Hyde Admendment

[sirs]

The burden for anyone who alleges silly shit exists is to provide evidence of the sort than can be reproduced.

The thing is xo, I don't have to convince anyone but myself.  On top of that I'm not mandating that you believe as I do.  So, if YOU are so gung-ho about how much fiction the bible is, and you want others to believe as you, then its YOUR burden, I'm afraid

Good luck with that

[Xavier_Onassis]

So you cannot prove squat. Allow me to comment: neener, neener.

[sirs]

As I said, I don't have to prove squat.  You'll get back to us though, I'm sure, when you can prove the bible is just a bunch hoowie.  We'll be waiting patiently

[Xavier_Onassis]

Your desire is to inflict your religion on pregnant women who may not share your beliefs. Everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions, even if they do not agree with what the sky dwelling invisible deity in your head.

That is what is wrong with you Christians. You want to inflict your beliefs on others.

[sirs]

My desire to prevent the death/murder of an unborn child has squat to do with my religion, and I support a woman's right to chose anything she damn well wants to do, including if she wants to follow some religion or not......EXCEPT the only one that leads to the murder of that unborn child. 

So, you'd be wrong, yet again, as it relates to what I want others to believe or not believe, not to mention your erroneous use of the word inflict

[Xavier_Onassis]

You do in fact, want to inflict your beliefs on all pregnant women by denying them the right to choose for themselves.

It would be just as wrong for women to prevent you from reproducing because you are such a prick.

[sirs]

I do in fact, don't

I do in fact don't require anyone to read the bible
I do in fact don't require everyone to pray to my God
I do in fact don't mandate everyone believe as I do
I do in fact don't care what a woman does with her body
I do in fact don't care what a woman does with whomever they want

I only care about the life of an innocent unborn child, that gets no choice in the matter

I can't in fact become pregnant.  That would make me then a woman, not a man.  Which of course is largely irelevant to the point being made, but I acknowledge that its your go-to deflection crutch

[Christians4LessGvt]

That is what is wrong with you Christians.
You want to inflict your beliefs on others.

Ha Ha...now if that ain't the "pot calling the kettle black".
Mr. Big Gvt accuses someone that wants less regulation
less rules, as wanting to coerce people.

I want very limited gvt across the board....you don't.
That doesn't mean I want zero gvt, just a hell of a lot less gvt/rules than you do.
I want to protect an innocent baby from being killed....wow that's just horrible uh?
The Left wants to control people cradle to grave and decide what they
drive, how much water their toilets use, how much water their washing
machine uses, what they eat, how much of their income they get to keep,
etc x a million!

You/The Left are the ones that wanna control people via your Statism religion.
You also don't want to allow states to leave...
why not? because you want to control people
I say California, NY, if you wanna leave and/or be socialist....go for it.
Don't let the door hit on the ass!

I say if people want to use the kind of light bulb they choose...go for it!
If people want to drive cars that get 10 miles a gallon...go for it

I don't smoke and have never smoked,
I say if you wanna have a "smokers bar" then go for it.
Dont like smoke? Then dont take your ass in there!

You/The Left support all this huge daily flood of new gvt regulations
Regulations to control people.....
I want much, much less regulations (less control - telling people what to do)

[sirs]

But....but...C, it's ok if Government inflicts its beliefs on you, and mandates that you behave in a certain/specific pre-ordained way.  Because.......well because......     help me out here xo, preferably without looking like a hypocrite

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are the hypocrite, and too dumb to realize it.

[sirs]

So, couldn't explain that one either.  Wow, your classes had to be quite the challenge to learn anything   

[Plane]

(Notably, the Obama Administration chose not to contest Hobby Lobby’s assertion that use of an I.U.D. was tantamount to abortion; Verrilli said that the government accepted the sincerity of that view.)

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/03/women-supreme-court-justices-hobby-lobby-birth-control.html?intcid=obnetwork

[

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who was defending the law, invested heavily in the argument that for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby simply do not have rights to religious expression under the First Amendment. “It seems to me that it would be such a vast expansion of what Congress must—could have thought it was doing, in 1993, when it enacted R.F.R.A.—to say that for-profit corporations can make claims for religious exemptions to any laws of general application that they want to challenge,” he said, referring to a law on religious expression that Hobby Lobby had cited. But the Justices (even Kagan) didn’t seem to be buying that claim entirely, so he moved on to defending the rights of the women employees to health care. In the antiseptic language of the courtroom, Verrilli said that the Court should “require consideration of the interests of third parties.”