Submitted in comments by Peggy
Peggy this exposes the fawning media alliance with the Democrat Party too. Keep em coming!
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
^5’s Peggy for helping to keep it real!
Yes, I know. It is not only sad but very scary to see the extreme measures the truth is not only being distorted but silenced by lies of omission.
Ill keep them coming, because with all the billions of free media coverage being given to Obama and the Progressives to reach millions, the internet and alternative media sources are our only way to present the truth, the facts and the conservative & independent side of the issues.
Im having a hard time understanding how people who know better can continue to spread these lies. Do they have no conscience?!!
This video I posted the other day to the article about birth control is even more disturbing.
This video may shock some and clarify for the rest of us the basis on which Obamas agenda is founded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28
Another take on the causes of high gas prices:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203918304577241623995642182.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
Good article that nailed the cause of our high gas problem and who is responsible.
I hadn’t thought about how the QEs would also cause an increase in the cost because of the decreased value of the US dollar, which is used for the oil trade.
Peggy … he’s the President … a Democratic President. Had you forgotten? Everything he says in public (and if he’s not careful, in private) gets reported.
Libby, So? There are even more cameras following around every Republican candidate too, but the facts either aren’t being reported or the reporters turn into commentators and give their biased spin.
The point is these videos and information are NOT being covered in the MSM. Obama said these things. Where are the MSM reports exposing it? Show me one video of the MSM covering it, just one. I’ll bet they don’t exist because the MSM is tainted with progressive liberalism.
Here’s another one of Hillary Clinton telling Arab students republicans are a bunch of liers and to only believe what Obama says. Or did she just give us an insight to her own honesty when she was a candidate.
==========
Clinton to Muslims: Pay No Attention to GOP Campaign Talk
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience of Arab students in Tunisia on Saturday to not pay any attention to the rhetoric and comments made by the Republican candidates vying for President Barack Obamas job, saying their rhetoric does not reflect U.S. policy.
According to CNN, Clintons remarks came in response to a question from a Tunisian student in the audience who asked about the pro-Israel stance of nearly every American politician Democrat or Republican when they run for office.
You will learn as your democracy develops that a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention, Clinton said. There are comments made that certainly dont reflect the United States, dont reflect our foreign policy, dont reflect who we are as a people. If you go to the United States you see mosques everywhere, you see Muslim Americans everywhere. Thats the fact. So I would not pay attention to the rhetoric.
I would say watch what President Obama says and does. Hes our president. He represents all of the United States, Clinton added, saying she was surprised people in Tunisia and other countries pay more attention to what is said in our political campaigns than most Americans.
She also predicted Obama will win a second term in the fall.
He will be re-elected president, Clinton said. I think that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values area and what our president believes.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/clinton-to-muslims-pay-no-attention-to-gop-campaign-talk/
For myself, I don’t really care if Obama is Muslim or not.
(In my humble opinion there are plenty of fine, reasoned, and courageous American Muslims. Admittedly they are a small minority compared to the vast majority of xenophobic zealots who seek to bring the horrid, cruel, bloody, intolerant, misanthropic, misogynistic, pedophiliac, homophobic, and more medieval than medieval Sharia to American jurisprudence, but they do exist.)
When Obama goofed up in the infamous George Stephanopolis interview I came to the following conclusion: Barack Obama has no religious faith other than what he thinks politically expedient at the moment. With the exception of an ingrained proclivity for Islam that he was indoctrinated with in his childhood, religion for him is mere window dressing.
I do not fear Obama’s Muslim affinity. I fear him because he is a fool. I fear him because he has a foolish Marxist/Statist/Centralized/Authoritarian government agenda. I fear him because he insulates himself inside a fortress of like thinking schleps whose collective political and diplomatic acumen is more or less on the intellectual level of Bill Ayers, Noam Chomsky, Jeremiah Wright, and Pee Wee Herman.
Well said Pie, your thoughts pretty much mirror my own. -Jack
Libby, you said: e’s the President … a Democratic President. Had you forgotten? Everything he says in public (and if he’s not careful, in private) gets reported.
I would have to disagree. There really is a strong leftwing bias over what gets reported and what doesn’t. Since 87% of reporters in the MSM fall into the liberal category we can safely assume this considerable bias that plays to Obama’s advantage. But, we actually don’t have to assume. A number of studies confirm it. The news treats the GOP much differently than the democrats.
Peggy, you never responded to the question I asked after you posted that video on the other article. Where in the Koran is it mandated that women should receive free birth control in their health insurance plans?
OK, to be fair, that was a joke question, but you know what I’m getting at. I seriously want to know why you thought it was valid to draw a connection between President Obama’s policy on contraception, and some statements that you believe indicate he is a secret Muslim. What on earth does one thing have to do with another? I am genuinely curious. Please explain, because I don’t get it.
Chris: The reason I didnt respond to you before because I too thought what you said was a joke.
I went back to find my remarks about the video and didnt find any remarks made by me about Obama being a Muslim. Here is the earlier exchange and below is my response.
Peggy | February 23, 2012 12:21 PM | Reply
This video may shock some and clarify for the rest of us the basis on which Obamas agenda is founded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28
Chris | February 23, 2012 6:52 PM | Reply
Jack, I’d say that this is a separate but related question to whether or not employers can deny contraception coverage to their employees. While I’m not sure I agree with the judge’s ruling in this case, I also think that an employer denying coverage creates a bit more of a hardship to a person than a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription. It’s probably easier for most people to find another pharmacist than it is to find another job.
I also think that someone who objects to dispensing emergency contraceptives probably shouldn’t become a pharmacist in the first place.
Peggy, I was unaware that Muslims believed so strongly in providing easy access to contraception for women! Doesn’t really fit with what some other Republicans have told me about that faith, but thanks for defying the stereotype. Is the commandment for women to have free contraception in their healthcare plans actually in the Koran? Or is it one of the lesser known hadiths?
Wait, I found it: “And the woman shall be governess of her own body, and damned are those who try to impose their wills upon her. Also, Planned Parenthood rocks!” –The Prophet Mohammed, Peace be Upon Him
So, Ill answer your question now. I dont know what faith Obama believes in or even if he actually does. Whatever it is is between him and his god.
If he is a Christian his beliefs are different than those I was raised with. Ive never been a Catholic, or a Mormon, or a Jew, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim so I cant address all of the differences or similarities. I do know some religions believe in the same god and others acknowledge that while Christ did exist but He is not the son of God, as I do.
My gut feeling about Obamas faith is, I dont think hes decided what faith he believes in. The video shows hes been schooled in the Muslim faith, I read he also attended a church in Hawaii with very different teachings and then he attended Jeremiah Wrights church for over 20 years, but cant remember what was said in the sermons.
The actions he took that I object to is his telling the Catholic church how to conduct their business, which violates their beliefs. It has nothing to do with birth control, it has everything to do with the government controlling a religious institution or even an individual of faith.
Remember last year when some group tried to stop male babies in San Francisco from being circumcised and the Jewish faith people had to stand up and fight for their beliefs? Different yes, but very similar because in both someone tried to take away anothers religious beliefs. If just one religion is stripped of their beliefs all religions are at risk. Do we force the Amish to change their ways because. Just because? Where does it stop?
If Obamas a Muslim I dont care. I really dont. I just wish hed say so and stop saying hes a Christian if hes not. But, since he says hes a Christian I accept his word. Its not up to me or anyone else to determine his faith.
Did I answer your question? If not Ill summarize. I never said Obama was a Muslim and this is not about birth control. Its about religious institutions and people of faith being able to live with their beliefs and not having the government or anyone force them to change.
Peggy, by posting that video and writing that it may “clarify for the rest of us the basis on which Obamas agenda is founded,” you were clearly trying to imply that Obama’s agenda is founded on Islam. I don’t see how you can deny this.
You can say that you don’t know for sure what Obama’s religion is, but you are still intentionally trying to cast doubt on his religious beliefs. I don’t think that’s right or fair, Peggy, and I don’t think you’d like having it done to you.
“Remember last year when some group tried to stop male babies in San Francisco from being circumcised and the Jewish faith people had to stand up and fight for their beliefs?”
I do remember this. The group was run by some virulently anti-semitic people, which really hurt their credibility.
That said, I do have concerns about male circumcision, and the rights of babies who are having an irreversible and unnecessary surgery performed on them before they are able to consent. Obviously male circumcision is nowhere near as harmful as female circumcision, but there are men who report that they have experienced harm and loss of certain functions due to this procedure. I know that this practice is based on a deeply held religious belief, but there seems to be a conflict of rights here. If we accept that body parts should not be cut off of non-consenting people without a very compelling reason, than I think we need to reconsider this practice. However, I don’t think outlawing the procedure is going to win any hearts and minds any time soon–this is a change that needs to come from within.
The point to be made about circumcision is that it is a parental decision. The state, in this case the city or county, has no business inserting itself between parent and child.
Health benefits have outweighed any concerns about “harm and loss of certain functions” (I’d like some reliable medical evidence of this before I’d even consider it) for many years. The procedure is being used in Africa as valuable against the spread of AIDS.
Babies have rights now?
Parents have the legal obligation and right to decide for their children and it should remain so.
Chris, “Peggy, by posting that video and writing that it may “clarify for the rest of us the basis on which Obamas agenda is founded,” you were clearly trying to imply that Obama’s agenda is founded on Islam. I don’t see how you can deny this.
You can say that you don’t know for sure what Obama’s religion is, but you are still intentionally trying to cast doubt on his religious beliefs. I don’t think that’s right or fair, Peggy, and I don’t think you’d like having it done to you.”
I really wish you would quit trying to tell me what I believe, and how I should think and feel. I have clearly stated in my other post that I do not care what color someones skin is or what they believe.
Remember I was born and raised in the military and lived in other countries and had friends of every race. My childhood upbringing has contributed to my being very tolerant of others, but I also believe I have my rights too and I expect them to be honored. So, your constantly telling me I am wrong is very disrespectful.
I accept and respect you for what you believe, because it is a part of who you are. Please, allow me the same courtesy.
Let me try one more time to clarify my view on this. None of us can possibly know for sure what Obama believes, because we do not have access to his thoughts. We only have what he has said, and each of us will interpret those words based on our own personal beliefs. If he says he a Christian NOW, I and all of us have to accept it because HE believes it. Some individuals may question him because he doesnt believe the same as we do, but those individuals are wrong, because we should not be judgmental of others.
Many people have changed over their life time to embrace different beliefs and values. Protestants like Gengrich become Catholics, Jews become Christians, Christians become Budhist, and Muslims become Christians. Everyone of these individuals will believe differently. If youve ever attended a Bible study class you know discussions occurs over different interpretations of passages all the time.
Is it possible that Obama current Christian beliefs are based on his passed Muslim teaching? Yes. Will we ever know? Probably not. He is who he is and all we can go on are his CURRENT words and actions.
Uncircumcised adult males also have a very high recurrence of yeast infections, which is transmitted back and forth with their partners. A close friends husband went through the procedure as a 40 year old and suffered really bad.
Babies outside of the uterus have rights, but inside do not. Parental rights should always trump the state, but we know this isn’t true any more when parents are not informed their under-aged daughter was given a state funded abortion.
I’m having a hard time following the thought process of the inconsistancies.
Tina: “Babies have rights now?”
Is this intended as sarcasm directed at my pro-choice stance? If so, it fails, because my position that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy is in no way at odds with my belief that born babies have human rights.
“The point to be made about circumcision is that it is a parental decision. The state, in this case the city or county, has no business inserting itself between parent and child.”
We don’t allow parents to do anything to their child they want, Tina, nor should we. Do you also believe that female circumcision should be a parental decision? Like I said, the two are not exactly equivalent, but your argument is too general to be convincing. Of course the state has an interest in inserting itself between parent and child in certain cases.
But like I said, even though I do think this is a men’s rights issue, I still don’t think it would be fruitful for the government to get involved in it, so I don’t see the point in arguing over it any further.
Peggy:
“I really wish you would quit trying to tell me what I believe, and how I should think and feel.”
That’s not what I’m doing, Peggy. I’m taking issue with words that you wrote on a public forum. The only logical interpretation of what you wrote earlier, posted in tandem with that video, was that Obama’s agenda is motivated by Islam. You are now saying that this is not what you meant to imply. I may find that hard to believe, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you are being honest. However, that means you made a mistake in writing what you did earlier. As the saying goes, “It may not have been what you meant, but it’s what you said.”
“So, your constantly telling me I am wrong is very disrespectful.”
It’s disrespectful to tell someone that they are wrong?
“Babies outside of the uterus have rights, but inside do not.”
Peggy, are you criticizing this position, or are you saying this is how it should be?
Personally, I think that the unborn may have the same rights as born people. But born people don’t have the right to occupy another person’s body against their will. So I do not think abortion violates the rights of the unborn.
“Parental rights should always trump the state, but we know this isn’t true any more when parents are not informed their under-aged daughter was given a state funded abortion.”
Where are there “state-funded abortions?”
“I’m having a hard time following the thought process of the inconsistancies.”
I have to concur.
Chris: “Is this intended as sarcasm directed at my pro-choice stance?”
It was sarcasm but it was not directed toward anyone. I just find it interesting that babies have right when it suits.
“We don’t allow parents to do anything to their child they want…”
Parents aren’t “doing” anything to their child! The procedure is professionally done by a doctor (unless you happen to be Jewish in which case it is done by the rabbi).
“Do you also believe that female circumcision should be a parental decision…”
No I do not but we both know the purpose for female circumcision has nothing to do with health.
“your argument is too general to be convincing…”
Hardly! I hit two very serious points. One having to do with health and the other having to do with parental authority regarding the health of their newly born boy children.
“even though I do think this is a men’s rights issue, I still don’t think it would be fruitful for the government to get involved in it.
Glad to here it. I have to say once again the word “rights” is overused. The medical procedure is a choice rather than a right. parents can also choose not to have their child circumsized. It would be difficult to argue that a baby boy has the maturity or level of responsibility required to make an adult decision for himself.
This is why mothers and fathers are important in a babies (persons) life. One day as a father you might understand that nobody loves a child more than his blood parents. Nobody is more concerned with the welfare of a child than his blood parents. (I know there are exceptions so don’t bother to go there…there are even more exceptions since god and morality have been compromised and replace by state authority ans selfish interests)
Please, if you will Chris, explain what you mean by this:
Are you saying that in pregnancy a person, fetus, baby, potential human, or whatever is occupying the body of another against her will?
I hope this article will help change the minds of those who believe aborting a fetus and killing a baby is ok. A human being exist whether its eight weeks old in the womb, or 80 years old in a elder care facility and does have a right to live.
==========
Ethicists Argue Killing Newborn Babies Should Be Allowed
Shocking reminder that eugenicist beliefs underpin medical establishment,
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
A paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that abortion should be extended to make the killing of newborn babies permissible, even if the baby is perfectly healthy, in a shocking example of how the medical establishment is still dominated by a eugenicist mindset
The authors argue that both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, and that because abortion is allowed even when there is no problem with the fetus health, killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
The fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant, the authors claim, arguing that adoption is not a reasonable counter-argument because the parents of the baby might be economically or psychologically burdened the process and the mother may suffer psychological distress. How the mother could not also suffer psychological distress by having her newborn baby killed is not explained.
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal, the authors write.
Read full article here:
http://www.infowars.com/ethicists-argue-killing-newborn-babies-should-be-allowed/
I too am confused about what Chris means. How can a born person occupy another person’s body?
“Please, if you will Chris, explain what you mean by this:
…born people don’t have the right to occupy another person’s body against their will. So I do not think abortion violates the rights of the unborn.”
Here is another disturbing article stating newborn killing should be called, “after-birth abortion.”
=========
Ethicists Argue in Favor of After-Birth Abortions as Newborns Are Not Persons
“Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.
Alberto Giubilini (Photo: Academia.edu)
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term after-birth abortion as opposed to infanticide. Why? Because it [emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which abortions in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/
Tina: “It was sarcasm but it was not directed toward anyone. I just find it interesting that babies have right when it suits.”
When it suits? I think “after they’re born” is a pretty solid, if not perfect, barometer for when people have rights or not.
“Parents aren’t “doing” anything to their child! The procedure is professionally done by a doctor (unless you happen to be Jewish in which case it is done by the rabbi).”
This is splitting hairs. My point is that people have certain rights to control their bodies. Cutting off a body part of another human being without their consent seems wrong to me. I don’t think that’s a decision that should be made by a parent unless it’s absolutely necessary. Take religion and tradition out of the question for a second and think about it from a different perspective. Circumcision is a painful elective surgery that comes with potential risks as well as potential benefits.
This page has some interesting arguments both for and against:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversies#Genital_integrity
“No I do not but we both know the purpose for female circumcision has nothing to do with health.”
True, which is why I said they are not ethically the same. But the rights issue still plays into both scenarios.
“Glad to here it. I have to say once again the word “rights” is overused. The medical procedure is a choice rather than a right.”
You really don’t think that people don’t have the right to control their own bodies?
“It would be difficult to argue that a baby boy has the maturity or level of responsibility required to make an adult decision for himself.”
Tina, that’s exactly my point. The baby boy cannot consent to this procedure. If you ask me, men should have the right to wait until they are old enough to decide whether to have this procedure done on themselves.
“This is why mothers and fathers are important in a babies (persons) life. One day as a father you might understand that nobody loves a child more than his blood parents.”
Tina, I do understand that, and I’m not trying to say that parents do this out of malice. They genuinely believe they are doing the right thing for their child. However, many other parents opt out of this procedure specifically because they believe it is wrong to impose the decision on their child against their will. I don’t have the stats to show it, but I would bet that the decision not to circumcise is being made more and more for such reasons.
Some men grow up and resent their parents for circumcising them. Some men experience loss of function due to the procedure. They feel as if they were robbed of something against their will by their parents. Personally, I am not one of these men, but I can sympathize with those who do feel this way and I think it should be their (rather, our) decision.
Like I said, I wouldn’t use the government to stop people from circumcising their children, but mostly because I think it would be ineffective to attempt this. I do think that humans have the moral right to make such decisions for themselves when they are old enough, and that parents are wrong to make this choice for them, even though they are doing it out of sincere and deeply held beliefs. But I think this is a realization that people have to come to within their own churches, synagogues, and communities.
“Please, if you will Chris, explain what you mean by this:
…born people don’t have the right to occupy another person’s body against their will. So I do not think abortion violates the rights of the unborn.
Are you saying that in pregnancy a person, fetus, baby, potential human, or whatever is occupying the body of another against her will?”
If the woman wants to abort and the government is preventing her from doing so, then yes, that is exactly the situation. I hope you don’t think I’m implying that the fetus is acting wrongly against the woman or doing anything consciously. I’m just stating a fact.
People don’t have the right to use another person’s body against their will. If I’m dying, and you are the only person in the world who can give me a kidney in order to keep me alive, it would be great if you gave me your kidney. But you shouldn’t be compelled by the government to do so; it’s your body, and you have the right to say no, even though it would lead to my death. You may be a callous and insensitive person to do so, but it’s still your right.
Likewise for abortion. The only way out of this that I see is if you argue that fetuses have special rights that born people do not have, and that these rights override the bodily autonomy of the mother. I don’t find that argument that convincing, but I think it’s the best pro-life argument I’ve heard.
Peggy,
Those articles are very disturbing, but the opinions of those so-called “ethicists” are certainly on the fringe. Our society allows abortion because of the belief in a woman’s bodily autonomy. Killing a baby after it has survived a botched abortion has nothing to do with a woman’s bodily autonomy; the baby is already out, and clearly has the right to live without conflicting with the mother’s rights at all. I full-throatedly oppose the illegal practice of infanticide. To be honest, it makes me want to vomit. But I don’t see this position ever getting any kind of mainstream approval.
Chris, Good, I’m glad we agree on something. I only posted them, as horrible as they were, so others would be aware of what is going on in other countries so it would, hopefully, not ever happen here.
Chris: “When it suits? I think “after they’re born” is a pretty solid, if not perfect, barometer for when people have rights or not.”
Ahhh, but the problem is they cannot speak for themselves and so must depend on their parents to make responsible decisions on their behalf. This also happens to be true for babies in the womb. Which is why I wrote…”when it suits”. An awful lot of people don’t give any consideration to the right of a child to live or be born.
“Cutting off a body part of another human being without their consent seems wrong to me. I don’t think that’s a decision that should be made by a parent unless it’s absolutely necessary.”
Who would you have make the decision if not the parents?
“You really don’t think that people don’t have the right to control their own bodies?”
I know that an infant doesn’t have the ability to make the choice for himself. (Because of that this discussion is beginning to be surreal).
“If you ask me, men should have the right to wait until they are old enough to decide whether to have this procedure done on themselves.”
If you have a son you will get to make that choice for him.
” Personally, I am not one of these men, but I can sympathize with those who do feel this way and I think it should be their (rather, our) decision.”
I have heard of men that had to have it done later in life and wished it had been done at birth because it’s quite painful. That is my point…a parent cannot possibly know the future. In the end it’s a personal choice and you do what you believe is right.
“If the woman wants to abort and the government is preventing her from doing so, then yes, that is exactly the situation. I hope you don’t think I’m implying that the fetus is acting wrongly against the woman or doing anything consciously. I’m just stating a fact.”
In your mind you may be stating a fact. In my mind it’s an opinion.
Chris why would you mind if I thought that you thought that the fetus was “acting wrongly” when you don’t bother to give it personhood? How can a thing act wrongly? How can a thing act unconsciously?
This makes me so sad. I don’t mean this personally toward you, Chris, but generally toward the state of humankind in this day and age. We no longer revere life. We have taught the younger generation that life means NOTHING…that the self is all important. Personal gratification and the ability to continue being persoanlly gratified is more important that a life.
“The only way out of this that I see is if you argue that fetuses have special rights that born people do not have, and that these rights override the bodily autonomy of the mother.”
Before 1965 people would never have had such a thought. Desperate, weak women sometimes chose to try to abort themselves or to seek what they called a back alley abortion BUT most didn’t do that because they thought it immoral. They thought of it as killing the baby inside of them. So most women (girls) had the baby and gave it up for adoption or they kept it. It’s only in the last fewvdecades that we have changed the language to justify what’s being done.
Chris as you mature I hope you will give some thought to this.
“But I don’t see this position ever getting any kind of mainstream approval.”
In 1965 abortion was going to be be safe, legal and RARE! They would be performed only in the first six weeks. Everyone believed women would “do the right thing” and not behave irresponsibly; mostly in cases of rape or if the baby was severely deformed.
A little over forty years later and it’s a abhortion is a form of birth control. A womans right to be free of the “intrusion” trumps all responsibility she has to the baby. Don’t be so sure that in a few more decades hearts won’t have grown even colder.
Tina: “Ahhh, but the problem is they cannot speak for themselves”
Exactly, which is why this procedure shouldn’t be done to a child. The child has no way of consenting to having a part of his body removed.
“Who would you have make the decision if not the parents?”
You don’t seem to be understanding what I’m saying at all. The child’s foreskin should be left alone until he has grown old enough to make the decision for himself.
“I know that an infant doesn’t have the ability to make the choice for himself. (Because of that this discussion is beginning to be surreal).”
Maybe it seems surreal to you because male circumcision is so rarely questioned in society; most people probably aren’t even aware that this is controversial among some people. My point is, the choice to circumcise should not be made by anyone except the person in possession of the foreskin. Because children cannot make such a choice themselves, they should be given the opportunity to wait until they are old enough to make such a decision. It isn’t morally right to make a decision like that for your child unless there is some kind of emergency that requires it. That doesn’t mean that parents who do so are bad people, though. They are following traditions that have existed for thousands of years, traditions they believe are just. Old habits die hard, as they say.
I understand the reasons parents make this choice. At the risk of TMI, my own parents made this choice for me, and until recently I never questioned it. But after considering the issue I do think that it’s wrong.
“If you have a son you will get to make that choice for him.”
And I think that is a messed up situation. It shouldn’t be up to me as a father to cut off a body part of my son without his consent. Heck, I’m not even comfortable with parents getting their two-year-olds’ ears pierced! Let them get older and then let them decide.
“I have heard of men that had to have it done later in life and wished it had been done at birth because it’s quite painful.”
So it’s better to inflict pain on an unwilling child then a willing adult? Just because one won’t remember the pain when they get older does not make it better, from my moral point of view.
“In your mind you may be stating a fact. In my mind it’s an opinion.”
What is non-factual about saying that if a woman is pregnant and wants to abort, the fetus is occupying her body against her will? How is that merely an opinion?
“Chris why would you mind if I thought that you thought that the fetus was “acting wrongly” when you don’t bother to give it personhood? How can a thing act wrongly? How can a thing act unconsciously?”
Tina, I have not taken the position that a fetus is a mere “thing.” I know that many pro-choicers do take this approach and claim that a fetus is not a person, has no rights whatsoever, and I have told you before that I think this is a bad and unprovable argument.
My argument is that there is a conflict of rights between the mother’s bodily autonomy and the fetus’ right to life. I made this clear in my kidney donation example, which I think is the best pro-choice argument out there, and which you did not respond to.
“Before 1965 people would never have had such a thought. Desperate, weak women sometimes chose to try to abort themselves or to seek what they called a back alley abortion BUT most didn’t do that because they thought it immoral. They thought of it as killing the baby inside of them. So most women (girls) had the baby and gave it up for adoption or they kept it. It’s only in the last fewvdecades that we have changed the language to justify what’s being done.”
Tina, you’re not really responding to my argument here. I agree with you that abortion is sad, but you’re not addressing the conflict of rights that exists when a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy.
“Chris as you mature I hope you will give some thought to this.”
I’ve given a lot of thought to it already, Tina, but I will continue to do so.
“A little over forty years later and it’s a abhortion is a form of birth control.”
I hate this line. 98-99% of women use birth control. That far eclipses the percentage of women who have abortions. This statement is also ironic when you consider that your party fights against measures to make birth control easier to get, measures which actually reduce the abortion rate. The Guttmacher Institute found that abortion hit record lows in 2008, and attributed this to increased use of contraception.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-teen-pregnancy-idUSTRE8171J020120208
Meanwhile, one of the most (if not THE most) popular presidential candidates among Republicans today says that he will use his platform to do something that no president has done before: lecture people about the evils of contraception.
Santorum: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, thats OK; contraception is OK. Its not OK. Its a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/15/rick-santorum-and-contraception-conservatism/
Of course, the reason no president has talked about this issue before might be because they realized it’s totally inappropriate. Santorum says he would not use his power to ban contraception, but he would use the bully pulpit to discourage its use. But less people using contraception would only lead to more abortions. You should seriously consider that while evaluating Santorum’s candidacy, Tina.
Chris I don’t have time now to answer in full right now and may not get back to this for some time.
I understand your position about male persons having the opportunity to decide later in life.
Unless you are willing to create a law, which you say you aren’t in favor of, how do you propose making this happen?
Chris my schedule changed and I have a few minutes so I will continue.
“So it’s better to inflict pain on an unwilling child then a willing adult?”
I’m not saying its better or worse. I am only saying the person who is legally charged with making the decision is the parents. That is the way it is at least for now and you and I don’t get to say how someone else should choose. I wouldn’t want to.
“What is non-factual about saying that if a woman is pregnant and wants to abort, the fetus is occupying her body against her will?”
Unless she was raped (I was speaking in more general terms) there is only one way for the fetus (baby) to grow in her body. She put it there!!!!!!!!! To say another (the baby) has occupied “against her will” is a fiction, it is non-factual.
“My argument is that there is a conflict of rights between the mother’s bodily autonomy and the fetus’ right to life. I made this clear in my kidney donation example, which I think is the best pro-choice argument out there, and which you did not respond to.”
Sorry…it was unintentional. The difference for me is that a kidney is not a person. if I donate a kidney I still get to live. Also this position doesn’t quite square with your argument about circumcision. Shouldn’t the baby have a chance at life that is denied if a mother chooses abortion? At least the parent of a boy is trying to do the best thing for the child. abortion terminates life.
“…you’re not addressing the conflict of rights that exists when a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy.”
That’s because for me abortion is not a right. Pregnancy is an obligation to bring forth a new life. This is why sex needs to be better understood in terms of its biological purpose and the grave responsibility that follows when pregnancy occurs. We’ve been treating it like a recreational drug that has no purpose beyond pleasure and no consequences. We have an awful lot of blood on our hands for pretending that the new life created at conception is a minor inconvenience that can be easily flushed.
“98-99% of women use birth control.”
They also don’t use it consistently. Also, the only method that works 100% of the time is abstinance. I don’t expect ev everyone to hold the same views about sex before marriage; I do expect them to be more responsible and do the right thing by the baby. I think that is the only moral choice.
“…your party fights against measures to make birth control easier to get, measures which actually reduce the abortion rate.”
This is a very misleading statement. Birth control is available to anyone that wants it. There are drugstores on every corner that carry condoms. The diaphram is fairly inexpensive and when coupled with a condom should work if always used. The rhythm method and a condom should work most of time if people are careful to keep track. There are other ways to give and receive pleasure.
Republicans fight FOR personal responsibility. We ask that people arrange their lives so that if they need birth control they can pay for it. We ask that they act like adults regarding adult behavior. We fight FOR parental authority. It isn’t easier to ask fellow citizens to be responsible Chris, but it is, in my opinion, better for society in general.
“…he will use his platform to do something that no president has done before: lecture people about the evils of contraception.
Saying he will talk about the subject honestly doesn’t mean he will lecture people. That is a knee jerk description of what he has said. (And I think an effort to demonize him).
Young people are being encouraged to be totally irresponsible regarding sex. It’s not just that they are taught about the use of condoms in school. In society they are inundated with sexual images. Our society has made sexuality identity. The use of condoms (a quick fix that makes everything okay) is not just a measure to prevent pregnancy it is a license to behave without care or thought.
There are medical issues associated with birth control pills as well and I think some of those concerns are something that Santorum was talking about. Giving a young developing girl birth control pills may not be the best thing for her future health.
Gotta go.
Tina, I don’t really have a specific proposal, other than spreading information about the possible risks of the procedure and getting people to think about it from a perspective they might not have considered before. I don’t think it should be a political or legal issue, and I wouldn’t be happy to hear any politician, left or right, bring it up; it’s just not their place. The group who tried to pass that law in San Francisco probably did more damage to their cause than anything, not only because they were total anti-Semites, but because making it a legal issue would have been a bad idea no matter what. It created a divisive, threatening image that put a lot of people on the defensive. I think the only way people are going to change their minds on this issue is with a lot of careful consideration.
Tina: “Unless she was raped (I was speaking in more general terms) there is only one way for the fetus (baby) to grow in her body. She put it there!!!!!!!!! To say another (the baby) has occupied “against her will” is a fiction, it is non-factual.”
No, what you’re saying here makes no sense. Even if a woman consents to sex, an unwanted pregnancy is still an unwanted pregnancy.
Consider these two statements:
1. I am pregnant, and I want to have an abortion, but the government will not let me.
2. The government is forcing me to allow a fetus to occupy my body against my will.
These two statements mean exactly the same thing, Tina. They are just phrased differently.
“Sorry…it was unintentional. The difference for me is that a kidney is not a person. if I donate a kidney I still get to live.”
You’re still not getting the analogy? The kidney is not being compared to the fetus; the person who needs the kidney is being compared to the fetus. By saying that the government can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, you are not simply saying that a fetus has the right to life–a position I actually agree with–you are saying that a fetus has a special right, one that born people do not have: the right to use another person’s body in order to stay alive. And you’re saying that their right to use their mother’s body trumps the mother’s right to bodily autonomy in the special instance of pregnancy.
If that’s what you believe, that’s fine; I don’t agree, but I see the logic to it. But you should come out and say that’s what you believe, so that I know what I’m arguing with.
I just get tired of hearing that the “right to life” is the crucial moral question in the abortion issue. It shouldn’t be, because even if one acknowledges that fetuses have a right to life, that still doesn’t mean they have the right to use another person’s body in order to live.
“Also this position doesn’t quite square with your argument about circumcision.”
It does, because circumcision doesn’t really involve a conflict of rights in my opinion. There’s the right of the child to an intact body until he is old enough to consent to the procedure, vs. the desire of the parents to circumcise him. I don’t think parents have a “right,” at least morally speaking, to cut off a body part of their child as part of an elective procedure. Legally they have that right in the case of male circumcision, but I don’t think it is a “natural” right as I understand the term.
With abortion, there is a clear conflict of rights–the fetus’ right to life vs. the woman’s right to bodily autonomy.
“That’s because for me abortion is not a right.”
Do you think that bodily autonomy is a right?
“Pregnancy is an obligation to bring forth a new life.”
OK, so you see it as an obligation that trumps the rights of the pregnant woman. I don’t agree, but I can at least understand your position if that’s what you mean.
“This is a very misleading statement.”
It’s a true statement. Your party does fight against measures that make birth control easier to access. You’re doing it right now.
“Saying he will talk about the subject honestly doesn’t mean he will lecture people. That is a knee jerk description of what he has said. (And I think an effort to demonize him).”
Come now, Tina. You are honestly telling me that telling grown adults that contraception is “not OK,” and that it is “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be” does not qualify as a lecture? Really?
“Young people are being encouraged to be totally irresponsible regarding sex. It’s not just that they are taught about the use of condoms in school.”
This doesn’t make sense. How does teaching students about the use of condoms encourage them “to be totally irresponsible about sex?” If they are being taught to use condoms then they are at least being taught to use SOME responsibility, even if it’s not quite to your liking.
“The use of condoms (a quick fix that makes everything okay) is not just a measure to prevent pregnancy it is a license to behave without care or thought.”
More nonsense. A man who behaves without care or thought is not going to use a condom at all. And weren’t you just saying that it’s a good thing people can just go over to the drugstore and buy condoms?
“There are medical issues associated with birth control pills as well and I think some of those concerns are something that Santorum was talking about.”
He was talking about his moral objections to birth control, Tina. Not medical issues. He didn’t say birth control can lead to medical problems in the portion I quoted. He was using theological arguments about the immorality of having sex without leaving it open to procreation. This is completely inappropriate for a presidential candidate, and as someone who claims to not want the government nosing into people’s private lives, I’m amazed you don’t take issue with that.
Chris careful consideration of the consequences of any act is the best thing to do for most of us regarding these very personal issues.
Our founders believed that it would take a strong moral citizenry to keep our republic and the freedoms our Constitution guarantees. It is because of this that I speak out on social issues. I really have no desire to decide for others how they should live. As I see our nation deteriorate, and after more than a few decades, I have come to see why the founders were concerned. It really is a kind of miracle that people from so many backgrounds and faiths have been able to work out their differences and live together in relative peace for more than a couple of centuries. I think our success is because of the genius of our Constitution and because of the mores of the people that established our early moral and social framework and our work ethic.
Chris: “Even if a woman consents to sex, an unwanted pregnancy is still an unwanted pregnancy.”
Unwanted pregnancy. That’s a phrase that helps to sooth whatever guilt might come up at the thought of “terminating” a life. Actually, guilt may not even cross some women’s minds by now so ingrained are we in the notion that “it’s just a blob of tissue”.
I can see how a person would be surprised, especially if birth control is used properly and still fails, and I can understand how a baby changes everything…but it remains true that it is a life and it is in the womb because of the activity the mother engaged to do. She is responsible. Women aren’t taught that anymore but it is still true. It is the main reason that women have the greater responsibility, no matter how unfair it may seem, to engage with caution and great care.
On a scale of rights, if there was such a thing, I’d place a childs right to live and be raised by his mother and father way up there on the list. Raising a child is not only the most important job in the world, it is a vital pillar of any society and worth honoring. I think this is the message Rick Santorum is attempting to get accross as he tries, somewhat lamely, to navigate the media set up questions. Just my opinion.
“Consider these two statements: 1. I am pregnant, and I want to have an abortion, but the government will not let me. 2. The government is forcing me to allow a fetus to occupy my body against my will. These two statements mean exactly the same thing, Tina. They are just phrased differently.”
Well yes…that is the argument and it makes perfect sense that a women should be able to decide for herself if she can live with taking another persons life and ignore all obligation to the baby. I think mostly women have found a way to justify taking a life by pretending it isn’t a life. The government doesn’t let us do a lot of things. Even assault is a crime…the idea that government can say I can’t beat on you but I can terminate a life as long as it’s in my belly doesn’t make sense to me.
“By saying that the government can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, you are not simply saying that a fetus has the right to life–a position I actually agree with–you are saying that a fetus has a special right, one that born people do not have: the right to use another person’s body in order to stay alive.”
Okay now I get it. I still think it’s a bad analogy. Occupying a woman’s body is impossible for any other person. The right to life is the same for everyone. Women have, because of their gender, a special obligation regarding human life. Sorry ladies, that is just a biological truth that we get to accept, IMHO.
“It’s a true statement. Your party does fight against measures that make birth control easier to access. You’re doing it right now.”
I disagree. Speaking out to win hearts and minds in a quest to bring about more responsible behavior is not the same as taking steps to make birth control difficult to access. I can’t think of any measure the Republican Party has put forth that would limit access. Birht control as I said above is readily available and there are many ways to avoid pregnancy as I also pointed out above.
“You are honestly telling me that telling grown adults that contraception is “not OK,” and that it is “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be” does not qualify as a lecture?”
You forget the man was asked questions that he answered honestly. Also, some quotes have been taken from a speech he gave to a Catholic audience (not a political audience). He has said these are things that we should be able to discuss honestly, as adults. I don’t think he’s attempting to lecture anyone. I think that sentiment comes from the left’s position that their’s is the only way to think about these things…either that or they never grew up and Santorum sounds too much like mom or dad 😉
“How does teaching students about the use of condoms encourage them “to be totally irresponsible about sex?”
Hmmm. You can’t pick that portion out of the paragraph and make sense of it. What I said was “It’s not just that they are taught about the use of condoms in school. In society they are inundated with sexual images. Our society has made sexuality identity. The use of condoms (a quick fix that makes everything okay) is not just a measure to prevent pregnancy it is a license to behave without care or thought.”
What I’m saying is that too many kids today put more energy into being sexual than they do their education or other things. And how could it be otherwise when our society shoves it down their throats and makes being sexually desirable so important, even to the point of it forming identity.
“A man who behaves without care or thought is not going to use a condom at all.”
True…another case of me being from a different generation. The pill and the availability of condoms and other forms of birth control were not easy for young people to get when I was a kid so from my perspective it has been an excuse to behave without a care. The aspirin joke was more appropriate than you nthink! It’s also true that “unwanted” pregnancy happens quite often because even though a condom or other control devise is available it is not used or not used correctly.
“He was talking about his moral objections to birth control, Tina. Not medical issues.”
I heard him talk about medical issues also.
“This is completely inappropriate for a presidential candidate, and as someone who claims to not want the government nosing into people’s private lives, I’m amazed you don’t take issue with that.”
Talking is not proposing legislation.
The man was asked questions. I will agree that he didn’t answer the questions shrewdly. He’s not a vague hope and change type person. He answered the questions honestly and as I said, at least one of the quotes that has been used against him was from a speech at a Catholic school or gathering and so was quite appropriate.
Tina: “Okay now I get it. I still think it’s a bad analogy. Occupying a woman’s body is impossible for any other person.”
Occupying a woman’s body may be impossible for born people, but using a woman’s body against her will is not. That’s why I think the kidney donation analogy is a good one. I believe that government forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is equivalent to forcing a woman to donate a kidney to a person who will die without it.
The only way this analogy doesn’t work is if you believe that a woman has an obligation to the fetus which is so powerful that it overrides her right to bodily autonomy. You could argue that the potential kidney donor does not have the same kind of obligation to the dying person in need of a kidney.
“The right to life is the same for everyone.”
But Tina, that’s not logically consistent with your position. Unless you think that people should be required to donate kidneys to save the lives of strangers?
As I’ve explained before, your position requires that human fetuses have a SPECIAL right to use their mother’s bodies for nine months, even if the mother doesn’t want them to do so. That is a completely separate right from the “right to life.” A guy who needs a kidney also has a right to life; he doesn’t have the right to your kidney.
By the same token, pro-choicers believe that fetuses do not necessarily have the right to be carried by a woman. Of course, many pro-choicers don’t believe that fetuses have any rights at all, including the right to life, but as I’ve said before, I think that’s a poor argument. I would like both sides to reframe their arguments in a more logical manner, one that acknowledges a conflict of rights rather than just focusing on the rights of either the mother or the fetus, as if the rights of the other don’t exist at all. Yes, I think both sides are guilty of this and it has only served to polarize the debate and spread a lot of ignorance. It leads to people talking past each other and it has hurt the chances of pro-lifers and pro-choicers understanding each other.
“Women have, because of their gender, a special obligation regarding human life.”
This right here is your best argument, but I must remind you that it is different from and contradictory to “the right to life is the same for everyone.” If women are expected to give up their right to bodily autonomy in the case of pregnancy, then it follows that fetuses have a special right to use another person’s body for sustenance, a right that born people do not have.
“I can’t think of any measure the Republican Party has put forth that would limit access.”
Tina, Rick Santorum has pledged to repeal all federal funding to contraception. This contradicts your position that he would not impose his anti-contraception beliefs on the rest of us. Republicans, including you, support repealing the mandate that requires employers to provide birth control in their insurance plans. That limits access. Your party has also launched a full-on assault on Planned Parenthood. If you had your way many of these installations would shut down due to lack of funding, leaving less places for women to get birth control. So-called “personhood” bills include language that would make the use of certain types of birth control a crime. Many Republicans even oppose teaching about contraception in sex ed. Some abstinence-only programs actively discourage its use, as does Santorum, who wrongly believes that states can ban birth control, even to married couples, if they choose to do so. (This was rightfully ruled unconstitutional years ago.)
“You forget the man was asked questions that he answered honestly.”
I know he was being honest. That doesn’t make it better. He honestly believes that it’s his business to tell everyone, even married couples, that birth control is bad for them. He is not just wrong, he is stupidly wrong.
“Also, some quotes have been taken from a speech he gave to a Catholic audience (not a political audience).”
Tina, the quote I posted here was from an interview with a blogger. And he specifically said in that quote that this is something he will discuss as president! You can see the video here (it’s long though, I think the remarks in question come at about 17 minutes in):
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/
“I don’t think he’s attempting to lecture anyone. I think that sentiment comes from the left’s position that their’s is the only way to think about these things…either that or they never grew up and Santorum sounds too much like mom or dad ;)”
Webster’s defines lecture as:
1: a discourse given before an audience or class especially for instruction
2: a formal reproof
I think the shoe fits in this case. Santorum was lecturing people about the immorality of contraception, and he says that as president he will continue to do so. That is wrong.
And Tina, even if I agreed with you that it was appropriate for Santorum to express his opinions on this subject as a presidential candidate, that still would not make his opinions any less any less silly and superstitious. And no, it’s not anti-Catholic for me to say that, since 98% of sexually active Catholic women use birth control and a majority of Catholics even agree with the mandate that all employers cover birth control in their insurance plans. Catholic doctrine is wrong on this issue, and completely out of touch with the Catholic people.
I do agree with you that kids are too inundated with sexual imagery that sends negative and unrealistic attitudes about sex. I’m not sure what the government can do to stop this, however. I do know that telling kids that contraception is evil hasn’t worked, and has in fact been wildly counter-productive, leading to more unintended pregnancies and abortions. Rick Santorum continues to support abstinence-only education programs despite their abject failure. This indicates to me that he is more concerned with rhetoric then results. If he were actually interested in reducing the abortion rate he would support increased access to contraception. But he’s more interested in ideology than reality.
If you still don’t think Santorum would impose his beliefs on the rest of us, keep in mind his remarks on JFK’s famous speech wherein he declared his primary loyalty as president was to the United States, and not the Vatican. According to Santorum, reading the speech made him “almost throw up.” He said that unlike JFK, he does not believe that the separation of church and state is absolute. He also falsely claimed that JFK said that people of faith have no place in the public square.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-rick-santorum/story?id=15785514&page=5#.T0_DF3nIh4J
Santorum’s extreme disrespect toward Kennedy’s legacy is especially ironic given that were it not for Kennedy proving that he could serve as president while Catholic, Santorum might not have a chance today. Kennedy’s speech showed people that being Catholic was not an impediment to being president; Santorum should have thanked him for this speech, not insulted him for it.