Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
The House passed its version of health-care legislation Saturday night by a vote of 220 to 215 after the approval of an amendment which amounts to a not-very-back door abortion ban for everyone but the very rich. Presented by Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan with the strong backing of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the amendment would prohibit abortion coverage in the government-run plan and any private plan on the new marketplace that accepts people who are using government subsidies to buy coverage.
[There'll be an interesting conversation about this with Frances Kissling and others today on GRITtv.org]
It's sexist, it's classist, it goes well beyond the heinous Hyde Amendment ban on public funding for abortion--and it passed with the support of 64 Democrats, roughly a quarter of the caucus.
House liberals say they voted for it to keep the process of reform moving forward towards a majority but women are the majority -- of Americans, of voters, of Democrats, and pro-choice women outnumber the other sort. The House move had less to do with majority than it had to do with theocracy.
Why is it that from Bangor to the Beltway, church pressure works on even liberal Democrats, even as no politician in America seems to be afraid of losing votes over being anti-choice?
Obama left the abortion issue unmentioned Sunday when he appeared in the White House Rose Garden to congratulate the House on its "courage."
Bunk. "Now it falls on the United States Senate to take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people," said Obama.
Now, it seems to me it falls on pro-choicers to demand an answer to the question raised by Jodi Jacobson on RH Reality Check. "What does Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi or any other member of Congress owe the Catholic Bishops that they do not owe the majority of women in this country? What does Obama owe the Bishops that he does not owe you and me?"
It's not too late for voters to lay siege to their Senators. And it's not too late for the liberal campaign contributors to close their wallets until they find out.
Laura Flanders is the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Follow GRITtv or GRITlaura on Twitter.com.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Well it's certainly not the ability to keep it in their vestments.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 06:56am
speaking of in vestments.....
seems like senator sanders proposal for the too frikkin' bigs is picking up steam, gaining support from all ends of the political spectrum.
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1605-Too-Big-To-Exist.html
please sign the petition:
http://tinyurl.com/stop-the-robbery
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 08:15am
Stupak has lived at the C Street house for years yet denies any involvement with "The Family", the owners and driving force behind it's tenants. Very curious that Senator Coburn has lived there for decades and is at the forefront of the religious fundamental anti-abortion movement. The Family has reportedly been putting heavy pressure on the Dems that live there to support their efforts to ban abortions. Mr. Stupak stepped up to bat as a willing lemming who's loyalty falls not with representing the will of his constituents or his Party but with doing the bidding of a "religious" organization that is in it's essence nothing more than a lobby group for religious fundamentalism. This group has many tentacles in DC (Dem and Rep)and is becoming a dangerous force. IMO they should be stripped of their taxfree status as they are not a church but a front group w/ an agenda.
Posted by A-Patriot-Acting at 11/10/2009 @ 09:08am
Welcome to being a liberal under the Obama/Pelosi/Reid era . They sold you all down the river with the passage of the house bill .And just picture in your mind ,A final bill comes to the presidents desk with a similar clause about abortion in it (in order to get enough votes to pass it) . He has to choose healthcare for all or veto. Guess which choice he will make. It will be a no brainer for him because hes a liberal and the veto pen will never see the light of day .
Posted by limoman at 11/10/2009 @ 09:15am
"It's not too late for voters to lay siege to their Senators. And it's not too late for the liberal campaign contributors to close their wallets until they find out. "
Yes...it is.
Want HCR, you suck it up and let the Blue Dogs keep their ban on abortion funding. I don't like it either, but it's the price you pay. Too many districts where a Democrat can win, but only if they're atleast nominally, if not in fact, "pro-life".
Turn the bill into "Federal funding of abortion" and it'll collapse and you'll be handing an ADDITIONAL 10-15 seats to the Repubs in 2010...perhaps enough for "Speaker John Boehner".
That's the reality of the situation...something ideologues rarely seem to want to deal with.
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 09:16am
Ms Landers, I would venture that it's because they are taking the moral stand that it's wrong to murder infants.
Come on Ms Flanders, let's have you organize feminazis like yourself to have a press conference to state "We proudly proclaim our right to murder our own children. We want the government to not only sanction this decision, we want them to pay the cost of our murders"
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 09:16am
you think the writers of the "sacred" constitution would have countenanced the meddling of bishops?
Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 09:28am
"feminazis like yourself"----Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 09:16am
Next time Larry lies about "never" or "hardly ever" listening to Rush Limbaugh...keep that "term" in mind!
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 09:29am
FLANDERS - you wrote this:
" ... House liberals say they voted for it to keep the process of reform moving forward towards a majority but women are the majority -- of Americans, of voters, of Democrats, and pro-choice women outnumber the other sort. The House move had less to do with majority than it had to do with theocracy ..."
I think you're missing the point. Figures like Pelosi are supposedly the torch-bearers of the secular, post-feminist urban segment of the population. The House move had nothing to do with theocracy per se, or, maybe even, majority. The fact that it was so utterly easy for these figures to not only buy onto the notorious anti- reproductive freedom amendment - and the fact that these figures bought onto the totally overlooked reality that the House bill is an utter capitulation to the corporate health cartel - shows us that our supposed political leadership is a sham.
Figures like Nancy Pelosi and Anna Eschoo - who seem to have utterly sold out all of us in this matter by allowing such a terrible bill to be passed - were working for one thing. Power. Continued power. That's all. The bill in question was produced because the blue-blooded, plutocratic class of officials at the top of the Democratic Party need a salable fiction next year for the mid-terms. They have to enact "reform" while pleasing, not angering, the health cartel.
Just as the Obama administration prioritized rescuing the banking industry in economic emergency response policies, the Pelosi Democrats (and the Reid Democrats) have made it a point of rescuing the health cartel from the likelihood that the broken, unaffordable, and inhumane system we currently have would be changed to suit most people's needs better.
Posted by syfriendly at 11/10/2009 @ 09:47am
Look, with the BIG majorities the Dems have, including Governorships, why don't you all mount a constitutional amendment process and FOR FOR IT on abortion and settle it.
This argument over abortion is like our own version of the Israeli/Palestinian problem.....it never goes away. Just transpose `fetus' for `Israel' on the Right-to-Exist and bingo.....and `Hamas/Hezbo/Iran' for NOW and assorted feminazis and libs.......bingo, near perfect match!
If not now, when?
Posted by Happy at 11/10/2009 @ 10:15am
....and GO FOR IT on abortion and settle it.
Posted by Happy at 11/10/2009 @ 10:15am
happy-The right doesn't care about the abortion issue to any degree that matters so the right must not care much about Israel,either according to your thinking.The right does not give anti abortion groups their money and power.They give that to the NRA.The right comes out in protest when the subject is money or guns and not abortion.When the GOP had power they did nothing about abortion,but focused on money and guns.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/10/2009 @ 10:29am
Happy-Both sides like to see themselves as morally superior and I think that most on the right are happy that abortion is legal because it provides you with an opportunity to promote yourselves as morally superior as we see people on the right doing while doing nothing about the issue.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/10/2009 @ 11:09am
This is not only a problem in the Catholic church, but with Christian fundamentalism in general - they want to FORCE their point of view on other people whereas accepting particular religious precepts MUST be volitional to be a valid expression of faith.
It is simply unimaginable that Jesus Christ would FORCE one to believe in him.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/10/2009 @ 11:09am
"Ms Landers, I would venture that it's because they are taking the moral stand that it's wrong to murder infants"
antisocialist, in what cases would you permit a woman an abortion?
this amendment makes it extremely difficult for low-income women to navigate the healthcare system. and women already pay more than men. this amendment is a bunch of white, wealth, male christians telling women what to do with their bodies.
and hopefully, mask, this will unleash all women onto the capitol steps very soon to protest this nonsense.
any women here? (no, figures)
bunch of men pontificating on the law, while forgetting that they don't have A UTERUS.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 11:10am
What Do the Bishops Have That We Don't?
A direct WATTS line to The Lord.
Immunity from prosecution.
Immunity from taxation.
No families to worry about. No worries about their next meal, next vacation, roof overhead, comfy retirement.
Posted by sloper at 11/10/2009 @ 11:14am
Posted by Happy at 11/10/2009 @ 10:15am
Doesn't that also raise the question, HAPP...
given the Repubs had majorities in the House (and Senate) from 2003-2006...
why didn't they even hold a Committee vote on the "Human Life Amendment"...part of the GOP platform?
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 11:15am
""We proudly proclaim our right to murder our own children. We want the government to not only sanction this decision, we want them to pay the cost of our murders""
disgusting.
are there any christian men with compassion?
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 11:17am
Happy-You guys even supported Palin even though she,very much, risked her unborn childs life by flying back to Alaska to have him.You support a person who blatantly endangered their unborn child and then claim to care about the unborn.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/10/2009 @ 11:23am
BTW, as always, keep in mind...
Much as Larry/antisoc rails against abortion EVEN HE admits it cannot be made illegal "until a majority of America agrees to it".
Thus admitting...he's in the minority.
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 11:25am
So the Nation wants the Catholic Church to have a say in politics when it opposed the wars of the Bush administration (and it did despite the best efforts of neocon Catholics like Weigel, Novak, and the late Father Neuhuas), stands against the death penalty, and when it backs the UN, open borders and using public funds to help the less fortunate.....but we want the Church to shut up on abortion.
As for emile's question, "you think the writers of the "sacred" constitution would have countenanced the meddling of bishops?"
I think Daniel Carroll who was there in the long hot summer of 1787 would have. His big brother happened to be a bishop. Or maybe Robert Morris whose brother in law was an Episcopalian bishop. Look, you don't have to agree with M.E.Bradford that most of the signers were Christians fighting for their faith in the document but to ignore it totally is not correct either. And is original intent really the argument you want to make?
Posted by kevinmichaeldeby at 11/10/2009 @ 11:29am
"So the Nation wants the Catholic Church to have a say in politics when it opposed the wars of the Bush administration (and it did despite the best efforts of neocon Catholics like Weigel, Novak, and the late Father Neuhuas), stands against the death penalty, and when it backs the UN, open borders and using public funds to help the less fortunate.....but we want the Church to shut up on abortion."
as you can see, the Nation wants the catholic church to be CONSISENT. and here, they are not.
and besides, the catholic bishops HAD THE LEGISLATION INSERTED INTO THE BILL. that's clearly problematical.
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 11:32am
Turn the bill into "Federal funding of abortion" and it'll collapse and you'll be handing an ADDITIONAL 10-15 seats to the Repubs in 2010...perhaps enough for "Speaker John Boehner".
That's the reality of the situation...something ideologues rarely seem to want to deal with.
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 09:16am
Your probably right. BUT, that may happen anyways. The Dems are being cowards they are being way too careful. So careful they are weakening support from their own party. The opportunity the dems have right now should be used, it won't last, and will likely be gone come the midterms. If they don't use it it will be a decade or more till they have it again. They have to understand that the primary reason for their takeover was backlash against Bush and not support for their policies. Once Americans get a breather from Bush, the dems won't have the same support.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/10/2009 @ 11:34am
"Once Americans get a breather from Bush, the dems won't have the same support."----Posted by Extraneous at 11/10/2009 @ 11:34am
The bet the Right and GOP want to make, Extra.
Hoping "short memories" will grant them a pass that they didn't get after ...Herbert Hoover...or Nixon....or Dubya who combines the worst of both.
BTW, again, it's not just Dems who are "careful" once in the majority. The GOP played it "safe" on abortion too (my post above and the "Human Life Amendment's" shunning)...
and after 2005 and Bush's debacle, they backed down from their moves to privatize Social Security and today even claim they want to "protect Medicare and shore it up".
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 12:22pm
Posted by syfriendly at 11/10/2009 @ 09:47am
Nailed it, sy.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:38pm
This is not only a problem in the Catholic church, but with Christian fundamentalism in general - they want to FORCE their point of view on other people whereas accepting particular religious precepts MUST be volitional to be a valid expression of faith.
It is simply unimaginable that Jesus Christ would FORCE one to believe in him.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/10/2009 @ 11:09am
Ultimately, all of this religious fundamentalism we are seeing in America today is actually driving people away from organized religion. The fastest growing religious denomination is "none." That's a fact.
It also explains, per your post, why the fundamentalists are working so hard to get their religious views made into law...as their numbers continue to dwindle.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:41pm
"feminazis like yourself"----Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 09:16am
Next time Larry lies about "never" or "hardly ever" listening to Rush Limbaugh...keep that "term" in mind!
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 09:29am
Indeed.
Much as "assclown" is singular in its proprietariness, "feminazi" is as well.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/10/2009 @ 1:08pm
The term "feminazis" may have been popularized by Limbaugh on talk radio, but it is foolish to beleive he created it. It has been used to describe women displaying thier rabid anti-male feminisim since the 70's long before talkshow motormouths ever began popularizing it.
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 1:38pm
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 1:38pm
You think Larry is a big fan of Tom Hazlett from the Cato Institute, Rio....and THAT's where he got it?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 1:49pm
kevinmichaeldeby's post above reveals the folly of looking to organized religion for support on any issue. You can't invoke its moral authority for one purpose and ignore it on another. The fundamental error is to believe that organized religion possesses some kind of moral authority in the first place. We must constantly struggle against the belief that the good is the handmaiden of the supernatural.
Posted by skokie57 at 11/10/2009 @ 2:09pm
This is not only a problem in the Catholic church, but with Christian fundamentalism in general - they want to FORCE their point of view on other people whereas accepting particular religious precepts MUST be volitional to be a valid expression of faith.
It is simply unimaginable that Jesus Christ would FORCE one to believe in him.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/10/2009 @ 11:09am
what does that have to do with murdering children?
No one is linking anti-abortion belief with proselytizing.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 3:37pm
The term "feminazis" may have been popularized by Limbaugh on talk radio, but it is foolish to beleive he created it. It has been used to describe women displaying thier rabid anti-male feminisim since the 70's long before talkshow motormouths ever began popularizing it.
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 1:38pm
I heard Limbaugh use the term back in the early 90's and thought it appropo for the feminist movement.
I think the term is just as appropriate today as ever.
Certainly an apt comparison can be made between the Nazis and the feminists when it comes to holocausts. However, Hitler (mostly from a lack of time) cannot match the feminazis for the level of killing. After all, the feminazis helped murder 50 million children and counting, making Hitler look like an amateur
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 4:04pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 4:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
how many people have you killed?
Posted by urmygyro at 11/10/2009 @ 4:22pm
Antisocialist
Where are you and the others when it comes to educating, nurturing and supporting these children who you claim to be advocating for? Why is the poverty level among children at a record high? Are you also one of those who votes to decrease funding for education, no child left behind, lunch programs, etc. because it would negatively impact your wallet?
Christianity takes all of the above into account.
If half the time spent picketing was spent in community projects providing assistance and acting as a role model through community organizations, many young people might avoid pregnancy, and a those who choose to have a child would have somewhere to turn for guidance and support.
As to what Bishops have that half the population doesn't? A fly and the desire regain control of an organization they have allowed to decline due to their own lax moral standards and cover-ups.
In the early 1920's, my Catholic grandmother insisted my grandfather use a church-banned condom. While her neighbors ended up with 12 children, she had 4. Her rationale: the Pope didn't feed her kids, she did. Her children all got a college education and went on to raise sensible families of their own.
Posted by mochegal at 11/10/2009 @ 4:43pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 4:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yea, I think secularly legalized abortion by our judiciaries ignorance and that of other governments of the world makes Hitler and Stalins evil accomplishments look pale in comparison. The clueless supporters avoid acknowledging that it arose in the U.S.A. because of Margret Sangers devotion to Eugenics popularized by Nazis Germany, but then truth is always so elusive and easily ignored by those decieved by Satan!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 4:52pm
given the Repubs had majorities in the House (and Senate) from 2003-2006...
why didn't they even hold a Committee vote on the "Human Life Amendment"...part of the GOP platform?
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 11:15am
Having a majority is one thing, having an overwhelming majority is all together in another league....now, show me the Repubs ever had an 80-seat edge in my (longer) lifetime? I' also pretty sure the GOP has never had a 60-seat (or more) delegation in the Senate.
Also, during the time frame you cited, the GOP was busy.....I think it had something to do with some buildings falling down in NYC! It took all the political capital as it were to drag the Dems into the effort.
Like others, I've rebutted you on this before,...this is about the 3rd time!
We grant `person-hood' to artificially created entities (I've got two of them myself).....so, it's time to do the same w/the unborn. Some will want it defined as at conception......you and almost all Libs & Feminazis want it denied until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. Me? I can agree to end of first trimester and if push come to shove to get a deal with maximum buy-in, perhaps as late as mid-term but with absolutely no exceptions!
Posted by Happy at 11/10/2009 @ 5:12pm
Happy-Can you try to come up with better excuses for why the GOP and all of you do nothing?Claiming that there were not enough republicans was lame.Blaming 9/11 and democrats was lame,too.You guys are only interested in placing blame and do not care about the issue as we see from big pasture and antisocialist who compare it to the holocaust while doing nothing,but promoting themselves as superior on a blog..
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/10/2009 @ 5:41pm
Posted by Happy at 11/10/2009 @ 5:12pm |
"...now, show me the Repubs ever had an 80-seat edge in my (longer) lifetime? I' also pretty sure the GOP has never had a 60-seat (or more) delegation in the Senate."
Why would it have needed to be only Pugs? The Stup(id ass)-pak amendment has proven that there are plenty of anti-choice Bluedawgs available.
In light of that proper context, answer Mask's question!
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 6:11pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/10/2009 @ 5:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You explain why if a man in my state causes a woman to abort her child he is a first or second degree murderer, but if the woman and her doctor do the same it is not murder but exercising her right to choose?
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 6:12pm
My wife, who is really religious, was upset by the fact that bishops were in congress committee meetings effecting the outcome of the health care reform bill. I'm a life long catholic, but I find that our present religion is stuck in the late 18th century. I look around in Sunday mass and all see is a sea of purple hair and bald heads. Apparently the church hasn't moved beyond gravity and the the movement of the planets. What happened to the church's , so called fact, that if you died before you were baptized your soul went to limbo. Why does a women have to carry a dead fetus to term? Who told the Pope that life begins at conception. Is a fetus who can't sustain life outside the womb viable life?
Posted by julien38 at 11/10/2009 @ 6:35pm
Antisocialist
Where are you and the others when it comes to educating, nurturing and supporting these children who you claim to be advocating for? Why is the poverty level among children at a record high? Are you also one of those who votes to decrease funding for education, no child left behind, lunch programs, etc. because it would negatively impact your wallet?
Christianity takes all of the above into account.
If half the time spent picketing was spent in community projects providing assistance and acting as a role model through community organizations, many young people might avoid pregnancy, and a those who choose to have a child would have somewhere to turn for guidance and support.
Posted by mochegal at 11/10/2009 @ 4:43pm
On your first paragraph, I'm against all of those things as unconstitutional expenditures and issues that are reserved to the states.
Christianity does not endorse any govt involvement into what are commanded as personal acts.
on the last, our ministry has been feeding the poor and needy and helping with schooling, food, shelter, job training both here and overseas for 50 years.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 7:14pm
back door abortion - posted by Laura Flanders on 11/10/2009 @ 06:44am
Posted by winyahn at 11/10/2009 @ 7:33pm
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 11:17am
I always find it interesting that this discussion doesn't talk about Norplant. If Norplant were generally available and subsidized by government, the abortion issue would be mute - except for the tiny portion of people that thing that hormone based contraceptives are still potentially an "abortion".
Also, as a curiosity point, where do you draw the line on abortion?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/10/2009 @ 1:08pm
Inform the ignorant, who is responsible for assclown? I've only seen it here.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 7:46pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/10/2009 @ 5:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You explain why if a man in my state causes a woman to abort her child he is a first or second degree murderer, but if the woman and her doctor do the same it is not murder but exercising her right to choose?
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 6:12pm
Depends if he's got a medical license or not.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/10/2009 @ 8:37pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/10/2009 @ 1:08pm
Inform the ignorant, who is responsible for assclown? I've only seen it here.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 7:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
That, sir, was introduced to these hallowed pages by none other than Phil McCrevice. Haven't heard from him in a while. The epithet was launched against sjchermak. Can't source it beyond that.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/10/2009 @ 8:40pm
Antisocialist, feminism exists partly because the world's major religions, including evangelical Christianity, are so misogynistic.
Indeed, what is the abortion rate among evangelical and Catholic women? I heard it's very close to the average (1-in-3).
Some people have thought that evanazi is an appropriate term for Evangelicals, especially since their attitudes towards women are almost identical to the Nazis. BTW, Hitler was against abortion.
Posted by ktrig at 11/10/2009 @ 9:02pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 7:14pm </i>
So the idea that institutions matter vanished sometime between Jeremiah and Paul? You have yet to explain to me why individuals have significant responsibility for taking care of the poor, but once you reach the level of political institutions, any such responsibility vanishes. I think it's telling that Jesus never, not ever, not once, repudiated that prophetic tradition of simultaneous individual and social responsibility, nor did he ever suggest that non-Jewish (there was no such thing as Christian during his lifetime on earth) governments were immune from responsibilities not to unfairly burden the poor.
In fact, unless you're prepared to wholly repudiate John the Baptist, a client king whose only connection to Judaism is ethnic still has obligations to adhere to moral commands. If the moral responsibility of government officials isn't conditioned on their being Christian, why would the moral responsibilities of institutions be so conditioned?
For this same reason, I have absolutely no problem with Catholic bishops openly and vehemently speaking their mind about this or any other issue.
Posted by Thrawn at 11/10/2009 @ 9:02pm
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=assclown
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 10:20pm
bigpasture-I have never understood that and cannot explain it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/10/2009 @ 10:35pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 7:14pm </i>
So the idea that institutions matter vanished sometime between Jeremiah and Paul? You have yet to explain to me why individuals have significant responsibility for taking care of the poor, but once you reach the level of political institutions, any such responsibility vanishes. I think it's telling that Jesus never, not ever, not once, repudiated that prophetic tradition of simultaneous individual and social responsibility, nor did he ever suggest that non-Jewish (there was no such thing as Christian during his lifetime on earth) governments were immune from responsibilities not to unfairly burden the poor.
In fact, unless you're prepared to wholly repudiate John the Baptist, a client king whose only connection to Judaism is ethnic still has obligations to adhere to moral commands. If the moral responsibility of government officials isn't conditioned on their being Christian, why would the moral responsibilities of institutions be so conditioned?
For this same reason, I have absolutely no problem with Catholic bishops openly and vehemently speaking their mind about this or any other issue.
Posted by Thrawn at 11/10/2009 @ 9:02pm
I answered this repeatedly. OT scripture on this applied to THEOCRATIC Jewish govts.
Nowhere is there any mention by Jesus or the apostles of having govt involved in caring for the needy.
Cite one verse?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:01am
"as you can see, the Nation wants the catholic church to be CONSISENT. and here, they are not."
Posted by darladoon at 11/10/2009 @ 11:32am
Thats the funny part... the Church *IS* being consistent.
The Church is pro-life in all regards: no death penalty, no abortion, no unnecessary wars (like Iraq), no mistreatment of immigrants. This also means supporting healthcare, education, etc.
It is the Republicans and Democrats who are both inconsistent. One side wants the right to kill foreigners, to kill criminals, and to steal from the middle and lower classes. The other side wants the right to kill what can be defined as nothing else but a HUMAN BABY in the womb who has a heart beat and everything, in the name of "reproductive freedom".
This stuff makes me sick. And the Church is not trying to force religion. It is not trying to create a law that requires everyone to read the Bible and attend church services. It is trying to prevent the funding of what cannot be defined as anything other than murder.
Murder is wrong for all people: Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, WHATEVER.
There is NEVER just reason to purposefully take the life of someone else. And I am a woman--with a Uterus. I'm not being "sexist". I care about all women... including the 2,000 little girls murdered each day in the name of "choice". Including the thousands of women each day who are emotionally scarred and morally corrupted by abortion.
We should be including more healthcare for pregnant women so that they can get the proper care they need and not feel coerced into abortion. We should be giving them more support so they don't feel alone. We shouldn't be handing them money to rip the life from their wombs.
Posted by Trater at 11/11/2009 @ 12:37am
You explain why if a man in my state causes a woman to abort her child he is a first or second degree murderer, but if the woman and her doctor do the same it is not murder but exercising her right to choose? Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 6:12pm |
Because that's how your state legislature wrote the law:
<Homicide does not include legal abortion or instances of death during normal medical, therapeutic or diagnostic testing. A mother shall not be prosecuted for the death of an unborn child unless the death was a result of criminal behavior.>
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 06:01am
Inform the ignorant, who is responsible for assclown? I've only seen it here. Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 7:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
That, sir, was introduced to these hallowed pages by none other than Phil McCrevice. Haven't heard from him in a while. The epithet was launched against sjchermak. Can't source it beyond that. Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/10/2009 @ 8:40pm |
Yeah...Phil called him that and I called him an "asshat" within minutes of each other.
A debate then ensued about which Cherm actually was so Phil and I settled on "assclownhat".
The term is often extended to "no-talent assclown" as in the original usage from "Office Space" when the Michael Bolton character explains the burden of sharing a name with the more famous person of that name:
<There *was* nothing wrong with it... until I was about twelve years old and that no-talent ass clown became famous and started winning Grammys. >
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 06:09am
Posted by Trater at 11/11/2009 @ 12:37am |
How about you people tend to your flock first and leave your vision of morality out of our government?
<According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health data, non-Hispanic Catholic women of childbearing age are 29% more likely than their Protestant counterparts to have abortions. The rate is even higher--33%--if Hispanics are factored in. Catholic women make up 31% of the population and account for 31% of the abortions.>
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ journals/2814096.html
I know they leave our 1st amendment out of your masses, but it is still the law of the land.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 06:19am
This is why I'm an ex-Catholic. The Catholic Church has no business sticking it's government issues....separation of church and state. Furthermore, where do Christians come off thinking it's their right to dictate church doctrine to people who are agnostic, atheists, or of another religion?
The world would be better off without religion, period. John Lennon nailed it in his song Imagine.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/11/2009 @ 07:02am
For those who don't know about the song imagine, here's a link to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okd3hLlvvLw
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/11/2009 @ 07:03am
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:01am |
Many might see a government which doesn't help the needy as 'wicked tenants/husbandmen'.
Matthew 21:45
<When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them.>
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 07:29am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okd3hLlvvLw Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/11/2009 @ 07:03am |
Backatcha, Wolfie!
A slightly darker cover...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dunKAwRN3P8
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 07:35am
To antisocialist
"On your first paragraph, I'm against all of those things as unconstitutional expenditures and issues that are reserved to the states.
Christianity does not endorse any govt involvement into what are commanded as personal acts.
on the last, our ministry has been feeding the poor and needy and helping with schooling, food, shelter, job training both here and overseas for 50 years."
Christ did not say how we should help, whether through the government or not. He set an example as to how we should help, how we should love our fellow man.
Community organizations are not all government run. Many are run by caring, concerned individuals who simply see beyond themselves. Their volunteers come from all walks of life, from all faiths.
It is interesting that in one city, a mayor was able to get both pro-life and pro-choice to work together providing the kind of sustainable support to youth I mentioned. The result: both unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates plummeted. That was a goal both sides wanted.
I noticed you said your church helped. Do you personally participate beyond donating? I challenge you to become a Big Brother or Big Sister to a young person; or to help a young parent who decided to not have an abortion. Your time and effort will help more than that one individual. And if more people take on the challenge, it will help entire communities.
Posted by mochegal at 11/11/2009 @ 07:39am
And the Devo video to which the APC video was an homage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSjKPPKF9L8
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 07:48am
It is simply unimaginable that Jesus Christ would FORCE one to believe in him.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/10/2009 @ 11:09am
Ya, but the right wing wackos have it right, and Jesus didn't know what he was doing. There's no end to doing good in their eyes which should scare the hell out of the rest of the world.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/11/2009 @ 07:49am
A slightly darker cover...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dunKAwRN3P8
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 07:35am
Snowball, Slightly darker?! LOL Man, I'm about ready to slit my wrists after watching that and I was in a pretty good mood to start the day off.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/11/2009 @ 08:00am
And the Devo video to which the APC video was an homage: Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 07:48am
Warriors, come out to play! That was a good flick.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/11/2009 @ 08:07am
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:01am </i>
I'm not denying that you answered this argument. First of all, I don't think your answer was right, so I think this remains an ongoing issue. Second of all, I came into it with an entirely new argument (see the "client king" analysis).
Yes, my analysis here comes from John the Baptist rather than Jesus, and this hardly means I accept every thing JTB says. If you think that JTB's criticism of Herod meant anything, though, I have a hard time seeing how your position can hold since Herod's connection to the Jewish community was almost exclusively ethnic.
Moreover, and this thought literally just struck me, your position works only if every single "justice" component of the OT is limited to theocratic governments. The problem is that there's no way in the world you can read it that way. In fact, remember that in previous discussions, you conceded that the term "righteousness" (which Jesus often used) includes within it the concept of "mishpat" (i.e. justice.) This is absolutely fatal to your position because justice was ALWAYS conceived of as BOTH institution AND individual. They were irreducibly intermingled. Obligations don't go away simply because one chooses not to endorse them anymore, so it's unclear why a government loses the obligation to care for its poor simply because it makes the extremely wise decision not to be theocratic.
Posted by Thrawn at 11/11/2009 @ 09:07am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/11/2009 @ 08:00am |
C'mon...there's laughs galore if you read the scroller along the bottom all the way through.
"....Death Rays: 27....Nooners: 12..."
"...Human Brain Research Scientists at Brown College in MO find that 'What you don't use, you lose'..."
"...When questioned about his 2001 remark that, 'Things would be easier if I was [sic] a dictator', the President reminded them that he is "a uniter not a divider'..."
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 09:09am
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 09:09am
I'll have to watch it again. I need some more java in my system. You know, things suck now, but they suck a hell of a lot less with W and Cheney out of the picture. We'd probably be attacking Iran, North Korea or both about now if they were in power.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/11/2009 @ 09:45am
Posted by Thrawn at 11/11/2009 @ 09:07am
John the Baptist made no charges against Herod Antipas for "failing to care for the people". He charged him with sexual immorality.
Now was HA's connection "merely ethnic". He was the Tetrarch govt of the area of Galilee and Perea
To read a well written paper on Herod Antipas, see the following from professor FF Bruce (a theologian I have long admired and read)
http://tinyurl.com/ycpegwg
As to righteousness and justice- you are again conflating issues involving separate kingdoms; the kingdom of satan, the ruler of this world vs the kingdom of Heaven, ruled by Christ. Our righteousness and justice come from Christ, not govts on this earth.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 10:46am
Posted by Happy at 11/10/2009 @ 5:12pm
Happ, all you need is a SIMPLE MAJORITY on a House Committee to hold a vote and pass a measure, such as a Constitutional Amendment proposal, to be voted on by the full House.
If "protecting the unborn" was (or is) a "winning issue" for Republicans....Dennis Hastert should have AT THE LEAST held that Committee vote, and gotten the "Human Life Amendment" to the full House for a vote, to "embarass pro-abortion Democrats" and rally the nation to the cause of the "pro-lifers".
He didn't.
Why didn't he?
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2009 @ 10:54am
antisocialist-Thrawn isn't conflating issues involving separate kingdoms.Like you,he is expressing an opinion based upon his interpretation of scripture.Since govts consist of individuals one can make the assumption that what applies to the individual applies to the govt.Unfortunately,we do not have enough teachings to arrive at conclusions and can only express opinions when it comes to many topics..
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/11/2009 @ 12:29pm
antisocialist-Thrawn isn't conflating issues involving separate kingdoms.Like you,he is expressing an opinion based upon his interpretation of scripture.Since govts consist of individuals one can make the assumption that what applies to the individual applies to the govt.Unfortunately,we do not have enough teachings to arrive at conclusions and can only express opinions when it comes to many topics..
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/11/2009 @ 12:29pm
Really? Same challenge to you then.
Cite one verse where Jesus or the apostles EVER called for govt involvement in fulfilling our Christian duty as commanded by Jesus in Matthew 25 to help the needy?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:47pm
antisocialist-Unlike,you I'm not a letter of the law type of person and can think beyond what is specifically stated.Like I just said,one can make the argument that since govts consist of individuals then what applies to the individual must apply to the govt.Please,tell us where Jesus said that govts cannot do it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/11/2009 @ 12:53pm
antisocialist-Unlike,you I'm not a letter of the law type of person and can think beyond what is specifically stated.Like I just said,one can make the argument that since govts consist of individuals then what applies to the individual must apply to the govt.Please,tell us where Jesus said that govts cannot do it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/11/2009 @ 12:53pm
Because there is no way that the govt reflects you manifesting Christ in you and ministering unto the needy as unto Christ.
The govt cannot reflect the love of Christ in you
The govt cannot reflect the power of Christ working in you and through you.
There is no personal sacrifice in transferring your responsibility to the govt
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 1:15pm
antisocialist-The govt consists of individual humans and individual humans can reflect Christs love and can reflect the power of Christ working through the individual and,therefore,through the govt...No one said that the individual was supposed to transfer their responsibility to the govt.Life is not one extreme or the other.Individuals outside of the govt can work with individuals in the govt to solve problems.It's called working together.You do what you can do and they do what they can do.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/11/2009 @ 1:22pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 1:15pm
Interesting isn't it how he knows the Government is NOT about "love"...
but IS about killing people in foreign lands as much as possible???
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2009 @ 1:34pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:01am | Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:47pm |
Here it is...a second time...
Many might see a government which doesn't help the needy as 'wicked tenants/husbandmen'.
Matthew 21:45 <When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them.>
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 07:29am |
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 1:37pm
There is no personal sacrifice in transferring your responsibility to the govt Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 1:15pm |
Why can't we expect the same from the government that we expect from ourselves?
Do you not consider the morals of the people for whom you vote with the intention that they will live by them when in office?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 1:40pm
Why can't we expect the same from the government that we expect from ourselves?
Do you not consider the morals of the people for whom you vote with the intention that they will live by them when in office?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 1:40pm
No I don't. I have very low expectations of today's politicians from a moral standpoint. Not because I want low morality, I just don't see much of it in politicians.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 1:50pm
antisocialist-The govt consists of individual humans and individual humans can reflect Christs love and can reflect the power of Christ working through the individual and,therefore,through the govt...No one said that the individual was supposed to transfer their responsibility to the govt.Life is not one extreme or the other.Individuals outside of the govt can work with individuals in the govt to solve problems.It's called working together.You do what you can do and they do what they can do.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/11/2009 @ 1:22pm
No, because it goes against the very core of Christianity. It is about what you PERSONALLY DO in, for, and by the Holy Spirit, which is Christ working in and through you.
You can label it what you want, but it would not be fulfilling the duties Christians have to Christ.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 1:52pm
antisocialist-Your response showed that you paid no attention to what I said.I stated that it's about what you personally do.I just included what those who work for the govt personally do as part of working for the govt. because the govt consists of persons.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/11/2009 @ 1:59pm
antisocialist-With few exceptions,the govt does not pay poor or disabled people enough to live on.Individuals are still needed.A Christian up in Montana bought a B&B that he turned into a place for those of us on low fixed incomes so that we could afford a place to live.Many of us were disabled.He could not have done that act of charity if the govt did not give us those paychecks.He worked with the govt in order to provide a charitable service that he could not have provided without govt assistance.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/11/2009 @ 2:36pm
"No I don't. I have very low expectations of today's politicians from a moral standpoint. Not because I want low morality, I just don't see much of it in politicians."----Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 1:50pm
Now (since I'm on his Ignore this week)...
ask him if Ronald Reagan was a "moral politician"...and watch the caveats fly.
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2009 @ 3:03pm
"How about you people tend to your flock first and leave your vision of morality out of our government? <According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health data, non-Hispanic Catholic women of childbearing age are 29% more likely than their Protestant counterparts to have abortions. The rate is even higher--33%--if Hispanics are factored in. Catholic women make up 31% of the population and account for 31% of the abortions.> http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ journals/2814096.html I know they leave our 1st amendment out of your masses, but it is still the law of the land."
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 06:19am | ignore this person | warn this person
I'm sorry, is "murder is wrong" a tenet that only religious people believe in? Of course, you missed my entire point. Abortion is NOTa religious issue. If abortion is murder, then it is just as wrong as me killing you right now. Since the latter is illegal, the former should be as well.
Check out "atheists for life". Since a fetus is scientifically speaking a human and alive, atheists for life believe abortion is therefore the intentional killing of a human, and hence, MURDER.
I'm not trying to force my "religious beliefs" on people. People can believe in whatever God they want, or believe in no God. Fine. But as a rational human being I don't want to financially support the killing of humans.
And how does "Catholics have abortion" help your point at all? Are Catholics somehow morally perfect? No. And the Church doesn't claim that they are. More likely, these "Catholics" are Catholic only in name, like MOST American Catholics. I can call myself a duck all I want but I don't have feathers and I don't fly.
Posted by Trater at 11/11/2009 @ 3:13pm
Again (and again, yes, I admit it)....
who here thinks there is some "political will" to ban abortions, even from Republicans?
They had the House, Senate, and White House from 2003-2006...and if "the majority of Americans are pro-life"....
why did the "Human Life Amendment" languish in Committee where it had been since first introduced in 1973?
If not....that banning abortion is NOT a majority view-point and smart politicians (Repub and Dem) know it. It's just that the GOP has to SAY they want to do that, to keep pulling the Biggest Political Con-job of the last 40 years?
Posted by Mask at 11/11/2009 @ 3:18pm
There is a difference between banning abortions and funding it.
If my tax dollars are allowed to even indirectly support abortion, then I feel responsible for something I am as morally opposed to as the murdering of born children.
From statistics I've seen lately, the country is split almost equally into the two opinions. There may be a SLIGHT majority of people who think that abortion should be legal, over those who think it should be banned, but even this doesn't mean that they want to fund it.
I know lots of people who are pro-choice not because they think that abortion is acceptable, but because they feel that they can't make that decision for others. They think it should be legal, but that it is a despicable act. These people don't want it banned, but they don't want to fund it either.
I believe that is the sentiment that politicians are picking up on.
Besides, there are some issues that shouldn't be left up to democratic vote. For example, should we have polled the country during the civil war and asked if they wanted Blacks to have equal rights? If we had, blacks would have still been slaves. Sometimes we need to realize that human rights are not subject to democracy. Black people, unborn people, ALL PEOPLE have a right to live no matter what the people of the country think.
I am not a Republican, so I am pleasantly surprised by the Dem's decision. I miss the days when Dems were majority pro-life.
Posted by Trater at 11/11/2009 @ 3:29pm
Posted by Trater at 11/11/2009 @ 3:13pm |
You're building your logic on a shaky edifice.
a) a fetus is not equivalent to a human outside the confines of your club.
b) abortion is not murder...you may feel self-righteous when you abuse terms, but it's not the truth.
c) I am pro-choice, but wouldn't purchase or use abortion coverage
d) preventing people from using THEIR money to purchase coverage including abortion is not FUNDING abortion
e) your tax dollars support killing actual children with predator drones
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 3:43pm
antisocialist-Your response showed that you paid no attention to what I said.I stated that it's about what you personally do.I just included what those who work for the govt personally do as part of working for the govt. because the govt consists of persons.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/11/2009 @ 1:59pm
I understood exactly what you were saying and it still doesn't make it a personal action of your own. That is not how Christianity operates.
If I give to a Christian organization to do good things to help people, that is a good thing. But it doesn't satisfy my requirement to do those things personally.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 3:54pm
"a) a fetus is not equivalent to a human outside the confines of your club."
Scientifically, it IS A HUMAN. Whether or not it is a "person" is another issue. People have always redefined what a person is according to their own prejudice. I believe that anything is a human with its own separate DNA, and is alive is a human person. But the Nazis denied Jews personhood. Whites in America denied Blacks personhood. This has been going on for centuries. Besides, for the record, there are many non-religious people who think that a fetus is a person. Like I said before, "atheists for life" is a actually a growing pro-life "club"
"b) abortion is not murder...you may feel self-righteous when you abuse terms, but it's not the truth."
Ok. Perhaps we are dealing with different definitions of murder. Let me explain mine: the intentional killing of living human. By that definition, abortion is murder. But I'm all ears for your definition. You might want to try and actually give me an argument other than "you're wrong".
"c) I am pro-choice, but wouldn't purchase or use abortion coverage"
Mmmkay.
"d) preventing people from using THEIR money to purchase coverage including abortion is not FUNDING abortion"
But isn't the point that the current legislation was not going to allow people to purchase their own abortion coverage. The other blog going on about this made the point that the coverage was going to allow coverage already built in so that people wouldn't have to "predict" future abortions and buy policies for the future. Doing so would go against the rationale of "unplanned pregnancies"
If taxdollars are subsidizing this insurance overall, wouldn't it be logical that the money could be spread around to different sectors of the coverage where it is needed?
Posted by Trater at 11/11/2009 @ 3:56pm
The unadulterated bogusness of antisocialist's position can be seen with a simple argument.
Government assistance does not interfere with personal charity. Government giving is not a religious obligation, but a civil one. Charity (Tzedakah) is not a civil obligation, but a religious one. You can do both, although he is correct that some people might only acknowledge their civil responsibility and not their religious one, just as he doesn't acknowledge his civic responsibility.
Even when I have this guy on ignore, he still manages to get a lot of responses. I have as much regard for his version of Christianity as he has for mine - which is to say, none.
Posted by Trater at 11/11/2009 @ 3:29pm
I don't know. I think we can all agree that it would be better not to have abortions. So, let's talk about other ways of controlling reproduction, such as Norplant or the use of other contraceptives. Instead of talking about adoptions, where's the arguments for vasectomies and tubal ligation - the same way we control our pet populations?
I'd have a whole lot easier time buying "pro-life" arguments if they had good ways of preventing pregnancies and did not have a large contingent making some version of the "every sperm is sacred" argument. The bottom line is there is a need to control fertility and abortion is what people resort to because we don't have good public policy on controlling fertility.
If we made Norplant available, for free, to every fertile woman in the United States, then you could legitimately question the need for abortions. Until you do that or something similar, abortion is going to continue to be used to control fertility. It's just that simple.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/11/2009 @ 4:02pm
Posted by Trater at 11/11/2009 @ 3:56pm
Abortion insurance coverage? Is that the $350 - $1,000 is costs to get a vasectomy? Because the idea of paying premiums to cover insurance for abortions over the period of fertility has got to be among the stupidest insurance products I ever heard of.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/11/2009 @ 4:08pm
"I don't know. I think we can all agree that it would be better not to have abortions. So, let's talk about other ways of controlling reproduction, such as Norplant or the use of other contraceptives. Instead of talking about adoptions, where's the arguments for vasectomies and tubal ligation - the same way we control our pet populations?"
And there's the problem. We are not pets. Lets not reduce humans to dogs and cats.
I don't want to get into a debate about contraception. But what I don't think most people realize is that contraception never actually solves the problem in the long run. Short term, it sounds good. More contraception equals less pregnancies equals less abortions. But ever since contraception has become more readily available, popular, and affordable, abortions have only increased. Now, I know that doesn't prove a correlation (there could be some outside factor C causing both to increase or it could be coincidence or result of increased population). But the point is that there is no scientific evidence to show that populations with more contraception available will have less abortions. Usually, in the long term, a plethora of contraception leads to three things: 1) a false security and more reckless sexual activity (case in point: many African nations have pushed contraception only to have their HIV rates skyrocket) 2) a devaluing of life, people look at children more and more as "inconveniences" and even "parasites" and 3) the use of abortion as an emergency contraceptive.
Posted by Trater at 11/11/2009 @ 4:21pm
antisocialist-If you work with or for the govt then it does make it something you personally do.Christianity is a religion that does not operate.It is what Christians do that makes Christianity what it is and Christians can and do work with and for the govt in order to do good.
Posted by i'm nobody at 11/11/2009 @ 4:22pm
"as a rational human being I don't want to financially support the killing of humans."
no more war.
the above is the only reasonable thing this poster has said. everything else is positively antedeluvian .
Posted by emile duBois at 11/11/2009 @ 4:36pm
Posted by Trater at 11/11/2009 @ 4:21pm
It's not a question of reducing humans to dogs and cats. It's a question of effective control of fertility. Dogs and cats simply show what is effective. It is precisely the "pro-life" inability to address this issue which makes your position so untenable.
Abortion is a direct consequence of not being able to control fertility. Solve that problem and the abortion issue goes away.
However, I suspect that abortion, isn't only about abortion but a whole host of other issues - such as control of women, producing more believers for particular religious sects, and so forth. It doesn't help you to address the abortion problem through a rational public policy initative that focuses on sterilization and effective long-term contraception like Norplant, because you're trying to accomplish other objectives.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/11/2009 @ 4:40pm
Posted by snowball777 at 11/11/2009 @ 3:43pm
21, Peter Singer, the ethicist at Princeton, is certainly a progressive and he thinks it is impossible to decide when a fetus becomes a human with rights. So he is willing to accept that destroying a human fetus is akin to murder and pro choicers, who use that argument are on the same sort of shaky ground you mention.
He is your ultimate atheistic ethicist who thinks that humans should take their place in the animal kingdom and be culled the same as other animals on the basis of utility. Straight up front and no flimsy pro-choice arguments.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/11/2009 @ 5:12pm
The Democrats have a number of members being investigated for corruption. The FBI is looking into a few. William Jefferson (D-LA) is going to jail. The House Democratic Leadership is blocking other investigations.
Both Murtha and Rangel have issues. But Lynn Woolsey, Chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, that congressional body that takes pride in the Progressive Movement's eugenics experiments and efforts to sterilize black women and the mentally disabled back at the start of the twentieth century, does not want Charlie Rangel and Jack Murtha investigated.
Instead, Lynn Woolsey -- a friend of Speaker Pelosi's -- wants Catholic Bishops investigated. The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy.
They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure. And this political effort was subsidized by taxpayers, since the Council enjoys tax-exempt status.
The take away here is not that a leftist who champions killing babies is upset with a group of men opposed to such barbarity, but that the champion of baby killers thinks it is perfectly legitimate to sick the IRS on the opposition. Because the Bishops operate under §501 of the tax code, they should shut up.
The health care legislation carves out new exceptions in the tax code. Once we are all forced under that legislation, will Lynn Woolsey be able to sick the IRS on us if we dissent? Seems likely. Doctors and health care providers are also on notice. Should you disagree with the government that gives you tax breaks, you must be an enemy combatant!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/11/2009 @ 7:33pm
<i>Posted by lrjones4 at 11/11/2009 @ 5:12pm</i>
This is a gigantic distortion of Peter Singer. He says that killing a fetus is murder only if the criteria is biological. He specifically REJECTS biology as a criterion for personhood, which is why he justified abortion and, to an extent, infanticide.
Posted by Thrawn at 11/11/2009 @ 9:01pm
lrjones4 and gigantic distortion is like the center of the sun and hot.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/11/2009 @ 10:26pm
"This is a gigantic distortion of Peter Singer..."
Posted by Thrawn at 11/11/2009 @ 9:01pm
Thrawn you may be aware that Peter Singer is an Australian who was at Melbourne University. I attended some of his public lectures on animal rights during the 1990s, in which he was tangentially questioned on this specific issue.
I would suggest that it is you who misunderstands the basis of Peter Singer's criticism of the more common pro-choice argument.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:
First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life. Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive. Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.[29]
In his book Rethinking Life and Death Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer argues that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.
Singer at MIT.
Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/12/2009 @ 12:51am
[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.[30]
Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus.
In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood -- "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[31] -- and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[32]
I think Thrawn that Singer is a little more subtle in his pro-abortion argument than you allow. My point made to 777 was that Peter Singer was not a fan of the more common pro-choice argument that wants to arbitrarily restrict personhood to a human fetus until birth. Peter Singer says it's irrelevant.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/12/2009 @ 12:51am
Obviously it is not Singer who thinks abortion is akin to murder but if the second premise is valid ie with reference to when personhood begins (as per Singer) then it is, as anti-choicers argue akin to murder.
In other words Singer does not accept the fetus becoming a person premise at all.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/12/2009 @ 12:58am
On a second reading of your post I was wondering at which point we really differed. His handling of the "three premises" is of course a rejection of biologically determined personhood.
His criterion as already mentioned is the ability of human "preference" which is dependent on rationality, self awareness and autonomy.
How important this is to Singer is shown in the following:
Personhood (Wiki)
"According to Singer, to be ethical, we must treat all "persons" according to moral guidelines. But not all humans are "persons." Singer claims that in order to be "persons" and to deserve moral consideration, beings must be self-aware, and capable of perceiving themselves as individuals through time."
"Singer claims that no newborn infants are "persons." He claims that some people with life-long cognitive disabilities never become "persons" at any time throughout their lives. And he claims that some people who acquire cognitive disabilities through injury, Alzheimer's Disease, or other means cease to be persons."
"Singer says that killing a "non-person," even if it is human, does not carry the same moral weight as killing a "person." "
The other reference I made was to some sort of Singer animal continuum that includes humans. Though Singer sees human rights as being different from animal rights he says this:
In Animal Liberation, Singer argues against what he calls speciesism: discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. He holds the interests of all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration, and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their species is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color.
Thus there is a connection through the use of analogous criteria to establish animal rights
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/12/2009 @ 02:12am
....His handling of the ("three premises")... should read "two premises".
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/12/2009 @ 03:36am
What the bishops have is a another party-the threat that they will back Republicans.
Women activists who have become essentially yellow dog democrats have no leverage in the Democratic Party because they have bought into the belief that they have no political choice but to support the Democratic Party. Kind of ironic, that women who profess to believe in choice have limited their own political choices.
When groups like Naral and and Ivy League "feminists" turned against the female candidate in the primary, the handwriting was on the wall.
The political parties, all currently male-dominated, have successfully divided and conquered women.
In order to rebuild it is necessary to stop demonizing women who are not aligned with with the Democratic Party, to stop choosing male Democratic Party candidates over female Democratic candidates, and to start nurturing pro-choice female Republican candidates. So long as our numbers in Congress stand at 17%, our country has dismal prospects for women; and dismal prospects in general.
Posted by terisan at 11/12/2009 @ 08:14am
Posted by terisan at 11/12/2009 @ 08:14am | ignore this person | warn this person
oh yes, the repugs have been sooo nurturing towards women. sure. whattacrock.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/12/2009 @ 12:26pm
Posted by terisan at 11/12/2009 @ 08:14am |
Yeah...your plan worked wonders for Scozzafava.
Tell it to the TeaBaggers.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/12/2009 @ 4:30pm