so, with the upcoming election, there have been many speeches made and many issues tackled. From what i am hearing and seeing, it seems as though the gap between church and state is getting smaller by the month. the republican party is fueled too much by religion.

Mitt Romney said that if a woman if raped and gets pregnant, she should honor the "blessing" of the new child and give birth. for one thing, a rich man has no place giving his opinion on children who are the product of rape. i guarantee he doesn't have the slightest idea what it feels like or what it means to be raped. let alone carry a baby from such an ordeal. plus, think of that child knowing how they were brought into the world. Mitt Romney used to be pro choice, but isnt now.

Cases like this show how close politics is coming to incorporating religious beliefs into law. for pro-lifers, this case has nothing to do with the rape, but the conception of life. i am sorry but unless you were the one who was raped, it is none of your business and you have no right to tell that woman that she needs to have the baby. Women received a right to choose a long time ago, so social stigmas against abortion should be dwindling as we grow as a society, but religion holds that back, making women think that if they get an abortion is an evil thing. but for some people, it is the better choice when one considers finances and quality of life. not everyone is meant to be a parent.

anyways, the problem with using religious ideals in politics is that the united states is not a religious country. only a percentage is religious, and in that percentage lay many forms of religion. you cannot run a country based on ideals that only part of the country believe in.

Nothing is wrong with religion, by all mans worship. but it has no place in government. not on this side of the planet, and not in this day and age.

> Nothing is wrong with religion, by all mans worship. but
> it has no place in government. not on this side of the
> planet, and not in this day and age.

Why, because there is a larger none religious population? Or some

other reason perhaps?

No. Because there is a larger mixed and non-religious population combined. most people don't agree with all of the religious beliefs of a faith that isn't theirs, just as most religious people wont agree with the all of the beliefs of non-religious people.

> just
> as most religious people wont agree with the all of the
> beliefs of non-religious people.

Well there you have it, politics is made up from none religious beliefs so

its hardly fair when you look at it like that now is it?

I read this yesterday.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17248737...it made me very very angry. >:(

because it isn't about religion. government is supposed to run on what is right for the community as a whole. It is supposed to be about being fair and being just, it is about running the machine of everyday life so that people can try to live prosperous lives. government is supposed to have the morals of what is right for mankind from a logical, moral, and scientific standpoint. their job is supposed to be to keep us safe, and contributing to our economy so that we can keep going as people, and as a country. some of those values are found in religion. Just because something isn't religious, doesn't mean that it doesn't have morals. forget the scandals and corporate input, when you get down to it, this is what government does for us. it manages a large group of people so they don't completely self destruct.

makes me angry too. it seems like a no-brainer to me that contraceptives would always be covered under health plans. the pill is prescribed to women for a few reasons other than birth control. i find it strange that all plans seem to cover Viagra, yet there is controversy over women using contraception. I am sort of surprised the they actually got church affiliated institutions to change their rule on the matter, i didn't think that it would happen. i bet they are very angry indeed.

> than birth control. i find it strange that all plans seem
> to cover Viagra, yet there is controversy over women using
> contraception.

My sister is prescribed Viagra for a heart-lung condition - so it has more than one application as well.

Yes well there is many scandals in religion too so i guess both have flaws in that respect.

Thank you for the explanation, much appreciated :)

One could well argue that it is wrong to ask
> institutions
> > to contribute financially to actions they deem immoral.
> > Similarly taxes coming from convinced pacifist should be
>
> > separated out and not go towards defence spending.

the pill isnt immoral. it is used for many things other
than birth control. many women who dont even have sex use
it. honestly, i disagree with you on such a large level
about everything you said that i dont even want to get
started. my point was that when making laws and from
giving rallies that influence many people's opinion, each
subject should be looked at from a logical standpoint,
which includes how the victim feels, that is a part of
what makes laws fair, how we feel about them. I don't want
to impose my views on the religious, i feel that the
majority should have equal say, and the majority is a mix
of different religions, and the non religious. its about
what is fair and just. everyone does have a vote, but not
everyone can put on a rally and have their opinion
broadcast across the nation, where there are many people
who can't seem to think for themselves. one of my poinys
was that purely religious or judgmental views can be
damaging when they isolate a group of people, like women
who want abortions.

political decisions are not only based on voting, or on
the input of the people, but on what is best for corporate
puppet masters. since we do not hold as much steak as a
corporation, the government does what is right for them
before the rest of us.

And as for your views on abortion, i disagree as well.
whomever is pregnant is the lone person (with perhaps her
partner) who can decide she would like to terminate the
pregnancy. If that person doesn't care that the embryo is
what some people would consider "a person" she has the
right to make her choice on the matter.

As a pointed out science however would lead us to
prohibit abortion; the only reason it still exists it
intellectual dishonesty based on a flawed logic

intellectual dishonesty? sometimes it is better for both
mother and child for an abortion to occur. like i said
before, not everyone is meant to be a parent. plus it is
hardly fair to the child to bring it into the world if
living conditions are not fit for a child; lack of funds,
a mother who isn't ready, even violence in the home that
the child would someday live in. the child's live after
birth needs to be taken into consideration, if there is no
quality of life, then you would be doing that would-be
child a favor by not bringing it into a world that isn't
right or ready for it.

...do you have any children?

Why not?

Why didn't/don't you get married and have some then, since you seem to love children?