by Ron (Administering the Clear Channel Fox news gullibility test, daily) W.
Member since:
September 6, 2006

The Theocracy Question, The War on Women, and the Importance of 2012

May 16, 2012 12:40 PM UTC (Updated: May 16, 2012 01:15 PM UTC)
views: 0 | 7 people recommend this | comments: 144

Do you believe in the separation of church and state as the founders did? If you cherish the religious freedom that is being legislated away, one chip at a time all over this country, you need to vote this year, and vote Democratic. As just one small example, I give you my home state of Kansas. In my state, Republican Governor Brownback and his stooges in the state legislature have instituted draconian new standards for all abortion clinics that will virtually eliminate a woman's right to choose in this state by hounding them out of business. Now they have also passed a bill that allows individual doctors and pharmacists to deny women even birth control, should they find that to their religious liking. Pharmacists are not even required to forward your prescription to another pharmacy, should they not approve of your reproductive health choices.In all, he has recently signed legislation that pressures abortion clinics with new regulations, legislation that imposes long waiting times to get an abortion, and legislation that bans insurance companies from covering abortion procedures. And it is hardly just here, in other states, all over this nation, The Christian right agenda is being advanced at an alarming rate, on issues ranging from women's reproductive rights, women's equal economic status, to GLTB discrimination. I don't know if you have kept up on these issues, but it is fast becoming an assertion of religion's place at the table in government, and their right to restrict your freedom. This government was specifically formed to avoid that collusion, but piggybacking on the less radical Christian's tendency to support religious causes, they have managed a coup, of sorts, all over this country. One disturbing look at where this is leading us has been laid out here. I strongly urge women, and those that support GLBT justice, to read it, and to make sure you vote in November. Keep in mind that one of the other things they are doing, all over America, is restricting people's right to vote using the ALEC guidelines, especially the Democratically inclined voter base. Check with your polling authorities to make sure you are on the voter list, and to find out what new requirements will be imposed at the polls, now, not in November when it will be too late. There has also been a lot of partisan gerrymandering done, with Republicans in control of the process; as well, and we are starting from a disadvantage in the first place, in many areas. We will need every vote we can get this time. Please be one of them.

Comments: 144

Winston, how do you figure that allowing a woman to choose what she does with her own body amounts to forced conformity? That video is a classic case of turning an issue on it's head, and the truth is, the religious right and Republicans are the ones forcing their vision of conformity on women, Not the other way around. Under Obama guidelines, a woman can still make her own reproductive rights decisions, under your religiously driven one, they can't you would decide for them. The only right the religious give up is their right to make those decisions for them. You can wrap it in whatever religious freedom wrapper you want to, but the truth is, that freedom you want is to make others not of your faith knuckle under to it.
Larry M. May 16, 2012, 2:08pm UTC
The religious have no right to force their morality or their precepts on anyone else in our Constitution. They do have that legal right in theocratic nations which most Americans consider to be totalitarian states.
Here in Kansas, the weather is partly Dominionist to fairly Taliban, and the temperature is rising.
Char H. May 16, 2012, 3:59pm UTC
Ron, You have the luck to be living in one of the few wholesome places still offering wholesome living and strong family values. The people of Kansas have not been so corrupted with the bad things in life that populated areas tend to foster.
M O. May 16, 2012, 4:34pm UTC
wholesome living? not been corrupted with the 'bad things in life'?

Please explain, Char. This should be good.

Kansas has an obesity rate of 29%. Almost a third of the state (this includes children) is overweight to the extent that their health is in danger. I suppose that's wholesome.

Kansas City has one of the highest crime rates in the country. I suppose that not 'bad'.

Kansas gun law: "It is unlawful knowingly to sell, give or otherwise transfer any firearm with a barrel less than 12 inches to any person under 18." Personally I prefer my kids carry a firearm with a barrel more than 12", so I guess that's a reflection of 'strong family values'.
Char, I assure you things are not all that wholesome here. Our politics are full of back room deals and we have all the disadvantages of other states, just with a fundie veneer.
Hypocrisy is not a dirty word here, among the faithful, any more than it is anywhere else.
Char H. May 16, 2012, 5:51pm UTC
The people I met were solid. Not criminals or druggies. They did have a few rotund members in their pack. I just sensed a bit slower approach to life, a simpler way. And they all grew gardens and did family activities, not the everybody goes their own way of the cities.
Well, yeah, left alone, Kansans are pretty laid back
The people they are stupid enough to elect are anything but.....
Char H. May 20, 2012, 12:54pm UTC
Perhaps Ron, you are not in the majority in Kansas Ron. That is why you are unhappy with who they elect.
What galls me is the lies they foist on people to accomplish that feat, and the creeping infestation into government of the clergy and religion. That is clearly unconstitutional, no matter the majority.
M O. May 16, 2012, 2:30pm UTC
If it comes to that, then I think women should simply refuse to have sex with any man and start looking for alternatives. That will be the ultimate exercise of personal choice and we'll see if the men change their minds.
I would prefer they break with tradition, and just come out and vote, in droves, first......
I mean, some of us are on your side, lol.
M O. May 16, 2012, 2:34pm UTC
Well, that would probably make more sense, except it seems that many women in Kansas and Florida and some other states either don't vote or have been brainwashed by their husbands. So, the sane women will just have to deal with it the best way possible.
M O. May 16, 2012, 2:35pm UTC
Of course, I'm sure if that happened these guys would legalize rape. You're right - it is looking more and more like the Taliban every day.
I wish that were as much of a joke as it should be, but this is seriously disturbing, in my own state, and a plethora of others under Republican rule.
Char H. May 16, 2012, 4:01pm UTC
It is a joke, guys. Like anybody could ever take abortion away from the feminist lobby...AIN'T gonna happen.
That would be a false sense of security you are selling there, Char, that is plainly their aim, and in Kansas, and other states, that is the end result of what they have done, and want to do..
Char H. May 16, 2012, 4:09pm UTC
And birth control pills are everywhere. No pharmacy will allow their employees to deny people pills, it would've business suicide. They will use it as a way to get the libs put in jobs first, because they are pro birth control and abortion. This is much ado about nothing.
Char H. May 16, 2012, 4:11pm UTC
BTW I thought I typed would be business suicide.
But if women come out in numbers to vote these women hating fundie loving Repugnicans out of office, I imagine we might make your platitude become a reality.....
You have obviously never been to Kansas. There are fundies all over the place just aching for the chance to slap down a harlot or two, lol.
Small town Kansas generally has privately owned pharmacies to rely on, Char, not a Walgreens or a WalMart.
M O. May 16, 2012, 4:36pm UTC
And when a woman is in a rural area with no transportation and has access to only one pharmacy, then they do not have the options available to others. That's criminal.
Char H. May 16, 2012, 4:41pm UTC
Actually, I was in Kansas, within the last decade. My son was stationed there. I really thought it was great, if you like brown, as my son jokes.
pretty green here, right now. Must have been winter
Char H. May 16, 2012, 5:02pm UTC
Yes, Was Christmas when I went. He was shipping out to Iraq in Jan.
Well in December, here, your color choices are brown, or white, no exceptions, and I much prefer the brown, myself.
Char H. May 16, 2012, 5:52pm UTC
It was cold, but no white when I was there.
Renee Nal May 21, 2012, 4:36am UTC
MO said, "Of course, I'm sure if that happened these guys would legalize rape. You're right - it is looking more and more like the Taliban every day."

Ron said, "I wish that were as much of a joke as it should be, but this is seriously disturbing, in my own state, and a plethora of others under Republican rule."

wow, c'mon guys.
wow, attempting to minimize what is a seriously disturbing and documented agenda is what I would say wow to.
Optimus Paradigm May 16, 2012, 2:45pm UTC
Women should have the right to chose as well we should have the right to choose whether we want Health care Insurance or not.
Typical Liberal stance. Pro-choice on Abortion but not Pro-choice on other subjects such as Forced purchasing of Health Care.
It's Draconian when Conservatives interfere with Liberal Choice but it's not when Liberals interfere with conservative Choice. Hmm?
Actually. Optimus, I don't support the mandate, myself, so, not so much, really..
The individual mandate, mind you.....
M O. May 16, 2012, 3:48pm UTC
I would have much preferred universal healthcare. It makes much more sense from a business perspective - spread the risk, increase the buying power. The individual mandate was a default position to try to reduce the skyrocketing cost of our already failing system of insured care - making everyone responsible for themselves considering the fact that nobody's health care costs are born by just them - they are picked up by the rest of the people in the country through rising costs and premiums. I'm pretty sick of THAT - having to pay for people who refuse to pay for themselves. I really wish I had a choice on that one. When my small business health insurance premiums go up every year by 20+%, and no one in the office is actually using medical services, I KNOW that I'm picking up the tab for every schmuck out there who is screaming about their personal freedom NOT to pay for insurance while checking into the emergency room every time they have a sniffle.
Well, I am one of those people, I suppose, now. In Kansas, they let Republicans keep in place their state insurance high risk pools. The problem is, a policy with a 25,000 deductible, that has to be satisfied before the policy kicks in at all to pay 80 percent, thereafter costs over four hundred sixty dollars a month, which I can not afford, and afford to buy the prescriptions I am presently dependent on, too, let alone eat. I can't get regular health insurance, due to my existing conditions that were already evident before my employer dropped me when I became disabled. Don't hate the leaches for the rock and the hard place where many of them reside, MO, many have not chosen to be there.
M O. May 16, 2012, 4:17pm UTC
I didn't mean to imply that everyone who is uninsured chooses to be so, Ron. I was commenting on Optimus' 'Live Free and Uninsured, or Die!' ploy that he claims Liberals hate. People who choose to be uninsured for these reasons are being irresponsible in our nation's paradigm of making health insurance companies rich rather than delivering good health care systems to its people.

My preference, as stated, is to change this ridiculous paradigm so that ALL people, most of all people in your situation, have access to good healthcare, which I consider not only a right of a citizen in a modern industrialized country, but an imperative for a secure nation.
My preference too, and it would greatly decrease the percentage of our GDP that we now spend on healthcare.
I do, though, pay my own medical costs, on time, and never go to any doctor, especially the emergency room (which costs over a hundred a visit, before you pay any doctor or xrays or anything else) unless I absolutely have to. I used to have more options, before I had a major medical incident two years ago that ate both my 401ks and almost cost me my house. Now, my options are few.
Correction three, maybe even four years ago, can't remember
Of course, I would still not be able to see a doctor any more frequently, if I had that insurance, and I would not be able to pay my own medical costs, which I would still have to do, with it, either, it would all go to the insurance company for insurance totally worthless to me, over all. I guess if I died, the hospital would get some good out of it, if my bill were over twenty five thou, but geez
M O. May 16, 2012, 3:50pm UTC
BTW, Ron, that's one evil pope picture.
That's one evil pope, actually, lol
Char H. May 16, 2012, 8:41pm UTC
You know Ron, that title is a bit dramatic. A theocracy, really?
Jim Marshall May 16, 2012, 8:55pm UTC
Char there are some in this country who would prefer some version of that although they would call it by another name.
If you read the link, it isn't, and that guy isn't an isolated nut case, this country is full of dominionists trying to impose the law of God and displace the laws of man,
Char H. May 17, 2012, 5:39am UTC
Most people don't support that, other than laws for common decency. They know that would lead to oppression, after all , which God?
Jim Marshall May 17, 2012, 7:02pm UTC
Char the God that person worships, of course!!
Most people aren't trying to take over this government, using you people, but obviously, if you listen to them talk, and look at their actions, a high percentage of your leaders are.
Char H. May 20, 2012, 12:57pm UTC
Ron, It is the money mostly talking. Somehow we have to fix that. Overturn citizens united. Get rid of lobbyists, period, except for citizens.
It is the money alright, but that is allied with some pretty scary Christian Dominionists, Char.
I wasn't aware any of those people were intent on creating a theocracy, and forcing their religious beliefs on everyone, jj. Never seen a church of Clooney, but I imagine a lot of the ladies would join one.....
Robert G. May 17, 2012, 7:20am UTC
This coming election will be a great decider in how this country is governed.
Will it be the Religious Right or will we continue with Obama and strengthen his resolve.
Char H. May 17, 2012, 7:02pm UTC
You can say all conservatives are religious, but no matter how many times you say it, that doesn't make it so.
Robert G. May 17, 2012, 8:16pm UTC
No
But I can say they are lead by people that say they are.
Renee Nal May 21, 2012, 4:37am UTC
Obama says he is....
Robert G. May 21, 2012, 6:24am UTC
But Obama does not try to force his belief on others.
I am pretty certain, jj, though you dislike the man, that is hardly true.
Char H. May 22, 2012, 3:28pm UTC
He does try to make the faithful pay for things they do not believe in.
Well if that's your standard, you should have walked a mile in my shoes during the Bush presidency, lol.
Rose Hill May 17, 2012, 12:05pm UTC
I agree this is an evil pope picture:)
The church never gives up, they think in centuries. Just wanted to say I agree with your assessment and what drives me absolutely crazy is that there are plenty of women who buy into this new credo.
Char H. May 17, 2012, 7:00pm UTC
New credo, or traditional family values? The new credo is scary. We are living a nightmare. Babies murdered with impunity, the sick and elderly denied needed services for lack of money and no family support, the masses expecting support from cradle to grave and trapped in poverty because of it. This is not the way America was at it's founding, or as the founders planned it at all, so which is the new credo?
It is stupid, and going to cost the states involved millions in legal representation. The SCOTUS settled this issue a long time ago, all this is is election year grandstanding, and the laws will be knocked down, eventually. In the meantime, how many women will die on the end of a coat hanger? There is no moral high ground on this issue, just religious ignorance.
Yes, this is not the way America was at it's founding and we should go back, ground all airplanes, got an infection? No antibiotics for you. A very high percentage of infants died in 1776, Char, so did their mothers in bearing them, the idea everything should be as it was then, is the least intelligent thing I think I have ever heard you say, and is at the root of the problem with the thinking of the conservative mind. Occasionally, it really disgusts me.
And by the way, at this country's founding, less than one in ten, or less than three in ten, depending on who you listen to, Americans belonged to ANY church, historians have called it the great religious depression, and the only religion not in serious decline at that time was the Deist faith, the faith of many of our founders, such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. to name a few.
Char H. May 19, 2012, 12:03pm UTC
I just think they would never have sanctioned killing babies by the millions. They didn't have all these rules for adoption either, because most families that took in children did so with love, because people were basically more moral. That is what makes me so sad, that so many have so little feeling for the children they are killing. Obviously you are being facetious. I just wish people had more responsibility for the lives they create. Not to use it as birth control. I believe in zero population growth by personal responsibility. With the birth control available, there is no excuse for so many abortions. If it was the accidental mistake, I do not think there would be such an outrage.

Even with feeling that way Ron, it os clear to me that Roe V Wade will not be overturned. To threaten it will is just a political ploy.
And, while we are at it, abortions happened then, too, using herbal potions, and government didn't stick their noses in women's vaginas then, either.
No, I am being real, the glorification, the pedestals conservatives put days gone by up on are delusional, and that in itself has cost this country in lives and treasure.
Sorry Char, it gets old.
Char H. May 19, 2012, 12:47pm UTC
I have to say, the point about the government interfering is not lost on me. That is why I have never actively fought to overturn Roe V wade. I guess it is a bit hypocritical to some minds to fuss over the government being intrusive, then take a stand against abortion. In the end I oppose it because the unborn cannot stand up for themselves, and they deserve the right to live, above all other rights. That is why I do not feel it os hypocritical. Yes, I know it is tedious, but what of the millions of babies, every year?
Char, what babies? The standards were carefully researched and the cut offs put in place at the point of viability, with modern medical assistance, at that. There is no basis, except a religious one, to claim that a fetus is a separate living entity. The idea two cells can contain a separate entity, or as you would say, a soul, is contrary to common sense, to me, it's like saying an amoeba contains a soul, and I have to wonder just how long religious superstition is going to cancel out science, and rule our society. It's mad.
Char H. May 19, 2012, 6:58pm UTC
We are back to the point where I say, but Ron, uninterrupted, it becomes a little girl or little boy. It is a LIVING being.
A caterpillar becomes a butterfly or moth, too, but it ain't no butterfly when it's eating my tomato plants, either.
Char H. May 20, 2012, 1:03am UTC
Lol
Char H. May 20, 2012, 1:03am UTC
So kill all the caterpillars you want, just let the kids live.
I don't even think I expressed an opinion on baby goats, Char. Babies, either. I am talking about fetuses, zygotes, embryos. They are no more babies than a goat is.
Char H. May 20, 2012, 2:16am UTC
Why,/how do you have a dog in that fight anyway? I give up on this yes/no/yes/no conversation. :-)
Vic Damico May 20, 2012, 2:30am UTC
If it were not a human child that was in the process of making its way into this world, there would be no justification for an abortion in the first place. If your wife is pregnant and you are excited about the child to be, and she gets an abortion, you will not see your child. Its little life would have been taken from you. It is a baby. It cannot simply be dismissed to make some feel better about using abortion as a form of birth control. It is no less murder simply because you take care of what you consider a problem, just because the baby is never seen. It is like killing someone in the woods where no one is able to witness the crime. The person is still dead. Those who support the killing of innocent children have many ways in which they try to justify the action. Many of us will never help you justify your lack of care for human life. It is just that simple.

There is no "WAR ON WOMEN." That phrase is being used as nothing more than a political tool. What idiot truly believes that anyone is against women, or is fighting to discredit or dismiss all women as being irrelevant? It is a pathetic attempt to present the right as being "women haters" in order to present a negative vision of anything related to the conservative side of the coin. Conservatives have wives, sisters, mothers, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers, just as do the liberals. With the phrase, "WAR ON WOMEN" it concerns the views of those who are willing to fight for the life of a child, and those who choose convenience over protecting that life. The "WAR ON WOMEN" does not exist and the use of the phrase as a political tool is disrespectful to all women, period.
Vic Damico May 20, 2012, 2:42am UTC
By the way, Ron...I am not speaking directly to you, but in general. Those to whom the words apply should pretty much know it.
The republican party has introduced over a hundred different legislative initiatives in a plethora of states, that affect a woman's right to choose what happens to their own body, as well as legislation making it legal to pay women less for the same job in at least one case.On the national scene it's almost as bad, with attempts to defund women's health services and watering down the violence against women act, and on and on. You may call it what you wish, the effect is the same, and I will call it what it is, a war upon women's rights. If you don't want to be seen that way, quit election year grandstanding over a long ago settled Supreme Court decision. All of these laws will be struck down, they are clearly unconstitutional, and it will cost the states involved a bundle to fight that losing battle. I will leave the reach of religion into our government to the courts, but I vehemently oppose any laws made upon religion, and that is all this is, a religious intrusion on women's rights.
Many of us, Vic, base our opinions on scientific fact, not our religion, sorry. I am too old to have to worry about abortions affecting my life, personally, but I am not too old to advocate for another's freedom to choose what happens to her own body, That is the issue, freedom or superstitious dogma.
Renee Nal May 21, 2012, 4:43am UTC
"Char, what babies? The standards were carefully researched and the cut offs put in place at the point of viability, with modern medical assistance, at that. There is no basis, except a religious one, to claim that a fetus is a separate living entity." So, viability is the humanity gauge? Because late term abortions do occur when the fetus could potentially be "viable". For me, the humanity gauge is when there are hands, feet, heartbeat, brainwaves, ability to feel pain, all of these things cannot be considered anything other than human.
I am not a big fan of late term abortion, I feel that the delay of making that decision only muddies the legal water, but I do not believe the idea of any fetus being more than an empty vessel, I also believe that the most fundamental freedom we possess is the right to decide what happens to our own body. When you take that away from others, how can you possibly think you are an advocate of freedom at all? You can not.
Roryann O'Rourke May 21, 2012, 4:26pm UTC
I do not believe the idea of any fetus being more than an empty vessel

Spoken like a not-so-real man.

Except in late term abortions, they point that 'empty vessel' that is living and breating, off in a room somewhere to die.

Such compassion from someone who claims to care so much about gays so-called 'rights'. How many gays do you think have been aborted? After all, gays are BORN that way, right?

Do you have kids, Ron?
I have raised children, though I was not their biological parent. A house may be built, the plumbing, electricity and other systems installed and tested. It does not become a home until someone moves in. Your belief it does is not logical to me, and there is a higher principle at work here, anyway, the rights of the mother to decide what happens to her own body. Without that fundamental right, no one can be free. This is just more of the same oppression religion has used to subject women to the male will for eons. A fetus is not gay, either.
Renee Nal May 21, 2012, 7:10pm UTC
"there is a higher principle at work here, anyway, the rights of the mother" Ron, you just summed it up. This is the issue, I contend that people who are pro-abortion recognize that they are killing a child, but to them, the mother's life trumps the child's life. And hey, it is a bonus that the baby won't be one extra mouth to feed. That is the mentality. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that people know that a fetus (particularly a late term fetus) is a human, they just don't care.
If that were true, Renee, you would think that people would feel the same about a new born, and I assure you, I do not.
Besides, a child dies in this world every five seconds for lack of food. When you folks become good enough stewards of the children already in this world, I will be a lot more likely to bow to your judgment on the fetus's of this world. For all the hoopla, this keeps right on happening, and no one talks about that, just those horrid abortions. Highly hypocritical.
Char H. May 22, 2012, 1:55pm UTC
That link went nowhere.
works for me.
Renee Nal May 21, 2012, 3:14am UTC
I am personally pro-life, but having nothing to do with religion. I don't think that anybody knows the moment a group of cells becomes a human being. Until that time, to me, it is murder. Or you could say, a "war on babies".
It is an arbitrary choice for you, then, ok.....
For the vast majority, it is not, and many that say it is, lie, in my opinion.
possibly, even to themselves.
Renee Nal May 21, 2012, 7:07pm UTC
Why is it a lie, Ron? If a baby has a heart beat, brain waves, the ability to feel pain, how is that anything other than "human"? It has nothing to do with religion. Scientifically, what is it? Is it a stretch and a "war on women" to want to protect human life?
Renee Nal May 21, 2012, 7:11pm UTC
I think it is interesting how you know what the "vast majority" believe. That is quite astute of you.
People are not immune to the religion this society is immersed in, Renee, whether they are religiously active themselves, or not. As for your what is it? question, I imagine that is disingenuous on your part, it is a fetus.
Renee Nal May 21, 2012, 8:02pm UTC
"People are not immune to the religion this society is immersed in" What do you mean? I think our big difference in all sincerity is that you believe religion is harmful. I believe that it can be, but I believe that overall, it is good and impacts people positively. I have no qualms with people who believe, sometimes I have qualms with individuals themselves, whether or not they use their faith to justify bad behavior, or not. I think that our big difference is that I think people should be judged by their character and not their wealth, religious beliefs, political beliefs, skin color, age, sexual orientation, gender or any other thing, other than their personal character.

I am not sure I understand your question about the fetus?
Your assessment of the difference between you and I is hardly accurate, and there is sooo much more, lol. I have no problem with the religious, right up to the point that they insist on forcing their religious beliefs on other people, which seems to be, today, all the time.
Renee Nal May 21, 2012, 10:13pm UTC
" I have no problem with the religious, right up to the point that they insist on forcing their religious beliefs on other people, which seems to be, today, all the time."

Do you mean like when President Obama or Nancy Pelosi, for example, try to advance their agendas with biblical references?

My assessment is wrong, why? Because I am partisan and you are not?

"I have no problem with the religious" Is that why you referred to "clergy and religion" as a "creeping infestation"?

"When you folks become good enough stewards of the children already in this world, I will be a lot more likely to bow to your judgment on the fetus's of this world." What makes you think that Christians do not care about all children? Is that opinion, or fact? By the way, I feel the same about those who declare a war on women but could care less about the plight of women in many countries, where they could be stoned to death for pretty much any perceived transgression. I feel the same about the people who care more about "marriage equality" in the states than the plight of homosexuals around the world, where 75 countries still have laws against homosexuality and many include the death penalty for homosexuality. How about the plight of homosexuals in Iraq? Do you know what is happening there?
Quoting biblical references to bolster your arguments in an over 80 percent Christian (professed, anyway) country is smart, legislating to force your religious beliefs on others is another matter, obviously, and that is not what either pelosi or obama were doing. The creeping religion in government I was talking about are people engaged in exactly that, forcing their religious beliefs on others. Yeah, I do, Renee. But then, there are things we can change, and those we can't, reasonably. I can't write a check and change another country's attitudes on homosexuality, but I can, and do, write a check each month to help a child not become a statistic, and you could too, if it mattered to you, at all.
Renee Nal May 21, 2012, 10:42pm UTC
"Quoting biblical references to bolster your arguments in an over 80 percent Christian (professed, anyway) country is smart," Are you actually standing for that??? It is NOT Constitutional. And you are just being argumentative. You could agree with me, but you would not admit it. I am too "partisan" for you.
I could agree with you, but I would have to then end my miserable life as not worth living anymore, lol
And I notice you totally ignored about the last third of that comment, too.
Vic Damico May 21, 2012, 4:38pm UTC
If those who do not believe life begins with conception would instead of having an abortion, would simply wait out the nine month period, it should be pretty obvious that life had begun nine months earlier.

For those who do not believe it to be a baby, what do they tell their wives when they announce that they are pregnant?

Wife..."Honey, I am pregnant!"

Husband..."I wonder if it will be a baby."

I am making a point...Those who are in support of aborting the lives of innocent babies know at the time that the wife announces being pregnant that a life is on the way. This dancing with words defense is just pathetic and the play on words applies when speaking in general, not as it applies to them personally, as it relates to pregnancy.
No, they know that if carried to term it will be a baby. The ability to safely abort that process is a fairly recent one in the annals of man. It should be no surprise to anyone that previous to that ability society has adopted a mindset that does not include it. That really doesn't mean a whole lot in the scheme of things. The phrase "If God had wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings" still persists, all these many years later......
Vic Damico May 21, 2012, 10:28pm UTC
So, are you saying that if your wife told you that she was pregnant, you would not have any emotions, make any preparations, or acknowledge the child until it made its way from the womb? Tell me that you would not support your wife, or treat her as if she were with a child until the child was born, and I will believe the rest of your statements as being a serious mind-set from you. The "I want to abort this child because I am not ready for the responsibility, or I am not ready for a child, or I cannot afford to bring a child into the world, or it is my right to do what I want with my body is a pathetic way to handle something as serious as voiding a life that is working its way to the world. I am tired of hearing those say it is not a life, not a baby, or if it is done early enough, it is OK. It is a life, and those who abort know this, or they would not see a need to get the abortion. The very definition of “abort” means to “terminate before completion.” Even by the definition of the word, it suggest that what is being terminated is something that has already started.

If an abortion takes place, the child will not come into the world. It is because the actual developmental process of the life has been halted. That logic is equivalent to murdering a two year old, and justifying it by saying that the body was not fully developed. You, and those who support the murdering of these innocent children can only justify this nonsense within your own minds, but the rest of us are not willing to murder these children as an easy way to avoid responsibility for our own actions. That is why you will never see one bit of compromise on our part in defending the precious lives of these lost children.
That being your belief is more than clear, Vic, but that is your belief, not scientific fact, and you have no right to impose your beliefs on other people, and the SCOTUS has told you that already, geeze.
but the rest of us are not willing to murder these children as an easy way to avoid responsibility for our own actions.

Then I highly recommend that when you get pregnant the next time, Vic, you don't get an abortion.....
Vic Damico May 21, 2012, 11:02pm UTC
The next time I get pregnant? I did not really expect you to be willing to answer my question, but I thought you would at least take me seriously. I will go to my grave knowing that I have fought for the innocent lives of many children lost. Many will only be able to say that they chose an easy way out that led to the deaths of the children. I can hold my head up high with my decision.
How can you do that, when a child dies in this world every five seconds from lack of food, and you seem totally unconcerned about that? I really don't understand the hypocrisy of the religious. They build their millions of dollar houses of worship, and scream about the unborn, while all the time the clock is ticking, and each time the second hand goes five ticks, another child dies that is already alive, and you ignore it. You want me to take you seriously, do something about that, instead of sticking your bible into some other woman's business. Sheesh. What did Jesus say? What was the second most important thing to him? Let me give you a hint, it was about loving your fellow man, not beating women over their heads for not believing as you do. You ain't doin' it right, Vic, by any stretch of the imagination.
Vic Damico May 22, 2012, 3:08am UTC
Ok, since you are going to respond in a personal manner about me on something you could not possibly know, I will respond to defend myself. You do not know me. You say that I seem totally unconcerned about the children that die from hunger. You say I ignore it when children die as some have wealth in their own lives. I say you are running out of defense for your main item of focus with this write. You do not know how much I contribute to organizations that help children. You do not know how my church has a program designed to help the very things that you accuse me of ignoring or not being concerned with, and it is simply unnecessary to make those kind of false claims about someone whom you could not possibly justify that kind of judgment, with me or anyone else based on your lack of knowledge of the individual. You do not know what is in my heart, nor could you possibly understand the pain I feel for the children. I am fighting in favor of the children on this very write, but you have failed to see or even acknowledge that fact with me. So if you wish to attack my personal character, which you could not come close to understanding, you do so, but I will just leave this as you speaking against me personally, and discarding all that I have said. I am fighting for the children; you are trying to justify depriving them of life in situations you have deemed acceptable. Maybe you should look in the mirror and stop attacking those who are part of the fight to save children. I was not speaking against you…I was speaking in support of the children. How sad is it that you cannot see that?
You are right, I don't know you personally, but I know that this country is supposedly eighty some percent Christian, many of them, judging by the churches I see all over the landscape, are wealthy. Pardon me if I extrapolate from the obvious lack of progress on the problem. I get pretty disgusted when I see what actually happens, with children there is absolutely no arguing are children, because advocating for them will not get you to vote for people that give lip service to this cause. You can get your hackles up all you want, but the clock is ticking.
Vic Damico May 22, 2012, 1:07pm UTC
And yet, without knowing me on a personal level, you chose to make statements suggesting that you know my attitude, my concerns, and my level of contributions to helping children. To make a statement that includes the whole Christian body, collectively shows your lack of understanding of the faith, itself. We are not a group. We are not a club. We are not a cult. We do not act and behave in exactly the same manner. To speak against the entire Christian faith, as if we are not capable of independent thought indicates your ignorance of the faith. As I said in a recent post, those who do not actually know the faith (from life experiences, not by reading about it) cannot understand or explain the faith to others. It simply is not possible.

For you to see the necessity of attacking those who are fighting for the children shows that your true goal is to attack those who do not agree with you, and is not really related to the good of the children. I have said nothing that should have resulted in a character assault, yet that is what you saw as the needed direction to take our conversation. I am speaking of the concern for all children, and again, I say it is sad that you are not able to see that, but you seem to be on a quest to win a debate. I don't play games with the lives of children, and I do not need or search for your approval or permission to continue my support and fight for the innocent lives of children. I was fighting for the children long before I met you, and I will continue to fight for the children long after this one-sided pissing contest is over. You have made it clear with this post that it is not about the war on women, or the concern for children, but yet, another chance to attack and discredit anything associated with the Christian faith. I literally do not understand your motivation to speak against something of which you could not possibly understand. You don't learn faith; you experience and live it.
First, I am not attacking you so much as I am the hypocrisy of the whole Anti Abortion movement. You advocate for the arguably non child, while the continuing plight of born, undeniable, children never changes. I do understand the faith, I used to be you, for craps sakes. Onward Christian soldiers and the whole nine yards. Several events changed all that, and allowed me to see the hypocrisy, not necessarily of the rank and file, but the leadership of the Christian movement. I won't go into the whole ball of wax I went through to get to where I am, but I can tell you, I have no problems with the religious, until they try to force their beliefs on other people, and that is what you are trying to do. Then I have a very serious problem with you. You are doing it because men in power are using it to promote a political, not a religious agenda, and have fomented that effort, whether you realize it or not. The supreme court ruled on this long ago, and yet every election they trot this out, and you folks vote against your best economic interest because of something that they are merely giving lip service to. They know that all of these ridiculous state laws will not stand, they are clearly unconstitutional, as the SCOTUS recognizes exactly what I do, that to decide for yourself what happens to your own body is the most basic of human rights. You folks do, clearly, since nothing ever seems to change on that five second thing, have your priorities wrong. You beat your head against the constitution, over what you only believe is a child, while actual children already here and undeniably a separate life, die a horrible death for lack of crumbs. I have to tell you, until that changes, you have no moral high ground to stand on. If you think your God does not see that, you are delusional.
Char H. May 22, 2012, 2:09pm UTC
Ron, So let me get this straight. They are hungry there, so that justifies killing them here?
And, you, who are all upset because I don't know you, and have the nerve to make some obvious judgments, conveniently think you know I am not concerned about the children. I walk the walk, through childfund, even though I live on a hardly generous disability pension and even through a devastating catastrophic health event that cost me everything I had. The check was still there for them. throughout, so think what you will, it doesn't bother me, as it does you, because my conscience is clear.
You are not trying to get anything straight, Char, you are trying to twist it the way you want it.
So let me get this straight, because women are granted the right to make their own decisions about what happens to their own body, and you oppose that, millions of dollars should be spent to try to change that, for the children mind you (even though there is no scientific evidence for the belief that a fetus is anything but a physical shell), that is a reason to let many, many, more children die, already in this world. How's that for getting it straight, Char?
You wanted to know what my dog was, in this hunt, now you know, Char.
Vic Damico May 22, 2012, 2:51pm UTC
If the fetus is nothing but a physical shell, and not a baby, why is there a need to get an abortion? Without an abortion, a child will come into the world. There is a vast difference between an attempted justification for abortion and the dismissal of the fact fact that a life is actually being prevented from developing in the beginning stages. Once a woman has been determined to be pregnant, a life is on the way. What part of that does not make sense to you. An abortion halts that life, just as shooting someone in the head with a nickel-plated 44-magnum will do. With either process, you cause a life to cease to exist. This is not rocket science.

Ron, I do not make enough money to feed every child on Earth, but I do what I can to help children with my resources. Stop this non-sense of suggesting that those who are opposed to abortion do not help the children that they are able to help. It is a deceptive suggestion, and you are speaking of something that you could not possibly know. You don't have to like me. You don't have to agree with me. But you do not need to tell others that I, and others do not care for children and are not helping the children that we are able to help. What a nasty suggestion...
a life is actually being prevented from developing

Yes, and it is not a life at that point.

That nasty suggestion, Vic, is a complete truth, of the movement as a whole. It was not meant to indict you personally, but you made a pretty good vessel to make my point. I apologize, if you are doing all you can for living children, but only if.
Vic Damico May 22, 2012, 4:27pm UTC
If it is not life, an abortion should not be necessary. What is it that you consider the abortion to eliminate?

My point was, "Why would you assume that I, or anyone else is not doing all we can do, based on our personal abilities to help the children in the first place. If you know the specifics of an individual, and their individual efforts, or lack of efforts to help the children, you can speak accurately of that individual. That is why I considered you words to be a nasty and unjustified suggestion, nor do I understand why you would make such a statement.


Because Vic, if people were actually worried about children, they would be feeding them, not spending millions and millions on a campaign to circumvent the constitution. What they are aborting is a fetus, a vessel that is not yet a child.
Sandi S. May 23, 2012, 1:37pm UTC
Ron, at what point is the fetus no longer a vessel, but a baby? I've seen you mention it a few times on this post. Just wondering where you draw the line and why.

I saw my children on ultrasounds at 8 weeks. They had heartbeats. They moved. They looked like aliens, but you could see the little buds that would be arms, etc...they were beautiful.

No, I don't think I will change your mind, by the way! :-)
The standard in most states is viability, the point where a fetus may survive with major medical assistance. Beyond that, it is between the woman and her God. Not every Tom, Dick, and Harry that wants to push their religious beliefs on all others.
The truth is, Sandi, I don't think a single person with anything swinging between their legs has a right to even an opinion on this, but the relentless onslaught of Republican Christian men that cow any woman that doesn't agree with them convinced me I need to get their backs.
Yevgeni Stepanov Jun 7, 2012, 1:15pm UTC
A few questions:

As far as I know, the Church cannot stop a woman from taking birth control medications, the only issue at stake is "Can the government compel the Church to pay for a medication that violates the Roman Catholic Church's beliefs"'

If the government can, by passing a law, compel the Church to provide insurance to pay for birth control medications (directly or indirectly, because if the insurance company is compelled to pay for it they will have to raise premiums), can the government compel the Church to comply with Equal Opportunity Laws? In short, can the government compel the Roman Catholic Church to ordain women?

While i do not sympathize with the Roman Church, which has a history of barbarism and such, if a person wishes to be a Roman Catholic, should they not follow the dictates of their Church?

If someone can consider themselves to be a "good Catholic" and yet violate the doctrines of the Church on birth control, at what point are they no longer a "good Catholic?" When they violate a Commandment?

Perhaps this is the view of a non-believer, but if you want to believe in a 2000 year old mythology, shouldn't you believe all of it?
First of all, there is a disconnect between the church and the non religious arena functions of the church. The church itself was never affected by this. No one is forcing the church to pay for anything, and the insurance companies are a lot more apt to raise rates if contraception isn't covered, which is why they have agreed to provide it for free. It should be obvious that paying for contraception is a lot cheaper for them than all the expenses leading up to a delivery, and then carrying that baby on the policy for whatever years it is eligible. Whatever you would think they would, or should believe, 98 percent of sexually-active Catholic women report using a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. I won't express my own opinions on that.
Yevgeni Stepanov Jun 7, 2012, 9:32pm UTC
Church owned hospitals, etc. are affected. I suppose they could close their doors to non-Catholics, but who would derive benefit from that?

Should Roman Catholic hospitals be compelled to perform abortions as well?

I don't share their beliefs. In fact, I find the whole of religion a bit silly. However, once you take the Rights from one group, it makes it easier to deny them to others.
Yevgeni Stepanov Jun 7, 2012, 9:34pm UTC
Remember also that many of these institutions are SELF-insured.
Really, you mean the institutions that ALREADY operate under these, and more restrictive policies in 28 states, and several European countries, but NOW, in an election year, suddenly, it's a matter of religious principle? Give me a break, all this is is election year political posturing in the first place.

Join the Conversation
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Already a member? Sign in
top
 
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Version 18247, "Zach"; Copyright © 2013 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.