View Full Version : Republican Sharia Law
http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-rep-americans-need-guns-to-fight-against-sharia-law
Oh the irony....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/wisconsin-mandatory-ultrasound_n_3429834.html
Sharia law HAS come to America, and it's been brought to us by the republicans.
We can quibble all day as to whether the NSA collecting numbers is 'destroying' our civil liberties, but here is an actual action by REPUBLICANS that in fact destroys our civil liberties. Here is real life, boots on the ground legislation that IS '1984'.
Alan, perhaps the reason there has been an up-tick in the purchase of that book is because the republicans are using it as a guide. They should add 'The Handmaids Tale' to their reading list.
If Wisconsin is successful in this, and there is no indication they won't be, more republican controlled states will push this type of thing through.
Life under Tea Party Taliban rule....hows that working for ya Wisconsin?
“When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross,”
Damned Gosh Darned Republicans. Standing up for the 2nd Amendment and suggesting local legislation to make sure people know that there may be a living baby rather than a simple clump of cells prior to destroying it.
You're right! The War on Wimmenses Women continues unabated.
Edited in order to ensure appreciation.
Oh yes, guerilla tactics all wrapped up in "life".
My friends in WI are all pretty horrified by both. I've had a vaginal ultrasound. It was miserable, and I was there voluntarily. Women's reproductive freedoms are definitely under assault, in many places.
Alan, I would appreciate you not choosing condescending language.
iris lilies
6-13-13, 11:35am
peggy, you made me laugh with the title of this thread.
iris lilies
6-13-13, 11:42am
The last time this came up during the last state doing the same thing, didn't we conclude that Planned Parenthood does transvaginal ultrasounds before abortions? This was a quote from their rep a little more than a year ago:
That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”
She goes on to say later that if the woman is uncomfortable with the transvaginal ultrasound, she's going to be less than delighted with the actual abortion procedure which is even MORE invasive and "miserable."
Alan, I would appreciate you not choosing condescending language.
LOL, it's a condescending thread (not that there's anything terribly wrong with that) designed not to provoke discussion, but rather to inflame emotions. Looks like it worked. ;)
By the way, there is a difference between condescension and sarcasm. Sarcasm is usually obvious to everyone while condescension is oftentimes in the eyes of the beholder.
Alan, I am practicing the respect I hope for in all exchanges on this forum. Mocking me & laughing at my request is a huge deterrent to me to engaging with you. If we were in person, perhaps you would have been able to see my affect, which was disappointment at the language you chose. Is it possible for all of us to frame this conversation in adult language?
The last time this came up during the last state doing the same thing, didn't we conclude that Planned Parenthood does transvaginal ultrasounds before abortions? This was a quote from their rep a little more than a year ago:
That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”
She goes on to say later that if the woman is uncomfortable with the transvaginal ultrasound, she's going to be less than delighted with the actual abortion procedure which is even MORE invasive and "miserable."
The medical standard doesn't currently include requiring the ultrasound technician to provide a detailed description of everything they see in detail as they are doing the procedure.
It does open some interesting doors - with government mandated medical procedures on the books, what others could be mandated?
Alan, I am practicing the respect I hope for in all exchanges on this forum. Mocking me & laughing at my request is a huge deterrent to me to engaging with you. If we were in person, perhaps you would have been able to see my affect, which was disappointment at the language you chose.
Redfox, I don't want to hurt your feelings by disagreeing with you, but do you honestly believe that you didn't single me out because of my use of the term "War on Wimmenses", while deliberately ignoring "Republican Sharia Law" & "Tea Party Taliban"? If you are honestly practicing respect, you would have been disappointed in both so please forgive me for seeing this as nothing more than an attempt to silence those you may perceive to be ideological rivals.
Often, there is a place for irreverance and friendly sarcasm, especially in threads such as this. I'm sorry you don't agree.
I'm also sorry to be forced to respond to this sort of thing publicly. My sincerest apologies to our membership.
My feelings aren't hurt, I am disapponted by your disrespectful language. Done here now.
My feelings aren't hurt, I am disapponted by your disrespectful language. Done here now.
redfox, I do appreciate you watching our backs here, but I do honestly think Alan was just engaging in 'spirited banter'. To be truthful, he does sound a bit condescending in that post, but not really over the top. But, just wait for my answer, and I'll return in kind.;)
Damned Gosh Darned Republicans. Standing up for the 2nd Amendment and suggesting local legislation to make sure people know that there may be a living baby rather than a simple clump of cells prior to destroying it.
You're right! The War on Wimmenses Women continues unabated.
Edited in order to ensure appreciation.
Cause, those slutty sluts aren't smart enough to know what pregnancy means, right? They probably think it's a puppy or something...Sheesh! Women sure are stoopid!!:~)
Cause, those slutty sluts aren't smart enough to know what pregnancy means, right? They probably think it's a puppy or something...Sheesh! Women sure are stoopid!!:~)
LOL, I'll let you sucker me into something like this once, but you can't make me do anything more that's gonna get me sent to bed without supper.
Is it possible for all of us to frame this conversation in adult language?
It does not seem a likely outcome, given the title and tone of the initial post.
Pardon me now, I must finish composing my "Democrats Eat Kittenz" thread.
It does not seem a likely outcome, given the title and tone of the initial post.
Pardon me now, I must finish composing my "Democrats Eat Kittenz" thread.
Hey, as long as you have links dude, go for it!:)
LOL, I'll let you sucker me into something like this once, but you can't make me do anything more that's gonna get me sent to bed without supper.
Well, you might get supper, but it will be served by a woman in a burka, if you live in Wisconsin.
I can't believe any reasonable "keep government out of my private life" republican would support this.
Do you actually support this Alan? Do you think this is a reasonable government action? Or do civil rights only apply to men?
Maybe men should have a trans-penile probe before they...well, you know, 'spill their seed, so to speak, starting at about, oh, 12 or so?:0!
Is it possible for all of us to frame this conversation in adult language?I think that a lot of issues these days, such as those that peggy raised, break down these days in a similar manner: On the one side is an assertion of human decency, social conscience and/or civil progress, and on the other side is an assertion of self-interest, personal entitlement, or reactionary preference. Those priorities tend to seem more brusque by their very nature.
On the one side is an assertion of human decency, social conscience and/or civil progress, and on the other side is an assertion of self-interest, personal entitlement, or reactionary preference.
I think the primary problem with this view is that almost everyone considers themselves to be in the first group rather than the second. Is the "assertion of human decency" made more authoritatively by those who hold with the woman's right to choose or the child's right to live? By the need to provide government benefits or the need to maintain a functioning economy? By the advocates of privacy or the advocates for security?
There are many conflicting priorities and interests that a democracy needs to balance, and making the assumption that one's side of any particular issue is the only true and moral position strikes me as naive at best and arrogant at worst.
I think the primary problem with this view is that almost everyone considers themselves to be in the first group rather than the second.I don't think so. When push comes to shove, and we talk about the motivations behind the first side versus the second side, the arguments set forth by the second side are challenges to the assertion that such tenets of decency, conscience, or progress are their concern. For example, in discussions about universal healthcare, those opposed present the argument, "We shouldn't have to pay more because other people don't have enough to pay for their own," i.e., an assertion of self-interest, personal entitlement and reactionary preference. They don't make a cogent, defensible argument (for example) that, "Those who cannot afford healthcare are better-off without it," or that, "Society is better off with people who cannot afford healthcare dying in the streets."
Is the "assertion of human decency" made more authoritatively by those who hold with the woman's right to choose or the child's right to live?You may have hit on the only major issue for which the reactionary preference itself has some rational claim to decency. (To be clear, it must be recognized as a valid claim, for the reasons you implied, even though we may personally reject the notion.) This is more of a traditional dispute - where, because there isn't a side that prevails on the basis of the decency versus self-interest test that I alluded to earlier, the ethic of reciprocity and the locus of personal privilege should prevail.
By the need to provide government benefits or the need to maintain a functioning economy?The problem with this assertion is that the former is real - there is no question about the impact of inadequate healthcare - while the claim that an economy couldn't function has been claimed before about the economy the way it is now. It's just something people say because they are desperately trying to defend self-interest or personal entitlement, and they need a defense for their perspective that cannot be proven wrong because it is an assertion of something that they claim would happen.
By the advocates of privacy or the advocates for security?Which side is on which side of that debate, though?
There are many conflicting priorities and interests that a democracy needs to balance, and making the assumption that one's side of any particular issue is the only true and moral position strikes me as naive at best and arrogant at worst.That's different from saying, though, that the other side's position is definitively indecent, antisocial, and/or regressive. There are indeed many possible paths forward, but the specific comments that peggy's comments are confronted with most often are distinctly tainted by those maladies of self-interest, personal entitlement, or reactionary preference. There may be other sides that are indeed defensible approaches. As a matter of fact, I think those distinctions would return to the stage if the abject self-serving perspective lost its place in society. Those distinctions even exist, albeit less attention is paid to it, within the rest of society. A good example of this was seen during the Occupy demonstrations, when different shades of socially-conscious perspective debated with each other.
That's different from saying, though, that the other side's position is definitively indecent, antisocial, and/or regressive. .
I don't see that it is. Either statement requires the same unfounded assumption of moral superiority. A flippant OP gets a flippant response, and it must be because the respondor is coming from a position of "reactionary preference" against what is clearly the "moral assertion". Being shocked and offended that someone would hold opposing views does not seem to me to be an adequate defense of the ethical high ground.
I don't see that it is. Either statement requires the same unfounded assumption of moral superiority.As I have expressed it, over that specific, other perspective. I have not expressed it as such over all other perspectives, which is what your original claim was.
Being shocked and offended that someone would hold opposing views does not seem to me to be an adequate defense of the ethical high ground.I suppose, but I'm not the one "shocked and offended". If you recall, I'm the one "naive or arrogant".
Yossarian
6-14-13, 10:59pm
Hey, as long as you have links dude, go for it!:)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QmWbG2e27Nw/UEceMdRU8_I/AAAAAAAAAOA/rS4alt9FYzg/s1600/Obamacat.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QmWbG2e27Nw/UEceMdRU8_I/AAAAAAAAAOA/rS4alt9FYzg/s1600/Obamacat.jpgHe he!! Of course if cats ruled the world all us humans (and dogs too) would be under Sharia Law so it would more likely be "Kittens eating democrats...republicans give them integestion" :-)!
As for the articles - well I couldn't get the second one and I think Peggy et al knows my position on the "gun debate" so won't restate it here. However a barqua is a fine place for us womenfolk to hide several assult rifles under :-)!
As for the articles - well I couldn't get the second one and I think Peggy et al knows my position on the "gun debate" so won't restate it here. However a barqua is a fine place for us womenfolk to hide several assult rifles under :-)!
This is why I am so fond of wearing the kilt - easy enough to stow a Sterling SMG under there.
This is why I am so fond of wearing the kilt - easy enough to stow a Sterling SMG under there. I always wondered what men have on under those kilts :devil:
redfox, I do appreciate you watching our backs here, but I do honestly think Alan was just engaging in 'spirited banter'. To be truthful, he does sound a bit condescending in that post, but not really over the top. But, just wait for my answer, and I'll return in kind.;)
Hell hath frozen over!!! Peggy is defending Alan??!! Run for your lives before the rain of hot hail engulfs us all!!! :devil::devil:
I also thought Alan was using spirited banter based on the title and content of the thread. But then, I always enjoy the spirited banter on "The Peggy and Alan Show" (theme songs and lyrics to the tune of the Ichy and Scratchy Show from the Simpsons). I enjoy tuning in every week ;-)!
For myself, as a democrat and a gun owner, I personally thought the first article was pretty out there and way off the mark. Certainly not what I have seen of both republicans or other gun owners. Maybe I just run with the wrong crowd :-)!
iris lilies
6-15-13, 2:13pm
....Maybe I just run with the wrong crowd :-)!
You are running with the right cloud and WHEN are you going to join us on the dark side? haha
You are running with the right cloud and WHEN are you going to join us on the dark side? hahaWell maybe if you bring back McCain :-)! Him - if he gives me Universal healthcare, lets me keep my guns, pro gay marriage, anti-illegal immigration rights, pro military, anti war, pro business, smaller government, higher taxes for govmint social programs for impoverished people, tax write offs for business that create jobs in this country for citizens ...and on and on. She feignts to the right! Then, KerPOW, she feignts to the left - she's one rock-em sock-em robot. Or maybe just a confused blonde :-))!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QmWbG2e27Nw/UEceMdRU8_I/AAAAAAAAAOA/rS4alt9FYzg/s1600/Obamacat.jpg
:laff::laff::laff:
Hell hath frozen over!!! Peggy is defending Alan??!! Run for your lives before the rain of hot hail engulfs us all!!! :devil::devil:
I also thought Alan was using spirited banter based on the title and content of the thread. But then, I always enjoy the spirited banter on "The Peggy and Alan Show" (theme songs and lyrics to the tune of the Ichy and Scratchy Show from the Simpsons). I enjoy tuning in every week ;-)!
For myself, as a democrat and a gun owner, I personally thought the first article was pretty out there and way off the mark. Certainly not what I have seen of both republicans or other gun owners. Maybe I just run with the wrong crowd :-)!
Humm....not sure what links you are talking about, but the first link I posted was to some republicans putting anti-sharia laws in their platform, as if ANYONE was trying to put sharia law into OUR laws. And the second link was to the Wisconsin republican legislature passing mandatory vaginal ultrasounds for all the (apparently) stupid women in that state Who don't know what pregnancy means.
I was trying to point to the irony of these republicans who fear monger about something that isn't/never will happen, then force their own brand of 'sharia law' on the women of Wisconsin.
Oh, and it wasn't just some slippery slope, maybe could happen, snarky post/link. Nope, the really scary thing is, this actually is happening. Right here in the good 'ol US. Women, subjected to an invasive body probe, against their will, in order to get a legal, safe medical procedure.
Not sure where you got guns from that, but I do find it incredibly ironic that we have long, drawn out discussions about WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THIS AND THAT HAPPENS, and look out cause Obama/NSA/Justice department just might do this awful thing if this happens and this happens and this happens...yet here is a truly invasive, civil rights sucking, Taliban emulating bit of legislation that actually happened, and it gets immediately brushed off and diverted to guns or kitten eating or something. Unbelievable.
But, hey, why talk about something that has actually happened when it is so much more fun to speculate on how the NSA is going to send armed IRS agents to your house after Obama has droned you in the coffee shop.:0!
:laff::laff::laff:
Fact check, peggy, fact check! Everyone knows Obama prefers other sorts of meat....
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1FMWR99gYk4/T5Bvgi2m7JI/AAAAAAAAJu4/hqF7PSz-kZQ/s1600/obama_eats_dogs.jpg
Humm....not sure what links you are talking about, but the first link I posted was to some republicans putting anti-sharia laws in their platform, as if ANYONE was trying to put sharia law into OUR laws. And the second link was to the Wisconsin republican legislature passing mandatory vaginal ultrasounds for all the (apparently) stupid women in that state Who don't know what pregnancy means.
I was trying to point to the irony of these republicans who fear monger about something that isn't/never will happen, then force their own brand of 'sharia law' on the women of Wisconsin.
Oh, and it wasn't just some slippery slope, maybe could happen, snarky post/link. Nope, the really scary thing is, this actually is happening. Right here in the good 'ol US. Women, subjected to an invasive body probe, against their will, in order to get a legal, safe medical procedure.
Not sure where you got guns from that, but I do find it incredibly ironic that we have long, drawn out discussions about WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THIS AND THAT HAPPENS, and look out cause Obama/NSA/Justice department just might do this awful thing if this happens and this happens and this happens...yet here is a truly invasive, civil rights sucking, Taliban emulating bit of legislation that actually happened, and it gets immediately brushed off and diverted to guns or kitten eating or something. Unbelievable.
But, hey, why talk about something that has actually happened when it is so much more fun to speculate on how the NSA is going to send armed IRS agents to your house after Obama has droned you in the coffee shop.:0!
Oh no - you cut off the part of my post where I stated I couldn't get the second article so didn't want to comment on that. Maybe the tin foil hat was emitting rays blocking my internet access to the article... or was it something else like government blocking access to certain media :-) :-) . I wasn't trying to be snarky either. Just thought the idea that republicans would use "the need for protection against sharia Law " as an excuse to own guns as pretty out there. I will refrain from using spirited banter or joking in the future.
Peggy, I wanted to add that while I agree that no woman should be made to do an ultrasound to determine fetal age prior to an abortion if another method is available, I can not see how anyone can equate one states requirement for that to a multinational legal system affecting millions and millions of people worldwide. There is no comparison between requiring an ultra sound before abortion and stoning a married woman to death for adultery because she was gang raped. So while I thought both your articles were worth discussion seperately, the way you tied them together and the general gist of your OP made me believe it was an attempt at inflamming, baiting, and bashing republicans (and I say that as a democrat and Obama supporter) rather then serious discussion. Again, I apologise if my attempt at light hearted humor offended you, I was just joking as I do enjoy the interaction between you and Alan. I often find it very enlightening and I learn a lot. So I'll save my crappy jokes for other areas of these forums :-)
The last time this came up during the last state doing the same thing, didn't we conclude that Planned Parenthood does transvaginal ultrasounds before abortions? This was a quote from their rep a little more than a year ago:
That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an ultrasound.”
She goes on to say later that if the woman is uncomfortable with the transvaginal ultrasound, she's going to be less than delighted with the actual abortion procedure which is even MORE invasive and "miserable."
A medical standard is one thing. Making it a legal requirement is entirely another. MEdical care should be between the patient and the medical provider. I do see the inconsistency between the idea of small gov't and the idea of gov't being so big it can tell people they must have an ultrasound. Sometimes it seems as if 'small gov't' really means 'a gov't that makes people do exactly what I want them to do and nothing I don't want them to do.'
A medical standard is one thing. Making it a legal requirement is entirely another. MEdical care should be between the patient and the medical provider. I do see the inconsistency between the idea of small gov't and the idea of gov't being so big it can tell people they must have an ultrasound. Sometimes it seems as if 'small gov't' really means 'a gov't that makes people do exactly what I want them to do and nothing I don't want them to do.'
Exactly!
Peggy, I wanted to add that while I agree that no woman should be made to do an ultrasound to determine fetal age prior to an abortion if another method is available, I can not see how anyone can equate one states requirement for that to a multinational legal system affecting millions and millions of people worldwide. There is no comparison between requiring an ultra sound before abortion and stoning a married woman to death for adultery because she was gang raped. So while I thought both your articles were worth discussion seperately, the way you tied them together and the general gist of your OP made me believe it was an attempt at inflamming, baiting, and bashing republicans (and I say that as a democrat and Obama supporter) rather then serious discussion. Again, I apologise if my attempt at light hearted humor offended you, I was just joking as I do enjoy the interaction between you and Alan. I often find it very enlightening and I learn a lot. So I'll save my crappy jokes for other areas of these forums :-)
Spartana, I wasn't trying to inflame. If the actual information inflames, well, that isn't my fault, but what I would believe the natural reaction to such legislation. At least I would hope that would be the reaction. I guess my major disappointment is that it apparently isn't. That's what offended me, really.
We love to speculate on these forums on this and that slippery slope, but when I post an ACTUAL bit of civil liberty being lost, it seems to dissolve into humor and 'gee, I love my gun more than you love your gun', which actually didn't have anything to do with the topic.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. This isn't apples to oranges. it's apples to apples, and the fact that it's republicans who are doing this, across the country, again, isn't my fault. I'm just reporting the truth. Please, find a more direct connection to these actions across the country and I'll gladly accept, but the truth is, the 'connection' is republican legislatures. Period.
Now, and here is where I maybe wasn't clear, Sharia law is RELIGIOUS law, and this anti-women vaginal probe law is a RELIGIOUS law. Period. There is the connection. I admit I wasn't very good at analogies in school, but it doesn't take much thought to see this connection. I just found it ironic. Perhaps I'm alone in that.
Sharia law didn't blossom, fully formed, overnight, in the countries it is law. It started with just such RELIGIOUS based laws being accepted, more often that not, aimed at women. It went from "you might want to wear a burka".. to.. "you should wear a burka".. to.. "you will wear a burka".
And, well, is stoning women really that far behind?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/mississippi-miscarriages-supreme-court_n_3327974.html
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/18/republican-violence-against-women-act-horrible-because-it-protects-transgender-people/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/rick-perry-equal-pay_n_3443591.html
Again, if you can find a common denominator other than these are republican legislatures, then bring it on. Maybe that's an uncomfortable truth for some, but there you are. Again, not my fault.
These are not speculative 'slippery slopes' but actual bits of repressive legislation. But, I guess it isn't as important as I thought. Maybe these women should shove a gun up their vaginas. Then maybe it will be deemed important.:devil:
Now, and here is where I maybe wasn't clear, Sharia law is RELIGIOUS law, and this anti-women vaginal probe law is a RELIGIOUS law.
I wouldn't consider the requirement for an ultrasound prior to an abortion to be religious law. Beyond a certain point in the pregnancy, I'd consider it to be common sense and certainly no more invasive than the actual abortion.
I'm also one of those people who believe that there are two parties to each abortion, the mother and the child. I know that isn't popular in some quarters but I can't help but be in favor of any requirement that reminds people of the victim. Sort of like an automatic appeal for folks on death row.
I wouldn't consider the requirement for an ultrasound prior to an abortion to be religious law. Beyond a certain point in the pregnancy, I'd consider it to be common sense and certainly no more invasive than the actual abortion.
I'm also one of those people who believe that there are two parties to each abortion, the mother and the child. I know that isn't popular in some quarters but I can't help but be in favor of any requirement that reminds people of the victim. Sort of like an automatic appeal for folks on death row.
There is a big difference in having an ultrasound done to determine fetal age and having one that requires the technician to point out the fetus' features and organs.
There is a big difference in having an ultrasound done to determine fetal age and having one that requires the technician to point out the fetus' features and organs.Yes, features and organs are a sign of humanity.
poetry_writer
6-16-13, 10:12pm
Most women say they want to be informed and empowered, knowing all the options and knowing what is going on. So why, then, would you object to an ultrasound that shows exactly that? Why on THIS one issue do some women seem to want to choose ignorance, being uninformed of their choice?
Why do folks want to assume women are ignorant, and need to be educated like children?
And if education were the goal, wouldn't a simple poster ("The stages of pregnancy") in the waiting room suffice?
Next thing, people will be telling us what size soft drinks we are allowed to buy...
poetry_writer
6-16-13, 10:44pm
Why do folks want to assume women are ignorant, and need to be educated like children?
And if education were the goal, wouldn't a simple poster ("The stages of pregnancy") in the waiting room suffice?
Next thing, people will be telling us what size soft drinks we are allowed to buy...
Dont recall saying that. A poster isnt the same as what is actually growing inside your own body. Getting information doesnt imply ignorance, it implies being smart. So why the hesitation on this particular issue.....
goldensmom
6-16-13, 11:00pm
.... and this anti-women vaginal probe law is a RELIGIOUS law. Period.
Please quote chapter and verse. Thank you.
I wouldn't consider the requirement for an ultrasound prior to an abortion to be religious law.The ultrasound isn't religious law. The legal requirement is. The medical profession calls for certain tests to be done before certain procedures, without any specific legal requirement, relying instead on the professional judgment of the physician. There is no rationale for singling out this one procedure for such a legal requirement except imposition of religious law on women who do not necessarily subscribe to that religious perspective.
I'm also one of those people who believe that there are two parties to each abortion, the mother and the child.Once you do that, though, you are imposing your religious perspective (even if it isn't the reflection of any specific religious perspective you profess) on others. Imposition of such perspectives is supportable in contexts directly proportional to distance from your own body: You are the absolute master of your own body; you have less authority, but still more than others, over your own family; members of a religious community have say about what the tenets of that religious community is, more so than outsiders; and beyond that, each person has just one vote in society as a whole, subject to protection against tyranny of the majority on smaller contexts.
And there's no way to get around the fact that an abortion takes place inside someone else's body (the most local context of the four I outlined above), so given that there is disagreement, their own perspectives rightfully prevails there. As long as a significant number of people believe that there is only one patient, then for those people, there is only one patient.
Once you do that, though, you are imposing your religious perspective (even if it isn't the reflection of any specific religious perspective you profess) on others.
Then I guess you could say that our prohibition against murder is simply the imposition of religous law, as the ten commandments are antecedent to our criminal law.
Personally, I'd just say that where there is life there is humanity, regardless of it's residence, and give it the same protections that we older folks enjoy.
Imposition of such perspectives is supportable in contexts directly proportional to distance from your own body: You are the absolute master of your own body; ...
Then I guess you could say that our prohibition against murder is simply the imposition of religous lawHow did you get that from my explanation of the concentric contexts of control? The prohibition against murder is a direct reflection of one's own absolute mastery of one's own body.
as the ten commandments are antecedent to our criminal law.The prohibition against murder predates the Old Testament by a thousand years. It is outlined in, among other places, the Code of Hammurabi.
Personally, I'd just say that where there is life there is humanity, regardless of it's residence, and give it the same protections that we older folks enjoy.If that were true, we should also grant it a tax deduction, count it in the census, etc. For that matter, each sperm and each ova should be considered as well. The point is that there is disagreement about where the line is to be drawn. We all agree that once a baby is born that it should be granted all rights separate from its mother. So that's a given. Between conception and birth, there is reasonable disagreement based solely on beliefs and values, so the beliefs and values of the person within who's body the fetus resides clearly should have primacy. Other interpretations lead to indefensible conclusions, such as my insinuation that you should not be allowed to consume meat. That insinuation is just as defensible as your insinuation that your beliefs and values should apply within some woman's body.
How did you get that from my explanation of the concentric contexts of control?
I didn't. I clearly got it from your assertion that I may be "imposing your religious perspective (even if it isn't the reflection of any specific religious perspective you profess) on others."
Of course, you were wrong, for the reasons I outlined above.
Of course, you were wrong, for the reasons I outlined above.
LOL bicker. You are one of a kind, thankfully.
LOL bicker. You are one of a kind, thankfully.
If that were true, your perspective would hold every seat in Congress and the White House in every election since the day you were born.
Most women say they want to be informed and empowered, knowing all the options and knowing what is going on. So why, then, would you object to an ultrasound that shows exactly that? Why on THIS one issue do some women seem to want to choose ignorance, being uninformed of their choice?
It's very different knowing there's a heartbeat at 4 weeks after conception and being forced to watch it.
At what point does making someone experience every facet of a very painful choice become just an opportunity to be cruel? Maybe we should require the woman to cradle the fetus afterwards and read a paragraph or two about the life that was destroyed and all the things it will never do as well?
Why do folks want to assume women are ignorant, and need to be educated like children?
And if education were the goal, wouldn't a simple poster ("The stages of pregnancy") in the waiting room suffice?
Next thing, people will be telling us what size soft drinks we are allowed to buy...
+1 Exactly!
At what point does making someone experience every facet of a very painful choice become just an opportunity to be cruel? Maybe we should require the woman to cradle the fetus afterwards and read a paragraph or two about the life that was destroyed and all the things it will never do as well?One wonders why those who suggest such offensive things object to being forced to sleep one night each year in the most dangerous and squalid neighborhoods, reflections of the economic inequality that they implicitly endorse. Or why they object to paying the taxes necessary to ensure that no child born suffers from the consequences of being born to one mother versus another, consequences that are reflections of political perspectives that they implicitly endorse. Or why they object to participating in the clean-up operation in some remote Middle Eastern after a US bomb inadvertently kills a few civilians, helping the families bathing and enshrouding the deceased (not that they'd be invited to do so, but if they were they'd still refuse to see such an activity in the same light as what they've suggested, even though it is precisely the same thing).
Most women say they want to be informed and empowered, knowing all the options and knowing what is going on. So why, then, would you object to an ultrasound that shows exactly that? Why on THIS one issue do some women seem to want to choose ignorance, being uninformed of their choice?
And why do you assume they are all ignorant? Because they don't choose your belief as to when life begins? I say they ARE in fact informed and know precisely what is in there. Otherwise, why the abortion?
Having, or getting information isn't the objection, and that is actually a misdirect. It's the fact that this is going to be a LAW, required by law, and FORCED on women. That is how it is religious based. The LAW isn't asking if they are informed or not. It has nothing to do with information other than a religious perspective on when life begins. It is assuming all women are incapable of making the 'right' choice, which is the 'religious' choice, so forces them to this invasive unnecessary procedure.
Abortion is legal, and really, that's all the information they need from their GOVERNMENT. Everything else is between them and their doctors and husbands/boyfriends.
As buu said, we all agree that at birth, a baby is a separate person with all the rights of a single person. Before that is questioned, although I believe most would even say an 8 month fetus is certainly capable of viability, with today's technologies. But the vast vast majority of fetus who are aborted are, in fact, just a blob of potential life just as sperm and eggs are potential life. They are completely, and unequivocally unable to sustain life outside of the mother. They are, in fact, a parasite, in the true sense of the word.
This isn't a theocracy, as it turns out, and we don't let religious dogma dictate laws, or alter our laws to promote their dogma.
But this goes even further than that. This legislation cuts to the very heart of our constitution, and our legal rights to our own persons. We don't force Jehovah Witness to accept a blood transfusion, even if it saves their lives. We don't force Christian Science to accept medical treatment even if it saves their lives. And we don't force you to donate your kidney to a stranger, or your own family member, even if yours is the only match and the other person WILL die without it. All these examples are ones where we respect the right of an individual to their own person, regardless of religious beliefs. Hell, there are many states now who are even starting to allow terminally ill people to choose when and how they die. This respects our beliefs in our constitution, and all religious, or non religious beliefs. (we also don't force you to HAVE an abortion, even if it saves your life)
poetry_writer
6-17-13, 10:29am
It makes people really angry to suggest they be informed fully of whats going on. To see it , you see a beating heart and a baby. Ignoring this fact doesnt make it go away.
Nor does ignoring the fact that US bombs have in the past killed actual babies, the living breathing kind. I don't see you volunteering to subject yourself to experiencing the handiwork of our military operations from the bystander victims' perspective.
It makes people really angry to suggest they be informed fully of whats going on. To see it , you see a beating heart and a baby. Ignoring this fact doesnt make it go away.
No, what makes people angry is the suggestion that only your perspective is the right one, and everything/everyone else is ignorant.
Your beliefs, your perspective, have absolutely no business telling ME how I should be 'educated', or what i should do with MY own body. Period.
Having, or getting information isn't the objection, and that is actually a misdirect. It's the fact that this is going to be a LAW, required by law, and FORCED on women.
Forced. That's the key for me. The law forces invasion of a woman's person that if done against her will in other circumstances would be an assault warranting the use of lethal force to prevent...
No thanks.
I don't have a religious dog in this fight. That said, I am perfectly happy stipulating that the fetus is a human from the moment of conception, and that its interests require consideration. I just happen to think that a woman's interests in controlling her own person prevail over the baby's interests in occupying her womb against her will.
catherine
6-17-13, 11:22am
When I found out I was pregnant with my fourth child right on the heels of having my third, I went right to a family planning clinic with the intention of getting an abortion. We were not fit to have another child by any reasonable standards--there was poverty, addiction, exhaustion involved.
When I went into the clinic, there was a lot of reading material in the waiting room, unbiased--all sides were presented. You didn't feel you were being emotionally blackmailed into one way of thinking vs. another.
I was given the pregnancy test, confirmed pregnant, and then I spoke to a counselor. I still remember her so clearly, even though it was almost 30 years ago. She was calm, professional, and asked me to explain why I wanted the abortion. After she listened, she advised me to go home and think about it for two weeks. Two weeks wouldn't make a huge difference, she said.
I did that. What made my decision was a) one thing that I read in the waiting room, b) one thing that a coworker said, completely serendipitously (she didn't know I was pregnant), c) listening to my own heart.
Despite advice to the contrary by my own family, I did not have the abortion, and my daughter has been nothing but a shining example of a miracle in my life.
It didn't take an ultrasound. It took a professional counselor who respected me, educated me, and supported my choice as a woman. If I had gone through with the abortion, that would have also been the result of a considered, thoughtful decision on my part. An ultrasound would not have made a difference.
This law is ideological, emotional blackmail. If we go that route, I suggest we also go back to hangings in the town square. And perhaps we should have pictures on every package of meat of a cow being slaughtered in the CAFO it spent its whole miserable life in.
This law is ideological, emotional blackmail. If we go that route, I suggest we also go back to hangings in the town square. And perhaps we should have pictures on every package of meat of a cow being slaughtered in the CAFO it spent its whole miserable life in.
We could always make it a law that fertile heterosexual couples be forced to watch a graphic 45 minute "educational" video on abortion every time they want to have sex. Just so they are properly educated on their choice. I expect the numbers of abortions would drop dramatically - as well as the number of conceptions.
And perhaps we should have pictures on every package of meat of a cow being slaughtered in the CAFO it spent its whole miserable life in.+1
And of course the cow--unlike the aborted embryo or fetus--is an independent, living creature with a functioning nervous system, capable of experiencing fear and pain.
Some sources estimate 40-50% of embryos are spontaneously aborted (miscarried) in the first trimester. God is clearly pro-abortion.
flowerseverywhere
6-17-13, 12:21pm
God is clearly pro-abortion.
Fascinating. Assuming there is a god, and the one someone believes in is the correct one. can humans really know their god's intentions?
The opinions and statements made throughout this thread have been nothing short of astonishing.
Here is an easy solution. You don't agree with legal abortion? Don't get one.
We could always make it a law that fertile heterosexual couples be forced to watch a graphic 45 minute "educational" video on abortion every time they want to have sex. Just so they are properly educated on their choice. I expect the numbers of abortions would drop dramatically - as well as the number of conceptions.
A lengthy travelogue through the joys of parenthood might have exactly the same effect.
We could apply these "educational" show and tell/dog and pony shows to so many situations: marriage, college loans, mate selection, corporate employment...
...
Here is an easy solution. You don't agree with legal abortion? Don't get one.
That's always been my philosophy. Coupled with a deep appreciation for and assiduous use of contraception.
Fascinating. Assuming there is a god, and the one someone believes in is the correct one. can humans really know their god's intentions?Indeed. Those commentators that choose to live by such assumptions must accept the logical consequences of all such assumptions, or accept that their insistence that others live in accordance with the assumptions that the commentators favor has the same credibility as the edicts emanating from a two year old's tantrum.
And of course the cow--unlike the aborted embryo or fetus--is an independent, living creature with a functioning nervous system, capable of experiencing fear and pain.
Some sources estimate 40-50% of embryos are spontaneously aborted (miscarried) in the first trimester. God is clearly pro-abortion.
I believe this. I don't know any women who has been sexually active for any length of time who hasn't had at least one miscarriage. I know I have. And it was at a time when I was trying to get pregnant. Still, I didn't mourn it as a baby. I viewed it as just more time before I would have a baby.
I agree with flowerseverywhere. Don't have one if you are against them.
Forced. That's the key for me. The law forces invasion of a woman's person that if done against her will in other circumstances would be an assault warranting the use of lethal force to prevent...
No thanks.
I don't have a religious dog in this fight. That said, I am perfectly happy stipulating that the fetus is a human from the moment of conception, and that its interests require consideration. I just happen to think that a woman's interests in controlling her own person prevail over the baby's interests in occupying her womb against her will.
Pretty well sums up my position as well bae, with one small difference. I'm pro choice, but take into account that if a living adult suffers an event that causes their heart to stop beating they die. One minute alive, the next dead. Five weeks into a pregnancy is (I think) about the time a fetal heartbeat is detectable. At that point I see a pretty clear line and my consideration of the mother's situation quickly wanes. Before that time the debate is philosophically much deeper. DW is also pro choice even though she is absolutely convinced that life begins at the moment of conception. Abortion wouldn't be an option for us, but being pro choice comes from the feeling we aren't qualified to make that kind of call for everyone else. None of it has anything to do with religion.
Beating hearts don't mean much to me; you can culture petri dishes full of pulsing heart muscle cells. It's all about brain activity and viability, IMO.
And in response to Peggy, I've never (to my knowledge) had a miscarriage. Contraception worked, in my case.
Beating hearts don't mean much to me; you can culture petri dishes full of pulsing heart muscle cells. It's all about brain activity and viability, IMO.
Of course the pulsing petri dishes aren't working to keep any other living tissue alive so are (purely IMO) not a valid comparison. Much more importantly this illustrates the reason I don't feel qualified attempting to set boundaries for others. I picked the heartbeat rather than brain function because, following birth and so likely pre-birth as well, it is entirely possible to be devoid of brain function but still alive with a functioning heart beat. It is not possible to do it the other way around. Additionally, it is just way to large a gray area to define brain activity. Is it the formation of brain cells that link together? The beginning of simple function (something is telling that heart to beat)? Conscious thought? And once you pick one how do you determine when that stage begins?
Of course the pulsing petri dishes aren't working to keep any other living tissue alive so are (purely IMO) not a valid comparison. Much more importantly this illustrates the reason I don't feel qualified attempting to set boundaries for others. I picked the heartbeat rather than brain function because, following birth and so likely pre-birth as well, it is entirely possible to be devoid of brain function but still alive with a functioning heart beat. It is not possible to do it the other way around. Additionally, it is just way to large a gray area to define brain activity. Is it the formation of brain cells that link together? The beginning of simple function (something is telling that heart to beat)? Conscious thought? And once you pick one how do you determine when that stage begins?
I find Peter Singer to have very provocative thoughts on this. I may not agree with everything he says, but he has some good arguments:
Singer, who is professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne, postulates the notion in his article that being human, (being a member of the species Homo Sapiens) does not constitute the right to life and he argues that restricting access to legal abortion leads many poor women to seek abortion from unsafe providers. He concedes the weakness of arguments based on the so called ‘right to choose’.
Singer claimed: “The fallacy in the anti-abortion argument lies in the shift from the scientifically accurate claim that the foetus is a living individual of the species Homo sapiens to the ethical claim that the foetus therefore has the same right to life as any other human being. Membership of the species Homo sapiens is not enough to confer a right to life.”
According to Singer, in his book “Rethinking Life and Death” unborn babies, or neonates, lacking the requisite consciousness to qualify as persons, have less right to continue to live than an adult gorilla. By the same token, a suffering or disabled child would have a weaker claim not to be killed than a mature pig.
In one of his most controversial statements Singer says that human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons he claims hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus. Writing specifically about Down syndrome babies Singer advocates trading a disabled or “defective child” (one who is apparently doomed to too much suffering) for one who has better prospects for happiness.”
Now there's a few ideas to argue about...
goldensmom
6-17-13, 5:43pm
Still, I didn't mourn it as a baby. I viewed it as just more time before I would have a baby.
I did. I very much looked forward to the next few months when I found that I was pregnant. I thought about my baby's birth, rejoiced in the life developing within me, planned for nourishing him, guiding and teaching him and I mourned my baby’s death through miscarriage. Still do.
According to Singer, in his book “Rethinking Life and Death” unborn babies, or neonates, lacking the requisite consciousness to qualify as persons, have less right to continue to live than an adult gorilla. By the same token, a suffering or disabled child would have a weaker claim not to be killed than a mature pig.
In one of his most controversial statements Singer says that human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons he claims hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus. Writing specifically about Down syndrome babies Singer advocates trading a disabled or “defective child” (one who is apparently doomed to too much suffering) for one who has better prospects for happiness.”
My oldest grandson is one of those children whom Singer believes is less worthy of life than a mature pig. Of course, he's never met my grandson, a boy who loves, is loved and brings joy to the lives of everyone he meets. I wouldn't submit Jacob to his company. Peter Singer can kiss my ass.
Personally, I want to be gone before my brain function is. I couldn't care less about my circulatory system at that point.
But what about the soul? When does that appear? Is a soul comprised of parts from sperm and egg (I doubt it, but who really knows)? Is it conferred at quickening? At birth? Can a soul exist without a mind (i.e. brain function)? If souls are indeed eternal, they won't be fazed by miscarriage or abortion--they'll just choose or be assigned another vessel, won't they?
To say Peter Singer is a lightning rod to much of the disabled community (as such) is a massive understatement. Although I tend to believe the only rights we have are those our community allows--that we must be constantly vigilant lest those be taken away (privacy, anyone?) I think he ranges far beyond what most of us would consider ethical--essentially prescribing a year's grace period or so wherein you can claim breeder's remorse and terminate a child's life. (You see true-life examples of that kind of thing nightly on the local news, carried out in crude and violent fashion...) Pretty godlike of him to determine whether another person's life is worth living, or whether they are really conscious or not--considering they generally have demonstrable brain function. Maybe he just likes a good argument.
I read the following article some time ago, written by disabled rights activist Harriet McBryde Johnson, and found it thought-provoking:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/16DISABLED.html?pagewanted=all
I did. I very much looked forward to the next few months when I found that I was pregnant. I thought about my baby's birth, rejoiced in the life developing within me, planned for nourishing him, guiding and teaching him and I mourned my baby’s death through miscarriage. Still do.
Of course it depends on how long you were pregnant. I wasn't 5 minutes pregnant, and what I mourned was the delay in actually having a baby. If I miscarried 5 or 6 months into a pregnancy, I too would have mourned the loss of the baby. I am sorry for your loss.
I did go on to have two healthy kids, (the miscarriage actually came between the two) who are adults now, and I so enjoyed being a parent, and considered it the best thing I ever did, that I celebrate everyday my kids opportunity to CHOOSE if they want to become a parent.
I don't know how old some supporters of this here are, but I can say, nothing freed women more than birth control, then the ability to end an unwanted pregnancy. So many young people don't realize how completely women were held prisoner to their biology before these two freedoms. They have so much choice and freedoms now days, they don't understand how just a few decades ago, we had no choice. Unless you chose to live a celibate, loveless life, you were a victim of your sex, and the babies came, one after the other, without consideration to your ability, income, or situation. Or even whether you wanted kids or not. How many people on this forum alone are childless by choice. Not really a choice before birth control and safe, legal abortion.
And now, this legislation in Wisconsin would take that private choice from them. And very bluntly implies that women are not smart enough to make this decision.
Birth control fails sometimes.
I can just picture IL having to answer to some legislature who says she is too stupid to know her own mind in this!
"Are you sure IL? Really really sure? Cause, let me just ram this probe up your lady parts and tell you what you're missing! It's gonna happen anyway so you might as well relax and enjoy it":0! **
**I pick IL here as example cause I can't think of anyone else here MORE sure of herself and her choices.;)
***this isn't all in answer to goldensmom, but just thoughts in general.
... I celebrate everyday my kids opportunity to CHOOSE if they want to become a parent.
I don't know how old some supporters of this here are, but I can say, nothing freed women more than birth control, then the ability to end an unwanted pregnancy. So many young people don't realize how completely women were held prisoner to their biology before these two freedoms. They have so much choice and freedoms now days, they don't understand how just a few decades ago, we had no choice. Unless you chose to live a celibate, loveless life, you were a victim of your sex, and the babies came, one after the other, without consideration to your ability, income, or situation. Or even whether you wanted kids or not. How many people on this forum alone are childless by choice. Not really a choice before birth control and safe, legal abortion.
And now, this legislation in Wisconsin would take that private choice from them. And very bluntly implies that women are not smart enough to make this decision. ...
Emphasis mine. I'm sure that indisputable fact has stuck in the craw of certain men ever since. And they'll do whatever it takes to reassert their lost dominion over us. That said, I'm pretty sure I'm the product of at least one--and maybe two--women who would never have had children had they had any real choice in the matter.
I read the following article some time ago, written by disabled rights activist Harriet McBryde Johnson, and found it thought-provoking:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/16DISABLED.html?pagewanted=all
Great article, Jane. Thanks for sharing it. I am one of the majority who came to know Peter Singer through Animal Liberation. I didn't know that much about his other more controversial views until I actually went to see him when he was speaking in Burlington VT and I happened to be visiting my son who live there (Funny I saw him there, because I actually live just up from the road from Princeton). Anyway, there were disability rights activists protesting there at the front door, and he did address questions inside on that topic.
But to the point about the article, yes, life cannot yet be broken down into lucid little rules where what makes sense messes with what's true, and I hope it never will be.
iris lilies
6-17-13, 9:16pm
I can just picture IL having to answer to some legislature who says she is too stupid to know her own mind in this!
"Are you sure IL? Really really sure? Cause, let me just ram this probe up your lady parts and tell you what you're missing! It's gonna happen anyway so you might as well relax and enjoy it":0! **
**I pick IL here as example cause I can't think of anyone else here MORE sure of herself and her choices.;)
***this isn't all in answer to goldensmom, but just thoughts in general.
Of course I won't let the eejit legislative losers dictate this to me. Won't be happening.
I just like to see SOME recognition in this tiresome arguement that there is another being involved in the abortion thing other than the adult human. That's all I want, just throw me that bone. Recognize in this argument that someone loses.
I can't see an embryo as "someone." Sorry. If we were talking about some late-term catastrophic situation, I could go there, but most abortions are very early term, long before there is consciousness or viability or even the most rudimentary function.
I don't know personally, but everything I've read, heard, seen leads me to believe that an overwhelming majority of women think the matter over thoroughly before terminating a pregnancy. Those who don't probably shouldn't be giving birth anyway.
iris lilies
6-17-13, 9:43pm
I can't see an embryo as "someone."
I never understand why the label is such an issue with either side of this debate. Substitute your word of choice for "someone." Some will use the label "baby" you will use "cell mass" whatever, I don't care.
[substitute your word here] loses when the human adult has an abortion.
The pregnant woman, who loses sleep, time, peace of mind, and status among certain segments of society?
How can a cell mass that has nothing, lose anything? Embryos are lost in impressive numbers just as a matter of course in human reproduction. They're little bundles of human potential, similar to sperm and egg cells. If they're planned, wanted, and anticipated, and something goes wrong--that's a loss for the pregnant woman and family.
iris lilies
6-17-13, 10:08pm
How can a cell mass that has nothing, lose anything?...
You answered when you said [the cell mass] lost [it's] potential to become human. The cell mass has that.
The fact that impressive numbers of other cell masses disappear spontaneously doesn't make it no loss.
I wish the sperm that had my father's black hair and blue eyes had been a stronger swimmer, personally. And I might have liked a twin...
iris lilies
6-17-13, 11:40pm
I wish the sperm that had my father's black hair and blue eyes had been a stronger swimmer, personally. And I might have liked a twin...
That is a striking color combo and as such is genetically unusual. I'd like that, too.
That is a striking color combo and as such is genetically unusual. I'd like that, too.
100% German heritage. So much for the blond Aryan thing.
I wish the sperm that had my father's black hair and blue eyes had been a stronger swimmer, personally. And I might have liked a twin...
I sure have seen a lot of ... human potential ... go down the drain in my day.
Hope the repubs don't try to charge me with murder someday. More like genocide!
Or a crime against humanity even. Just imagine all the little Bartlebys who might have been but never were ...
I sure have seen a lot of ... human potential ... go down the drain in my day.
Hope the repubs don't try to charge me with murder someday.
Well, criminal charges seem unlikely and the good news is you won't go blind either.
I never understand why the label is such an issue with either side of this debate. Substitute your word of choice for "someone." Some will use the label "baby" you will use "cell mass" whatever, I don't care.
[substitute your word here] loses when the human adult has an abortion.
I do acknowledge that a potential human is 'lost' in an abortion. Just as potential humans are 'lost' each month by a woman's natural cycle, or ..uh..bartleby's 'fun time'. But like Jane, I see these not as really people, just potential people. Just like the embryo we FREEZE, then thaw and place in some women. Now, unless Dr. Evil has perfected the method, I don't believe we have the capability to actually FREEZE PEOPLE and then thaw them back to life yet, do we? Doesn't that kind of answer to the 'but it's a little baby' argument? It's potential baby, but with cloning, any cell scraping is a potential baby.
I'm really not trying to make light of abortion. It is very serious, and I'm sure most women spend agonizing time deciding this. Especially those who must abort due to health reasons. But this law is intrusive on this very private decision and it's incredibly insulting beyond the pale. These women know what's inside of them, and what that means to their lives, which is why they are seeking an abortion. Abortion is safe and it's legal. And it should be private.
This unbelievably intrusive control over women this legislature is grabbing has absolutely nothing to do with the woman's health or medical needs, but everything to do with enforcing a religious dogma, and can only be described as Taliban like.
I can't believe any woman, or man who loves and respects women, could look at this bit of legislation, and not be horrified by the implications!
Peggy, I agree and you stated it well.
Personally, I want to be gone before my brain function is. I couldn't care less about my circulatory system at that point.
Speaking generally I would rather lose physical capabilities than mental as well. The curious thing is, would you actually ever know if you lost brain function? I'm not sure. I am acutely aware of my diminished physical prowess from my 20s to my 50s. And it sucks.
But what about the soul? When does that appear? Is a soul comprised of parts from sperm and egg (I doubt it, but who really knows)? Is it conferred at quickening? At birth? Can a soul exist without a mind (i.e. brain function)? If souls are indeed eternal, they won't be fazed by miscarriage or abortion--they'll just choose or be assigned another vessel, won't they?
The tenents of most religions serve to answer those questions. Perhaps one day science will provide some empirical evidence and give a conclusive answer to those of us that just don't have enough faith to take the various guide books at face value. In the mean time the "what is the meaning of life" will probably hold onto the top spot in the deepest questions race.
To say Peter Singer... Maybe he just likes a good argument.
The guy's stock in trade is controversy. I get it and tend to like some of that myself. I also think survival of the fittest is generally a sound theory. However, human life is not a commodity to be traded. There are plenty of examples of experiments that tried to engineer around "defective" members of society. I have no stomach for them.
I can't believe any woman, or man who loves and respects women, could look at this bit of legislation, and not be horrified by the implications!
I kind of see the issue as being very slightly separate from abortion. Any person, male or female, has a right to be in control of their own body. They also have a right to make decisions based on their own beliefs rather than be limited by the doctrines of the masses. As sad as it makes me those are the reasons I'm pro-choice.
iris lilies
6-18-13, 10:23am
Well maybe if you bring back McCain :-)! Him - if he gives me Universal healthcare, lets me keep my guns, pro gay marriage, anti-illegal immigration rights, pro military, anti war, pro business, smaller government, higher taxes for govmint social programs for impoverished people, tax write offs for business that create jobs in this country for citizens ...and on and on. She feignts to the right! Then, KerPOW, she feignts to the left - she's one rock-em sock-em robot. Or maybe just a confused blonde :-))!
We'll just call you "Whiplash" Spartana because whiplash is what we get following your political agenda! haha, but not really, that all seems reasonable to me.
And now Ohio.... What the heck?
And Texas! This isn't 'to protect women's health'. It's purely to control women.
How is this NOT like the Taliban?
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/01/ohio-passes-outrageous-anti-choice-budget/
"Under its provisions, the budget requires a woman to undergo a trans-abdominal ultrasound before receiving an abortion, regardless of whether or not the ultrasound is medically necessary. The budget also severely guts Planned Parenthood clinics in the state by cutting off $1.4 million in federal funding, reports the Columbus Dispatch.
Additionally, the budget targets rape crisis centers by imposing restrictions on what counselors can say to victims who have been impregnated by their rapists. If these clinics counsel victims on abortion options, the budget allows for their public funding to be suspended, Reuters reports."
The governor signed this bill 'surrounded by men'. Not a single woman there. That tells you everything you know.
And in Texas, the Lt Governor has changed the rules to allow a simple majority, to avoid another filibuster. (oh, the irony)
They said testimony stops at a certain time, no matter how many have signed up to testify, and any protesters who try to disrupt the vote will be jailed.
Hey, they are just doing 'the people's business'...right? (Whew! thank goodness they won't be 'forced' to lie and cheat by changing the time-stamp this time!)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.