Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

IF ABORTION FUNDS ARE BANNED, THESE SHOULD BE BANNED TO....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:05 AM
Original message
IF ABORTION FUNDS ARE BANNED, THESE SHOULD BE BANNED TO....
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 02:30 AM by Liberty Belle
The ban on federal funds for abortions is based on a religious morality, not science and certainly not any concern for womens health. Wheres the concern for a woman carrying a baby with no brain stem, or some other incurable condition?
If we are to allow womens reproductive rights to be dictated by religious Christian extremists, then why not also allow the following:

Ban funds for vasectomies: These are birth control, and Catholics believe thats a sin.

Prohibit money for Viagra: This encourages fornication, another sin. Accept impotence as Gods will.

No funds for implanting pig valves in human hearts: Muslims and Jews believe pigs are unclean creatures.

No circumcisions: Some religions dont believe in this procedure, either.

No medical treatment for anybody at federal expense, since Christian Scientists dont believe in medical care, period.

But lets not stop there. How about cutting out funding for anything a religious or other minority doesnt believe in not just healthcare?

Quakers dont believe in war. No more money for fighting them.

Hindus dont believe in eating beef. No subsidies for the cattle industry.

The Amish dont believe in mechanization. No money for government-run fleets of vehicles or Amtrak.

Church of Christ members believe dancing is sinful, along with music from instruments other than the human voice. Stop funding wickedness through the National Endowment for the Arts.

Jehovahs Witnesses dont believe in celebrating holidays or birthdays. No more federal paid days off for Christmas, Thanksgiving, Presidents Day, etc.

Deists believe the natural world is sacred. No more federal funds for destroying the earth - ban funds for logging, strip-mining, or anything that pollutes our holy earth.

Libertarians and neo-con Republicans believe public services should be privatized to save tax dollars. Stop funding firefighting, police protection, libraries and public schools.

Anarchists dont believe in government. No more funding anything--not even salaries for Congress!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. Great post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
2. works for me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
62. It has nothing to do with federal funds for abortions but with with ins policies that cover it patia
partially funded by gov money. There is already a law saying no federal funding of abortions. This says if you get help paying your ins premeiums then you cannot have a policy that covers abortions for any reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juajen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. The Deists have a really good point. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snake in the grass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
4. Better yet, ban theocrats from government.
We might as well be represented by dog shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
51. Dog shit would be less destructive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
100. Hey....it's not just
theocrats. They're just the obvious ones. Lots of the anti-choice dudes simply want to oppress women. They like being able to feel big knowing that they can control women's bodies...basically control their destinies. Only the boyz are truly free to enjoy the pursuit of happiness.

Those boyz are truly dog shit....like Baucus. Like Reid..a real woman hater.

Women are going to see themselves thrown under the bus. Glad I'm past the need for an abortion....those who might better get ready to fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
120. Most sensible idea yet.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:35 AM
Response to Original message
5. Ban in vitro fertilization.
It's mass murder when they flush all those leftover zygotes, ya know.

Better yet, ban all funding for faith based initiatives. I'm serious about this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mudplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
21. Better yet, ban male masturbation. Every sperm is sacred.
Woman who allow a me3nstural cycle without fertilization and men that allow nocturnal emission should also be executed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
41. But then you'd have to ban female periods, since the egg gets wasted there too
Actually, I could go for that one. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riverman Donating Member (759 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
77. Go further and castrate priests. Their sperm is wasted by not
procreating and might also avoid a fair amount of child-abuse which is sinful!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #77
108. Go further, castrate all men, then there will never be a need for abortion at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
46. ..and if it is God's will that you do not become pregnant, why fight it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoDoYouTrust Donating Member (476 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:42 AM
Response to Original message
6. Yup, yup!
K and R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
7. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
8. The day that penis pills are banned will be the day pigs fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoddessOfGuinness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
9. Well said!
Hope you'll send this to your local paper...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
24. I founded our local paper (online version). I AM the media in our area. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TransitJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
10. No using food stamps for shellfish.
Shellfish are an abomination, those who eat of such unclean filth shall be stoned to death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
11. They should ban prostate exams too.
As long as we're discriminating against a women's only procedure we need have some balance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
12. Well, two of the above really should be taken seriously
The Quaker and the Deist examples, specifically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano69 Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
13. I think the issue is...
I think the issue is that something like 98% of all abortions performed in the US are by choice, meaning that there is no medical reason, but the woman decides after finding out that she is pregnant, that she doesn't want it.

I am not passing value judgements here, I am just saying that the large majority of these things are not for any of the justifiable medical reasons that you state. If the overriding issue truly is the Woman's right to choose trumps all, then why don't we defend that, instead of resorting to claiming insensitivity about genuine medical conditions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wayoutthere Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
68. Great Post,,>>> What a Reality Check...
Posted #13 by Cyrano69
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
84. We can defend both.
Women *need* to be able to get abortions for a number of reasons, including medical, financial, psychological and social reasons.

A blanket ban on providing insurance to women who need abortions also covers situations where it is simply fucking cruel not to the let the woman get an abortion such as when she knows she is carrying a dead fetus.

The point is that there are any number of reasons why a woman might need to get an abortion and it is not the business of government to investigate those reasons. Using the strongest possible example would seem to make the case more persuasively, but it doesn't change the fundamental argument that nobody except the woman herself should be making the decision about this procedure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #84
101. Social reasons?
That's a new one by me, perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean here, and how you plan to justify those social reasons along with the medical ones?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #101
107. I mean cultural or other personal reasons
why a person might need to have an abortion, such as being certain that they are not equipped to be a parent for non-financial reasons (such as a lack of maturity or any kind of emotional support network) or simply having no desire to have children. Young women from highly restrictive fundamentalist cultures who face threat of physical harm or death from their parents if they are discovered to be pregnant need to have this resource available to them.

Many abortions are requested by married women with several children who cannot handle more, sometimes for financial reasons, sometimes because they have reached the limits of their ability to cope with the demands of the family they already have. They can't very well have the baby, give it up for adoption and then explain to their other kids why they gave the youngest one up. I would consider that a valid social motivation for abortion.

I would also say that being pregnant as a result of incest or rape would fall under the category of "social" as well as "psychological" reasons for having an abortion.

The point is that no one should have to "justify" why they have an abortion because it's frankly nobody else's damn business. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Problem solved. Just leave the option open for other people who have myriad legitimate reasons for needing one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. You make some interesting points
especially with the rape and incest reasons, but those are already excepted in the Stupak amendment, as I read it.

As for people who don't want to have children, perhaps something to insure that should be used instead. I don't see women from "highly restrictive fundamentalist cultures" bringing themselves to avail themselves of an abortion, publically funded or not.

What's being justified in this argument is not having the abortion, but having it paid for by something publically funded. If we lived in a country that had about 40-45% vegetarians, and somebody came up with a food stamp program, I would expect that it would be quite controversial as to whether or not it would cover the purchase of meat items.

No, I am not comparing having an abortion with eating a bologna sandwich, I am trying to point out that it would be controversial to ask a nation with a large amount of vegetarians to subsidize someone else's meat sandwich, and that we could expect a lot of wrangling over the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #109
112. As for public funding,
there is an obvious and demonstrable social good which is accomplished when the majority of babies born are wanted, planned, financially and emotionally supported, healthy and loved.

You don't want to pay for abortions? Do you want to pay for 18 years of subsidizing foster care or group homes for unwanted and/or abused children? Do you want to pay for the lifelong care and support of children with severe birth defects and virtually no quality of life? Do you want to pay for the lifelong incarceration of more children with fetal alcohol syndrome who are effectively uncontrollable sociopaths? Because all of those things will cost taxpayers a hell of a lot more money than abortion.

As for moral qualms, I don't want to pay for nuclear weapons (or power plants for that matter). I don't want to pay for prayer meetings at the White House or subsidies to Monsanto or bailouts to Wall Street. I don't want to pay for boner pills or animal testing or school vouchers to religious "charter" schools. But we live in a society where we somehow all have to get along whether we agree or not. So again, I say if you don't like abortion, don't have one. Your morals don't control other people's uteruses. There are any number of procedures which will be covered by the plan which are less "necessary" for any number of reasons than abortion.

"As for people who don't want to have children, perhaps something to insure that should be used instead. I don't see women from "highly restrictive fundamentalist cultures" bringing themselves to avail themselves of an abortion, publically funded or not."

Birth control doesn't always work. Accidents happen. Insisting that both the mother and her child be punished for the next 18 years because the condom broke is just frickin' vindictive. And women from fundie cultures have sex and get pregnant all the time (just look at the Palins). I have a born-again aunt and all three of her kids were pregnant/got a girl pregnant before 16. I also had a Muslim roommate who got pregnant and I went with her to get the abortion. She partied harder than anyone I ever met *because* her parents were controlling religious nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #112
127. While I've heard the argument
"we should prevent them from being born because it prevents their misery" line of reasoning, it doesn't ring true for a lot of the people in this country. Neither does the idea that having a child is 'punishment' because a condom broke, many loved and wanted children (probably some of us reading this right now) resulted from just such an accident.

If the atomic bomb were being developed now, and it were not kept as a military secret, there is little doubt that it would face challenges getting funded. Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" missle defense plans haven't really made it out of the theoretical research stages, and a few limited tests. Certainly, they have been quite controversial, and are always facing the chopping block when it comes to military appropriations.

The bailouts have become politically unpopular, too, with both the right and the left in this country expressing skepticism and outrage over them. The teabaggers are not just upset at President Obama, but they are dismayed over the bailouts, too, and a few of the architects of the bailout plans are sitting in the President's Administration right now.

I'm just trying to explain why this is controversial. Not all rights are funded by the public treasury. It's only been a generation that a person charged with a crime that could lead to jail time (other than death, the ultimate loss of liberty) is entitled to a taxpayer-provided lawyer if the accused cannot afford one. Any new attempt to get someone to pay for something that he or she does not believe in is going to face opposition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sfnative Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #109
125. Why pay for abortion if you're never going to get pregnant?
Most men think contraception is a simple issue, and it is not. Women on hormonal contraceptives can increase their risk of depression, cancer, heart attacks and any number of health issues. Some women have allergic reactions to the material used in barrier contraceptives. I have encountered a number of these issues, and I am very unhappy with contraceptives available today.

An abortion is not always the result of someone failing to take responsibility. An abortion may be the result of the medical industry failing to address better contraceptives for women AND men. Why haven't we seen the male pill yet? If abortion is so heinous, why aren't vasectomies performed at birth rather than circumcisions? Vasectomies are far more reversible than tubal ligation.

According to the last Census, more than 50% of the United States' population is comprised of females. Do we want to deny more than 50% of the United States a medical procedure that should be available if all other forms of contraceptives have failed?

Abortion, pregnancy, contraceptives, and sex are all private issues between two adults, not moral issues up for public discussion by religious groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #125
130. You are right about contraceptives
and we have not yet seen the controversy that may well surround them when it comes time to amend the HCR bill. As for the male pill, well, I did my part. I was a volunteer for two different research studies in the late 1970's that were trying to develop injectable chemical contraceptives for males. Research money was limited by the Carter Administration, and cut completely by the Reagan Administration, and the drug companies that would have picked up from there were still reeling from the Dalkon Shield IUD claims of that time.

As for vasectomies at birth, reversing them wouldn't work. The body develops antibodies to sperm that are stuck in the vas deferens, and when there is a failure of a reversal, it isn't because a surgeon could not re-connect the plumbing, it's because of those antibodies. If a boy had the entire time between puberty and when he was ready to procreate to develop those antibodies, he might never produce viable sperm.

Also, nobody's going to be persuasive with that 50% figure. Less than 100% of females are of childbearing age, and of that number, not all see themselves in the market for having an abortion. Yes, there may be 20-25% of Americans who may be in a position to consider an abortion in any given year, should they become pregnant, but the 50% figure simply looks like an exaggeration on its face. If anyone wants to win an argument, they need realistic numbers to make a reasoned argument.

Besides, the "denying them a medical procedure" line has the same flaw. We are not talking about stopping someone from doing something they have a right to do, we are just talking about who's paying for it. When we go to nationalize healthcare, we then are forced to deal with the fact that different areas of the country have different things they consider ordinary and necessary.

I predict that mental health advocates in the blue states will be upset about limitations that will be put on psychiatric treatments during the amendment process, for example. There will be other conflicts of this type, as well, such as sex change operations, medical marijuana, and conscience clauses.

We're just dealing with the abortion issue first, because the GOP'ers know that 1) talking about abortion is a pretty good way to possibly kill HCR, and 2) even if it doesn't smother HCR before Barack Obama has been in office for one year, it will divide the Democrats, cause rancor, and lead to defeat of many in the 2010 elections, as one faction or another will be miffed about the way that a representative voted on the Stupak amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sfnative Donating Member (36 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. Denying coverage is the same as denying access to medical care
I don't understand your arguments either. Yes, at the last Census, the majority of the females are in the child-bearing age range of 10 - 50 years old, which is approximately the same age distribution for males as well. Females still stand at 50% for that age range.

Anyone knows that denying health care coverage is almost the same as denying access to medical care. Why do so many people without insurance end up in the emergency room? That is the point of public option health care isn't it?

Thanks for providing arguments that vasectomies are a poor option for males, which only bolsters the argument that abortion is an important procedure that needs to covered by public option because there are no fool-proof methods to prevent pregnancy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #131
132. That argument simply will not fly
Other than an overworked, underpaid public defender when you are too poor to afford a lawyer when charged with a criminal offense, what other Constitutional rights are provided for by the public at large?

Chopping this up by age range does nothing. All it does is try to make it look like you're cooking the statistics. When you separate out all males, the females under the age of 13 (why did you use 10??!!) and over the age of 50, and those who who remain who would never consider having an elective abortion, you get a minority of Americans. Trying to use definitional and demographic means of making the proportion look bigger just makes an argument look like smoke and mirrors.

I agree that people who end up in the emergency room need public option healthcare, yet this issue threatens to scuttle it. That's why the Repukes and the Blue Dogs championed the Stupak amendment, they want to either kill HCR, or divide the Democratic majority into two bitter camps.

My argument about vasectomies was only for giving them at birth, which even you know was ridiculous. I never said they were a poor option, they're a great option for men who have decided that they want to have the only real "choice" they can get when it comes to their reproductive freedom. Mine is still going strong after over a quarter century.

The people who want HCR without Stupak are going to have to make arguments that are better constructed than the ones you have offered. I really don't think there are any that will be convincing to get the majority that is needed, and that will not turn Congress back over to the Rethuglicans, who will de-fund anything we've accomplished during the Obama Presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #132
133. Disgusting bullshit as usual
your posts on this are right wing male bullshit crap.

You have no 'facts' just your 'i think everybody agrees with me' crap on this subject. You are ignorant and spew right wing crap to try to cover it.

transparent bullshit from the get go.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #133
136. Thanks for your eloquence
I'm simply trying to point out the realities involved with abortion funding and HCR. If you want to think that they will both magically come to pass, then I'm sorry for disturbing your little dream world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
95. Please provide the statistical analysis for that %
The lie is that the majority of women use abortion for birth control this is not true. And when is it the states or any other individuals right to interfere between a doctor and a patient?

http://women.webmd.com/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose...

The most common reasons women consider abortion are:

1. Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.
2. Inability to support or care for a child.
3. To end an unwanted pregnancy.
4. To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done.
5. Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
6. Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued.

Other facts
Very few abortions are done after 16 weeks of pregnancy. But some women have to delay abortions because they have trouble with paying for, finding, or traveling to an abortion specialist.

What's interesting about all of these arguments is that a mans responsibility never comes up. Have you noticed that? It's as if these women got pregnant by themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katkat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
103. cyrano69
I'd like to know where you got that data?

I suspect the incidence of things like spina bifida and Tay-Sachs and Downs and so on are higher than 2%. (Spare me a discussion of the happy lives that 0.01% of these have, and consider instead parents worried sick about who will care for a severely handicapped child once they're dead, not to mention not wanting to see a baby live a short horribly painful life.)

Also, is it "not wanting it" if a family is about to lose its house and become homeless?

What about if they already have children and are at their wits' end about how to feed them due to joblessness?

Or if they don't think they can responsibly care for four kids and birth control failed?

What about if the woman is 40 and is exhausted trying to care for her current kids and work at the same time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kag Donating Member (548 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
110. Okay, that's just dumb!
First of all, YES YOU ARE passing value judgments. Women don't just FIND OUT that they are pregnant. One GETS pregnant because a man sticks his penis in her and writhes a little. It takes TWO people to make a baby, but only ONE can HAVE a baby. It is her body. No one else's. Having an abortion isn't a trip to McDonalds for chrissake! It is, in fact, a medical procedure. Just as HAVING a baby is a medical procedure.

There is NO EXCUSE for any real Democrat to put up with this SHIT in the healthcare bill! None at all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demigoddess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #13
121. failure of birth control is one reason that women 'choose' abortion,
also a severely handicapped child is another. Both I would consider medical reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
14. Flawed Logic.
The whole reason there's such a movement against abortions in this country (and globally, really) is because those people believe with all their heart that abortion is murder. Whether one agrees or disagrees with that position (obviously the majority here disagree with it), you'd still have to agree that not a thing in your list rises to such a level, and therefore not a thing on your list is comparable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. The Quaker/war thing still works.
Lots of murder that goes with the war thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. I believe war is murder. I believe raping the land rises to the level
of murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Ok, That Made Me Chuckle!
(the latter part)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. I am not surprised in the least. You and your arm's length world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lagomorph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
37. Nothing rapes the land like urbanization...
Digging, mining, cutting...

Hauling it all to the factories and turning the cities into concrete jungles...

Covering the country with power poles and cutting miles of trenches for pipes...

Just so people don't get their shoes and carpets dirty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exultant Democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #37
49. In the US the opposite is true, the movement out of the cities and into the suburbs
has cause far more damage and not just environmental damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lagomorph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #49
138. That's not really an opposite...
Cities spawn suburbs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riverman Donating Member (759 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
74. Yes people die from environmental degradation!
Landslides, flooding, poisened water system, cancers, respiratory diseases, etc.

Loggers are near the top of the most dangerous jobs and many die from forestry accidents.

Ironworkers and other construction workers have high death rates on jobs, many paid in full or part with government funds, such as stimulus money.

People have been dying from homelessness and suicide from being put out of their homes by banks bailed out by federal funds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Leave it to YOU to support the prolife point of view...
:puke:

RL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Try Again.
I did no such thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fudge stripe cookays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #23
113. You always did, and you always do.
And yet, somehow, after all this time, you're still here. Which stuns most of us. I took some time off, and it turns out nothing's changed.

So many good members of this board were purged for no good reason months ago, yet you still say anything you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. Remember when management used to get rid of those who acted trollish
towards other members?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fudge stripe cookays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. Yeah. This used to be a nice place to hang out.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 11:45 PM by fudge stripe cookays
I finally got disgusted and quit donating. And it's because of folks like our friend there that Skinner won't see another dime from reprehensor and I, EVER.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. I've spent a lot of time here in the past, but it's tapering off now.
I used to see all sorts of patterns of posting. That particular poster ushered in the wave of RW crap that's now inundating the forums.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fudge stripe cookays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #117
118. Funny how it works, huh?
Working off the sympathy for the dead wife, he was able to ingratiate himself with the pack. Now he can post whatever he wants, and no one can touch him. And anything anyone else posts is instantly deleted. His crap remains.

I personally think she did it to escape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #118
119. That about sums it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #118
134. fudge stripe cookays nails it
Using the alleged death of your spouse (posting death bed pictures) to gain 'credibility' is seriously mentally sick.



This Duer has MISSED YOUR POSTS!!!!

Please post more.



COME BACK!!!!!!


Alyce
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fudge stripe cookays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #134
137. .
Thanks jax.

There are some folks here I really miss. Others, not so much. I've been hanging more on Facebook lately. Plus, the international move was a bit time-consuming.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #14
28. The BASIS of that beleif comes from religion.
When they start coming from a scientific standpoint, well.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #28
58. Only in a VERY few cases.I believe the majority people are manipulated by those that seek power and
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 03:11 PM by BrklynLiberal
control...particularly of women.

How many wars have been started by those in power appealing to "religious" principles to get people riled up? Then when it is infull swing, the fury is enhanced and it takes on a life of its own...everyone forgetting how it all started.

The Crusades, Witch Burnings, War in Ireland, The Middle East wars.

These were all motivated by some group convincing people that their god was better than the "other's" god and therefore "we" must conquer them.

Bullshit.. all of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
29. their "beliefs" should not determine what my health care choices are
nor should my "beliefs" limit your access to health care
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #29
47. Put that on a t-shirt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
35. I don't think they believe that abortion is murder, nor do they really care about that
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 01:16 PM by Motown_Johnny
They don't have any problem with killing innocents as long as they are killing non Christians.


What they believe is that everyone is born with original sin and that to have that absolved you need to be baptized. They also believe that it is at the moment of conception that God endows a human with their soul. Terminating a pregnancy, even at it's very earlies stages such as for use in stem cell research, sends this soul to eternal damnation. At least that is what they believe.


It isn't about the loss of life, it is about the damnation of a soul.



They can't tell anyone that because it exposes what they think of anyone who is not baptized as a Christian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #35
48. They believe women should be punished for having sex.
That's the bottom line of the whole damned thing. Control women and you control the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. Bingo! Exactly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #35
55. It is about CONTROL..plain and simple... I do not believe that most of these
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 03:05 PM by BrklynLiberal
anti-choice people give a damn about the life..They just want to be able to control the women who get pregnant. To them, if you have an unwanted pregnancy, you must have done something wrong, and you have to pay for it....morally.

If they cared at all about the child, they would support pre-natal care, neonatal care, child health care, food and education for these children.

ERGO. I do not believe that they really give a rat's ass about the potential child or its future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
56. War is Murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
87. Most of us have noticed that the true "murderers" are the Pro-Life Christian extremists . .. !!
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 06:26 PM by defendandprotect
That's like saying "they" think homosexuality is a sin so we should just accept it?

What's being said to you is intended to point out the ludicrous beliefs of

extreme Christians . . . including that a fertilized egg is a "child" --

or that a woman exerting her right to self-defense who aborts a late term pregnancy

because it is a threat to her life is committing "murder" . . . !!!

These whacks also think masturbation is a sin!!

Where are you on those beliefs?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheMadMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
92. The rank and file may well hold thise belief, strong and true.
Those egging them on have a far different agenda: Returning women to their "rightful" (God appointed) place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
96. No, no one really opposes abortion on ethical grounds.
They don't believe that abortion is murder, or if they do, they don't really care. They may claim that they do, but we know the true nature of their beliefs. We know that the real reason they are opposed to abortion is that they want to control women, or they don't believe that women are equal, or they want to punish women for having sex. We the mind-readers of DU can see into the dark recesses of the pro-life mind. (Yes, this is sarcasm.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. Phew!
Thank god it was sarcasm lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kansas Wyatt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
17. If God wanted that penis to rise then it would.
Maybe they should do a 'healing' on it, rather than bypassing God's will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mlevans Donating Member (642 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
44. By what method?
A laying on of hands??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riverman Donating Member (759 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #44
78. By Immaculate Perception!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
20. Good post
Recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinkhouses Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
22. abortion
This message should be signed by all dems and sent to all
those in congress that are against a woman's right to chose,not just her physical and mental health but if religion plays a part in her life also her soul,we know as women who's running the show. It's just another insurance ran program with the political right putting us in the middle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marlakay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
25. I said this in a different way earlier
why do the abortion people get to pick and choose what their taxes pay for? what about what the rest of us believe in?

I personally don't want to pay for war...and I was against the bail outs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlancheSplanchnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #25
70. because they have a clubhouse in DC full of politickin' menz n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem mba Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
27. OR
maybe some people support a women's right to choose but don't want their TAX DOLLARS to pay for a total stranger's abortion. It's still legal to get an abortion isn't it? It's just not paid for or subsidized by the state. You just have to pay out of pocket.

In my mind, that is a very coherent argument and not one to dismiss out of hand, regardless of your stance on the pro-life/pro-choice debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. i don't want my tax dollars going to iraq and afghanistan
nor do i want rw extremists limiting the ability of a woman to have an abortion. the stupid stupak amendment applies to PRIVATE insurers also. it's discrimination, plain and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem mba Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. where do you see that?
http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#p=3

from my reading of the amendment, it says as long as your private insurance doesn't take federal money these provisions are not applicable and an abortion could be covered.

i don't understand why a private insurance company would be taking federal funds, and be hindered by this and other provisions (of which I am guessing there would be many), so what's the issue?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #36
53. Try reading the entire document....
SEC 265. LIMITATIONS ON ABORTION FUNDING.

(a) IN GENERAL.--No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act

(or any amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion

or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage

of abortion
, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder,

physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician,

place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including

a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy

itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of pregnancy or incest.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-t...

So if you can afford to pay for your health care entirely out of your own pocket...you can get
whatever coverage you want.
So once again, abortions can be had by the wealthy.
Isn't this EXACTLY where we were before Roe v Wade??


So insurance companies will not offer coverage for abortions and therefore hospitals and doctors will not perform them.
hmmmmm Let's see...What is the final result of that?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #53
71. I'm confused
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 04:41 PM by Nederland
Do you realize your snip from the bill supports the posters assertion that so long as your private insurance doesn't take federal money these provisions are not applicable and an abortion could be covered? Do you realize that around 68% of the population has private insurance, not just "rich" people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #71
81. The way I understand it is
Assume you can afford to buy your insurance. You buy into a plan.

Now Sally buys into the same insurance plan, but she receives government money to help her pay for her health insurance.

Now that insurance company will not be able to cover your abortion because Sally got government money.

In effect, it reverses Roe v Wade.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #71
82. Let Rachel Maddow explain it inthis video.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 06:13 PM by BrklynLiberal
"No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act "

The way this is written this includes funds set aside from private insurance premiums, for use by anyone who needs to help paying their premiums.


The net result will be that insurance companies will NOT offer the coverage, since it will not be covered/paid for if anyone purchasing this insurance policy is using government funds.
Once insurance companies stop covering it, hospitals and doctors will stop doing it..

Bottom line...via the back door, abortion has become totally unavailable...if not technically illegal.

So wealthy women will be able to get abortions...since they will be able to pay for them.
The women who cannot pay for the procedure themselves, will be forced to go to the dirty backalley abortionists.
Right where we were before Roe v Wade.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/maddow-on-stupak-conserv... /

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...


Democrats have decided to pass monumental, sweeping, legacy-building health reform inexplicably along with the biggest restriction on abortion rights in a generationif the amendment becomes law, if the bill passes as is, insurance companies across the county will likely stop covering abortions, period.
*
With a single amendment Congress is making a legal medical procedure potentially unattainable for a huge number of American women. All that Conservative talk about the evil government getting involved in which medical procedures are covered and which arent. Its Conservatives who now, from Congress, are ruling out coverage nationally for one specific medical procedure, for political reasons.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #82
128. I disagree with her assessment
Edited on Wed Nov-11-09 11:46 AM by Nederland
Yes, insurance company plans that are part of the exchange cannot offer coverage for abortion. Maddow does not explain why that implies that an insurance company would therefore pull abortion coverage from all of their existing plans. I simply don't see why they would do it. Their existing customers obviously want plans that include abortion coverage because they offer it, and why would they risk pissing off their existing customers by changing those existing plans? No, what insurance companies will do is create brand new plans specifically crafted for the exchange. The law doesn't say that government money can go to an insurance company that offers abortion coverage, it says it can't go to an insurance plan that offers abortion coverage. Just read the bill:

SEC 265. LIMITATIONS ON ABORTION FUNDING.

(a) IN GENERAL.--No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act
(or any amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion
or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage
of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder,
physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician,
place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including
a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy
itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of pregnancy or incest.

Note the language clearly says "plan", not "company".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dem mba Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #128
135. thanks
that's my interpretation as well. I'm sure a few insurance companies out there wouldn't mind offering plans to the millions upon millions of women who want coverage for abortions and other pregnancy related services/counseling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Have you ever wondered what would happen if there were only 1 or 2 places
in the US where a woman could obtain an abortion? Say, one in NY city and the other in California. Do poor women who need an abortion who live hundreds of miles away from either site just shit out of luck? What if there were zero places in the US where a woman could obtain an abortion? Sure, we would still have the legal right to an abortion, but it becomes a moot point if you can't afford airfare to a country that did allow abortions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EndersDame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #27
39. Well if you didnt subsidize abortion you have'd to subsidize a child for 18 yrs
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 01:40 PM by EndersDame
I personally don't want to subsidize prostate exams but then again it is a medical procedure and should be covered regardless of my own beliefs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
30. Sad thing is, Rethug fundies would actually agree with many of these.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
32. The SCOTUS decision Harris v. McRae
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_79_1268



*snip*




Question:
Did the Hyde Amendment violate the right to privacy, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, or the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment?

Conclusion:
No. The Court held that states participating in the Medicaid program were not obligated to fund medically necessary abortions under Title XIX. The Court found that a woman's freedom of choice did not carry with it "a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices." The Court ruled that because the Equal Protection Clause was not a source of substantive rights and because poverty did not qualify as a "suspect classification," the Hyde Amendment did not violate the Fifth Amendment. Finally, the Court held that the coincidence of the funding restrictions of the statute with tenets of the Roman Catholic Church did not constitute an establishment of religion.







I agree with what you are saying.... Unfortunately the Supreme Court has ruled against us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
34. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NikolaC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
38. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrZeeLit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
40. The pope doesn't like invitro or any fertility treatments -- no messin' with god's stuff.
SARCASM!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
winyanstaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
42. Amen....k&R.......
This blatent disregard for women's civil rights must end NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
43. Stop funding wickedness through the National Endowment for the Arts.
They've just about done that already....and look what you get! Thomas Kinkade!!!! Gawd help us all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
45. I can sympathise with the Quakers
No money for war. Sounds good to me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
50. Super post
K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftinOH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
52. The potential ban on any & all sorts of birth control lurks just behind the anti-abortion movement
-to simply 'ban abortion' is certainly their biggest obstacle, but the moral crusaders wouldn't stop there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riverman Donating Member (759 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #52
80. Yes uncontrolled births leads to more death of children from lack
of care, nutrition, medical treatment and especially unimaginable poverty of at least half the worlds population. Their deaths rest at the feet of the Catholic Church and all religous faiths and political entities that persists in such horrid policies. Talk about Death Panels - just look to the Pope, and his Cardinals and Bishops!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #52
124. Yes. The first to go will be the pill and the morning after pill
because these MIGHT cause the shedding of a fertilized ovum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
54. Nice! Rec. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
59. Can you get a majority of the House and Senate to vote for these proposals?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
60. DAMN!
Right on!

KNR! :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
61. We are fighting the Quakers?
:wtf:

Are you sure it's not the Fighting Amish that have declared war on the Quakers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSzymeczek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #61
85. The Amish have no problem availing
themselves of mechanization, as long as it belongs to someone else. They'll get their neighbors with cars to drive them around, if they think it might take inconveniently long to get there by buggy. And they'll work in factories with automation. I'm related to a whole raft of Amish, so I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vinylsolution Donating Member (807 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
63. And let's end tax breaks for religion....
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 04:19 PM by vinylsolution
.... and political empires lurking behind facades of religion, while we're at it.

If God is 'all-powerful', he doesn't need a dime of our money.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
64. the god squad is invincible, EVERY excuse is: and god told me...
and I'm in touch with god, and god is advising goldman-sachs, and god is behind our wars without end...what a great rackett as they deliberately seek to ruin the common good at every turn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phasma ex machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
65. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fla Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
66. You forgot penile implants...lol.
Get religion out of our laws, period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
67. so let's cut off nose to spite face?
some people can't get proper care so let's share the misery and make sure lots more people can't get proper care?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheMadMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #67
99. Ever heard of Hyperbole and Reductio Absurdum? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stumbler Donating Member (599 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
69. Yes! But can we add an amendment that some of these services will still be provided for atheists?
Please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progservative_n_SC Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
72. I agree with the sentiment behind your post
But just want to clarify your comments of the church of Christ...

Church of Christ members believe dancing is sinful, along with music from instruments other than the human voice. Stop funding wickedness through the National Endowment for the Arts.

cofC churches are all autonomous so results may vary from congregation to congregation. I have attended many and each is unique in a few aspects. As far as dancing as a sin I am not sure where you got that idea from but I can not say I have ever encountered that particular belief. Maybe what some would equate with "erotic" dancing would be condemned but I have danced many times with members of the church and nothing was ever said negatively about it.

On another point you said that they don't believe in instrumental music. This only applies to worship services and is not even universally enforced due to some debate over if it is proscribed in scripture or not. As far as secular music goes I have never heard of any coC condemning instruments.

cofC is not what you implied in your post. I believe you have them confused with Southern Baptist. We comprise liberal and conservative congregations and generally you won't hear a Vote for "A" we have to defeat "B" sermon ever. The closest they come to a motto is speak where Bible speaks and remain silent where silent. Not flaming you just wanted to defend an often confused group of Christians
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #72
105. I've been to C of C churches in CA and Texas, and all were this way.
This includes my mother and grandmother's churches.

If there are others that are not so extreme, them I'm not aware of it.

The point stands, though, there there are some religious groups that find these things sinful (if not the entire church nationally).

Extremist minority sects should never be allowed to impose their beliefs on the majority, in my opinion, and Congress should make laws based on the greater good for the greatest number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progservative_n_SC Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #105
126. I have never had a chance to attend any on the west coast
Though I did notice the San Francisco cOfC is right beside City Hall downtown when I was attending some training in Sunnyvale. The one thing to always remember about the cofC, The Christian Church, and some other non-Denominational churches is there is no heiracrhy, conventions, or other organization. The closest the cofC even comes to a school is Pepperdine and Abiliene Christian in Texas. I fully agree with you, churches do not need to be involved in politics, it is not the place. I know for a fact at least one "church" in my hometown does not even use its tax exemption allowed to churches for the specific reason it could engage as an organization in the political pulpit activism that you express anger over.

Not sure what your stand is on religion or Christianity one way or the other but you can find that the cofC comes in many stripes, not just the "Baptist without the Piano" ones you seem to have seen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riverman Donating Member (759 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
73. Best Post Ever! Says it All! Thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
75. and I don't think there's a pressing need for faith-based bullshit funds either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #75
88. all that does is divert sparse funds away from professional care that can actually help someone..the
funds are not tracked, the church can do whatever they want with them.. they can be payed to just pray for them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #88
94. Yeah, or for spiritual trips to Thailand. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
76. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proReality Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
79. But but...
wouldn't we have to ban nearly everything you said since getting back to the basics and nature is so...P_P_P_PAGAN! :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
83. This is going to end up a long list.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 05:55 PM by JoeyT
With just the bible we could run on until we pretty much abolished the government.
No more crop subsidies. Deuteronomy 22:9. Suck on *that* Blue Dogs.
No more subsidization or assistance for the textile industries, either. Also courtesy of Deut 22:9
No more subsidies for any form of sewage treatment, sewage systems, or septic systems of any kind. Deuteronomy 23:13-14
No more subsidies for natural gas or anything else used for cooking. According to Ezekiel you do your cooking over dung. First it was human dung, then God allowed it to be cow dung. Much more hygienic, I guess. Or maybe it's a flavor thing. Yuck.
We can also abolish federal funding of any form of science or medicine on general principles. (Cause I'm too lazy to look up all the "Do not seek knowledge, seek faith!" parts.)

We should also work to bring the rest of our federal legislation in line with those same principles.
Slavery no longer federally outlawed thanks to Leviticus 25:44-46
Murder no longer outlawed also thanks to Leviticus.
Rape no longer outlawed thanks, once again, to Leviticus. Plus Samuel, Judges, and Deuteronomy.
Practically any atrocity imaginable no longer illegal at the federal level because of Leviticus.
Troops encouraged to murder rape and pillage to teach people a lesson: Judges, Deuteronomy, Zechariah.
Selling your children to be used as sex slaves no longer illegal. Exodus.
Ridiculous amounts of "Don't deal with dirty foreigners!" laws from practically every single book. No more cheap Chinese stuff for you, Wal-Mart!

I'm just trying to bring our laws a bit more in line with what the religious right clearly thinks they should be. Or at least what they'd think if they weren't utter hypocrites.

Also: It isn't just mechanization. Don't forget the Amish aren't fond of electricity either and generally get their water from a well. No more federal subsidies for rural electricity or water treatment. We can forget about phones, highways, and the internet, too. Plus no more FAA or FCC.

Edited to stop various bible numbers from turning up as a lip licking emoticon. (Whoops.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Progservative_n_SC Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. I still find it hard to believe
That so many , including many Christians, keep throwing up 'law' from the Old Testament to make a point. As a Christian the 'Law' from those times holds no meaning. Absolutely none. The 'Laws' of Moses where done away with upon the ministry of Jesus. Fundamentalist of all stripes have corrupted the simple teachings of Jesus by doing what was warned against repeatedly in the New Testament...getting wrapped up in laws and traditions. One of the reasons I detest Christmas as Christ birthday, Sunrise Easter services, church hierarchies and government and other ridiculous 'laws and traditions'. Just read the word, believe if you so desire, share if you so desire and live your life as Jesus did. If Jesus was here today he would walk into Saddleback Church and 99% of others flip the tables over and whip these merchants of lies. There will be a massive shortage of millstones when the day comes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #83
106. Excellent observations, and that's just based on the Christian Bible.
Throw in the Koran and Sharia law and we could be back to stoning adulterers to death and cutting hands off of petty thieves.

Question: do they also cut off other strategic body parts for rapists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
urgk Donating Member (982 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
89. Quakers dont believe in war. No more money for fighting them.
What?! We use tax dollars to fight Quakers?!?!?

What have they ever done to us?

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
90. This is the only line Congress will listen to
"No more funding anything--not even salaries for Congress!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
91. witnesses also do not believe in blood transfusions. I wonder why they are still allowed in the US??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NAO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
93. Scientologists believe psychiatry is evil...
so no mental health care should be covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varelse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
98. I just can't recommend this enough
:')
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
102. Perfect!!!! K&R to the max! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katkat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
104. it's all about women
Let's face it, if men were the ones who got pregnant, do you think the religious freaks would have any traction? As someone said, abortion would be a sacrament.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SagefemmeCollective Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
111. Yes, brilliant!
The Christian religion in the USA is the ONLY religion that does not allow abortion under any circumstance. It is beyond me why the Supreme Court has not challenged the many state laws promoted by pro-life groups - as a violation of the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Dragon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
115. Works for me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
122. BAN POSTS IN ALL CAPS TOO!!1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
voc Donating Member (279 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
123. great post. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tonysam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
129. Where were you 33 years ago, if you were around then?
Sorry, it's been legal for years for the federal government to restrict or ban funding for abortions and upheld by the USSC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul 26th 2014, 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC