I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: Gerald Lively on August 21, 2012, 03:26:21 AM
-
Let's see now; Santorum is against contraceptives because the use of them would lead to recreational sex and only God knows what, Limbaugh chasens outspoken women by calling them sluts and other original adjectives, the GOP is still the anti-abortion club, Akins R(Missouri) says women can somehow squeeze their butt muscles and avoid pregnancy during a legitimate rape, or do as a Texas lawmaker said, Lay back and enjoy.
This is called Vaginaphobia. Or, is this really a war on women?
You know, I had vaginaphobia and it wasn't like the GOP version. I kept sticking my nose in her business.
gerald
-
HA !!!
"squeeze their butt muscles" :rofl;
Thanks for that I needed a laugh this morning !
-
OK girls, lets all "squeeze our butt muscles" on the count of three.
Gerald are these all people vying for positions in your government, if so "what a lot of ars*oles. I apologize :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken; if I have got this wrong.
-
Gerald are these all people vying for positions in your government, if so "what a lot of ars*oles. I apologize :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken; :sir ken; if I have got this wrong.
Yes, mostly. Limbaugh is an obnoxious radio talk show host.
-
Hey, I didn't make the bad guy remark, it was a Republican from Missouri. He said women couldn't get pregnant from a "legitimate rape". So, I pondered this assertion using my vast encylopedic memory on physiology. Which made me squeeze my butt muscles. Sure enough, I didn't get pregnant. Of course, I didn't get raped either.
But there are people who will vote for this guy. They walk among us.
gl
-
But there are people who will vote for this guy. They walk among us.
gl
And he's refusing to even consider withdrawing from the race, so they are going to get their chance.
-
Hey, I didn't make the bad guy remark, it was a Republican from Missouri. He said women couldn't get pregnant from a "legitimate rape". So, I pondered this assertion using my vast encylopedic memory on physiology. Which made me squeeze my butt muscles. Sure enough, I didn't get pregnant. Of course, I didn't get raped either.
But there are people who will vote for this guy. They walk among us.
gl
Not in a sexual manner but Congress has done a pretty good job of having us all bent over. :sir ken;
-
This is called Vaginaphobia. Or, is this really a war on women?
It's a new war on women - the first one (really the 2nd in terms of the feminist movement) came about in the 60s and 70s when all that bra burning and such went down so women could have equal rights - equal pay, equal opportunities in school and the workplace etc. This is just part of the third wave. Now that women are "equal" to men as far as work, pay, education etc (and in a lot of areas, passing men) the grumpy old men are now focusing on the one thing that sets women apart - their vaginas. And lets face it, no matter what is done, you can't change biology and body parts, and those ignorant men out there that still think a womans place is barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen will never get over it, and will keep putting it in the spotlight. Sadly, that spotlight right now is the friggin presidential election... because our country doesn't have anything else to worry about, so they are picking on vaginas.
But personally (this goes a little off topic but this post made me think of it again), and I am thinking of the whole birth control debate here, if an insurance company doesn't want to pay for my birth control then they shouldn't pay for ED drugs either. If you are not going to let me protect myself from horny old men, stop creating them!
-
I believe females should run the whole show. They should be on top too.
-
Gerald, I love that. Women running the world and being on top. Yes I like that.
This Presidential race sounds a right bummer. I think, no, I know I like our UK way. Its simpler.
-
I believe females should run the whole show. They should be on top too.
Hillary 2016!
-
I believe females should run the whole show. They should be on top too.
:rofl;
Here I have this thoughtful response, and you make it a joke. Love it. And I disagree with women being on top, gotta let me *think* they have control somewhere ;)
-
I can't get over that this creep is still ahead in the polls! :banghead; :banghead; :banghead;
Sorry I haven't been on much lately. Still battling Lyme disease, now with IV antibiotics.... Lots of brain fog and still having trouble talking. But I can write a bit.
:clap;
Aleta
-
Actually the latest Rasmussen poll has him 10 points down. My wife and I were discussing the situation this evening and find it disappointing that the party brass who are condemning Mr. Akin do it from the standpoint of the good of the party. Nobody of any stature has come out and said, "He's wrong and he should pay the price for what he said". Instead they say, "He was wrong and he should drop out of the race so the party still has a chance to win that Senate seat."
-
To me, the worst of it is the use of the word "legitimate" - as if the only real rape occurs when some thug in a ski-mask drags you into an alley. Clearly, if you know the guy, it can't be rape, right? You MUST have led him on... And hey, just ask Limbaugh - if you are on birth control, you were asking for it. ::) And while we're at it, if you ever dated him, slept with him willing, had a kid with him, or, god forbid, married him - hey, no whining if he slaps you around a little.
-
I thought this mugging analogy put it in perspective!
Aleta
-
Almost like JOE BIDEN telling a room full of Africian Americans that they will be "back in chains again". OMG Glad Ryan didn't say that.....
:stressed;
-
Almost like JOE BIDEN telling a room full of Africian Americans that they will be "back in chains again". OMG Glad Ryan didn't say that.....
:stressed;
He wasn't in a "room full of African Americans". He was at a campaign event in Danville, Virginia where the audience was described as "diverse".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48706802/ns/local_news-anchorage_ak/t/bidens-unscripted-moments-keep-campaign-its-toes/
In this world of instant news, twitter and such, it is worth seeking out the context of the "gaffes" that any politician makes. In the case of Mr. Akin, the man clearly does not have accurate knowledge of how a woman's reproductive system actually works. This, to me, is the true tragedy, that any American population could vote into Congress a person who is so poorly educated and whose party platform denigrates the value of education for all American children.
Mr. Ryan doesn't make "gaffes". He truly believes in what he says and he says what he means. When he says he wants to cut funding to social services and public infrastructure and increase funding for defense, he means it. And when he says that he opposes abortion in ALL cases, even in cases of rape and incest, he means it.
-
I find it very interesting that many societies have historically put so much importance on a female's sexual behaviour/status/whatever. We see "honor killings" in certain Asian cultures. Many Latin cultures historically link their family honor to their women's virginity. Even here in the US and in other "western" cultures, there is the ever present double standard with sexually active women still being called sluts. In the business world, you still hear of women "sleeping their way to the top". Are men invisible here?
I can't quite decide if this debate about "the war on women" is yet another manifestation of this seeming cultural need to control women's sexual behaviour or if it is really about abortion. I don't think anyone is "pro-abortion". There are many who are "pro-choice", but that is very different from being "pro-abortion". It's like saying "pro-gun" is the same as being "pro-killing". Abortion is always a tragedy, and it is always sad. But what I don't understand is why the pregnant woman herself and her spouse/other children lose all of their value just because she is carrying an unborn embryo.
I have always wondered why we don't ever hear from men whose wives have been raped and have been impregnated as a result. If you are a man and your wife is raped and is made pregnant, why should you be forced to raise and pay for that child? Could you ever love that child as much as you love your other children? But I guess you, as the husband, are not important because it seems that the only thing that is important is the embryo.
People forget that most women have a man or children in their lives who will also be affected by that woman's reproductive choices. So, it is not a war on just women. It is also a war on families and the freedom of choice that those families should have. There seems to be a disconnect between the "sanctity of life" and the "sanctity of the living". It's seemingly fine to "protect" the life of the unborn, but once that child is born, especially if it is born deformed or disabled or to a poor family, well, suddenly that child just doesn't seem quite so important anymore.
-
What do you mean "that child doesn't seem important anymore?" I guess I don't understand that statement. Do you mean our society drops the ball on kids with problems?
The embryo is a child. The embryo is not going to grow into a puppy or a kitten but a human baby. Yes I agree abortion is always sad to me and to you, and I truly hope to everyone. Adoption is an option not used much in America today. Americans have to go to China or other countries to get a baby. I would hope that option would be given to a woman before removing the "embryo".
And on the Joe Biden thing.... Anyone in that room should have been offended by what he said. I just brought it up because that seemed to be swept under the rug so I thought I'd go get it.
-
What do you mean "that child doesn't seem important anymore?" I guess I don't understand that statement. Do you mean our society drops the ball on kids with problems?
Yes, I mean exactly that. The state I live in ranks 49th in the amount of funding that goes to educating and treating children with disabilities. Having lived abroad with a child who is autistic, I can tell you from personal experience that American children with disabilities get the short end of the stick, much like American dialysis patients. And if that child "with problems" is born into a poor family that perhaps relies on Medicaid, then they are really in trouble.
The embryo is a child.
That's a philosophical argument; not everyone would agree with you. Why do you get to define "child" for everyone? Can't a woman be free to come up with her own definition of when an embryo becomes a "child", based upon her own religious and spiritual beliefs and upon her own personal worldview? Or is this the job of the federal or state government?
Adoption is an option not used much in America today. Americans have to go to China or other countries to get a baby. I would hope that option would be given to a woman before removing the "embryo".
I'm sure that most women are smart enough to know that adoption is an option. Still, I can understand why a woman who got pregnant via rape wouldn't want to continue the pregnancy. If you don't understand it, that's fine, but that doesn't mean you get to limit a woman's choices. A woman is more than just a vessel. Maybe that particular woman doesn't agree with you that her embryo is a "baby". Maybe she believes that life begins when that life is viable outside of the womb, or maybe she believes that life begins at birth. Where has this idea come from that life begins at conception? Even the Catholic Church has not always believed this way! Goodness, the Catholic Church hasn't even always believed that priests should be celebate?
And on the Joe Biden thing...it has been talked about incessantly and is even now still in the news, what with Rangel's remarks. I'm unsure as to why you would say it has been "swept under the rug". Now the media is going to be microscopically picking apart Romney's birther joke and will continue to do so until the next silly thing said by some politician or campaign spokesperson. And not everyone was offended by what he said because they heard his entire speech and understood the context of the comment. And Joe Biden is right. Those big banks ARE going to keep the rest of us in chains, no matter what color you are.
And on the Joe Biden thing.... Anyone in that room should have been offended by what he said. I just brought it up because that seemed to be swept under the rug so I thought I'd go get it.
Fixed Quote Error - Bajanne, Moderator
-
No, a woman or a man cannot decide that life begins at birth? Nor can they decide life begins at 2 years old. That is why the government has to be involved. Crazy mothers would kill their kids all the time otherwise and get away with it.
wow imagine that.... mothers killing their kids and getting away with it.
I'm not going to argue with you on Abortion, pro choice, pro life anymore. We are going to have to agree to disagree and vote for who we feel will best lead our country.
-
No, a woman or a man cannot decide that life begins at birth?
Men and women decide for themselves all the time when life begins. If everyone believed that life begins at conception, there would never be this debate in the first place. There are varying thoughts on when a developing embryo becomes a "baby". Not everyone feels that a group of cells that may or may not grow into a fully formed child is a "baby."
Where in the Constitution does it say when life begins? Where in the Constitution does it say which government body gets to decide how a woman uses birth control or how a woman must be forced to continue a pregnancy?
The Supreme Court has already ruled in the matter, so if you really believe that the government has to be involved, then you can also say that they already have been via the Supreme Court ruling. If you don't agree with the ruling, then that's your right. But you have no legal right to make such choices for anyone other than yourself. If I vehemently believed that no woman should ever have an abortion under any circumstances, my personal belief doesn't give me the right to dictate to anyone else. That's my point. It doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe; neither of us have the right to dictate to any other woman which choices she may make. I personally wouldn't want that responsibility.
-
Okay, but why don't we have a RIGHT to vote on what we believe and winner takes all. The Supreme Court made the decision for us and they could have ruled the opposite way as well and we would all have to live with that. So, I just think we should get a chance to vote our hearts.
You wondered whoever came up with the thing that life begins at conception? Well I found it in the Bible and I know your views on that but since you didn't know where it came from like we just pulled it out of our ass (Not being a good christian right now) it is in Jeremiah 1:5. When God was speaking to Jeremiah he said "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart...."
That right there is higher than any Supreme Court in my eyes. But, like you said it doesn't matter what I think or you think but I bet it matters what God thinks.
I'm going to stop because I think we are off topic and Gerald is getting too much fun out of this.
-
No one said you shouldn't have the right to vote on what you believe. That's, of course, if you have the proper ID to vote in the first place because it looks like THAT right is being eroded, especially if you live in a swing state. I'd like to know what God thinks about THAT.
I'm concerned that you are framing this discussion in a "you versus we" sort of way because I am not sure who exactly "you" or "we" are. I am also rather surprised that you seemed to be so sure about my views on the Bible because I am not even sure about my views on the Bible other than that a lot of people seem to cherry pick various passages and come up with wildly differing interpretations. I am never sure what God thinks, otherwise I'd know why Haiti had suffered such a catastrophic earthquake and now has a tropical storm barrelling toward it.
Why would God choose to form anyone via something as offensive and violent as rape? Does the Bible address that question?
-
Yes it does. Read it.
-
I thought one of the great things this country was founded on was the separation of church and state. Given that, where does the bible come in when it comes to making laws and setting policy? The bible also says greed is a sin, yet a lot of our current laws pander to the extreme weathy. Why is the bible only brought up for certain things, and not for others?
I am not a bible scholar, nor do I pretend to be one on TV...
As a woman who has had CKD and now ESRD w/a transplant, abortion and the ability to get one safely and easily is important to me due to the fact that I have to take extreme measures just to keep my own body alive, let alone grow an embryo to a fetus and into a baby that can be born and continue to thrive, given his/her beginnings as my off-spring. Chances are higher that the embryo/fetus/baby would not survive a pregnancy in my body. Right now, I take a medication that has extreme warnings about getting pregnant. I already absorb this medication well, so the harm it would do to an embryo/fetus is not something I would care to experience. Not everything is black and white.
KarenInWA
-
Where has this idea come from that life begins at conception? Was the question.
I brought up the Bible, and quoted Jeremiah 1:5.
Maybe you can answer the question better than I can......
-
But I had always been taught that in Genesis, God formed man in His own image but Man was not living until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. So that is from where the belief comes that life begins upon the drawing of the first breath, ie, the breath of God.
Or is that not right?
-
Where has this idea come from that life begins at conception? Was the question.
The philosophical grounding for many of the catholic Church's social teaching goes back to Thomas Aquinas
http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.htm (http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.htm)
but the Church broke with Aquinas on conception in 1960.
Aquinas talks about ensoulment which you never hear much about but it is at the core of the debate. Spoiler alert: Aquinas believed that it was a gradual process, that initially the zygote was a "vegetative life" and there was incremental change, that there is a process with ensoulment happening months (2-3) after conception. Aquinas believed that it took time for the fetus to develop to the point that it could receive the soul, and cross over to being human.
Rerun the Jerimiah passage refers to the idea of God having a chosen people. Spoiler alert: it's not you.
-
*
-
*
-
MM you might find this interview with UC Berkeley historian Thomas Laqueur, and Virginia Burrus, Professor of Early Church History at Drew University interesting. They talk about the early traditions in the church.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/6316/%E2%80%98let_it_be_unto_me%E2%80%99%3A_akin%2C_rape%2C_and_the_early_church/ (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/6316/%E2%80%98let_it_be_unto_me%E2%80%99%3A_akin%2C_rape%2C_and_the_early_church/)
-
Noahvale, if you were to post something on this board that I interpreted as being sexist despite you denying that that was not your intention, then which of us would be right? Do I get to tell you what you "really meant"?
Who should I believe, Soledad O'Brien who said that the crowd was roughly split equally black and white, or Afro.com which said that the crowd was "largely black"? Which is it?
While it is true that Afro.com did feel that Biden "invoked a slavery image", the Afro staff didn't view it in a negative light, which I find to be interesting.
And the more I think about it, why would it be so awful if Biden DID intentionally invoke a slavery image? In fact, I think it might be entirely appropriate given what the financial institutions in the US and the UK have done to the middle class with the full blessing of both Congress and Parliament. Slavery was an abomination, an evil institution that still blights the lives of far too many Americans, just as the recession caused by the big banks and deregulation begun during the Reagan years and continued to this very day has ruined the lives and futures of middle class Americans of all colors. We are all swiftly becoming economic slaves to the 1%. Imagine that...Barclay's fixing LIBOR.
I read Ezra Klein's article for which you provided the link, and again, I guess you and I are reading the same thing but are interpreting it differently. I didn't read where the Democratic Party "refused" to consider the verbiage provided by Democrats for Life America. Quite the contrary; the article gives the impression that while it is unlikely the wording will make it into the final platform draft, there has been more conversation about this issue lately than there has been in the last decade, and that is encouraging.
I personally believe that we should be putting much more effort and education into preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, but that means talking about birth control and religion, and those conversations just antagonize people. Then we start getting "slut" comments from people like Rush Limbaugh. And when you have the leadership of the GOP telling Americans that birth control is immoral, then you're back to square one. If you really want to stop abortions, then make birth control widely available and FREE! But the issue really isn't abortion, rather, it is about sin and "values" and what women should do with their bodies...or NOT do. Men get to do whatever they please, it seems.
Here is a link you might find interesting. Granted, it is from 1999 and is about Japan, but it is eye-opening. The desire to control women's bodies while at the same time further advancing the sexual prowess of men seems to be a universal. I guess perhaps the war on women isn't confined to the US! LOL!
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/27/science/japan-s-tale-of-two-pills-viagra-and-birth-control.html
-
MM you might find this interview with UC Berkeley historian Thomas Laqueur, and Virginia Burrus, Professor of Early Church History at Drew University interesting. They talk about the early traditions in the church.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/6316/%E2%80%98let_it_be_unto_me%E2%80%99%3A_akin%2C_rape%2C_and_the_early_church/ (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/6316/%E2%80%98let_it_be_unto_me%E2%80%99%3A_akin%2C_rape%2C_and_the_early_church/)
Thank you for that link, Bill. It makes me see that historically, Christian theologians have never quite known what to do with women. Should Christians venerate the Virgin Mary or not? Just what exactly is the role of a woman in the Christian tradition? Perhaps if there had been more female theologians, Christianity might not have such a "woman problem". Then again, the very concept of a female theologian probably didn't exist.
-
At one point Science thought the world was flat. Do we drag that up each time some point is trying to be made?
LOL Stupid Scientists!
-
At one point Science thought the world was flat. Do we drag that up each time some point is trying to be made?
LOL Stupid Scientists!
Science never thought that, the Greeks (700-300BC) debated whether the earth was round or flat but Aristotle (300s BC) pretty much settled it in favor of a round earth. "Science" in the person of Copernicus (1400s) through to Galileo (1500s) were pressured by the Church to renounce the idea of a round earth circling the sun. Kepler, Brahe and Newton (1600s) all worked to establish the science and the church finally caught up. It wasn't scientists being stupid, though scientists have some pretty crazy ideas too (see Newton and alchemy) but the power of science is that those ideas are open to discovery and debate, they are theories seeking to establish facts. The church makes assertions of fact - life begins at conception - and then develops the theories to support their assertions.
-
Then again, the very concept of a female theologian probably didn't exist.
Hildegard of Bingen was a theologian, among other things. That was in late 1000s, early 1100's.
Fixed Quote Error - Bajanne, Moderator
-
Where has this idea come from that life begins at conception? Was the question.
The philosophical grounding for many of the catholic Church's social teaching goes back to Thomas Aquinas
http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.htm (http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/aquinas_on_human_ensoulment.htm)
but the Church broke with Aquinas on conception in 1960.
Aquinas talks about ensoulment which you never hear much about but it is at the core of the debate. Spoiler alert: Aquinas believed that it was a gradual process, that initially the zygote was a "vegetative life" and there was incremental change, that there is a process with ensoulment happening months (2-3) after conception. Aquinas believed that it took time for the fetus to develop to the point that it could receive the soul, and cross over to being human.
Rerun the Jerimiah passage refers to the idea of God having a chosen people. Spoiler alert: it's not you.
Thomas Aquinas is not infallible, so far as I am aware. Remember his famous statement at the end of his life - "...all that I have written seems like straw to me..." which is not to denigrate the beauty of what he did produce during his lifetime...just an admission that he became aware that maybe, just maybe, his view wasn't the last word on things as far as God is concerned.
The Bible contains both Old and New Testament, remember. But if you want to refer to the Old Testament, there are plenty of places where God states that He is "the God of the whole earth" which sounds to me that we are all "chosen" (assuming we want/accept that).
"Let not the foreigner say, when he would join himself to the Lord, "The Lord will surely exclude me from his people:" Isaiah 56:3, etc.
and again, "...my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples." Isaiah 57:7.5
-
"...my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples." Isaiah 56:7.5
-
I guess I'm wondering why there is all this God and Bible talk on a thread about law and policy that is being discussed in reference to women, their health, their rights, and their rights to choose what to do with their bodies when it comes to birth control and pregnancy. Again, this is a country founded on separation of church and state. What does the Bible and God have to do with laws and policies of the USA? Can this topic not be discussed rationally without God and the Bible being brought up? A woman does not consent to being raped. It is not always advisable for a sick woman to go forward with a pregnancy. In both of these cases, if a woman is pregnant, it should be left up to her, and her only, as to what to do. If she wants to have her baby, fine. If she does not want to go forward with it, that's fine, too. God and the Bible have nothing to do with it. Not in the United States of America.
KarenInWA
-
I guess I'm wondering why there is all this God and Bible talk on a thread about law and policy that is being discussed in reference to women, their health, their rights, and their rights to choose what to do with their bodies when it comes to birth control and pregnancy. Again, this is a country founded on separation of church and state. What does the Bible and God have to do with laws and policies of the USA? Can this topic not be discussed rationally without God and the Bible being brought up? A woman does not consent to being raped. It is not always advisable for a sick woman to go forward with a pregnancy. In both of these cases, if a woman is pregnant, it should be left up to her, and her only, as to what to do. If she wants to have her baby, fine. If she does not want to go forward with it, that's fine, too. God and the Bible have nothing to do with it. Not in the United States of America.
KarenInWA
If not for religion how would one conclude that life begins at conception?
-
I guess I'm wondering why there is all this God and Bible talk on a thread about law and policy that is being discussed in reference to women, their health, their rights, and their rights to choose what to do with their bodies when it comes to birth control and pregnancy. Again, this is a country founded on separation of church and state. What does the Bible and God have to do with laws and policies of the USA? Can this topic not be discussed rationally without God and the Bible being brought up? A woman does not consent to being raped. It is not always advisable for a sick woman to go forward with a pregnancy. In both of these cases, if a woman is pregnant, it should be left up to her, and her only, as to what to do. If she wants to have her baby, fine. If she does not want to go forward with it, that's fine, too. God and the Bible have nothing to do with it. Not in the United States of America.
KarenInWA
If not for religion how would one conclude that life begins at conception?
Exactly! This is a religious thing that is setting these laws/policies, and religion has no place in our laws, per the First Amendment and separation of church and state. So why is this an issue? Would a true patriot, or Constitutionalist, be seriously looking to God and the Bible to make law?
KarenInWA
-
I guess I'm wondering why there is all this God and Bible talk on a thread about law and policy that is being discussed in reference to women, their health, their rights, and their rights to choose what to do with their bodies when it comes to birth control and pregnancy. Again, this is a country founded on separation of church and state. What does the Bible and God have to do with laws and policies of the USA? Can this topic not be discussed rationally without God and the Bible being brought up? A woman does not consent to being raped. It is not always advisable for a sick woman to go forward with a pregnancy. In both of these cases, if a woman is pregnant, it should be left up to her, and her only, as to what to do. If she wants to have her baby, fine. If she does not want to go forward with it, that's fine, too. God and the Bible have nothing to do with it. Not in the United States of America.
KarenInWA
If not for religion how would one conclude that life begins at conception?
Exactly! This is a religious thing that is setting these laws/policies, and religion has no place in our laws, per the First Amendment and separation of church and state. So why is this an issue? Would a true patriot, or Constitutionalist, be seriously looking to God and the Bible to make law?
KarenInWA
Well, considering that the colonies were initially established by those intending to spread the Christian faith, I would say, yes, a true patriot would be seriously looking to God and the Bible to make law.
"...In the original charter granted by King James to the Virginia
Company on April 10, 1606, the first motivation to colonize the New World mentioned is to spread the Christian religion.
This statement was made by or on behalf of King James to the major investors in the Virginia Company:
Wee, greately commending and graciously accepting of theire desires to the furtherance of soe noble a worke which may, by
the providence of Almightie God, hereafter tende to the glorie of His Divine Maiestie in propogating of Christian religion to
suche people as yet live in darkeness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worshippe of God and may in tyme
bring the infidels and salvages living in those parts to humane civilitie and to a settled and quiet governmente . . ."
-
*
-
God was brought into this thread because someone asked: whoever came up with the idea that life begins at conception?
I, being a born again Christian, am not going to miss that opportunity. I'm not going to sit here and say.... "wow, good point, I don't know who that idiot was". :waiting;
What does science believe? Hmmm let us read about that:
http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/when-does-science-say-human-life-begins/
I agree that rape is wrong. Who do these men think they are to force themselves upon another human being! There should be harsher laws like the death penalty! That may make them think with the head on their shoulders for once.
This politician that made the stupid remark is not running for president or vice-president. When the president or vice-president makes a stupid remark that is a much bigger offense.
-
Noahvale, I'm a bit wary of your assumptions that you are so knowledgeable about "my sensitivites", and I also don't know where you got the idea that I think the GOP is run by pro-lifers. Since I fervently hope it's not true, I, in fact, choose not to believe that. However, I will say that some remarks by Texas republican senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson caught my eye...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/08/hutchison-gop-shouldnt-build-party-around-abortion-133228.html?hp=l7
If she is concerned that the party is leaning further to the right in this regard, then I am concerned, too.
We can squabble about the party platforms until our respective faces turn blue, but the truth is that these platforms mean nothing. What means a lot is the leanings of state legislatures since each state can restrict whatever they want to restrict. Texas is going to completely defund Planned Parenthood. All that matters to them is abortion. Women's health, both preventative and restorative, means nothing to that state legislature...it's only and all about abortion. So once again, poor women are the ones who become victims of "fiscal responsibility". It's not just a war on women, rather, it's more like a war on POOR women.
Look at Virginia's ultrasound bill. Look at Mississippi's "personhood" bill. I don't think anyone can deny that in the states that are a part of the Old South, women's health and their reproductive choices, whether it be abortion or contraception or preventative care, is systematically being undermined. I challenge you to find me one state in the south (or anywhere where the legislature/governorship is Republican run/led) where that state's congress has expanded care for women.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/20/348941/romney-i-support-birth-control-because-it-prevents-conception/?mobile=nc
I can't really figure out exactly WHAT Romney's position is on birth control.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/20/712501/paul-ryan-and-todd-akin-partnered-on-radical-personhood-bill-outlawing-abortion-and-many-birth-control-pills/?mobile=nc
As for Paul Ryan, well, we could both provide links to all kinds of crap on the web. I'm not sure which would be the most reliable. Neither Ryan nor Romney really specify what they think about which kinds of contraception. Do they support the use of condoms but draw the line at the Pill? Do you know? I'm not entirely sure, so I hesitate to make any comment. But since they are supposedly the leaders of their party, perhaps we need to know. But again, I'm not sure it matters since the war on women (and yes, I really do think there is, at the very least, a BATTLE for women's health) is really conducted at the state level.
It's sort of like how the war on voting rights is being waged at the state level. Can you find me one state where voting rights are being expanded? Every single state that is restricting access to voting is republican run. It seems that politicians can yell "National Security" or "Fiscal responsibility" or "Voter fraud!" and get away with violating our fundamental rights to liberty and freedom. Seems very anti-American to me.
War is being waged on a lot of people on many fronts.
Re regulations on Wall Street and financial institutions, sure, there may be restrictions, but many of them are supposedly "self-regulating". How's that for a joke? It's like keeping up with hackers...these Wall street types always find a way to bypass regulations in the most creative ways. That's what happened with Enron and their accountants. I would LOVE for you to change my mind. I have never been wedded to any opinion, and I can promise you that I do NOT want to believe that the middle class is being screwed by the likes of Barclay's and Citibank. Do you think these companies are fundamentally different in their financial outlook and methodology than the likes of Davita or Fresenius?
-
I think the health care initiative and the economy will be the main issues - at least when people are actually walking into the polls and pressing the lever. Abortion issues are always good for a little press time, and they set off the extremists on both sides - but most of us are in the middle, and are much more worried about jobs and general health care.
Well, considering that the colonies were initially established by those intending to spread the Christian faith, I would say, yes, a true patriot would be seriously looking to God and the Bible to make law.
Ummm....we won the war so we wouldn't have to BE a colony anymore. Also the reason why we don't have to care about the royal family - even if they are naked in Vegas...
-
*
-
I think the health care initiative and the economy will be the main issues - at least when people are actually walking into the polls and pressing the lever. Abortion issues are always good for a little press time, and they set off the extremists on both sides - but most of us are in the middle, and are much more worried about jobs and general health care.
Well, considering that the colonies were initially established by those intending to spread the Christian faith, I would say, yes, a true patriot would be seriously looking to God and the Bible to make law.
Ummm....we won the war so we wouldn't have to BE a colony anymore. Also the reason why we don't have to care about the royal family - even if they are naked in Vegas...
Well, it was the Republicans who won the American revolution, after all. Remember the Boston Tea Party? (no tea tax). So I guess if we were really being patriotic, we would all have to be Republicans.
Naked in Vegas? Does this have anything to do with the IHD sauna? :rofl;
-
*
-
*
-
That was supposed to be a *joke*, Noah <sigh>. Tories and Whigs, right?
-
Noahvale,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/26/us-usa-voting-southcarolina-idUSBRE87P03Q20120826?feedType=RSS
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/8/25/pastors_criticize_ch.html
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_in_2012
http://www.trcommons.org/2012/04/the-changes-in-voting-laws/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-rewriting-state-election-laws-in-ways-that-could-hurt-democrat/2011/09/15/gIQApcuhVK_story.html
Yes, citizens over the age of 18 who are not convicted felons have the RIGHT to vote, but what is being challenged is whether or not they will be allowed to cast their vote and what will be required for them to do so AT THE POLLS. Citizens who have voted in the past because they have registered in the proper manner will now, in some states, be required to show further ID that may be difficult for them to obtain for whatever reason. Where I live, all I have to do is show up and give my name. The election official looks up my name on the roll and then gives me a ballot. I don't have to give any further ID. So, why has there been this drive in certain republican-led states to impose further requirements on voters despite the fact they are already registered and therefore listed on their district's election rolls? So, instead of calling me hyperbolic, why not answer some of my questions? Why not look at the links above with an open mind and ask yourself why there is this sudden, sweeping fear of massive voter fraud? Are the election officials in republican led states so inefficient and corrupt that there has been a voter fraud problem in those states?
http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2012-08-17/federal-court-rejects-florida-early-voting-changes
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/opinion/a-rejection-of-discrimination.html?_r=1
So no, not all challenges have passed court muster.
Truly, why do you think there has been this sudden drive to demand more ID at the polls? Do you really think that Democrats don't care about this country? Do you really not see the irony here, that it is republican led states that are demanding more ID from already registered voters...to hell with a citizen's right to vote? Do you truly not see what you are saying?
And by the way, remember how you accused me of hyperbole when I wrote about the legacy of slavery being felt even now? All of these voting regulations and the changes proposed are a direct legacy of slavery and voter repression of minorities. See how our past sins still keep us in chains?
-
Wait wait wait, noahvale. This discussion is supposed to be about the "war on women", so I'm not going to let you distract me from that topic. I asked you some very direct questions and pointed out that the war on women, particularly on poor women (defined as a battle to restrict women's access to health care that includes contraception) is ongoing at the state level, especially in red, southern states despite whatever any "platform" may say. I'm very eager to hear your reply. I don't especially care about debating voter ID regulations unless you want to start a new thread. My apologies for getting off-topic.
-
My apologies for getting off-topic.
We're in the political section, MM. None of these threads ever stay on topic!
Naked in Vegas? Does this have anything to do with the IHD sauna? :rofl;
No sauna that I heard about - just google Prince Harry in Vegas. By now, he should know better to have that much fun with anyone with a camera around.... :) I haven't seen the pics, since my ultra-conservative local paper wouldn't dream of printing them, but I did laugh out loud at the "man on the street" interview quotes from some British citizens asked for their reaction. Most of them boiled down to "So? If I was a single, 27 year old prince, I would be hitting it with two women at the same time too."
Note that neither of the women released pics of themselves. Perhaps the men waging war on women ought to consider the capabilities of their enemy before starting the next battle.
-
If you really want to stop abortions, then make birth control widely available and FREE!
As I'm sure you're aware MM, the contraceptive pill, the coil and contraceptive implants are all free over here (as are condoms if you're willing to go into one of the places that dishes them out instead of spend lots of money in the shops!) so this idea interested me. I did a little (basic) research and discovered that in both 2010 and 2011 there were 17.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in England and Wales. In the States in 2008 (I can't find any more recent figures) there were 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44. I'm not good at maths and statistics (barely scraped a C in my GCSE!) but this doesn't seem to be a massive difference, which either suggests free contraception doesn't work, or those of us who are English/Welsh need to be far better educated, sexually!
... but I did laugh out loud at the "man on the street" interview quotes from some British citizens asked for their reaction. Most of them boiled down to "So? If I was a single, 27 year old prince, I would be hitting it with two women at the same time too."
Yes, that sums it up; we really couldn't give a damn what Harry gets up to over here; both he and Prince Phillip make the royal family much less stuffy and far more approachable and that can only be a good thing.
;D
-
Our state just passed a liquor law where large stores like Safeway or Walmart can have booze. So, I will buy it now. Just put it in my cart along with my bread and pasta. No way would I go into a Liquor store by myself. (not that I'm a huge alcoholic)
So, I see where young people would not want to be seen going into the FREE birth control place.
-
So, I see where young people would not want to be seen going into the FREE birth control place.
Over here you would initially see your GP and then possibly the practice nurse, both at the surgery. Nobody would know why you were seeing them so there's no stigma attached.
-
What surgery? I'm just talking about going to get free condoms.
-
What surgery? I'm just talking about going to get free condoms.
In British English Surgery = a place where a doctor or dentist gives treatment = Office in American English
-
What surgery? I'm just talking about going to get free condoms.
In British English Surgery = a place where a doctor or dentist gives treatment = Office in American English
Thank you. I learn something everyday. :yahoo;
-
Here I am after struggling with the password guru who wouldn’t let me in. By reading these wonderful words of prose, you know that I succeeded. Now that I’m here, I forgot what I wanted to say.
Oh yeah! Women!.
I have no rational idea why government wants to mess with medical procedures that take place between a women and her doctor. Ric Santorum’s comments that contraceptives create an opportunity for recreational sex which is, in his moral judgment, is kinky and can lead to all sorts of deviant activities. One of us should write and ask just exactly what those deviant activities are lest I miss out on something. Tell him we want to do these thing in the name of research. We will not smile or otherwise signal that we are enjoying our work.
In order to overcome governments concern about contraception, I plan to stand on a street corner next to the lady with the beaded purse and offer condoms for free.
Say, does anyone think the Republicans will establish the bedroom police under Homeland Security? They already search little girls and senior citizen women at the airport. I wonder if they ever encountered a transvestite?
I think this issue will go away (or back to the states) if Obama is re-elected. Romney blew his speech after he followed Clint Eastwood. The entire convention was a PR show. No one said anything, everyone had their hair combed and their tie properly knotted. Didn’t see any black faces.
So, I sent a message to my kidney doctor that I will not be coming in for follow up meetings. They cost $70 and we discuss my blood work, which I have already read. I wonder if they’ll threaten me. Can’t wait. Did the same thing with my Urologist; they all look at the same thing then charge for an officer visit.
gl
-
So, I sent a message to my kidney doctor that I will not be coming in for follow up meetings. They cost $70 and we discuss my blood work, which I have already read. I wonder if they’ll threaten me. Can’t wait. Did the same thing with my Urologist; they all look at the same thing then charge for an officer visit.
I call those my "movie monster" appointments. Someone just HAS to get near it and poke at it with a stick to see if it's alive or dead.
Didn’t see any black faces.
Well of course not - who is you think they are trying to "Take Back Our County" from? Sometime I think the War on Women is some kind of compensation since they symbolically lost the War on Minorities when Obama was elected. If they really need to compensate for their inadequacies that much, why can't they just buy a sports car like all the other rich middle-aged men?
-
Who keeps bringing up race? Who Cares? Condi Rice? Geeee I think she even spoke! :banghead;
It is not your Nephrologist fault that MEDICARE requires all kidney patients to have a monthly visit from your Kidney Specialist. Maybe Paul Ryan can get at least that dumb requirement taken out if given the chance. I do not need to see my Nephroogist unless I'm having problems. AND he doesn't keep a schedule.... just pops in whenever. It is hardly ever when I need him anyway. What a waste of taxpayer's money.
Plus if you don't see him Mr. Lively.... Medicare will cut you off.
BTW there was a CPS Social worker arrested here lately for having child pornography on his computer and selling it. The FBI said it was the worst they had ever seen. Men doing a two month old baby...... The CPS ex-worker said he was doing research. Trying to get into the minds of men who get off on that kind of stuff. All in the name of research! Why should government intervene?
It all starts somewhere. The degradation of moral beliefs. Affairs are still illegal in Idaho. Not that it stops anyone. Affairs are still bad in my mind. No one gets out of it unscathed. What is beautiful to me is the thought of a couple getting married under the covenant of God and then sanctifying it. Not that I did it that way. But, I wish I would have. Maybe it would have turned out better than it did.
-
Sorry to jump in on the middle of this debate but I saw this pic and thought of this thread.
-
Sorry to jump in on the middle of this debate but I saw this pic and thought of this thread.
Nice one!
-
Rerun:
I am not on dialysis. Medicare won't stop paying because I am not utlizing any medical service. Dialysis ended last March. Aw better now.
-
Gerald you started a heck of a great debate. I love MooseMom more the ever....and not just cause I agree with her. I think the government needs to get out of my pants....at my age that is just too too disgusting. But if my 18 year old granddaughters get raped and abortion becomes illegal I would push that a law needs to go thru stating the man MUST support mother and child from time of conception. The mother is going to go thru morning sickness, heartburn, gas, loss of work, need for good healthy food, new clothes, clothes and baby items, the list goes on and on and lots of labor pain and the MAN MUST be responsible. If we are going to force women to go the entire nine yards (9 months actually) then the dad needs to be forced to do his part too...no walking away....he MUST go thru this too. women rarely get pregnant alone and yet....over and over you see mothers going it alone...shouldn't be legal. I totally believe that if one man ever gets pregnant all these arguments would go by the wayside....there would be government paid health care for that man immediately. One thing you got to say about guys...they do take care of their own. I love men...have 3 sons...grandsons...adore them...but they shouldn't be deciding what I do with MY BODY!!!
BTW Rerun....It seems odd to me that you are obviously anti choice but the death penatly doesn't seem to bother you...babies seem to hold more importance to you then adults....that's kind of sad!
-
Mr. Lively, I didn't realize that your kidneys kicked back in. Yeah, then tell those doctors to take a hike and you'll be back in if and when YOU decide. You go! Hope you are feeling good.
Just Dee, yeah, a baby is innocent and cute and a rapist has made his own choice and it is against the law of the land and I think death would be most appropriate and probably lessen the long list of sex offenders. I'm not seeing that as 'sad'?...
Are you saying you put more importance on Adults than children or lower yet babies??? How sad is that??
-
I think this issue will go away (or back to the states) if Obama is re-elected. Romney blew his speech after he followed Clint Eastwood. The entire convention was a PR show. No one said anything, everyone had their hair combed and their tie properly knotted. Didn’t see any black faces.
It will only go away if it loses its value as a wedge issue. It will be with us on some level as long as it attracts dollars or energizes a base.
-
Affairs are still bad in my mind.
Lots of things are bad. We don't make laws for everything bad. Freedom and personal responsibility, right?