Republican Sharia Law

[peggy]

Hell hath frozen over!!! Peggy is defending Alan??!! Run for your lives before the rain of hot hail engulfs us all!!!

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.

[bae]

Fact check, peggy, fact check! Everyone knows Obama prefers other sorts of meat....

[Spartana]

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.

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.

[Spartana]

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 :-)

[reader99]

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.'

[peggy]

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]

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/2013/0...n_3327974.html
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/1...gender-people/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...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.

[Alan]

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.

[creaker]

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.

[Alan]

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.