Birth control rant - DPChallenge Forums

03/01/2012 01:07:33 PM · #501

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Frankly it makes me want to vomit that our senators think this kind of rhetoric is worthy of discourse.

What degree of hyperbole would you assign this statement?

Roughly on par with this statement: â��The presidentâ��s health care law empowers bureaucrats here in Washington to decide which tenets religious institutions can and cannot adhere to,â�� said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. â��If they donâ��t get in line, theyâ��ll be penalized.â��

The fact is that at least McConnell has something to base his statement on (ie. the birth control debacle). So in a very specific sense his statement is true. But I don't think the government really wants to dictate to religion what it can believe. That's the hyperbole. But can anybody even come up with a plausible religious reason to deny a mammogram outside of Christian Scientists who would potentially deny all medical care (and thus it is far from a "war on women")?

Hyperbole. Political one-upmanship. Election year BS. Nothing but. Makes me ill.

03/01/2012 01:07:42 PM · #502

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Total BS. Here is the actual wording "contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan". It is fear-mongering and totally representative of the state of politics in our country to say that someone could claim a religious belief against mammograms and successfully defend it when challenged.

Now, I do think the statement is quite broad and I'm not even necessarily for it as written, but suddenly to declare this a "war on women" is hyperbole to the nth degree. Frankly it makes me want to vomit that our senators think this kind of rhetoric is worthy of discourse.

If you were familiar with the hundreds of pieces of legislation coming from Republican-controlled legislatures around the country, and from the Republican-controlled Congress related to women's health, you'd know what Senator Gillibrand is talking about when she uses the phrase "war on women." All you have to do is Google "GOP war on women."

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/01/2012 01:10:11 PM · #503

Ah Judith, you do drink the kool-aid don't you? I'll give you credit for being "all in". Hook me up with a link that lists "hundreds" of pieces of legislation and I'll take a look...

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/01/2012 01:18:33 PM · #504

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ah Judith, you do drink the kool-aid don't you? I'll give you credit for being "all in". Hook me up with a link that lists "hundreds" of pieces of legislation and I'll take a look...

You know, for someone who professes such faith in some pretty unbelievable things, you seem remarkably skeptical of some other things which are far more likely to have occurred, based on recent actual experience.

BTW: It wasn't Kool-AidÂ® that they drank at Jonestown -- it was some other brand of fruit-flavored beverage. Use of the idiom perpetuates an historical inaccuracy, as well as insulting the person to whom you direct the remark. I thought part of Jesus' message was to lead by example, rather than merely condemning the (potentially) misguided.

Message edited by author 2012-03-01 13:19:03.

03/01/2012 01:30:16 PM · #505

Come on Paul. I am smart enough not to believe that there are literally "hundreds" of pieces of legislation introduced in a coordinated "war on women". Just because I have faith in things that are unbelievable to you doesn't mean I'm not a thinking man...

I will officially apologize when I get the link listing two hundred or more bills against women. I am guilty of not being "familiar" with them and I assume Judith IS familiar with them. I offered to take a look if she hooked me up with a link. Perhaps there IS a coordinated war on women that I am oblivious to. I only ask for help to see it.

If Drinking the kool-aid has a wiki article, it's good enough for me to use... ;)

Message edited by author 2012-03-01 13:32:37.

03/01/2012 01:35:43 PM · #506

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Frankly it makes me want to vomit that our senators think this kind of rhetoric is worthy of discourse.

What degree of hyperbole would you assign this statement?

Roughly on par with this statement: â��The presidentâ��s health care law empowers bureaucrats here in Washington to decide which tenets religious institutions can and cannot adhere to,â�� said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. â��If they donâ��t get in line, theyâ��ll be penalized.â��

The fact is that at least McConnell has something to base his statement on (ie. the birth control debacle). So in a very specific sense his statement is true. But I don't think the government really wants to dictate to religion what it can believe. That's the hyperbole. But can anybody even come up with a plausible religious reason to deny a mammogram outside of Christian Scientists who would potentially deny all medical care (and thus it is far from a "war on women")?

Hyperbole. Political one-upmanship. Election year BS. Nothing but. Makes me ill.

You're kind of missing the point. It isn't about religion. It's about money. It's about using religion as an excuse to not pay. It's about big business' bottom line. The owner of a business doesn't need to have religion, he just has to proclaim that he has religion in order not to pay. And before you say, yes I've drank the fruit flavored wanna be kool-aid as well. There's too much in black and white not too unless you've got your eyes glued shut.

03/01/2012 01:39:15 PM · #507

Originally posted by Kelli:

Well, if religion is being misappropriated in such a manner I would be against it too. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there are legitimate, defensible religious objections to something, then perhaps there is an issue. It's clear the Catholic church has been against birth control for decades. That would be a good example.

So I guess my recommendation would be to fix the verbage rather than just toss it out. It's not an all-or-none proposition.

03/01/2012 01:44:23 PM · #508

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Kelli:
You're kind of missing the point. It isn't about religion. It's about money. It's about using religion as an excuse to not pay. It's about big business' bottom line. The owner of a business doesn't need to have religion, he just has to proclaim that he has religion in order not to pay. And before you say, yes I've drank the fruit flavored wanna be kool-aid as well. There's too much in black and white not too unless you've got your eyes glued shut.

Well, if religion is being misappropriated in such a manner I would be against it too. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there are legitimate, defensible religious objections to something, then perhaps there is an issue. It's clear the Catholic church has been against birth control for decades. That would be a good example.

So I guess my recommendation would be to fix the verbage rather than just toss it out. It's not an all-or-none proposition.

Religion has no business being in on anyone's health care decisions. The next thing you know all business's will be claiming to be Scientologists so that they don't have to provide any health care at all. Maybe that's why it would be a good idea for government sponsored health care.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/01/2012 01:47:56 PM · #509

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Kelli:
You're kind of missing the point. It isn't about religion. It's about money. It's about using religion as an excuse to not pay. It's about big business' bottom line. The owner of a business doesn't need to have religion, he just has to proclaim that he has religion in order not to pay. And before you say, yes I've drank the fruit flavored wanna be kool-aid as well. There's too much in black and white not too unless you've got your eyes glued shut.

Well, if religion is being misappropriated in such a manner I would be against it too. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there are legitimate, defensible religious objections to something, then perhaps there is an issue. It's clear the Catholic church has been against birth control for decades. That would be a good example.

So I guess my recommendation would be to fix the verbage rather than just toss it out. It's not an all-or-none proposition.

Religion has no business being in on anyone's health care decisions. The next thing you know all business's will be claiming to be Scientologists so that they don't have to provide any health care at all. Maybe that's why it would be a good idea for government sponsored health care.

At this point you should just start at the top of the thread and read down. The argument has been had already...

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

03/01/2012 01:54:56 PM · #510

Doc,

The thing about political "hyperbole" is that in today's climate your message gets swept under the rug if you DON'T engage in it. So following your own baby/bathwater guidelines, don't be so quick to dismiss a position because it proponents are guilty of hyperbolic rhetoric. If you restricted your approval to only what's never presented irrationally by anyone, you'd have slim pickin's indeed.

As for "coordinated" war on women, that's YOUR word; nobody said that here but you. You're moving the goalposts a little. IF these bits of legislation exist, and IF they are all, or largely, Republican offerings, and IF the net effect of them is to remove hard-earned rights from women, then that IS "a Republican war on women" whether it is coordinated or not.

R.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/01/2012 02:17:52 PM · #511

Reasonable points, Robert. It just makes me sad to see the center disappear more and more. I mourn the retirement of people like Olympia Snowe. Can we even go on like this? I guess by calling the hyperbole out I want to jar people awake to realize what they are saying. Is the opposition really so demonic? And, to be fair, I detest hyperbole on the left AND the right (it just happens that on DPC we don't have a ton of far right hyperbole after Flash left).

As far as "coordinated", I guess I figured that was implied in the term "war". I'm not alone and can find quotes to support, but I admit Judith never used such a word. â��The coordinated GOP attack on women and basic health care access shows independent voters that the Republican party is far more interested in advancing the divisive culture wars than working to create jobs and fix the economy,â�� said Matt Canter, spokesperson for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. â��Republican powers that be and Republican Senate candidates are running on an anti-women agenda..."

It strikes me as an obvious question that if you are running on an "anti-women agenda" who are you running to? Who is "anti-women"? Perhaps some are running on an "anti-reproductive freedom" agenda, but I think this is not explicitly "anti-women" other than women are affected. I think you see the difference. If you are "anti-women" then you are trying to pass legislation that is aimed at hurting(?) you because you are a woman. And if it is explicitly "anti-women" then why can one find women that support such an agenda?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

03/01/2012 02:35:20 PM · #512

I think "anti-women" is shorthand for "Put 'em back in the home where they belong!" I think it's one of the great ironies that in financially difficult times, when so many are out of work, the die-hard conservatives begin to preach this crap louder and louder. I think there's actually a surprisingly broad group that feels all our problems will just go away if we revert to the traditional, male-dominated, nuclear-family-modeled, patriarchal society.

R.

03/01/2012 02:41:57 PM · #513

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

True. And I don't put myself squarely in that camp, although I do think there are some interesting side effects to having two workers in a family. Just two days ago I wondered if the increase in housing prices over decades is correlated at all to the rise of double-income families. In other words, would we earn less as a family if only one member worked, but houses would be $100,000 instead of $200,000 and your mortgage would be cheaper? And that's not "put 'em back where they belong". I don't care which of the members of the family worked.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/01/2012 05:25:32 PM · #514

Here is one list of the kind of legislation I was talking about. It's difficult to find one all-encompassing list of this crap, but I'm still looking.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/01/2012 05:54:05 PM · #515

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's clear the Catholic church has been against birth control for decades. That would be a good example.

Let us agree that the church is against birth control. Let us also agree that birth control is a form of medical intervention, which ought to be covered by medical insurance.

All the church need to do is pay for the coverage, instruct their flock not to avail themselves of this medical intervention and ... voila, problem solved.

Those fervent believers would never dare go against the doctrine of the church would they.

A win win situation for both sides.

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-03-02 05:16:35.

03/01/2012 06:12:15 PM · #516

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Here is one list of the kind of legislation I was talking about. It's difficult to find one all-encompassing list of this crap, but I'm still looking.

Well, you made it up to somewhere in the 20s. That's higher than I thought you'd get. Only 175 to go.

More seriously, I wouldn't consider this a "war on women" and I even don't quite think it's a "war on reproductive rights" (as your site listed it). I think it's people trying to defend the fetus as best they can within the limits of Roe v. Wade. I guess it's their option to do so as long as they are upheld by the courts (and agreeable some are more likely to be upheld than others).

03/01/2012 06:17:49 PM · #517

Another article re: anti-abortion legislation.

I would note that this article and the previous one are both from five or six months ago, and many more pieces of similar legislation have been introduced since then. This article only covers the 61 abortion-related laws, not other anti-woman legislation.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/01/2012 06:20:02 PM · #518

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wouldn't consider this a "war on women" and I even don't quite think it's a "war on reproductive rights"

Ask me if I'm surprised.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/01/2012 06:21:03 PM · #519

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wouldn't consider this a "war on women" and I even don't quite think it's a "war on reproductive rights"

Ask me if I'm surprised.

...are you surprised?

OK, someone had to do it right?

Ray

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/01/2012 06:23:55 PM · #520

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wouldn't consider this a "war on women" and I even don't quite think it's a "war on reproductive rights"

Ask me if I'm surprised.

Why do you think there are women who support this type of legislation if it's really a war on themselves? Are they masochistic? What gives?

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/01/2012 06:29:27 PM · #521

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wouldn't consider this a "war on women" and I even don't quite think it's a "war on reproductive rights"

Ask me if I'm surprised.

Why do you think there are women who support this type of legislation if it's really a war on themselves? Are they masochistic? What gives?

Hmmmmmmmm ... could it be faith? :O)

Ray

03/01/2012 06:35:00 PM · #522

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Hmmmmmmmm ... could it be faith? :O)

Ray

Really? Et tu? Tell yanko I'll pick him up for church at 8:00 on Sunday...

But if that's the case, is it a war on women? or a war on faith? You'd think if it was a war on women you'd see a sharp divide between the sexes, but that divide doesn't exist. From ABCNEWS (I couldn't find the date): Age, education and religion each plays a strong role in informing people's views on the issue. But despite conventional wisdom, sex does not. Indeed, as usual, men and women support legal abortion in roughly equal numbers: 54 percent of men, and 58 percent of women, say it should be legal in all or most cases. In the various conditions tested, moreover, men and women express virtually identical views.

03/01/2012 06:52:34 PM · #523

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Hmmmmmmmm ... could it be faith? :O)

Ray

Really? Et tu? Tell yanko I'll pick him up for church at 8:00 on Sunday...

But if that's the case, is it a war on women? or a war on faith? You'd think if it was a war on women you'd see a sharp divide between the sexes, but that divide doesn't exist. From ABCNEWS (I couldn't find the date): Age, education and religion each plays a strong role in informing people's views on the issue. But despite conventional wisdom, sex does not. Indeed, as usual, men and women support legal abortion in roughly equal numbers: 54 percent of men, and 58 percent of women, say it should be legal in all or most cases. In the various conditions tested, moreover, men and women express virtually identical views.

Read this article. It's unbiased, in my opinion, and tell me what you think of it.

03/01/2012 07:08:25 PM · #524

linky?