PDA

View Full Version : Birth Control: Sexual Objectification?



IMPress Polly
01-26-2014, 09:23 AM
If for any reason you still don't believe that the anti-abortion movement is opposed to birth control, one Mike Huckabee provided yet another excellent, and well-publicized, example of that just this last week at the RNC, wherein he bizarrely described mandatory insurance coverage of birth control as a form of sexual objectification:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhIx5Q7-iCk

I could offer a rebuttal to all this, but I've only got six hours to spare today so I'll have to settle for an abbreviated version: As you can see, this is thematically very similar to what Rush Limbaugh infamously had to say about the issue in 2012: essentially that birth control is really just about maxing out women's sexual opportunities. Complaints about out-of-control libido are pretty hilarious to me coming from members of the statistically more promiscuous sex, members of which, also statistically speaking, are responsible for the overwhelming majority of sexual assaults. But it's WOMEN who need to learn more sexual self-control, you understand! Yeah this is what they talk about because they can't very well get away with openly advancing their REAL agenda: the complete reversal of second-wave feminism, which uncoincidentally came about shortly after the FDA OK'd the birth control pill in 1960. The availability of contraception is the single most important factor in determining whether or not women can have careers and be independent. THAT's what this is about. Some of the more audacious (like the governor of Mississippi) have had the boldness to say as much openly, but the careers of the average rightist politician are not as safe and secure as his is, so they can't get away with such direct language. That's the abbreviated version of my response.

Anyway, you get my point: it's just a recent, high-profile example illustrating that there really isn't a lot of moderation when it comes to the standpoint of the anti-abortion movement. That fact by itself calls for a principled, rather than a timid, response from the pro-choice movement. Just saying.

jillian
01-26-2014, 09:24 AM
first someone really should explain to him that contraception is a woman's health issue.

and he should start ranting about insurance/government paying for viagra…. since it's apparently only women's "libidos" the government needs to control.

if anyone needs more proof of the misogyny of the radical right, his statements should dispel any misconceptions.

Peter1469
01-26-2014, 09:34 AM
I will keep this short because I don't like the politicization of this issue, and would love to get it out of federal level politics. I think that both sides dishonestly use it as a wedge issue, and the last thing that either want is for it to go away. Because it brings in votes.

This story is a perfect example: Huck's point is that democrats treat women like [read his list of victim traits.] He wants to inspire women to act on their own, without cradle to grave government assistance. Democrats want government assisted addicts to have life-threatening withdrawal symptoms should they even think of not voting (D).

The only other remotely interesting thing about this topic is good for all of you that have to engage in public speaking. You speak to your audience. And you don't forget that a televised speech has a larger audience than those in front of you.

donttread
01-26-2014, 09:40 AM
If for any reason you still don't believe that the anti-abortion movement is opposed to birth control, one Mike Huckabee provided yet another excellent, and well-publicized, example of that just this last week at the RNC, wherein he bizarrely described mandatory insurance coverage of birth control as a form of sexual objectification:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhIx5Q7-iCk

I could offer a rebuttal to all this, but I've only got six hours to spare today so I'll have to settle for an abbreviated version: As you can see, this is thematically very similar to what Rush Limbaugh infamously had to say about the issue in 2012: essentially that birth control is really just about maxing out women's sexual opportunities. Complaints about out-of-control libido are pretty hilarious to me coming from members of the statistically more promiscuous sex, members of which, also statistically speaking, are responsible for the overwhelming majority of sexual assaults. But it's WOMEN who need to learn more sexual self-control, you understand! Yeah this is what they talk about because they can't very well get away with openly advancing their REAL agenda: the complete reversal of second-wave feminism, which uncoincidentally came about shortly after the FDA OK'd the birth control pill in 1960. The availability of contraception is the single most important factor in determining whether or not women can have careers and be independent. THAT's what this is about. Some of the more audacious (like the governor of Mississippi) have had the boldness to say as much openly, but the careers of the average rightist politician are not as safe and secure as his is, so they can't get away with such direct language. That's the abbreviated version of my response.

Anyway, you get my point: it's just a recent, high-profile example illustrating that there really isn't a lot of moderation when it comes to the standpoint of the anti-abortion movement. That fact by itself calls for a principled, rather than a timid, response from the pro-choice movement. Just saying.

Look it's your responsibility to manage your own sexuality NOT uncle Sam's

Codename Section
01-26-2014, 09:57 AM
first someone really should explain to him that contraception is a woman's health issue.

If this is 100% true than a non-hypocritical and fair person would also say that child support is a woman's economic's issue.

Contraception, like caring for kids, is a two-way street. One person may wear the rubber or the other one may take something orally but they do it for the act they perform together.

jillian
01-26-2014, 10:13 AM
If this is 100% true than a non-hypocritical and fair person would also say that child support is a woman's economic's issue.

not quite sure where that stretch comes from.


Contraception, like caring for kids, is a two-way street. One person may wear the rubber or the other one may take something orally but they do it for the act they perform together.

no. the ability to purchase contraception is a constitutionally protected right. (see Griswold v Connecticut).

if you listened to the wing nut speak, he made it an issue of women's libido.

so again, i'm not seeing where you're getting the false analogy.

and, contraception IS a woman's health issue…. i'm going to guess you never discussed this with anyone who takes contraception for medical reasons other than birth control.

and you don't have veto power over whether your partner takes the pill. so again, i'm not certain where your argument is coming from.

IMPress Polly
01-26-2014, 10:16 AM
Peter wrote:
This story is a perfect example: Huck's point is that democrats treat women like [read his list of victim traits.] He wants to inspire women to act on their own, without cradle to grave government assistance. Democrats want government assisted addicts to have life-threatening withdrawal symptoms should they even think of not voting (D).

I just saw it as one of those irritating passive-aggressive "compliments". You know, the kind of so-called compliments that are laced with insults, like Joe Biden's famous one from the campaign trail about Obama being "the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". There was a compliment there to the individual...accompanied by an insult to his entire race. (Laughably, as a signpost of his unprincipled nature, Obama accepted the so-called compliment!) Similarly, Mr. Huckabee compliments women while insulting them in the same breath. As much reflects the cynical feminism that so many Republicans are trying to embrace for purely opportunistic reasons (read: to win the votes of women with rhetoric rather than with substance). If the Republicans believed that women are the equals of men, as Mr. Huckabee suggests they do, they would support the corresponding policies. But they don't, do they? These days they consistently vote against everything ranging from the Paycheck Fairness Act (equal pay for equal work) to the Violence Against Women Act (a federal law against domestic violence) and everything in-between that could possibly benefit women specifically. Women are not a stupid social class. Women, like every other economic and social class out there, tend to vote their class interests (including their social class interests). You can't change that with "friendly" rhetoric that clearly isn't meant. The fact that it's not meant is why the misogynistic attitudes slip out in the presentation and hence why "message control" is seen as such a big issue in the GOP when it comes gender matters.

jillian
01-26-2014, 10:19 AM
joe biden used the phrase "first mainstream African-American" in his comment?

i don't recall that at all.

Chris
01-26-2014, 10:20 AM
the ability to purchase contraception is a constitutionally protected right

Great thread till that laughable point. Contraception, a right? It's a product, not a right.

And no it's not the job of the courts to determine what is and is not a right. But how petty of them, if they did, to trivialize our rights.




If for any reason you still don't believe that the anti-abortion movement is opposed to birth control...

Well, movements are grassroots and Huckabee doesn't speak for it, so the OP is overgeneralization.

I am against abortion but for contraception--not that I presume to speak for all.



I agree with the points made that this, and other social issues, need to be depoliticized.

Peter1469
01-26-2014, 10:27 AM
I get your point about Huck and the religious right with the irritating passive-aggressive "compliments," but the rest of the right actually believes the point I was making above. The religious right has little to no real power at the federal level. They are fed red meat for their votes and they get zero in return. The democrats have a half-dozen victim groups that they treat the same way.




I just saw it as one of those irritating passive-aggressive "compliments". You know, the kind of so-called compliments that are laced with insults, like Joe Biden's famous one from the campaign trail about Obama being "the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". There was a compliment there to the individual...accompanied by an insult to his entire race. (Laughably, as a signpost of his unprincipled nature, Obama accepted the so-called compliment!) Similarly, Mr. Huckabee compliments women while insulting them in the same breath. As much reflects the cynical feminism that so many Republicans are trying to embrace for purely opportunistic reasons (read: to win the votes of women with rhetoric rather than with substance). If the Republicans believed that women are the equals of men, as Mr. Huckabee suggests they do, they would support the corresponding policies. But they don't, do they? These days they consistently vote against everything ranging from the Paycheck Fairness Act (equal pay for equal work) to the Violence Against Women Act (a federal law against domestic violence) and everything in-between that could possibly benefit women specifically. Women are not a stupid social class. Women, like every other economic and social class out there, tend to vote their class interests (including their social class interests). You can't change that with "friendly" rhetoric that clearly isn't meant. The fact that it's not meant is why the misogynistic attitudes slip out in the presentation and hence why "message control" is seen as such a big issue in the GOP when it comes gender matters.

Codename Section
01-26-2014, 10:33 AM
not quite sure where that stretch comes from.

The fact that "birth control" and "abortion" choices are women's health issues that men have zero say in, but if they choose not to use them suddenly we have no choices and must pay up.

There is something inherently equal and unfair about that. I'm all for women having choices that I am not a part of if I don't have to accept the results of those choices later. Because if the fetus is not its own person, if it is not a part of me, if it is 100% the property of the female while in her body, then there is no magic in this world that makes it suddenly mine after.




no. the ability to purchase contraception is a constitutionally protected right. (see Griswold v Connecticut).

if you listened to the wing nut speak, he made it an issue of women's libido.

so again, i'm not seeing where you're getting the false analogy.

and, contraception IS a woman's health issue…. i'm going to guess you never discussed this with anyone who takes contraception for medical reasons other than birth control.

and you don't have veto power over whether your partner takes the pill. so again, i'm not certain where your argument is coming from.


I don't care what you take or put in your body. I'm not a statist. I care that you want to have your cake and eat it, too, while asking me to pay for that cake and never get a bite of it.

Your body, your reproductive choices, fine. Pay for them all by your lonesome.

jillian
01-26-2014, 10:34 AM
if the religious right has little real power why were there almost 300 anti-choice bills in the last year?

i guess if you're not a woman who cares about her right to reproductive choice, the assault on our rights isn't notable?


I get your point about Huck and the religious right with the irritating passive-aggressive "compliments," but the rest of the right actually believes the point I was making above. The religious right has little to no real power at the federal level. They are fed red meat for their votes and they get zero in return. The democrats have a half-dozen victim groups that they treat the same way.

Peter1469
01-26-2014, 10:35 AM
Where were those bills filed? And what level of government am I discussing?



if the religious right has little real power why were there almost 300 anti-choice bills in the last year?

i guess if you're not a woman who cares about her right to reproductive choice, the assault on our rights isn't notable?

Heyduke
01-26-2014, 10:36 AM
I'm repeating myself here, but I think that if doctors and educators were more objective about the pill (artificial estrogen, progesterone, drospirenone), they'd do a better job educating women about the side effects. Minor side effect include nausea, weight gain, abdominal pain, chest pain, headaches, breast pain or swelling, leg swelling, blurred vision and blood spotting. More serious side effects include blood clots and stroke, increased risk of breast, cervical and liver cancer, etc.. Read the fine print on the package.

The reality is that doctors don't go into the details, often, when recommending the pill as a safe family planning strategy. And soi distant pro-women websites tend to obfuscate, rationalize or minimize the potential risks. Buyer beware.

Peter1469
01-26-2014, 10:36 AM
The fact that "birth control" and "abortion" choices are women's health issues that men have zero say in, but if they choose not to use them suddenly we have no choices and must pay up.

There is something inherently equal and unfair about that. I'm all for women having choices that I am not a part of if I don't have to accept the results of those choices later. Because if the fetus is not its own person, if it is not a part of me, if it is 100% the property of the female while in her body, then there is no magic in this world that makes it suddenly mine after.




I don't care what you take or put in your body. I'm not a statist. I care that you want to have your cake and eat it, too, while asking me to pay for that cake and never get a bite of it.

Your body, your reproductive choices, fine. Pay for them all by your lonesome.

I do have a problem with that. If a woman has 100% control over keeping or flushing the baby, the man should have the choice of walking away with zero financial liability.

IMPress Polly
01-26-2014, 10:37 AM
jillian wrote:
joe biden used the phrase "first mainstream African-American" in his comment?

i don't recall that at all.

Yeah back at the start of the campaign in early 2007. Here's his statement in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgIFV7jXBFQ

Biden went on to offer one of those standard, dime-a-dozen fake apologies wherein he apologizes for the consequences of his statement rather than for the statement itself. The so-called apology read: "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Senator Obama." Obama accepted the fake apology.

Codename Section
01-26-2014, 10:38 AM
if the religious right has little real power why were there almost 300 anti-choice bills in the last year?

How many of them passed and also how many were about money going to pay for abortions?

I don't care if you have a million abortions. That's on you. I don't want to pay for them. I also don't want men to have to pay child support if women have the sole right to an abortion.

That's basically foot stomping and immaturity. Women want all the power and when asked to justify it philosophically the honest ones will just say "tough shits, that's how it is."

If you can have an abortion because the fetus is not a human, that the fetus is not its own person an extension of yours alone--not mine--then there is no way that baby suddenly becomes part mine later by that same logic.

It's only part mine if you have the argument of personhood and that it is a human made of two parents and both with responsibilities to it, one to keep it alive and the other to help pay for it.

Codename Section
01-26-2014, 10:39 AM
I do have a problem with that. If a woman has 100% control over keeping or flushing the baby, the man should have the choice of walking away with zero financial liability.

Right on, brother.

Codename Section
01-26-2014, 10:40 AM
I'm repeating myself here, but I think that if doctors and educators were more objective about the pill (artificial estrogen, progesterone, drospirenone), they'd do a better job educating women about the side effects. Minor side effect include nausea, weight gain, abdominal pain, chest pain, headaches, breast pain or swelling, leg swelling, blurred vision and blood spotting. More serious side effects include blood clots and stroke, increased risk of breast, cervical and liver cancer, etc.. Read the fine print on the package.

The reality is that doctors don't go into the details, often, when recommending the pill as a safe family planning strategy. And soi distant pro-women websites tend to obfuscate, rationalize or minimize the potential risks. Buyer beware.


I know someone who got her liver fucked because of the pill and tylenol put together. Two things pumped into women all the time.

Chris
01-26-2014, 10:42 AM
Why does this so-called "right" mean government can coerce coverage by insurance purchased by companies and organizations and even by me who has not use for it. Feel free to go out and purchase it, consult with your partner to see if he wants to share in the decision and costs, but how can it be a freedom to have it purchased at other's expense?

jillian
01-26-2014, 10:53 AM
you're discussing every level of government. it doesn't really matter from where since the right is protected constitutionally.

the first bill which this last congress tried to pass when the right took over in 2010 was a law intended to absolve hospitals of liability for allowing a woman to die ivy refusing to give a life-saving abortion.

then they started pushing their "personhood" laws… which, ironically would prohibit contraception, abortion AND in vitro fertilization.

so women who don't want a child would be forced to carry one… because they couldn't use contraception either… and women who DO want a child wouldn't be permitted to have one because the crazies are worried about "snowflake babies".

and the right continues to wonder why women (especially unmarried women) don't vote GOP. (hint: it isn't about the 'free stuff') (that isn't directed at you, btw).


Where were those bills filed? And what level of government am I discussing?

Heyduke
01-26-2014, 10:54 AM
Why does this so-called "right" mean government can coerce coverage by insurance purchased by companies and organizations and even by me who has not use for it. Feel free to go out and purchase it, consult with your partner to see if he wants to share in the decision and costs, but how can it be a freedom to have it purchased at other's expense?

The so-called right says a lot of messed up things, and there's no denying that.

But, then you had Sandra Fluke and her tearful speech about how she was nearly financially ruined because the government wouldn't subsidize her $3,000 birth control bill during a 3 year grad school stint. Pelosi backed her up, and said the $3,000 figure was factual. And thus began the whole pre-2012 election 'war on women' diatribe. But, within walking distance of Fluke's Georgetown campus (where the Catholics had given her a scholarship), she could have gotten the pill or shot for about $10 a month. Over 3 years, that totals $360, not $3,000. Many health clinics have baskets of free condoms.

How could Fluke possibly come up with the $3,000 figure? You can buy condoms in bulk for less than 50 cents each. But, let's say she bought condoms for $2.00 each. Over three years, to spend $3,000, she would have had to go through 1,500 condoms, or 500 a year, or about a condom and a half per day, which would make her about as exclusive as a mailbox.

jillian
01-26-2014, 10:55 AM
I do have a problem with that. If a woman has 100% control over keeping or flushing the baby, the man should have the choice of walking away with zero financial liability.

child support isn't for the benefit of the woman. it's for the benefit of the child.

why do you keep equating money with the right to exercise a constitutional right?

as stated earlier, rights aren't up for fiscal barter.

and realistically, any time a man didn't want to pay support he'd say "i told her not to have the baby".

jillian
01-26-2014, 10:57 AM
Yeah back at the start of the campaign in early 2007. Here's his statement in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgIFV7jXBFQ

Biden went on to offer one of those standard, dime-a-dozen fake apologies wherein he apologizes for the consequences of his statement rather than for the statement itself. The so-called apology read: "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Senator Obama." Obama accepted the fake apology.

thanks. inartful statement at best. i didn't recall that part of the sentence.

*Shakes head*

funny thing is i used to work for a former political operative who said obama was too white to win the presidency. he passed away before the election. i often wondered what he'd say about the last two presidential election cycles.

Chris
01-26-2014, 10:59 AM
child support isn't for the benefit of the woman. it's for the benefit of the child.

why do you keep equating money with the right to exercise a constitutional right?

as stated earlier, rights aren't up for fiscal barter.

and realistically, any time a man didn't want to pay support he'd say "i told her not to have the baby".



You're right, rights are unalienable, they cannot be taken or traded away. Then, again, neither can they be given or granted, iow, the court cannot declare rights as you argue.

jillian
01-26-2014, 10:59 AM
I know someone who got her liver fucked because of the pill and tylenol put together. Two things pumped into women all the time.

i've never heard of that being the cause of liver problems.

how much tylenol did the person take. that alone could be the cause of liver problems. adding the pill to it shouldn't have made a difference.

Heyduke
01-26-2014, 11:07 AM
i've never heard of that being the cause of liver problems.

how much tylenol did the person take. that alone could be the cause of liver problems. adding the pill to it shouldn't have made a difference.

Side effects are the most common reason given for discontinuation of the pill.

From the Healthy Women website-- " Keep in mind that birth control pills only work if you take them every day. They do not accumulate or collect in your body, which is why you must take a pill every day! You shouldn't skip pills (on purpose or by accident) or stop taking them, even if you're not having sex often".

So, even if you're taking some other type of medication, which may be contra-indicative to your artificial hormone regimen, they still recommend that you keep eating those pills.

Impaired liver function is listed as contra indicative for oral contraception, among a host of other things, including smoking. But, how many doctors check liver function thoroughly before recommending the pill?

Peter1469
01-26-2014, 11:15 AM
Another example of "soft bigotry." He could have easily said- what a surprise it is to finally find a ....

And Bill Clinton said that when he was President, Obama would be serving coffee.


Yeah back at the start of the campaign in early 2007. Here's his statement in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgIFV7jXBFQ

Biden went on to offer one of those standard, dime-a-dozen fake apologies wherein he apologizes for the consequences of his statement rather than for the statement itself. The so-called apology read: "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Senator Obama." Obama accepted the fake apology.

Peter1469
01-26-2014, 11:16 AM
You're right, rights are unalienable, they cannot be taken or traded away. Then, again, neither can they be given or granted, iow, the court cannot declare rights as you argue.

Of course they can be taken away. It is just morally wrong to do so.

Peter1469
01-26-2014, 11:19 AM
A lot of medication is processed by the liver. Take too many products with acetaminophen on top of birth control pills (or alcohol) and you risk liver failure.


i've never heard of that being the cause of liver problems.

how much tylenol did the person take. that alone could be the cause of liver problems. adding the pill to it shouldn't have made a difference.

Heyduke
01-26-2014, 11:22 AM
A lot of medication is processed by the liver. Take too many products with acetaminophen on top of birth control pills (or alcohol) and you risk liver failure.

High blood pressure is also a contra indication. So, a woman goes through a time of high stress and has elevated blood pressure levels, well, the recommendation is still to keep downing those pills.

Chris
01-26-2014, 11:29 AM
Here's Rand Paul on the Huckabee issue...

'Women are winning' the war on women (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/26/rand-paul-women-are-winning-the-war-on-women/comment-page-1/)


..."The whole thing of the 'war on women,' I sort of laughingly say, 'Yeah, there might have been - but the women are winning it,'" the Republican senator from Kentucky said on CNN's "State of the Union."...

"I think women are doing very well, and I'm proud of how far we've come," the potential 2016 presidential candidate continued.

"And I think some of the victimology and all of this other stuff is trumped up. We don't get to any good policy by playing some sort of charade that somehow one party doesn't care about women or one party is not in favor of women advancing, or other people advancing."

..."Some of our members just aren't as sensitive as they ought to be." ...

...CNN's chief political correspondent, Candy Crowley, pressed Paul on whether the issue is a "matter of words and tone."

"Somewhat," Paul said. "I think also a lot of the debates we have in Washington and in the public, generally, are dumbed down. They're characterized and we get to the point where we're talking about stuff and throwing stuff back and forth, and we are never getting to the truth."

..."Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women," Huckabee said. "That is not a war on them; it is a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it."

Codename Section
01-26-2014, 11:31 AM
you're discussing every level of government. it doesn't really matter from where since the right is protected constitutionally.

No, the right to privacy is protected constitutionally. I'm sure you've read the courts decision. :)

Of course, it's only protected privacy when it involves voting blocks, but whatevs.




the first bill which this last congress tried to pass when the right took over in 2010 was a law intended to absolve hospitals of liability for allowing a woman to die ivy refusing to give a life-saving abortion.

then they started pushing their "personhood" laws… which, ironically would prohibit contraception, abortion AND in vitro fertilization.

so women who don't want a child would be forced to carry one… because they couldn't use contraception either… and women who DO want a child wouldn't be permitted to have one because the crazies are worried about "snowflake babies".

and the right continues to wonder why women (especially unmarried women) don't vote GOP. (hint: it isn't about the 'free stuff') (that isn't directed at you, btw).

Women vote GOP. They vote more for the Dems, but women do vote GOP. Also women millenials don't see abortion as moral. We've posted the links so I don't think that's their hot issue anymore. According to most polls women of my generation care more about gays being able to get marry than abortion.

But that's just voting shit and whatevs again.

IF you want the right to flush whatevers in your womb. Fine. Have a million billion abortions. But the same argument for why you should be allowed should stay on your lips when you argue for child support. If its your body (the fetus belongs to you) and your choice (you decide who gets it) then its not on me.

If women are so responsible and awesome and capable of making great choices, make some great choices and pay for everything yourself. If you need me to pay for shit then you have no business being the only one making that choice. :)

Heyduke
01-26-2014, 11:45 AM
I think everyone needs to draw the line somewhere as it concerns the public paying for health. I think we can all agree that brushing your teeth is healthy. Should health insurance be mandated to pay for toothpaste? Should taxes pay for tap-water filters? Should taxes pay for skate/snowboard helmets? Dr. Scholl's inserts? Organic food? Kleenex? Breath mints? Everyone draws the line somewhere.

Peter1469
01-26-2014, 12:21 PM
I think everyone needs to draw the line somewhere as it concerns the public paying for health. I think we can all agree that brushing your teeth is healthy. Should health insurance be mandated to pay for toothpaste? Should taxes pay for tap-water filters? Should taxes pay for skate/snowboard helmets? Dr. Scholl's inserts? Organic food? Kleenex? Breath mints? Everyone draws the line somewhere.

Typically it is drawn at the line of whether it requires a prescription or not.

jillian
01-26-2014, 12:31 PM
I think everyone needs to draw the line somewhere as it concerns the public paying for health. I think we can all agree that brushing your teeth is healthy. Should health insurance be mandated to pay for toothpaste? Should taxes pay for tap-water filters? Should taxes pay for skate/snowboard helmets? Dr. Scholl's inserts? Organic food? Kleenex? Breath mints? Everyone draws the line somewhere.

1. how is the "public paying for health" when an insurance policy pays for something that is already included in its coverage (e.g., birth control pills). but it's not the "public paying for it" she those same policies cover viagra?

to me, just to get back to the o/p, the only 'objectification' i could see was in huckabee's statements about how women need men to write laws just to keep them from letting their libidos get out of control.

Peter1469
01-26-2014, 12:38 PM
to me, just to get back to the o/p, the only 'objectification' i could see was in huckabee's statements about how women need men to write laws just to keep them from letting their libidos get out of control.

That wasn't his point. His point was that democrats want women to believe this is the only way.

Chris
01-26-2014, 01:09 PM
I think everyone needs to draw the line somewhere as it concerns the public paying for health. I think we can all agree that brushing your teeth is healthy. Should health insurance be mandated to pay for toothpaste? Should taxes pay for tap-water filters? Should taxes pay for skate/snowboard helmets? Dr. Scholl's inserts? Organic food? Kleenex? Breath mints? Everyone draws the line somewhere.


One line might be where it affects others, does others harm. --Oh, but wait, the liberal argument rests on privacy, not allowing other's involvement since it affects no others.

Heyduke
01-26-2014, 01:27 PM
"I have always admired President Obama and I agree with him on some issues, like abortion rights. But the promise of his campaign four years ago has given way to something else — a failure to connect with tens of millions of Americans, many of them women, who feel economic opportunity is gone and are losing hope. In an effort to win them back, Mr. Obama is trying too hard. He’s employing a tone that can come across as grating and even condescending. He really ought to drop it. Most women don’t want to be patted on the head or treated as wards of the state. They simply want to be given a chance to succeed based on their talent and skills. To borrow a phrase from our president’s favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, they want “an open field and a fair chance.”-- Campbell Brown

http://feminspire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/pay-now.jpg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/deaths.jpg

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 11:53 AM
I will keep this short because I don't like the politicization of this issue, and would love to get it out of federal level politics. I think that both sides dishonestly use it as a wedge issue, and the last thing that either want is for it to go away. Because it brings in votes.

This story is a perfect example: Huck's point is that democrats treat women like [read his list of victim traits.] He wants to inspire women to act on their own, without cradle to grave government assistance. Democrats want government assisted addicts to have life-threatening withdrawal symptoms should they even think of not voting (D).

The only other remotely interesting thing about this topic is good for all of you that have to engage in public speaking. You speak to your audience. And you don't forget that a televised speech has a larger audience than those in front of you.

http://caltech.typepad.com/.a/6a0105349b8251970b016765d911ac970b-pi

Captain Obvious
01-27-2014, 11:57 AM
Saying one statement is valid for the "anti-abortion movement" is painting with a broad brush.

Yeah part of the pro life movement is supported by religious right "every sperm is sacred" whackjobs and it's a smear tactic to color the whole group as such.

But hey - it's cheap and easy, the baby-in-a-blender crowd doesn't have much fact and logic to work with, I guess they have to grasp straws.

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 12:14 PM
jillian

Why do the pro-choice crowd bubbas think that it is so wrong to acknowledge the fetus as a human being? Regardless of what SCOTUS says about it, why do you personally think so?

Captain Obvious
01-27-2014, 12:18 PM
@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)

Why do the pro-choice crowd bubbas think that it is so wrong to acknowledge the fetus as a human being? Regardless of what SCOTUS says about it, why do you personally think so?

Indoctrination.

It's funny - you can write down a list of many subjects. Abortion, immigration, taxing the wealthy/redistribution, obamacare, global warming, .... and on and on then separate them into "left" and "right" issues.

I bet most members fall into the bell curve of "I subscribe to that defined theory" and can be clearly labeled a leftist or a rightist.

It amazes me how deeply indoctrinated most issues are and how many/most people just almost in knee-jerk fashion automatically take positions just because they're either "leftists" or "rightists".

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 12:26 PM
Indoctrination.

It's funny - you can write down a list of many subjects. Abortion, immigration, taxing the wealthy/redistribution, obamacare, global warming, .... and on and on then separate them into "left" and "right" issues.

I bet most members fall into the bell curve of "I subscribe to that defined theory" and can be clearly labeled a leftist or a rightist.

It amazes me how deeply indoctrinated most issues are and how many/most people just almost in knee-jerk fashion automatically take positions just because they're either "leftists" or "rightists".

Well I was hoping for original and individual thought on the matter. But I suspect you are very much correct.

jillian
01-27-2014, 12:27 PM
@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)

Why do the pro-choice crowd bubbas think that it is so wrong to acknowledge the fetus as a human being? Regardless of what SCOTUS says about it, why do you personally think so?

because when two cells becomes a person is a moral judgment.

and what's a "pro choice bubba"?

btw, the way you phrased your question... answers itself.

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 12:31 PM
because when two cells becomes a person is a moral judgment.

and what's a "pro choice bubba"?

btw, the way you phrased your question... answers itself.

So the SCOTUS is the end-all be-all decision maker on what is right and what is wrong then?

Again, what do you think personally?

.. jillian?

Chris
01-27-2014, 12:33 PM
Medical science says human life begins at conception. Morality ought to have something to do with reality, not arbitrary definitions.

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 12:39 PM
Medical science says human life begins at conception. Morality ought to have something to do with reality, not arbitrary definitions.

If you bring science and math into the debate, you'll have no leftists to debate with.

Chris
01-27-2014, 01:04 PM
If you bring science and math into the debate, you'll have no leftists to debate with.

They debate? Would love to see it.

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 01:05 PM
They debate? Would love to see it.

Touche.

Captain Obvious
01-27-2014, 02:12 PM
because when two cells becomes a person is a moral judgment.

and what's a "pro choice bubba"?

btw, the way you phrased your question... answers itself.

The bullshitology is that nobody on the fucking planet would be discussing the concept of "when does life begin" if abortion weren't an issue.

All this concept does is give the baby-in-a-blender crowd an opportunity to sleep better at night by lying to themselves that they're not butchering unborn children.

Are you a Christian?

Think God falls for this "when life begins" bullshit?

I'm not playing the religion card here either but I think religious beliefs and humanitarian (ie: we should be caring for, nurturing, protecting our children - not hacking them up into little pieces in the womb) are parallel.

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 02:31 PM
I agree with jillian it is a moral judgement and not for government. Only when I judge them as having no morals the pro-abortion women get pissed and try to tell me I can't or that I'm a big stupid man or some shit.

Whatevs, can't have it both ways.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/d7/d75b2cdbf3df9900f0abe255d1504e883e014364a1fb548c98 faa5f849beaaef.jpg

junie
01-27-2014, 02:31 PM
the only reason abortion ever became a political 'wedge' issue is because some righteous state legislators began making laws which invaded individual reproductive privacy.

appeals to emotion got nowhere with the disinterested SCOTUS which ruled that states can't ever have jurisdiction in the first trimester...

appeals to emotion have continued ever since, but the privacy issue has not and will never change regardless of scientific labels.

Chris
01-27-2014, 02:46 PM
I agree with jillian it is a moral judgement and not for government. Only when I judge them as having no morals the pro-abortion women get pissed and try to tell me I can't or that I'm a big stupid man or some shit.

Whatevs, can't have it both ways.

...






So then there's no need for government's Roe v Wade decision.


What is the moral basis for "when two cells becomes a person is a moral judgment"? Morality is social not individual.

Chris
01-27-2014, 02:48 PM
the only reason abortion ever became a political 'wedge' issue is because some righteous state legislators began making laws which invaded individual reproductive privacy.

appeals to emotion got nowhere with the disinterested SCOTUS which ruled that states can't ever have jurisdiction in the first trimester...

appeals to emotion have continued ever since, but the privacy issue has not and will never change regardless of scientific labels.



SCOTUS wasn't disinterested in pulling this so-called right to privacy out of its penumbral ass, so to speak.

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 02:50 PM
It's been a while since I have said anything controversial.

---
I think that birth control temporarily denies a woman to live up to her potential as a person simultaneously reducing respect and value for her.
---

There, have at it.

The Xl
01-27-2014, 02:51 PM
It's been a while since I have said anything controversial.

---
I think that birth control temporarily denies a woman to live up to her potential as a person simultaneously reducing respect and value for her.
---

There, have at it.

When you say "birth control", do you mean the whole 9 yards, condoms included?

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 02:56 PM
When you say "birth control", do you mean the whole 9 yards, condoms included?

Primarily sterilization. But long term usage of any form of birth control would fall under the category as well.

*Obviously this is tempered to the individual's situation. A person with valid health risks has prudent reasoning to bar herself from pregancy.

I just think it is completely backwards that humans are the only species that are actively trying to stop themselves from reproducing.

junie
01-27-2014, 02:57 PM
SCOTUS wasn't disinterested in pulling this so-called right to privacy out of its penumbral ass, so to speak.




it was disinterested in the emotional appeals as to when life begins... it has a vested interest in upholding individual privacy from state intrusion.

that's after all things considered chris, including 'natural law' which our legal system is derived from...


In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/robes_blackmun.html) (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.

Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states...


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html

Chris
01-27-2014, 03:22 PM
it was disinterested in the emotional appeals as to when life begins... it has a vested interest in upholding individual privacy from state intrusion.

that's after all things considered chris, including 'natural law' which our legal system is derived from...


In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/robes_blackmun.html) (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.

Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states...


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html








As for interests, read the ruling, here in part:


3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.


As for the so-called right, it is penumbral, again, the court, blackburn:


The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 [p153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.


You won't find it in natural rights without some sort of reasoned argument, junie. And, no, rights are not created by courts or government.


And if it were, as a right to the people, then the court cannot regulate it.

Max Rockatansky
01-27-2014, 03:26 PM
Huckabee needs to step away from the doughnut table.

Huckabee 2007:
http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/Mike_Huckabee_portrait.jpg

Huckabee 2014:
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/04/17/17_mikehuckabee.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg

jillian
01-27-2014, 03:31 PM
So the SCOTUS is the end-all be-all decision maker on what is right and what is wrong then?

Again, what do you think personally?

.. @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)?

yes... the supreme court decides what rights are enforced.

i'll trust them before i trust you....

and my opinion? is that it is up to the individual and it's none of your business or the government's business.

i thought that was clear.

Chris
01-27-2014, 03:32 PM
yes... the supreme court decides what rights are enforced.

i'll trust them before i trust you....

and my opinion? is that it is up to the individual and it's none of your business or the government's business.

i thought that was clear.



So you then do not support the court's decision in Roe v Wade?

Cthulhu
01-27-2014, 03:34 PM
yes... the supreme court decides what rights are enforced.

Scary world.



and my opinion? is that it is up to the individual and it's none of your business or the government's business.

i thought that was clear.

Should not the same rationale be applied to child support? Her body, her life, her rights and such. And being a 'strong independent empowered modern woman' should negate all need for the attachment of a male's wallet correct?

Chris
01-27-2014, 04:01 PM
It's been a while since I have said anything controversial.

---
I think that birth control temporarily denies a woman to live up to her potential as a person simultaneously reducing respect and value for her.
---

There, have at it.



Interesting, see where you're going with that--besides back to the topic. Birth control, even sterilization, or abstinence, violates basic biological natural law.

Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/two.asp):


The natural law ethic decrees that for all living things, “goodness” is the fulfillment of what is best for that type of creature; “goodness” is therefore relative to the nature of the creature concerned. Thus, Professor Cropsey writes:



The classical [natural law] doctrine is that each thing is excellent in the degree to which it can do the things for which its species is naturally equipped. . . . Why is the natural good? . . . [Because] there is neither a way nor a reason to prevent ourselves from distinguishing between useless and serviceable beasts, for example; and . . . the most empirical and . . . rational standard of the serviceable, or the limit of the thing’s activity, is set by its nature. We do not judge elephants to be good because they are natural; or because nature is morally good—whatever that would mean. We judge a particular elephant to be good by the light of what elephant nature makes it possible for elephants to do and to be.[7]


In the case of man, the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man’s nature.[8]


I wonder will you get a reply.

junie
01-27-2014, 04:02 PM
As for interests, read the ruling, here in part:




As for the so-called right, it is penumbral, again, the court, blackburn:




You won't find it in natural rights without some sort of reasoned argument, junie. And, no, rights are not created by courts or government.


And if it were, as a right to the people, then the court cannot regulate it.


i didn't say SCOTUS created a woman's right to reproductive privacy in the first trimester...but SCOTUS indeed protected that natural right as provided by our constitution.

MrJimmyDale
01-27-2014, 04:06 PM
reproductive privacy That's a little one-sided and watered down isn't it?

Chris
01-27-2014, 04:11 PM
i didn't say SCOTUS created a woman's right to reproductive privacy in the first trimester...but SCOTUS indeed protected that natural right as provided by our constitution.



i didn't say SCOTUS created a woman's right to reproductive privacy in the first trimester...

Right, I said it created a right from the shadows of natural rights.


but SCOTUS indeed protected that natural right as provided by our constitution.

Then cite the constitutional passage.

junie
01-27-2014, 04:55 PM
Right, I said it created a right from the shadows of natural rights.



Then cite the constitutional passage.


i've already cited precisely what SCOTUS cited...why you pretend otherwise is beyond me...as if supreme court justices just pull random reasoning 'out of their ass'.

Codename Section
01-27-2014, 05:39 PM
That's a little one-sided and watered down isn't it?

Especially since reproductive implies she's pregnant and having a baby, ie "reproduce". They mean fetii suction privacy.

Chris
01-27-2014, 05:48 PM
i've already cited precisely what SCOTUS cited...why you pretend otherwise is beyond me...as if supreme court justices just pull random reasoning 'out of their ass'.

IOW, it's not there. As I cited, they found it in the shadows of natural rights. But governments don't create rights.