or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What contraception tells us about conservatives
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What contraception tells us about conservatives

post #1 of 40
Thread Starter 

 

Are conservative pro-life views really all about "STOP KILLING THE LITTLE BABIES!" Or, as liberals have long suspected, are they really all about "TAKE THAT, SLUT!"

 

The perfect test for these two theories is contraception. If conservatives really want to stop "killing babies," they're going to go all-out in support of contraception. If they really just want to give the sluts their comeuppance via the punishment of having a baby, they're going to oppose contraception.

 

As of 2010, when conservative pro-lifers got some power across the country, we have the answer. They have opposed contraception at every opportunity. And not just the deep south thumpers, but all of them:

 

Romney supports the Blunt Amendment (after opposing it, as is typical of every Romney position), which would allow any employer to refuse to provide contraception coverage. He also [url=http://www.google.com/search?q=romney+planned+parenthood]says[/url] "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that," and his plan defunds all of Title X, which provides contraception and other preventive health coverage for low-income women.

 

The second-place Republican presidential candidate [url=http://www.google.com/search?q=santorum+contraception]says[/url] that contraception is "not OK." Why, because "It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." TAKE THAT, SLUTS!

 

Across the states where conservatives have gained power, they have spent much of their time trying to pass "Personhood" amendments (which would also ban the most common birth control, which prevent pregnancy after fertilization has occurred) and outlaw Planned Parenthood. In Arizona, Rs voted that employers require women to explain WHY they're on birth control, or they could deny them coverage. Only small-government conservatives could require people to talk to their bosses about their sex lives.

 

So now we know that the truth about the conservatives and the supposedly-all-about-economics Tea-partiers. Surprised? Me neither.

 

DSC00300-thumb-255x170.jpg


Edited by BRussell - 4/24/12 at 11:19am
post #2 of 40

Wow this is terrific a whole thread based on multiple fallacies!

 

I count the fallacy of composition, false dilemma maybe an appeal to consequences of a belief, a non sequitur, probably a confusing cause and effect and maybe even a hasty generalization.

 

Nice work.

 

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #3 of 40
Thread Starter 

I agree wholeheartedly: So many fallacies in the thinking of conservatives. Small government - big government, religious freedom - religious establishment, stop abortion - stop contraception. I'm surprised their heads don't explode like a Star Trek computer confronted with a paradox. It's the power of dissonance reduction, I suppose. But I'm glad we agree on this, you being a libertarian and all. :)

post #4 of 40

Don't you think libertarians are far-right radical conservatives?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #5 of 40
Thread Starter 

jazzguru - What?!? I would think libertarians would have the most common ground with liberals, and would hate almost everything conservatives stand for. Right?

post #6 of 40

I think there are a lot of far-right radical conservatives that don the libertarian title and don't hold to the ideals.  I also think that there are several libertarians out there who don't want a strong federal government but are more than happy with local governments that oppress a populace (e.g. Ron Paul).

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #7 of 40

Sorry, I must have mistaken you for someone else. Northgate, I think. My bad.

 

Libertarianism does have some overlap with both modern liberalism and modern conservatism. I say "modern" because both terms have changed significantly over time. For example, I feel like I identify with much of classical liberal philosophy, which is very different from modern liberalism.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #8 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I think there are a lot of far-right radical conservatives that don the libertarian title and don't hold to the ideals.  I also think that there are several libertarians out there who don't want a strong federal government but are more than happy with local governments that oppress a populace (e.g. Ron Paul).

 

I don't think Ron Paul is happy with oppressive state and local governments, but he is a constitutionalist and he acknowledges that under the Constitution state governments do have powers the Federal government does not.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #9 of 40

But if the end result of his limiting federal government is states oppressing their citizens more than what he claims the federal government would have done, why is that a good position to have?  In the end, less liberty.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #10 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

But if the end result of his limiting federal government is states oppressing their citizens more than what he claims the federal government would have done, why is that a good position to have?  In the end, less liberty.

 

Why do you assume that will be the end result? Sure, some states will trample on the liberties of their citizens. It's happening already. And just like they are now, people who don't want to live in nanny states will leave them and go to others where the governments are less intrusive.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #11 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Sure, some states will trample on the liberties of their citizens.

 

Yes, but let's leave California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and New York (et al) out of this.

 

lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #12 of 40

BRussell:

 

 

 

Quote:
Are conservative pro-life views really all about "STOP KILLING THE LITTLE BABIES!" Or, as liberals have long suspected, are they really all about "TAKE THAT, SLUT!"

 

Yeah, that's it.  That's what even the most pro-life, anti-abortion people are saying.  

 

 

 

Quote:
The perfect test for these two theories is contraception. If conservatives really want to stop "killing babies," they're going to go all-out in support of contraception. If they really just want to give the sluts their comeuppance via the punishment of having a baby, they're going to oppose contraception.

 

I don't think conservatives have to do anything, nor do I think most of them oppose contraception.  

 

 

 

Quote:
As of 2010, when conservative pro-lifers got some power across the country, we have the answer. They have opposed contraception at every opportunity. And not just the deep south thumpers, but all of them:

 

I don't even know what that means.  "Oppose contraception?"  Does that mean they want to make it illegal, or that they don't want taxpayers to pay for it?  

 

 

 

Quote:

 Romney supports the Blunt Amendment (after opposing it, as is typical of every Romney position), which would allow any employer to refuse to provide contraception coverage. He also [url=http://www.google.com/search?q=romney+planned+parenthood]says[/url]"Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that," and his plan defunds all of Title X, which provides contraception and other preventive health coverage for low-income women.

 

The second-place Republican presidential candidate [url=http://www.google.com/search?q=santorum+contraception]says[/url] that contraception is "not OK." Why, because "It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." TAKE THAT, SLUTS!

 

1.  Romney is right.  Employers should not be FORCED to offer contraception coverage in their health plans. 

 

2.  Santorum is a loon.  Next? 

 

 

 

Quote:
Across the states where conservatives have gained power, they have spent much of their time trying to pass "Personhood" amendments (which would also ban the most common birth control, which prevent pregnancy after fertilization has occurred) 

 

The "most common" form of birth control is the morning after pill, which essentially induces an abortion?  Really?  I personally don't oppose that measure, but really...the most common?

 

 

 

 

Quote:

In Arizona, Rs voted that employers require women to explain WHY they're on birth control, or they could deny them coverage. Only small-government conservatives could require people to talk to their bosses about their sex lives.

 

So now we know that the truth about the conservatives and the supposedly-all-about-economics Tea-partiers. Surprised? Me neither.

 

No, you intellectually dishonest hack.  The bill in AZ refers to NON-CONTRACEPTIVE use of birth control pills.

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #13 of 40
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

BRussell:

 

Yeah, that's it.  That's what even the most pro-life, anti-abortion people are saying.  

 

More revealing than what people say is what they do. But I want to remind you that Rush Limbaugh did describe the issue that way.

 

Quote:
I don't even know what that means.  "Oppose contraception?"  Does that mean they want to make it illegal, or that they don't want taxpayers to pay for it? 

 

All of the above, plus more. It would be unconstitutional to make it illegal (see Griswold), so that's a pretty low bar. But these Personhood Amendments making the rounds probably imply that the most common type of contraception would be illegal (or perhaps it's because conservatives don't understand pregnancy).

 

Title X is about taxpayer funding of contraception (and other preventative health measures) for low-income women. But the majority of this controversy has not been about taxpayer funding. Obama's contraception decision was not about taxpayer funding. The hearing at which the "slut" Sandra Fluke spoke was not about taxpayer funding. And the Blunt Amendment was not about taxpayer funding. They were all about private insurance.

 

Quote:

The "most common" form of birth control is the morning after pill, which essentially induces an abortion?  Really?  I personally don't oppose that measure, but really...the most common?

 

No, it's the pill, which can work not only by stopping fertilization but also by stopping implantation (and therefore KILLING LITTLE BABIES!). Most conservatives don't understand the difference because they've re-defined the medical terms to fit their crazy views of what happens in a lady's private parts.

Quote:

No, you intellectually dishonest hack.  The bill in AZ refers to NON-CONTRACEPTIVE use of birth control pills.

 

Ha! The insults enter when the facts leave. It's exactly the point that Arizona is allowing contraception to be excluded if it's for sluts, but to permit it for non-slutty reasons. That's why you have to convince your boss that you're not a slut: "Is this for dirty kinky sex?" "No sir, it's for, um, other reasons." "OK, as long as you're a good girl, I'll allow it."

post #14 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Title X is about taxpayer funding of contraception (and other preventative health measures) for low-income women. But the majority of this controversy has not been about taxpayer funding. Obama's contraception decision was not about taxpayer funding. The hearing at which the "slut" Sandra Fluke spoke was not about taxpayer funding. And the Blunt Amendment was not about taxpayer funding. They were all about private insurance.

 

You're correct that the issue was not about taxpayer funding, it was about private insurance. But it was about a federal government mandate that private insurance carriers provide this "free" to the recipients. That mandate originally applied to employers who might have a moral opposition to the use of birth control (e.g., catholic employers).

 

I have no problem with anyone getting birth control products. I have no problem with insurance companies that wish to provide this as a free benefit to their customers. My own personal problem with this has to do with the government mandate.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #15 of 40
Thread Starter 

MJ: OK, but I think you're opposed to any government involvement in health care, right?

 

I also think it's important to point out that:

1. Since 2000 it has been a federal rule the every employer health insurance that offers prescription drugs must include contraception, or it would be sex discrimination. Conservatives, including Bush who was president the whole time this rule has been in effect, never opposed it, as far as I know.

2. The majority of states have passed laws almost exactly matching Obama's rule. A note to SDW: Massachusetts had this law the whole time Romney was governor, and he never said anything about it. Not that I'd expect Romney to be consistent in any position he's ever taken...

post #16 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

MJ: OK, but I think you're opposed to any government involvement in health care, right?

 

Correct. It's been a disaster so far and I expect it to only get worse with more. That's primarily what is driving costs up.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I also think it's important to point out that:

1. Since 2000 it has been a federal rule the every employer health insurance that offers prescription drugs must include contraception, or it would be sex discrimination. Conservatives, including Bush who was president the whole time this rule has been in effect, never opposed it, as far as I know.

2. The majority of states have passed laws almost exactly matching Obama's rule. A note to SDW: Massachusetts had this law the whole time Romney was governor, and he never said anything about it. Not that I'd expect Romney to be consistent in any position he's ever taken...

 

So you've discovered that in politics (and elsewhere), people are often inconsistent flip-flopping hypocrites. And also that people "switch sides" on issues depending on who's proposing it or in office.

 

Sorry but this is no great insight. And it happens on both sides.

 

But going back to some of your original post:

 

 

Quote:
The perfect test for these two theories is contraception. If conservatives really want to stop "killing babies," they're going to go all-out in support of contraception. If they really just want to give the sluts their comeuppance via the punishment of having a baby, they're going to oppose contraception.

 

Let's forget about "conservatives" for the moment and let's just talk about someone who is opposed to abortion. Your claim here is that anyone opposed to abortion, to be true to their principles MUST come out in full support of contraception and, I'm inferring, even mandates to provide said contraception for free.

 

This is, simply put, a non sequitur.

 

Back to what "conservatives" do, thick, believe, say, etc.: There's your apparent assumption that all conservatives are the same, think the same, hold the same positions and values on all issues and in all of the details. This is also fallacious.

 

But let's get back to the real issues:

 

1. You can be opposed to abortion and also be opposed to government mandates to provide contraception (or even government directly providing it). These positions are not inconsistent or hypocritical either philosophically or practically. They simply derive from the root position that a) abortion is wrong and people should not do it, and b) if you wish to have sex without risk (or lower risk) of pregnancy you are responsible for taking the measures (buying the products) yourself.

 

2. Politicians from both sides of the political spectrum are often duplicitous, lying, pandering, philosophically inconsistent, flip-flopping, demagoguing morons unfit to lead anyone.

 


Edited by MJ1970 - 4/25/12 at 10:50am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #17 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

 

Are conservative pro-life views really all about "STOP KILLING THE LITTLE BABIES!" Or, as liberals have long suspected, are they really all about "TAKE THAT, SLUT!"

 

 

 

What Liberals long suspect is of little consequence because their minds cannot properly state opposition positions. Instead they rely on logical fallacies like false dilemma, strawman and ridicule. See above for examples of all three.

 

 

Quote:

The perfect test for these two theories is contraception. If conservatives really want to stop "killing babies," they're going to go all-out in support of contraception. If they really just want to give the sluts their comeuppance via the punishment of having a baby, they're going to oppose contraception.

 

As of 2010, when conservative pro-lifers got some power across the country, we have the answer. They have opposed contraception at every opportunity. And not just the deep south thumpers, but all of them:

 

Romney supports the Blunt Amendment (after opposing it, as is typical of every Romney position), which would allow any employer to refuse to provide contraception coverage. He also [url=http://www.google.com/search?q=romney+planned+parenthood]says[/url] "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that," and his plan defunds all of Title X, which provides contraception and other preventive health coverage for low-income women.

 

 

Support does not mean demand that third parties pay for instead of the government. There is a very clear divide between everyone putting their money into a collective pot and having the government provide a service and the government merely mandating a third person or party provide a service it doesn't provide. This is the crux of Obamacare and as the court noted, crosses several new lines. Government can provide health care and contraceptives. When it doesn't care to or does a poor job at it, it cannot merely mandate others take on that role or solve their problems for them. I had a discussion with my friend about this matter and pointed out that contraception was free as a county service. Her reply was "Have you used the county medical services? They are terrible and a mess."

 

In otherwords she wasn't upset that government didn't provide a service. They provided it so badly that she wanted the government to mandate someone else provide it who could get the job done. There is nothing preventing the government from offering whatever free contraception they want to whomever they want.

 

 

Quote:

The second-place Republican presidential candidate [url=http://www.google.com/search?q=santorum+contraception]says[/url] that contraception is "not OK." Why, because "It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." TAKE THAT, SLUTS!

 

 

The reality is that all sexual conduct enlarges your risk pool. People don't care to discuss this when it is sex and swear it will just happen or that people will just do it but these same people seem quite fine to declare all conduct must be managed when it is food choice, smoking, drinking or certain lifestyle choices. Why is it that the government expects us to control ourself and minimize our risk or will even tax riskier choices to fund safer choices in all areas of life save sex?

 

 

 

Quote:

Across the states where conservatives have gained power, they have spent much of their time trying to pass "Personhood" amendments (which would also ban the most common birth control, which prevent pregnancy after fertilization has occurred) and outlaw Planned Parenthood. In Arizona, Rs voted that employers require women to explain WHY they're on birth control, or they could deny them coverage. Only small-government conservatives could require people to talk to their bosses about their sex lives.

 

So now we know that the truth about the conservatives and the supposedly-all-about-economics Tea-partiers. Surprised? Me neither.

 

If you want your employer to pay for your private life, then they will ask about your private life. Employers including government employers as examples are starting to exclude certain high risk groups from their employment pool. The clearest examples are smokers and sometimes the obese. I've never had my car insurance ask me about my number of sex partners or if I drink some beer on the weekend. However if I expected them to rotate my tires and pay for my oil changes, I have no doubt they might. Health insurance and health care are not the same.

 

I really enjoy This American Life and a recent episode focused on people who need to be saved from themselves. In their talks with emergency room employees, they talked about how many of the folks were just chronic users of the emergency room. They repeatedly make the same bad mistakes over and over and just expect a phone call to come and clean them up. The same diabetics eat themselves into needing an ambulance twice a month. The same women buy the same lies from the same men over and over. The same drug abusers expect someone to pump their stomach once every two months. When asked for a figure as to what percentage of emergency room services went to such patients, the number provided was 50%.

 

We expect smokers to mitigate their risk. We increasingly expect the obese to mitigate their risk. Why do we not expect women to mitigate their risk? If we don't expect a party to mitigate their risk then why do we third parties to mitigate and pay for it rather than the government?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #18 of 40
Thread Starter 

MJ: So it's all about some abstract argument about mandates and taxpayer funding. Then if there was a mandate to cover treatment for, say, breast cancer, you're saying that would be an issue? I don't buy it.

 

Look, Rick Santorum explicitly stated why he's opposed to contraception: "It's a license to do things in the sexual realm." And Rush Limbaugh made his argument very clear in his choice of descriptors for Sandra Fluke. And the Catholic church's continued opposition to contraception is clear as well - it's not about the principle of mandates in the abstract, it's about contraception. There's a long history of conservative opposition to contraception - that's what the Griswold (1965) case addressed. When they now turn around and say it's really all about some other abstract issue that wasn't an issue back then, it's not very convincing. 

post #19 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

MJ: So it's all about some abstract argument about mandates and taxpayer funding. Then if there was a mandate to cover treatment for, say, breast cancer, you're saying that would be an issue? I don't buy it.

 

Your dismissal of important concerns by pejoratively referring to them as "some abstract concept" notwithstanding, I'm simply stating my position. I don't speak for anyone else. However, I'm happy to point out your obvious fallacies and the superficial insight that sometimes politicians are inconsistent.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Look, Rick Santorum explicitly stated why he's opposed to contraception: "It's a license to do things in the sexual realm." And Rush Limbaugh made his argument very clear in his choice of descriptors for Sandra Fluke.

 

Go talk to Rick and Rush. Your quarrel is with them I guess. Your bringing them up carries the implication that they speak for all conservatives or all Republicans or all something. This is almost certainly not true.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

And the Catholic church's continued opposition to contraception is clear as well - it's not about the principle of mandates in the abstract, it's about contraception.

 

The Catholic church has had a very long and clear statement of opposition to the use of contraceptives by "good" Catholics. This is not news. I believe their basis for this is that the purpose of sex is only for procreation. I disagree with this position but it is their right to hold it and to implement it as policy within their organizations.

 

 


Edited by MJ1970 - 4/25/12 at 12:09pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #20 of 40

 

BRussell: 

 

 

 

Quote:

More revealing than what people say is what they do. But I want to remind you that Rush Limbaugh did describe the issue that way.

 

 

He didn't "describe the issue" that way.  He called her a slut to make a point about the number she quoted on birth control spending, and thought it would be irreverent or funny or what not.  He was wrong.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

All of the above, plus more. It would be unconstitutional to make it illegal (see Griswold), so that's a pretty low bar. But these Personhood Amendments making the rounds probably imply that the most common type of contraception would be illegal (or perhaps it's because conservatives don't understand pregnancy).

 

 

Yeah, that's it.  Conservatives don't understand pregnancy.  That's the problem.  And what..."probably imply?"  

 

 

 

Quote:
Title X is about taxpayer funding of contraception (and other preventative health measures) for low-income women.

 

Contraception is not a "preventive health measure."  

 

Quote:
 But the majority of this controversy has not been about taxpayer funding. Obama's contraception decision was not about taxpayer funding.

 

Correct.  It was about forcing private insurance companies (and therefore their customers) to buy birth control for their policyholders...with no copay.  It was also about attacking Republicans.  

 

 

 

Quote:

 

The hearing at which the "slut" Sandra Fluke spoke was not about taxpayer funding. And the Blunt Amendment was not about taxpayer funding. They were all about private insurance.

 

 

The hearing at which the political WHORE Sandra Fluke spoke was about grandstanding.  And that's all.   

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
No, it's the pill, which can work not only by stopping fertilization but also by stopping implantation (and therefore KILLING LITTLE BABIES!). Most conservatives don't understand the difference because they've re-defined the medical terms to fit their crazy views of what happens in a lady's private parts.

 

There is a difference between "the pill" and the morning after pill or emergency contraception.  Do I need to explain it to you?  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Ha! The insults enter when the facts leave. It's exactly the point that Arizona is allowing contraception to be excluded if it's for sluts, but to permit it for non-slutty reasons. That's why you have to convince your boss that you're not a slut: "Is this for dirty kinky sex?" "No sir, it's for, um, other reasons." "OK, as long as you're a good girl, I'll allow it."

 

Look...the idea is to not force religious organizations to provide contraceptives in their health plans, unless those contraceptives are being used for other reasons.  Let's not pretend this is a bill about "making sure people aren't sluts." 

 

 

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 40

Except, if you really wanted to stop abortions, you'd provide comprehensive sex education in schools and provide free birth control to everyone.  The money saved in welfare, food stamps, healthcare for pregnant low-income mothers, and education would SEVERELY outweigh the cost of birth control.  It makes economic sense.  It prevents abortions (saving lives in your eyes).  It's only the "sex is icky and immoral" Rick Santorum crowd that object.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #22 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Except, if you really wanted to stop abortions, you'd provide comprehensive sex education in schools and provide free birth control to everyone.  The money saved in welfare, food stamps, healthcare for pregnant low-income mothers, and education would SEVERELY outweigh the cost of birth control.  It makes economic sense.  It prevents abortions (saving lives in your eyes).  It's only the "sex is icky and immoral" Rick Santorum crowd that object.  

 

It only makes economic sense if you think it is a foregone conclusion we must pay for welfare, food stamps and healthcare for everyone simply because they don't make "enough" money.  Secondly, who pays for the free birth control?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #23 of 40

So, the alternative is...let them starve?  Let the babies live in a shit environment?  Screw the prenatal care?  Screw the postnatal care?  Pro-life should continue once the baby leaves the womb...

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #24 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So, the alternative is...let them starve?  Let the babies live in a shit environment?  Screw the prenatal care?  Screw the postnatal care?  Pro-life should continue once the baby leaves the womb...

 

Obviously not.  But the issue is we've tried to better the "s*** environment" with cash assistance, and it doesn't work.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #25 of 40
Thread Starter 

SDW: On those Personhood Amendments and conservatives not understanding how pregnancy works, yes I'm talking about "the pill" pill which is not only capable of stopping fertilization from occurring, but also capable of stopping the pregnancy from starting even after fertilization has taken place. Because conservatives have insisted on redefining pregnancy with slogans like "life begins at conception," they've forgotten that fertilization is not the same as pregnancy. Pregnancy starts at implantation in the uterus, not fertilization. Therefore, the regular contraceptive pill is completely capable of causing what pro-lifers would call an abortion, even though it really isn't ending a pregnancy, it's just stopping implantation.

 

I'm sure many conservatives simply don't know this because they've been bamboozled by the bumper stickers, but I have no doubt that the people behind the Personhood amendments know exactly what they're doing.

post #26 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

SDW: On those Personhood Amendments and conservatives not understanding how pregnancy works, yes I'm talking about "the pill" pill which is not only capable of stopping fertilization from occurring, but also capable of stopping the pregnancy from starting even after fertilization has taken place. Because conservatives have insisted on redefining pregnancy with slogans like "life begins at conception," they've forgotten that fertilization is not the same as pregnancy. Pregnancy starts at implantation in the uterus, not fertilization. Therefore, the regular contraceptive pill is completely capable of causing what pro-lifers would call an abortion, even though it really isn't ending a pregnancy, it's just stopping implantation.

 

I'm sure many conservatives simply don't know this because they've been bamboozled by the bumper stickers, but I have no doubt that the people behind the Personhood amendments know exactly what they're doing.

 

 

/BRussell Conservative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contragestive

 

That word, contragestive, I just made it up.

 

It isn't a real word. It isn't a real concept. It is a conservative meme that I made up because I don't understand how pregnancy works. I can't possibly support contraceptive methods but disapprove of contragestive methods because contragestive doesn't exist. It is just a slogan that I sing in my head to avoid dealing with reality. 

 

/End BRussell Conservative

 

You seriously used to be much sharper than this BRussell. What has happened to you? Too many Obama strawmen? Too many nights of Maher and Stewart mockery in place of actual discussion?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #27 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

SDW: On those Personhood Amendments and conservatives not understanding how pregnancy works, yes I'm talking about "the pill" pill which is not only capable of stopping fertilization from occurring, but also capable of stopping the pregnancy from starting even after fertilization has taken place. Because conservatives have insisted on redefining pregnancy with slogans like "life begins at conception," they've forgotten that fertilization is not the same as pregnancy. Pregnancy starts at implantation in the uterus, not fertilization. Therefore, the regular contraceptive pill is completely capable of causing what pro-lifers would call an abortion, even though it really isn't ending a pregnancy, it's just stopping implantation.

 

I'm sure many conservatives simply don't know this because they've been bamboozled by the bumper stickers, but I have no doubt that the people behind the Personhood amendments know exactly what they're doing.

 

Wow.  Just...wow.  First, conservatives don't understand how pregnancy works.  Then, they are "redefining it."  That's really rich stuff, BRussell.   The fact is that life DOES begin at conception.  Pregnancy does not.  The regular contraceptive pill's primary function is to prevent ovulation.  Preventing implantation is only the third and final possible effect.  It is by no means the primary way the pill functions.  

 

But hey, thanks for explanation...professor. 

 

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #28 of 40
Thread Starter 

I mustn't be as sharp as I used to be, because I honestly don't understand your point trumptman. To recap: I'm claiming that the Personhood Amendments that explicitly define life as beginning at fertilization would outlaw the most common form of birth control - the pill - because the pill can stop pregnancy after fertilization, even though most people think it can only prevent fertilization. SDW questioned this, but perhaps we were talking past one another. I'm also claiming that many people don't know the difference between pregnancy and fertilization because of pro-life slogans such as "life begins at conception." Finally, I'm claiming that the people behind the Personhood Amendments know very well that this is the case, and are explicitly trying to outlaw contraception (THE PILL KILLS!).

post #29 of 40

By the way, I notice you're not mentioning the REAL "war on women" that's being conducted.  

 

Egyptian "Lawmakers" plan farewell intercourse law; would allow sex with dead wives.  

 

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #30 of 40
Thread Starter 
That's insane. But I guess it fits right in with the burkas and the genital mutilation and the temprorary marriages and the virginity testing.
post #31 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

By the way, I notice you're not mentioning the REAL "war on women" that's being conducted.  

 

Egyptian "Lawmakers" plan farewell intercourse law; would allow sex with dead wives.  

 

 

 

 

 

The only link in that article simply says it was some cleric in Moroccos idea, not that the Egyptian parliament is considering it. The women in Egypt are worried about they're rights and the Mail has used those comments to make it appear that this is real. Typical crap from the Mail.

 

That said the progression of the regressive laws in Egypt are disturbing and women and men everywhere should condemn it for the evil it is.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #32 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I mustn't be as sharp as I used to be, because I honestly don't understand your point trumptman. To recap: I'm claiming that the Personhood Amendments that explicitly define life as beginning at fertilization would outlaw the most common form of birth control - the pill - because the pill can stop pregnancy after fertilization, even though most people think it can only prevent fertilization. SDW questioned this, but perhaps we were talking past one another. I'm also claiming that many people don't know the difference between pregnancy and fertilization because of pro-life slogans such as "life begins at conception." Finally, I'm claiming that the people behind the Personhood Amendments know very well that this is the case, and are explicitly trying to outlaw contraception (THE PILL KILLS!).

 

You claim it would do this. I've not read anything that suggests it would outlaw commonly understood regular contraception. Regardless the votes for such amendments have failed and likely will continue to fail if such laws are badly defined because almost no one in either party is suggesting outlawing contraception. The exception never proves the rule. The vote in Mississippi, the most recent example I recall, failed. If it can't pass in Mississippi, then where would it ever pass?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

By the way, I notice you're not mentioning the REAL "war on women" that's being conducted.  

 

Egyptian "Lawmakers" plan farewell intercourse law; would allow sex with dead wives.  

 

 

 

 

 

Well that would require taking off the multicultural glasses and declaring some aspects of one culture to be better than others. That isn't allowed.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

That's insane. But I guess it fits right in with the burkas and the genital mutilation and the temprorary marriages and the virginity testing.

 

Next they'll do something really crazy like suggest earning an imaginary paper dollar kills the planet.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #33 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 

You claim it would do this. I've not read anything that suggests it would outlaw commonly understood regular contraception. Regardless the votes for such amendments have failed and likely will continue to fail if such laws are badly defined because almost no one in either party is suggesting outlawing contraception. The exception never proves the rule. The vote in Mississippi, the most recent example I recall, failed. If it can't pass in Mississippi, then where would it ever pass?

 

 

Well that would require taking off the multicultural glasses and declaring some aspects of one culture to be better than others. That isn't allowed.

 

 

Next they'll do something really crazy like suggest earning an imaginary paper dollar kills the planet.

 

That's actually the other point I've been making, albeit in a more aggressive way ;)  There are no serious efforts in either party to outlaw birth control pills.  Granted, some people might interpret certain proposals to mean birth control COULD be outlawed, but as you noted those are not serious proposals.  In the end this is about nothing other than politics conducted by the Obama Administration/Campaign aided by its mainstream media allies.  Remember months ago when out of the blue Mitt Romney was asked about outlawing birth control (could a state do so)?  He was somewhat perplexed as to where that question was coming from....but now we know.  

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 40
Thread Starter 

It's widely recognized that these Personhood amendments would probably ban the pill, because the pill can prevent pregnancy after fertilization. See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67966.html

 

 

Quote:

Concerns about women’s access to contraception contributed to the last-minute defeat of the Mississippi's "personhood" anti-abortion amendment, abortion rights supporters said after Tuesday’s vote.

The amendment, earlier seen as a shoo-in, lost by a 16 point margin in one of the most conservative and anti-abortion states in the country. Its supporters are seeking to get similar “personhood” initiatives on the 2012 ballot in several states, including Nevada, Ohio and Florida.

Opponents of the amendment, which would have given fetuses full rights as persons from the moment of fertilization and could have criminalized forms of birth control that prevent implantation, said it reflected a growing effort by the anti-abortion movement to target reproductive health services beyond abortion.

 

And I think it's clear that the groups that sponsor these amendments know exactly what they're trying to sneak in. Look at this, from the group itself. http://www.personhoodcolorado.com/birth-control-talking-points

 

 

Quote:

Objection: "Personhood will ban common forms of birth control."

Amendment 62 will not ban any true contraceptives that only prevent fertilization. And tragically, abortion is used as a common form of birth control. Regarding "contraceptives" that actually cause an abortion:

1. Lies: Women have been lied to by not telling them that some birth control actually kills their child.
2. Steroids: The pill and Plan B are steroids that we protect football players from yet give to young girls.
3. Cancer: A Nat'l Cancer Institute researcher reports the pill as a significant risk factor for breast cancer.

 

Notice how they don't say "the amendment won't ban the pill." What they say is that these forms of birth control "actually kill their child" and that they're dangerous. 

 

The point is that if you guys are claiming that no one is trying to outlaw contraception outright, that's really not true. Yes, these amendments have been defeated, but they still have what looks like most of the conservatives in the states voting for them. And Romney, as is typical for him, has sometimes said he supports them and other times been more ambiguous. So it's hardly that fringe of an issue. Unsuccessful, yes, but I'd call it mainstream conservative. 

 

And let's not forget that conservatives are also trying to 1. let health plans not cover it and 2. let employers ask WHY you want it and 3. defund low-income subsidies for it and 4. "get rid of" Planned Parenthood, which provides it to so many people, and... see above.

post #35 of 40
Thread Starter 

By the way, how do you make a word in your text a url link now?

post #36 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It's widely recognized that these Personhood amendments would probably ban the pill, because the pill can prevent pregnancy after fertilization. See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67966.html

 

 

And I think it's clear that the groups that sponsor these amendments know exactly what they're trying to sneak in. Look at this, from the group itself. http://www.personhoodcolorado.com/birth-control-talking-points

 

 

 

Notice how they don't say "the amendment won't ban the pill." What they say is that these forms of birth control "actually kill their child" and that they're dangerous. 

 

The point is that if you guys are claiming that no one is trying to outlaw contraception outright, that's really not true. Yes, these amendments have been defeated, but they still have what looks like most of the conservatives in the states voting for them. And Romney, as is typical for him, has sometimes said he supports them and other times been more ambiguous. So it's hardly that fringe of an issue. Unsuccessful, yes, but I'd call it mainstream conservative. 

 

And let's not forget that conservatives are also trying to 1. let health plans not cover it and 2. let employers ask WHY you want it and 3. defund low-income subsidies for it and 4. "get rid of" Planned Parenthood, which provides it to so many people, and... see above.

 

Oh stop.  These are not serious movements and not representative of even close to the majority of conservative thought.  And Romney doesn't support banning contraception.  For ****'s sake. 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #37 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

By the way, how do you make a word in your text a url link now?

 

Write the word, highlight it, then click the "link" button (to the right of the bullet point button in the editor toolbar).  Then insert the URL in the box and you're good.  

 

Also, I just noticed that the F word got censored.  That's new.  Apparently Jeff has gone a little farther than just locking a thread?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #38 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It's widely recognized that these Personhood amendments would probably ban the pill, because the pill can prevent pregnancy after fertilization. See http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67966.html

 

 

Quote:

Concerns about women’s access to contraception contributed to the last-minute defeat of the Mississippi's "personhood" anti-abortion amendment, abortion rights supporters said after Tuesday’s vote.

The amendment, earlier seen as a shoo-in, lost by a 16 point margin in one of the most conservative and anti-abortion states in the country. Its supporters are seeking to get similar “personhood” initiatives on the 2012 ballot in several states, including Nevada, Ohio and Florida.

Opponents of the amendment, which would have given fetuses full rights as persons from the moment of fertilization and could have criminalized forms of birth control that prevent implantation, said it reflected a growing effort by the anti-abortion movement to target reproductive health services beyond abortion.

 

And I think it's clear that the groups that sponsor these amendments know exactly what they're trying to sneak in. Look at this, from the group itself. http://www.personhoodcolorado.com/birth-control-talking-points

 

 

Quote:

Objection: "Personhood will ban common forms of birth control."

Amendment 62 will not ban any true contraceptives that only prevent fertilization. And tragically, abortion is used as a common form of birth control. Regarding "contraceptives" that actually cause an abortion:

1. Lies: Women have been lied to by not telling them that some birth control actually kills their child.
2. Steroids: The pill and Plan B are steroids that we protect football players from yet give to young girls.
3. Cancer: A Nat'l Cancer Institute researcher reports the pill as a significant risk factor for breast cancer.

 

Notice how they don't say "the amendment won't ban the pill." What they say is that these forms of birth control "actually kill their child" and that they're dangerous. 

 

The point is that if you guys are claiming that no one is trying to outlaw contraception outright, that's really not true. Yes, these amendments have been defeated, but they still have what looks like most of the conservatives in the states voting for them. And Romney, as is typical for him, has sometimes said he supports them and other times been more ambiguous. So it's hardly that fringe of an issue. Unsuccessful, yes, but I'd call it mainstream conservative. 

 

And let's not forget that conservatives are also trying to 1. let health plans not cover it and 2. let employers ask WHY you want it and 3. defund low-income subsidies for it and 4. "get rid of" Planned Parenthood, which provides it to so many people, and... see above.

 

However the point remains, they are just a group and not the conservative movement or platform. They are no different that pro-life Catholic Democrats who want all manner of items inserted into the platform.

 

Your own link tells the tale. Just mention it might involve birth control pills and watch an instant 21 point swing happen. If anything it shows that conservatives want nothing to do with banning contraception because at the mere whiff of it, in as your link noted "in one of the most conservative and anti-abortion states in the country" the mere thought of banning birth control pills caused a 21 point swing. That's huge and shows conservatives want nothing to do with banning birth control.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #39 of 40
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

Write the word, highlight it, then click the "link" button (to the right of the bullet point button in the editor toolbar).  Then insert the URL in the box and you're good.  

 

Also, I just noticed that the F word got censored.  That's new.  Apparently Jeff has gone a little farther than just locking a thread?  

 

Oh that makes sense. Thanks.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 

However the point remains, they are just a group and not the conservative movement or platform. They are no different that pro-life Catholic Democrats who want all manner of items inserted into the platform.

 

Your own link tells the tale. Just mention it might involve birth control pills and watch an instant 21 point swing happen. If anything it shows that conservatives want nothing to do with banning contraception because at the mere whiff of it, in as your link noted "in one of the most conservative and anti-abortion states in the country" the mere thought of banning birth control pills caused a 21 point swing. That's huge and shows conservatives want nothing to do with banning birth control.

 

But ~40% of the people in these states supported these amendments, and I'm willing to bet they weren't the liberals or the moderates. Maybe some of these conservatives don't really oppose contraception, but at the least they are so against abortion that they're willing to throw contraception under the bus. And don't forget that there are leaders such as Santorum and the Catholic Church who apparently represent large numbers of people.

 

post #40 of 40

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

 

 

Oh that makes sense. Thanks.

 

 

But ~40% of the people in these states supported these amendments, and I'm willing to bet they weren't the liberals or the moderates. Maybe some of these conservatives don't really oppose contraception, but at the least they are so against abortion that they're willing to throw contraception under the bus. And don't forget that there are leaders such as Santorum and the Catholic Church who apparently represent large numbers of people.

 

 

You're making assumptions there as to why they supported it.  There are a host of reasons to do so, depending on the amendment itself.  Those reasons may not even be "I am totally opposed to abortion."  For example, I am not totally opposed to abortion.  However, I would probably support a bill that referenced life beginning at conception.  I also support various restrictions on abortion (no late term without reason, ban on partial birth abortion, etc), and think Roe was a bad judicial decision.   

 

As for Santorum, I think he's just a little nuts.  As far as I know, the Catholic Church doesn't support outlawing contraception.  Correct?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What contraception tells us about conservatives