[Vision2020] Fw: RE: SCOTUS did not finish with the HL decision

[Kenneth Marcy]

On 7/9/2014 6:06 PM, lfalen wrote:
> The SCOTUS decision was in favor of the separation of church and 
> state. This is not a disease. Why should someone else pay for the 
> consequences of your pleasure. Abstinence is only one option. I agree 
> that not many will use it. I listed others. If an Insurance Company 
> wants to offer a birth control policy, fine. If someone wants to buy 
> it, fine. If some one wants to provide it free, fine. I am not into 
> forcing anyone to do anything, with a few exceptions such as paying 
> taxes. Forcing some one to pay for the consequences of some one else's 
> pleasure is the opposite of separation of church and state. To claim 
> otherwise is Orwellian.
> Roger

Interesting.  So, then, you are in favor of higher taxes on families 
with more children, right?  Certainly those who have no or just one or 
two children should not be subsidizing those who have three, four, five, 
six, ... need the multiplications of the masses of the various pleasure 
promoting pulpits be repeated, begat after begat, yet again?  To avoid 
Orwellianism certainly you would be in favor of removing a standard 
deduction for child number three, and the second standard deduction for 
child number four, and then adding to taxable income a standard 
deduction for child number five, and adding a similar amount for child 
number six, etc., etc., to the limits of the procreative prowess of the 
fruitful multiplicity, correct?


Ken