War on Women

[Rerun]

Yes it does.  Read it.

[KarenInWA]

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

[Rerun]

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......

[MooseMom]

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?

[Bill Peckham]

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
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.

[noahvale]

*

[noahvale]

*

[Bill Peckham]

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/

[MooseMom]

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

[MooseMom]

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/

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. 

[Rerun]

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! 

[Bill Peckham]

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.

[AnnieB]

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

[AnnieB]

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
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

[AnnieB]

"...my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples." Isaiah 56:7.5

[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

[Bill Peckham]

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?

[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

[AnnieB]

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 . . ."

[noahvale]

*

[Rerun]

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".     

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. 

[MooseMom]

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?

[jbeany]

 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...

[noahvale]

*

[AnnieB]

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?