Deeds Of God Title Banner

Main Menu

Statistics

Users
3
Articles
367
Articles View Hits
2059867

2012 A.D.:  Women's Healthcare - why not reward just the virgins?  It's the healthiest sexual choice!

  In the United States there is, at times, quite a battle as Democrats try to legislate various forms of God-hate and evildoing (as God defines it) into law, or into mandated availability.  While there is almost no one pure, and we Christians commit shameful amounts of sin, yet among the Democrats it is celebrated almost as a victory when they can force Christians to subsidize the very behaviors that God states that He despises.  It apparently doesn't occur to them that their aims bear an eerie similarity to what Satan works so hard to accomplish.  I doubt many of them have stopped to consider that if Satan did have human servants they would be trying to accomplish many of the exact same things that the Democrats publish as their party's goals.  In short, Democrats have unwittingly become the banner to which evil people and evil groups (as God defines evil) rally.  Decades ago they were not.  Now, they simply have become that party that Satan can pretty much rely on.  

  Abortion lovers seek their cover there.  When they want to play the 'it can't speak up for itself so it's only fair that I should be able to kill it' game, there is only one party that rabidly defends that philosophy.  The average Democratic President, Congressman, or Senator merely pretends that they - personally, because of their excellent moral character - deeply regret the necessity of abortion, and oh so earnestly wish it never happened.  But then they assure their crowd that they can be counted on never to lift a finger to stop it when it is necessary (oh so regrettably necessary, I mean to say) because abortion is a valid form of women's health care for those women who feel healthier after they've murdered their babies.    

  Gay marriage supporters rally there, as do gay's groups in general, though not all. 

  Fornicators (those who wish to embrace sports sex, and sex outside of marriage in general) gather there for the cause of obtaining specific financial and health care support for their fornicational habits and the inconveniences associated with fornication, such as pregnancies and disease, and the cost of birth control.  The list of fornicators is a long one, and certainly includes myself and persons in the other political parties, perhaps in greater percentages than among the Democrats for all I know.  But only the Democrats strive to socially enshrine fornication as a noble right, a respectable activity and an honorable use of our bodies that should be governmentally supported, upheld, and subsidized.   

  Those who broke into this nation to dwell here in defiance of the immigration laws have no stronger ally than the Democrats, I would think.  Democrats perceive that those groups will vote Democrat if they are protected by the Democratic Party, I guess.  But once they obtain citzenship, they often get a whiff of the Democratic Party planks and flee to some other party out of fear of God. 

  People that are in truth fairly healthy and capable of working, but who prefer to be supported by the work of others, can find the entitlement programs they need courtesy mostly of Democrats.  That's not saying there aren't many genuine needy that use those programs also, but the lazy have learned to work them quite skillfully. 

  As for those who want the mysterious (and as yet unseen) Process of Evolution to be taught mandatorily to school children instead of Creation by God, they count on the Democrats to second both the motion and the notion.  

  Those who want the God haters and the God seekers to be forced to dwell in some 'middle ground' state of compromise seek their shelter there.  For those among the Democrats that openly reject Christ anyway, they merely have to tolerate a certain amount of Christian culture in the vicinity of their living space.  But for the Christian that compromises, all is risked.   

  And there are more cases, numerous and easy enough to find, but to summarize, from a purely Christian point of view, the Democratic Party couldn't seem to be much deeper in Satan's pocket. 

  But let's consider 'women's health', for a moment.  Democrats have long wished for Christians to be forced to assist in funding abortions and birth control whether they wished to or not.  The favorite idea is the 'Great Society' idea, where we have a national healthcare program which just happens to contain coverages of things which are known to be hateful to God.  They suppose it only right that Christians should help pay for these things, and they are happy to see it become mandatory and perhaps criminally punishable if Christians were to not contribute to this forced national drinking of the Jonesboro punch.

  Democrats often try to proclaim the utterly bizarre argument that to oppose abortion is to wage war on women.  Obviously half of the babies killed are female, but beyond that a good percentage of women who abort their own offspring deeply regret it later.  The same with men.  As for opposing birth control,  you can't oppose it for women without opposing it for men, as only in the presence of those two genders can conception naturally occur.  So, if it's a war on women, it is equally a war on men, though in truth it is only a war against fornication, since birth control allows sex to become a sport.  Most people that really fall in love see how good marriage and love and family are, and by comparison how empty their dating years were.  Even most divorced people, like myself, can remember back to a time when they could feel how right marriage felt compared to shallow relationships and sex that wasn't right in God's eyes.   

  Anyway, let's consider a women's health idea that has been kicked around a little:  certainly abstinance before marriage is a very healthy practice! 

  It becomes rare to the extreme to become pregnant if you practice abstinance.  It becomes less common as well to catch venereal diseases that may require treatment for the sake of the health of those afflicted, and which might later cause sterility, or difficulties in pregnancy, or may even cause children to be born with their parents diseases.  So, if the various forms of birth control are considered a smart allocation of medical care funds by Democrats because they do a fairly good job of preventing pregnancy and disease for those who purposely choose to engage in sex (a somewhat risky activity), then shoudn't it be an even better idea to expend public funds to encourage abstinence?  Abstinence is even less risky!!

  Instead of paying fornicators (I'm guilty, I've been one) to fornicate in a more sophisticated and lower risk manner, why not just pay women to not fornicate at all.  If reducing risk is a good expenditure, surely almost eliminating risk altogether is an even better one.  I say 'women' because a woman's virginity could be verified in most cases, where as I don't think men's can be yet, can it?  So, instead of paying for birth control, or abortion, let's pay virgin women, those who wish to participate, a health care stipend to remain a virgin.  In most cases they could go in for a quarterly physical and be verified as 'still virgin', and then a check (funded by taxpayers) could be sent to the girls to reward them for their low risk life style.  This would all be strictly voluntary on the woman's part.  That really is support for women's health care.  It really does avoid the costs associated with fornication as well, for all of those qualifying virgins.  And as word gets out that it pays to be virgin, won't more girls want to be virgin until they are married? 

  If we took all of the money we spend on abortion and birth control programs, and spend them on 'virginity maintenance' programs for unmarried women, we could improve women's health immeasurably, and reward those women who engaged in a healthy female lifestyle.  The women who practice this 'close to zero risk' behavior could receive a fat, juicy little check that the women who engage in 'managed risk' behavior did not receive.  And then we can greatly please the Democrats, who care very much about women's health, and greatly please God, who approves of women who live in a pure and commendable manner before their marriage.  So, shouldn't all political parties be able to get behind this idea?  

  As for the women who want to fornicate, they still could use their own funds for this, but it just wouldn't be paid for by Christians any more.  And when a woman got pregnant, or got a disease, she could just accept that as the outflow you have to expect - a certain portion of the time - when you knowingly choose risky behavior.  They and their fornication partner could formulate a plan to deal with it using their own private funds, or a special fee could be assessed upon taxpayers who identify themselves as 'pro-fornication'.  That fund could be tapped into (to whatever extent that fornication funds remained available) to help out the ones that fall prey to the unavoidable odds that assure that some pregnancy and some disease will occur if you fornicate.  

  Shouldn't it be women that speak of women's health care?  (I am a male.)  Yes!  It is OK for men to speak about women's healthcare, but the opinions of women are more informed, I would say, by far.  But...women already do speak of women's health care, and many of those women are Christian, and hold life to be sacred and purity to be worth striving for and maintaining.  Like most of our American nation, there are many Christian women who lived sinfully and then came to their senses....felt wrong and decided to seek God.  Like Christian men, we are not pure as we ought to be, but rather most of us are seeking restoration before God's eyes. 

  Yet, Christian women do speak up for what is riight...they do it often.  It is merely a case of the media newscasters positions not being filled by devoutly Christian women so often.  And many Christian women pour themselves into their families and their churches, leaving them little time to engage in politics as well.  But, even on the social media websites where comments are often brief, it is easy to find Christian women making an eloquent case against this forced marriage between the God-seekers and the God-defiers.  Against the Government mandating that Christians too must financially support God-defying behavior.  Are these Christian women who express such views waging a war against women?  They are women!  God-seeking women!

  There are still great numbers of good young women in this world, women who value virtue and work to establish and maintain it in their character and in their life.  Many are Christian, some are not.  Shouldn't we give them - one and all - some financial oil for their lamps?

  All I'm saying is that it would be considered an outrage by the left and by the God-haters to be forced to subsidize virginity with tax payer money, though holding onto their virginity would have a far better impact on women's health than would attempting to manage their fornicational habits.  Yet the God haters and the Left in general seem in full throated approval of directing the money of tax payers....even Christian tax payers....towards the support and management of fornication.  It's neither healthy nor God approved to fornicate, though we're a nation that is probably largely guilty of having done it.  But it's a very important step further, in the wrong direction, to make tax payers fund and financially subsidize fornication.

©2011 Daniel Curry & 'Deeds of God' Website