We are people with personal lives.  Our behaviour as consumers is not the only thing about our lives that needs to be protected.  Does the market do the best job across the board?  I've yet to see a convincing argument...

[Azdgari]

"Unionizing" the INDIVIDUALS that are pro-lifers under the same umbrella may be a flawed approach. Not all or perhaps even many are apart of the "larger movement." Using terms like "pro-life movement" IMO, uses too broad a brush in attempting to charactorize a not necessarily homogenious group of individuals and their beliefs.

Certainly some have bought into a selective set of pro-life rhetoric.  Per your suggestion, I will consider such ignorance to be an exception, on an individual scale.

Many pro-life folks are in fact women; why do you feel they want themselves oppressed?

Because they believe that it's morally right to be oppressed in that way.  There are outspoken Muslim women who think that them having to wear face-covers while men do not is morally right.  This is little different.

Many have not been co-opted and for whatever reason simply believe an 11 week old fetus/embryo/zygote is a person as opposed to an undeveloped, not fully functional thing that is not yet fully human and thus is not entitled to the rights afforded humanity.

Who's being co-opted from what?  I am unaware of anyone who treats the idea you describe both genuinely and sincerely.  Do you know of any such people?

[Ivellios]

It must be that we are all stupid.  It must be that the only person in the forum who has even a modicum of brains is TruthSeeker.

Just telling a life experience. Every Christian I've asked to read those verses has always stopped at the mentioning of 'unclean' and didn't or wouldn't finish the passage. I always found that ironic because it's them saying, "you're taking that a verse out of context, read the whole thing!"

Or it could be the footnote I read when I looked up Lev 12 on Biblegateway:

Footnotes:
a.Leviticus 12:6 Or purification offering; also in verse 8

Bold mine.  So, there is more than one way to look at it.

My Bible I've had since I was a teenager has footnotes. This wasn't included. Until another one was presented, I was going with was what my version of the bible says.

Yet again, in order to have "purification" from being "unclean" after the emission of semen, all a guy has to do is wait. So a woman should only have to deal with the clockwork aspect. But, no, she must be "purified" by buying the Priest dinner[1].

Let's not get all douchey and make this personal, okay?

Another instance showing that forums are not the best communication medium, but it is the best we have. A state that I don't feel was describing me at all.

The bible also talks about being fruitful and multiplying.  I do not think the idea that having children is sinful comports with that.  I understand, the bible is self contradictory in many, many places.  But one of the constant themes of the OT is the directive to reproduce like there is no tomorrow.  It makes more sense to me that some old jew who had seen a child birth said "ew.  That's disgusting," and made up some rule about the mother staying away from the temple until her crotch healed.  Maybe, maybe not.  But it makes more sense to me than having children is a sin.

Still doesn't explain why the woman must wait twice as long before her Atonement or Purification when she gives birth to a girl instead of a boy.

Edit: Added "purification offerings" to footnote to reflect Screwtape's evidence.

1.	Lev 6:24-30 ie.  Sin Purification offerings are usually eaten by the priest performing the sacrifice.

[Azdgari]

Sure it does.  Girls are dirtier than boys in that religion.

[Ivellios]

Which goes back to my "oppressing women on the grounds of being a woman," for which I pulled just a few verses as my "proof."

[Babdah]

1. I don't want some authority dictating to me what I can and cannot do. In other words, I am a rational, capable, able-bodied adult that means my neighbor no harm, so leave me the hell alone.

what about the people that can not do that and does intend on harming people?

6. Deregulate most stuff! Come up with specific, testible, and varifiable ways to protect the air, the water supply, and the food generating land that we need to survive. Then tell businesses, "hey, doing this or that will f-up our water supply, so chill out or we go buss yo' ass for f'in up stuff we all need that don't belong to you."

OK, if we were to deregulate the department of energy it would give us a chocie but it would also mean that they would be able to charge what they wanted, look at bushes deregulateing the medicare plan and how much more it cost the elderly now because of that. I would not suggest deregulate but redefine

[screwtape]

Just telling a life experience.

Whatever every xian you have talked to has said, just remember, I am not them.  And I do not appreciate being lumped in with every tard you may have talked to. 

My Bible I've had since I was a teenager has footnotes. This wasn't included. Until another one was presented, I was going with was what my version of the bible says.

Naturally.  We all have things that we think we know, but we are wrong or incomplete in our understanding.  Me included.  And I include myself on this topic as well.  I'm not an expert. That's why I suggested in my op that you look into further rather than point at you and laugh for being wrong. 

Another instance showing that forums are not the best communication medium, but it is the best we have. A state that I don't feel was describing me at all.

alright, so let's move on.

Still doesn't explain why the woman must wait twice as long before her Atonement or Purification when she gives birth to a girl instead of a boy.

because bronze age jews were chauvinistic douche bags.

[Truth OT]

Good food for thought Lady V and ST. Give me a minute to go over some things before I respond directly so that I can a good thought out response as opposed to a mere rebuttle to defend my particular POV.

[Ivellios]

Whatever every xian you have talked to has said, just remember, I am not them.  And I do not appreciate being lumped in with every tard you may have talked to.

Sorry for the foot in my umm... hands. I didn't even consider it reading like that. My apologies.

Naturally.  We all have things that we think we know, but we are wrong or incomplete in our understanding.  Me included.  And I include myself on this topic as well.  I'm not an expert. That's why I suggested in my op that you look into further rather than point at you and laugh for being wrong.

I acknowledge that I too could have been incorrect. Like dropping what I could swear I read in the Bible, because of being unable to find the verse(s). Also adjusting my understanding upon being shown that there is or could be a better way.

because bronze age jews were chauvinistic douche bags.

Even though I didn't know my understanding was off, and even though the end result is still the same, it is better to arrive there with a better/correct understanding than a wrong one. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.