Posted by Jack
Regarding Lena Dunham, pro-choice activist. There’s no better wisdom than received wisdom. And when it comes to parroting things she’s heard from people she believes to be smarter than her — which doesn’t really narrow it down — Lena Dunham is tops. Take it away, genius!
Women’s access to birth control should not be denied because of their employer’s religious beliefs. Lena Dunham
I’m kind of hungry for lunch, but my employer doesn’t buy my lunch for me. My employer gives me cash to buy food, which means I’m going to starve!
Or…my employer won’t cover my lunch so Burger King is denying access to my Burger…they lock the doors when they see me coming. That’s not fair…bahhhhhhhh!
It’s also not true, genius.
I have to agree that the term “denied access” is misleading and inaccurate, and liberals should stop using this phrase; it weakens the argument. There are many strong arguments against the recent decision, but this isn’t one of them.
How about we do away with employer based health care?
Give me the money and I’ll shop around, even in other states, to buy the plan I want just like my car insurance.
And depending on my income, give me a tax credit when I file my annual taxes.
Off Topic: Funny Joe Biden is jumping up and down and waving his arms —
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/211227-biden-dont-forget-about-me
Despite The English Major’s objections, I think “denied access” should remain the left’s narrative. And it will. Thank you Sandra Fluke. “Free” government supplied contraception for all horny college students attending expensive universities, whether your parents pay for your education or not!
Off Topic: Is Bruce Sessions still out there and enjoying life? I’ll never forget the huge compliment he paid me when he retired for the last time from KPAY and wrote me I was his unofficial, volunteer program producer.
Yes, Bruce is still here in Chico and playing a little golf on occasion. He’s a great guy.
Re #7 Post Scripts : Send my best wishes to him and “the little blond”.
Pie Guevara: “Thank you Sandra Fluke. “Free” government supplied contraception for all horny college students attending expensive universities, whether your parents pay for your education or not!”
Sandra Fluke never demanded “free government supplied contraception.” Her argument was about employer and college health coverage for contraception. Her testimony also focused on the use of contraception to treat a number of real medical problems, not about “horny” anything.
If you’re going to insult someone’s argument, you should at least make sure you understand it.
The future of Obamacare — http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VETERANS_HEALTH_CARE_CAFETERIA_DEATH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-07-03-14-17-41
Fair enough, Chris. Sandra Fluke demanded government subsidized health coverage and support for horny college students and others.
The underlying political message is that Republicans are waging a war on women and want to deny women access to basic healthcare.
But there is no logical reason for this “freebie”
There are many healthcare needs for which insurance only covers a certain portion, what could possibly be so special about contraceptive prescriptions?
They tell us that contraceptive coverage, without co-pay or deductible charges (totally free), is necessary for “women’s health” and they justify the position because “some women” have serious conditions for which contraceptives are the treatment.
Does the condition mean that there are budget breaking extra costs for these contraceptives compared to contraceptives used for birth control or compared to, for instance, prescriptions for diabetes treatment? No. In fact diabetes treatment costs are high and birth control can be purchased fairly cheaply at any local WalMart.
So what’s the basic reason for totally free birth control again? Well, there’s the political war on women meme, but let’s let Sandra Fluke inform us:
Yeah, that’s what we thought.
Once again, Ms. Fluke:
Wow! she’s telling us that many women have used and are using contraceptives already…and do so without mandated free coverage!!!!
It’s a political hammer…the war on women thing. Those Republicans are just mean and so out of touch!
At this point we should all recall that Sandra Fluke studied women’s studies and the law and is a political activist for the Democrat Party.
Chris you’re right, dumb argument. But it’s a dumb argument from every angle.
Peggy excellent position.
Sandra “The Horny College Student who relies on government to protect her sexual appetite right” Fluke on the SCOTUS War On Women —
http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2014/07/01/sandra-fluke-hobby-lobby-case-attack-women/11894185/
Fluke, a third-year law student, said that Georgetown Law, a Jesuit institution, does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan and that contraception can cost a woman more than $3,000 during law school.
So, it is up to the government to cover these costs or force heath care providers, including those evil Jesuits, to cover these costs for wealthy, horny, Georgetown law students.
Got it. A “womens’ issue.”
Re Sandra Flukes #14 at link: “Monday, the court ruled that such corporations have religious rights under federal statute.
No!
The court ruled that the owners/executives of said corporations do not give up their religious rights when they choose to engage in legal aspects of business and commerce.
Companies are people because then they can be another source of taxable revenue. Nobody is complaining about that or about the many other things “corporations” manage to do…shhhhhh….as if they were people.
We are loosing the language…to airy fairy BS.
#9 Chris: “Sandra Fluke never demanded “free government supplied contraception.” Her argument was about employer and college health coverage for contraception.”
Excuse me, but if her argument was about employer and college health coverage for which she didn’t pay for isn’t that “free?” If that doesn’t meet the definition of free I’d sure like to hear what does in your book.
“If you’re going to insult someone’s argument, you should at least make sure you understand it.”
Boy, that’s funny. Have you taken your foot out of your mouth yet?
“We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.”
As if Sandra Fluke, or anyone else, was prevented seeking healthcare insurance outside of Georgetown University.
Idiot liberals tweet insults to a law blog, thinking it’s the S. Ct’s official blog. Law blog tweets back. – http://on.mash.to/1sWXvPZ
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/484318929847087104
Tina: “But there is no logical reason for this “freebie”
There are many healthcare needs for which insurance only covers a certain portion, what could possibly be so special about contraceptive prescriptions?”
Seriously, Tina?
You–who are pro-life–don’t see anything “special” or “logical” about a policy that could reduce the abortion rate by up to 70%?
Amazing.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-significantly-cuts-abortion-rates/
“They tell us that contraceptive coverage, without co-pay or deductible charges (totally free),”
It’s not “totally free” if you work for it.
“In fact diabetes treatment costs are high and birth control can be purchased fairly cheaply at any local WalMart.”
Tina, I don’t know what your experience with contraception has been, but your experience is not universal. Not every woman can just walk into a store and pick up the pill and expect it to work for her. Women often have to try multiple methods before they find one that works without unpleasant side effects or without messing up their cycle. That means multiple doctor’s visits and more money. If a woman wants a more effective method, like an IUD, it can cost up to $1000.
Really, the amount of ignorance about female contraception put forth by the “stop being a bunch of sluts” crowd is shocking.
Chris: “You–who are pro-life–don’t see anything “special” or “logical” about a policy that could reduce the abortion rate by up to 70%?”
Could reduce abortion rates? Might not make a bit of difference either!
The main thing that drives high abortion rates is a population of men and women who view abortion as a fail safe mechanism for irresponsible behavior.
“It’s not “totally free” if you work for it.”
So the mandate is about money and not health…just another way to transfer wealth from one citizen (employers) to women (a special class, given a raise mandated by HHS).
(Nibbling at the edges of freedom)
“Women often have to try multiple methods before they find one that works without unpleasant side effects or without messing up their cycle. That means multiple doctor’s visits and more money.”
It’s called life, Chris, we all have one.
As adults in a free society it is incumbent upon us to prepare and plan for such things and to arrange our lives in such a way as to pay for the important things first. Healthcare before Starbucks coffee, fancy hair and nails, sodas, video’s, movies, vacations.
We are becoming a nation of dependent teenaged children expecting government to provide the necessities while we spend our “allowance” on the fun stuff. It can’t possibly go on because it doesn’t work. It creates debt and collapse.
Living in a free country requires morality and personal responsibility. The buck has got to finally arrive.
The generation that forgot, mine, is now the generation that is required to remind…as penance if nothing else!
For the record in my life I have used birth control pills and IUD and I also have three family members with cysts and irregular cycles. I get it.
“…the amount of ignorance about female contraception put forth by the “stop being a bunch of sluts” crowd is shocking.”
The lack of education and preparation for adulthood is even more shocking…as is the whining for handouts from feminist who profess to want independence and opportunity that requires greater responsibility!
If using terms like “slut” will get their attention, nothing else seems to, then that’s what we will be forced to do.
By the way, that would be assumed ignorance on your part. You imagine because you fail to fathom. It does seem there might be a small crack in that PC shell of yours. You always seemed like someone who is interested in learning and broadening your outlook, although as stubborn as I.
Tina: “Could reduce abortion rates? Might not make a bit of difference either!
The main thing that drives high abortion rates is a population of men and women who view abortion as a fail safe mechanism for irresponsible behavior.”
OK, I see the problem here: you’re not actually interested in preventing abortions, you’re interested in shaming people who make life choices you disagree with so that you can feel morally superior to them. You could have just said that at the beginning, would have saved you a lot of time.
If you actually believed that abortion was equivalent to baby-killing, you would do anything in your power to stop it, up to and including providing free contraception. Certainly even the most devout fiscal conservative can see that stopping babies from being killed is more important than stopping a little bit of wealth from being transferred, right?
But you won’t even look into the body of research that shows the link between free contraception and reducing abortion. You’re not even interested. Any “pro-life” affectations you put on are exactly that; your objections aren’t sincere.
Chris: “I see the problem here: you’re not actually interested in preventing abortions, you’re interested in shaming people who make life choices you disagree with so that you can feel morally superior to them.”
You mean like you just did with me?
A. I’m interested in women being raised to make smart choices and behave as maturing adults who take personal responsibility for their reproductive life. I’m interested in influencing society toward greater respect for human life, including the manner in which life comes about. I am interested in seeing fewer children become the victims of people’s dumb choices.
I am not so arrogant as to believe that I can prevent abortions. If people feel shame when I speak about those things it is their own shame they feel…I do not control that either. We all own our emotions and the sooner we get that the sooner we will have power to take positive steps to ameliorate the discomfort.
“If you actually believed that abortion was equivalent to baby-killing, you would do anything in your power to stop it, up to and including providing free contraception.”
So…I would adopt your tyrannical position and abandon by commitment to individual freedom and responsibility?
Who is acting morally superior now?
The major problem with your arguments and position is that you still think that the progressive giveaway programs are about helping people. It isn’t! It is about wealth transfer; it is about control and power over the people; it is about a permanent one party system; it is about the fundamental transformation of America; it is about nibbling at the edges; it is about tyranny!
Tina: “You mean like you just did with me?”
No, I shamed your argument, not your personal decisions.
“So…I would adopt your tyrannical position and abandon by commitment to individual freedom and responsibility?”
I don’t know, you tell me. If it were proven to you that free, government-funded contraception would reduce the abortion rate by 70%, would you still oppose it on the grounds that you view such a policy as “tyrannical?”
“Who is acting morally superior now?”
Me, but that’s because you’re being a giant hypocrite. You claim to be morally opposed to abortion, but you’re not willing to do what it takes to stop it.
Sorry, moral superiority from a hypocrite is much worse than moral superiority from someone whose position actually IS morally superior.
“The major problem with your arguments and position is that you still think that the progressive giveaway programs are about helping people. It isn’t!”
…Except that this particular giveaway actually DOES help people. It helps women avoid the potentially painful process of abortion. And if you believe fetuses are people–which you claim you do–it helps millions of them as well.
But maybe you can explain to me how reducing the abortion rate by 70% doesn’t really help anyone.
I favor what works, Tina. You favor whatever fits your most pressing ideological priority. As far as your priorities stand right now, you’re putting the lives of the unborn on the back burner so that people won’t have to suffer the indignity of their tax dollars going to sexually active women. Does that really seem right to you?
“So…I would adopt your tyrannical position and abandon by commitment to individual freedom and responsibility?”
There’s a difference between “compromise” and “abandonment,” Tina. If I really believed that millions of Americans were being slaughtered every year, and that this was all considered perfectly legal, I’d consider making some compromises to stop that. Any moral person would.
The Chris and Tina Show. Chris s**ts on Tina while Tina tries to explain.
Bottom Line — Abortion is baby killing. Duh. That is the whole point. If you did not wish to kill a baby, you would not have an abortion.
I have to wonder, how many babies has Chris killed?
At #26 Penguin
The really sad thing is that Roe V Wade radical feminists created a grand delusion…it’s not a baby if its an inconvenience. It’s only a baby when you choose to let it live and thrive. License was given to take life and conscience assuaged with tricks and silly justifications. Young women are fed this tripe by straight faced goolish women. Sad.
And the left wonders why our civilization is headed for the crapper. (Pardon the expression)
Pie: “Bottom Line — Abortion is baby killing. Duh. That is the whole point. If you did not wish to kill a baby, you would not have an abortion.”
OK. So then can I assume you would be willing to support government-funded contraception if it were proven that doing so would reduce “baby-killing” by 70%?
Tina: “The really sad thing is that Roe V Wade radical feminists created a grand delusion…it’s not a baby if its an inconvenience. It’s only a baby when you choose to let it live and thrive”
It’s generally considered poor form to attack the worst argument of your opponents rather than the best, especially when you are the one bringing up the worst arguments.
Sure, many pro-choicers think this way. But the argument I’ve used here is that a fetus shouldn’t be considered a baby (or a person) until it gains neural activity, and can think and feel. Given that everything about our personality has to do with our neural activity–and given our understanding of “brain-death”–this to me seems like a rational criteria. Much more rational than just “it’s a baby when the pregnant woman feels like it.”
Chris: “But the argument I’ve used here is that a fetus shouldn’t be considered a baby (or a person) until it gains neural activity, and can think and feel.”
Why, because you choose to believe it and say so? Ridiculous! It doesn’t fly.
It’s called pro-creation for a reason. It is the active means by which we re-create the human race. It requires willingness to engage in a process that begin even before the sperm penetrates the egg. Messing with the chances for success, once the egg has penetrated, which any scientist will tell you is already quite a challenge is simply abhorrent to anyone that values and respects life.
Playing with the language followed the demand for abortion. Human desire found its justification as it always does, through language, and then self, deception.
it’s a damn shame you think you are your “personality” for there is so much more to value in you.
“Much more rational than just “it’s a baby when the pregnant woman feels like it.”
A$$#07&! I said nothing of feelings. I was talking about the truth. How can it be considered a mass of cells in one circumstance and a human baby in another when the physical attributes are identical in both? I’ll tell you how…when people choose to lie to themselves and intellectuals lacking decency and morals provide them the language to do it.
Tina: “Why, because you choose to believe it and say so?”
Good lord, woman–you’ve just completely given up all pretense of reading and responding honestly to your opponents’ arguments, haven’t you? I gave logical reasons for my belief–disagree with them all you like, but choosing to pretend I never stated them just makes you look stupid.
“A$$#07&! I said nothing of feelings.”
I was very clearly referring to a bad argument made by pro-choicers, not by you. Again, your unwillingness (or inability) to actually read and understand others’ comments puts you at a huge disadvantage.
“How can it be considered a mass of cells in one circumstance and a human baby in another when the physical attributes are identical in both?”
It’s pretty obvious that lack of a functioning neural cortex and neural activity means that the physical attributes are NOT “identical.” No?
Chris: “you’ve just completely given up all pretense of reading and responding honestly to your opponents’ arguments…”
There is no pretense. There are arguments unworthy of serious response. My position is clear. You don’t like it and want to “convince me” to change my opinion to prove you are right. I don’t wish to play a game. gaming is not communication.
“I was very clearly referring to a bad argument”
What YOU consider a bad argument. I disagree and reiterate, “I said nothing of feelings. I was talking about the truth.”
“…puts you at a huge disadvantage”
The arrogance of youth! Do you actually think this line of attack intimidates?
“It’s pretty obvious that lack of a functioning neural cortex and neural activity means that the physical attributes are NOT “identical.” No?”
Who exactly can’t read and doesn’t respond to what was written?
The uniting of egg and sperm form a cell containing the DNA that will define entirely that newly created human life. In that instant the two circumstances are exactly the same. In one circumstance the woman believes its a tissue mass and feels justified to choose abortion (or the contraceptive she has chosen or takes carries that decision one step further from her conscience). In the other circumstance she happily assumes and celebrates a baby.
The answer is a resounding no. Functioning neural activity is science justification speak for aiding and abetting termination of life by changing the narrative. Prior to the changes in our language science and the medical profession referred to the joining of egg and sperm as the beginning of life.
I won’t repeat myself again.
Now you’re literally taking my comments out of context, in the stupidest way possible.
You quote me as saying:
“I was very clearly referring to a bad argument”
Then you say:
“What YOU consider a bad argument. I disagree and reiterate, “I said nothing of feelings. I was talking about the truth.””
But here was my full statement:
“I was very clearly referring to a bad argument made by pro-choicers, not by you.”
And here’s the argument I was referring to:
“it’s a baby when the pregnant woman feels like it.”
Again, this is an argument commonly made by pro-choicers–that a fetus should only be considered a baby if the pregnant woman feels that it is. This argument is ridiculous, as I’m certain you, as a pro-lifer, would agree with.
But now you’re saying you “disagree” with me calling this a terrible argument, which makes absolutely no sense. You didn’t even realize what it was you were disagreeing with when you responded to me.
The only person having to repeat themselves in this conversation is me, because your reading comprehension is f*cking terrible. You read only what you want to, and you don’t have enough respect for yourself or others to make sure that you’re even following the basics of a conversation.
And again, let me point out that it was you who brought up this bad pro-choice argument:
“The really sad thing is that Roe V Wade radical feminists created a grand delusion…it’s not a baby if its an inconvenience. It’s only a baby when you choose to let it live and thrive”
Chris pretending a human baby is not a human baby is a bad argument no matter who makes it.
But since I don’t know the context in which it was made by any pro-lifer I have no comment on what might have motivated them.
For all I know it was a derogatory remark.
I don’t deny that I brought up the grand delusion, however…
You wrote:
Your full comment was:
Tina: “Chris pretending a human baby is not a human baby is a bad argument no matter who makes it.
But since I don’t know the context in which it was made by any pro-lifer I have no comment on what might have motivated them.”
OH MY GOD, WHY CAN’T YOU READ.
The comment was not made a pro-lifer! As I’ve now clearly written at least three times, it’s an argument used by many pro-choicers!
Jesus H. Macy, what is wrong with you? Even when I attempt to agree with you on something or concede a point, you don’t get it and assume I’m being derogatory. Why do I even try?
“I’m interested in women being raised to make smart choices and behave as maturing adults who take personal responsibility for their reproductive life.”
Hallelujah! Then you should agree that women who decide not to have children they cannot care for have taken responsibility for their reproductive life. And you can summon the moral wherewithal to keep your moralizing to yourself, and leave them to get on with it in peace.
Libby: “Then you should agree that women who decide not to have children they cannot care for have taken responsibility for their reproductive life.”
Never said I didn’t. I was explaining how the people at Hobby Lobby arrived at their position. I recognize the fact not everyone agrees with their more strict position. I believe in freedom. I also believe we need a better standard for respecting human life than the feminists have given us with their brand of moralizing…oh yes…they are not only pushing a low moral standard they are propagandizing (proselytizing) to underage girls in our public schools!
Get off that high horse, Libby. I have the same right as anyone else to express what I think
There are a lot of people who agree with me that the left has had too much sway lowering standards of morality in this nation, Get used to it; we arn’t going away.
Tina: “There are a lot of people who agree with me that the left has had too much sway lowering standards of morality in this nation, Get used to it; we arn’t going away.”
Uh, have you looked at demographic trends lately? Ya kinda are.
(I know, I know, you trust your gut over elitist studies and polls and pin-head academics and numbers are scary, blah de blah.)
More Hilarity
The media adored 29-year-old feminist Jasmine Shea when she spelled “Pro-Choice” and littered condoms throughout craft-store Hobby Lobby, acting out a temper tantrum over the Supreme Court’s new decision …
On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that for-profit company owners with religious objections to providing employee coverage of abortion-inducing drugs could be excluded from the Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate. The media have been fuming ever since.
Including The Washington Post, Jezebel, Feministing and Bitch Magazine, the media happily hyped Shea’s message – some even providing a Hobby Lobby store locater so that readers could participate in the trend.
‘Pro-Lifers Can Get Crafty at Hobby Lobby too. Will Media Note?’ —
http://www.mrc.org/articles/pro-lifers-can-get-crafty-hobby-lobby-too-will-media-note?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=HobbyLobby-ProLifers