The Fiction of a Republican War on Women

Pages: 1 2

It’s not as though they haven’t tried this before. Whenever Democrats have trouble riling up voters about their agenda – as they are now – they quickly revert to their tried and true playbook. Specifically, page 138: “Drive a wedge between women and men. Women tend to vote liberal; if you can alienate them from men, they vote even more liberal.”  It comes right after the rule on page 137: “Use scare tactics about Social Security to get the votes of seniors.”

There’s only one problem: the scare about women isn’t  going to work.

The premise of an alleged Republican  war on women is faulty as well as sexist: it assumes that women are the mild and weak and require men to pay for their services. The Democrats, including columnists like Sally Kohn, lament the fact that in February 2011, “anti-choice Republicans pushed a rogue measure to cut off all federal funding from Planned Parenthood, even though less than 3% of services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortions, none of which are paid for using federal grant dollars. Still, Republicans saw an opportunity to fire up their fringe base while undermining a liberal-leaning advocacy organization.”

Meanwhile, stealth activist Sandra Fluke famously appeared before Congress to explain why a Catholic institution should pay for her birth control: “In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking what did we expect when we enroll in a Catholic school?
We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.”

But all of this assumes that women are incapable of providing their own contraception or pay for their own health care. This is sheer nonsense. Birth control costs $9 per month (and poor Fluke can afford it – she spent time recently in Spain and Italy with her boyfriend). Planned Parenthood is hardly the only health care provider. Independent women are willing for us to hear their roar – as they  tell everybody else that they can handle their own bodies, thank you very much. Even so, liberals still  contend that Republicans are fighting a war on women while they themselves try  to subsidize women to keep them  dependent.

Pages: 1 2

  • Kane

    In Republican-controlled legislatures in statehouses across the country, more than 1,100 anti-abortion provisions were introduced in 2011. Seven states either fully defunded or made moves toward defunding Planned Parenthood, which provides basic health care, contraception, breast cancer and STD screenings to millions of women each year.

    Then there's the invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound mandates, personhood amendments, redefining rape, countless anti-contraception measures, attempts to end Title X, and proposals to let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life. And the GOP war on women doesn't end with health issues.

    Republicans are responsible for creating the war on women. You can't blame others for simply responding to these actions against women. And if you think that the Republican war on women is fiction, you haven't been paying attention.

    • Trebuchet

      What a bunch of Gorilla Dust. This BS story of a Republican War on Women is a smoke screen to cover the fact that the big BO declared war on the Catholic Church and religious freedom. He poked a tiger and now it turned on him, and I'll tell you lameo libs something; by challenging the Church you've made an enemy you can't handle. So don't give me lib talking points about Title X. You picked this fight so don't go crying to Aunt Polly.

      • randy

        Is this the same catholic church that was covering up and protecting it,s pediphile preists? Not one bishop or cardinal was forced to resign and years later more scandal outbreaks around the world. I guess these so called holy men were trying to hang on to thier JET SET lifestyles as long as they can with no worries for the victims. What a joke.

        • Trebuchet

          Another example of liberalism that invaded the Church in the 60's along with radical social justice and liberation theology. It's about time the snakes were driven from the Church and perhaps now that the liberals that many of the Bishops tried so hard to please have thrown them under the bus they'll muster the resolve to send the curs packing.

        • Roger

          If you want to go down that road, are you saying only people with no criminal record deserve freedom of religion?

          If that's the case, why don't we shut down the muslim recruiting in our prisons?

    • kentatwater

      trans-vaginal ultrasound mandates

      Show us the words of the law mandating TVU.

      personhood amendments

      Roughly half of the unborn a female. How does protecting the life of an unborn pre-womyn count as a "war on women?"

      redefining rape

      How, exactly? Are you really going to try an claim that Republicans want to make it easier to commit rape? If there have been statutory changes to rape law, it is undoubtedly intended to deal with the rash of false rape accusations made by fictitious victims.

      countless anti-contraception measures

      Please, name a few.

      attempts to end Title X

      Title X? You mean the Title X passed by Richard Nixon? That Title X? Is this the Title X which funnels fungible money to PP? Some Republicans want to take PP out of the loop, because it's an abortionist organization, true; and more power to them on this front.

      proposals to let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life

      Please, provide some detail here. This sounds like a mischaracterization of an attempt to codify what constitutes a threat to a mother's life, wrt her pregnancy.

      if you think that the Republican war on women is fiction, you haven't been paying attention.

      That's all it is: fiction. The dim attack on religious liberties is being repackaged as a phony war on women. It remains to be seen how many fall for the ruse.

      The very notion that the Republican party is waging a war on women is absurd on its face. Over half the electorate are female. What Republicans are doing, is waging war on the erosion of religious freedom. On this front, the Republicans will have a strong ally in American women.

      • Roger

        Isn't it funny how talking points almost make sense until you examine them a bit closer?

        • kentatwater

          You can see another example of this, on a different front, at this funny little sub-thread.

          Notice how the troll takes exception to a close examination of his claims.

        • kentatwater

          You can see another example of this, on a different front, at this funny little sub-thread.

          Notice how the troll takes exception to a close examination of its claims.

          • pagegl

            That was funny Kent; geez, you had him digging himseld in deeper and deeper. I hope you don't mind if I jumped in and added some responses to the twit.

          • kentatwater

            By all means! No, I don't mind at all. The more, the merrier!

  • crackerjack

    Is family planning a national interest? If it is , society should support it. If not, society should not support it. The GOP and the Dems have taken their positions. Now let women decide. Simple, really.

    • kentatwater

      Is religious liberty a national interest? If it is , society should support it. If not, society should not support it. The GOP and the Dems have taken their positions. Now let the people decide. Simple, really.

      (The above is a parody, of course. In reality, we do not have a democracy, but a republic…thank G-d. As such, please don't take above as advocacy for the notion that religious freedom should be subject to the whims of mob rule.)

      • crackerjack

        Freedom of religion is a constitutinal right, but: The USA is a republic, not a theocracy. Laws are passed by an elected body with a mandate from the electorate, not a mandate from religion, as in Muslim states.

        Article 6…….".[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".

        You may believe in whatever you wish, but have no constitutional power to impose your religious beliefs on other citizens.

        • kentatwater

          Freedom of religion is a constitutinal right, but: The USA is a republic, not a theocracy. Laws are passed by an elected body with a mandate from the electorate, not a mandate from religion, as in Muslim states.

          You might as well write that the sky is blue, though some on the left try to conflate a person's religious beliefs informing their political decisions as tantamount to theocracy, which is obviously untrue.

          You may believe in whatever you wish, but have no constitutional power to impose your religious beliefs on other citizens.

          Ah, I see what you're doing now. Your trying to distract from the regime's attempt to force religious people from living the tenants of their faiths, with a non-existent attempt by liberty-minded people to force others into a set of beliefs.

          We want Fluke to pay for her own damn BC. What does Article 6 have to do with anything?

          • crackerjack

            You want Fluke to pay for her own damm BC. Go get a democratic mandate from the 98% women who use BC and the 63% men who view BC as worthy of state support.

          • kentatwater

            No. Again, we live in a republic, not a democracy. Mob rule should not dictate whether or not I pay for someone else's contraceptives.

          • crackerjack

            If a democratic mandate equals mob rule, then how do you intend to administer your non democratic republic? With a republican guard and supreme leader? And where do they get their mandate?

          • kentatwater

            Non-sequitor. Democracy does equal mob rule. If, in a republic, the legislators are democratically elected, it is still a republic.

            This video lays it out at a remedial level. Perhaps it will help you understand.

          • Jim_C

            Fluke should pay for her own birth control (the friend she was advocating for should not).

            That's the beauty of it. If it only involved a matter of who pays for whose birth control, that'd be the end of it. I completely agree that a healthy college student should pay for her own birth control.

            Unfortunately, a woman standing up for something seems to really stick in conservatives' craw for some reason. And then they all start making really nasty public statements about women in general that actual women–not the imaginary ones you wish were "waking up to the democrats' game"–get understandably creeped out by. You'd love to walk it back to that simple statement of a college girl and her birth control–I don't blame you–but Rush, Rick, and a hundred other neanderthals kind of blew it for ya.

            Cat's out of the bag. Ever try stuffing a cat back into a bag?

          • kentatwater

            Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. There was an orchestrated effort by Fluke and a few female congresspeople, to attempt to hijack a hearing which was about the issue of religious liberty…and made it about birth control and a "war on women."

            If you really think it's all as clear cut as Fluke paying for her own contraception (and I acknowledge an error on my part; I should not have used the term "birth control" or "BC"), you are supremely naive. The same Sandra Fluke believes that the genital mutilation procedure, known popularly as a "sex change," should also be on the public's dime.

            It is clear Fluke chose the school she did, just to pick a fight. Well, she got it.

        • Roger

          The USA is a 'constitutional' republic.
          You left out that little important word that makes a world of difference.

        • pagegl

          And the government has no Constitutional authority to force people to violate their religious beliefs.

          • kentatwater

            It does bear saying twice! :) But seriously, I've been experiencing problems with my comment entries hanging, too.

          • Jim_C

            Then why isn't polygamy allowed?

          • pagegl

            I said they have no Constitutional authority to do so, I didn't say they don't. The way things are going here I figure polygamy will be allowed eventually in deference to Muslims and Sharia. Of course, the government will probably still prevent Mormons from indulging.

  • Anamah

    The woman is the puppet of Anita Dunn Maoist former W.H Omama Public Relations, prepared to distort political image of Republican candidates. The real issue is the Right of Religion Freedom violated by requiring religious Institution Private Health rejecting the issue to pay abortions and control birth to their employees. The mandate to act against their believes is unacceptable. They mounted a show in the Alinsky mode!!!

    • StephenD

      Anamah, you are partly right.ONE of the issues is Religious Freedom. But the REAL issue is the Government mandating that every citizen BUY something simply because they breathe. Where in the Constitution (designed to limit the government) does it give this power to the government? I think the religious issue is a distraction created by the left. One they, in the end, will compromise with and everyone will be happy except that doesn't solve the problem of Obamacare FORCING you to buy something because you live. THIS is where our attention should be. Everything else is a distraction.

  • Mindy Portmann

    There is no GOP war on women. However there is the Democrats using Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" tactics at every turn…..Koch Bros., War on Women, etc. etc.
    It's all tactics to divide and conquer by the Left.

    • kentatwater

      It's all tactics to divide and conquer by the Left.

      Very true. I think the dims are starting to realize how this farce has blown up in their face…on multiple fronts. Not only are people not buying the war on women lie, but the dims are starting to realize that the minorities they so often take advantage of, namely Hispanics and blacks, are a religious, too, and don't take kindly to government stepping into their faiths.

  • pierce

    There s a war against women, and it is being started by the dimwit Democrats in Washington D.C. Hopefully women all over this country will realize what is going on. There is no reason why women should think otherwise, unless they
    are paranoid.

  • Eric G

    There's a reason it is illegal to feed wild bears at State and National Parks. If they are given handouts, they will lose their ability to feed themselves. They will expect the handouts to continue and will become aggressive if their handouts are threatened.

  • kentatwater

    This assault on religious freedom, disguised as a WoW, reminds me of an element of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World; namely, the Malthusian Drill. The Malthusian Drill is a ritualistic use of contraceptives, enabling women to participate in a lifestyle revolving around meaningless copulation.

    I can just see it now. A soviet-style painted poster of Fluke, dressed in militaristic attire, holding up a birth control pill dispenser, in a Malthusian salute…a phalanx of transgender soldiers arrayed behind her.

    • Roger

      "My body, my choice" has become "your body, my choice" and no one is raising a voice to point that out. Not even the women who have been co-opted from having the choice of not wanting to pay for, nor take contraceptives.

  • Texasron

    Obama said that he brought up the subject of his daughters while discussing the contraceptive issue. What he wants is his daughters to have the right to sleep with as many men as they want and have contraceptives to prevent any births, or, abortions.

    • Eric G

      I believe he also said, in regard to "unwanted pregnancies", he would not want his daughters punished with a baby.

      • hajid

        Indeed with a "president" who are willing to abort his own grand children, will he not more wiliing to abort this great nation for his own agenda?

  • hajid

    Family planning is for husbands and wives to plan for their own families, it's clear and simple. Do we really want to allow the government to plan for our families in detail? Or to plan anything for man and women who are engaging in a family destroying habit?

    If we relinquish our right to account for ourselves to the government, we will soon lose more rights to the government.

  • tagalog

    Let's see: (1) we hand out condoms in school because kids will have sex with each other no matter what; (2) women have the sole power to decide to have an abortion even though there are fathers around; so (3) men have no say about the decision to bear a child, but (4) men must pay child support, and (5) male and female taxpayers must share the burden of paying for birth control; (6) all other people need not be concerned about paying for birth control, since they don't pay taxes even though they have sex.

    Excuse me, but that line of reasoning is a little hard to follow.

  • mrbean

    Wise Korean Chiun say that women should stay at home and have babies, preferably manchild. Chiun say: American woman are basically worthless wives. They want a 'dual career' marriage. They are very materialistic. Once you stop buying them things, they are off to the next sucker who think with little head. When they can't make it on their own and they end up leeches. They are always bitchy and moody 90% of the time. Many are bi-polar nutcases. And they are all tribalist liberals like The View hags. Solution: Marry an Asian woman who has NOT been brought up in the USA. They are great wives. The do great with the kids while the man is out working. By all means, stay away from American women, more and more are becoming bi-sexual. Jack Nicholson even a wiser man when asked how he knew so much about women, when he said; "I think of a man, then I take away all reason, logic and accountability!" Ann Coulter said they should never have goven women the vote. Too many Anerican women value security above freedom and want a cradle to grave nanny state.

    • Ghostwriter

      Well,Wise White American Male Ghostwriter say to Unwise White Male Fool Mrbean to stop with his racist and sexist idiocy. He makes all conservatives looks like racist and sexist when most are not. He continues that stereotype at our own peril. So,stop with your racial stereotypes,mrbean. You're not doing us any good.

      • mrbean

        Ghostwriter is a castrati, the kind of weak omega male that women like Hillary Clinton keep around who know how to assume the tearing up eyes down sensitive male mode when these women go bipolar. That is who the "us" is in Ghostwriter's world! However when the mighty alpha male mrbean enters a room filled with women, there isn't a dry panty in the place. When he enters a room filled with the bruthas, "dey knows rights way mrbean beez dah baddest roosta in dat barnyawd. Yassah!

        • Western Spirit

          Like most silly prejudices lean mean Bean from the black legume you lump all American women together into an unflattering stereotype.

          No wonder there are so many Asian women choosing other women over men, or so it seems.

        • Ghostwriter

          I'd wish you'd quit with the idiotic stereotypes,mrbean. They're not funny,just stupid. Whether it's your updated "Amos n' Andy" routine or your attack on Asian women. I,at least,try to be a gentleman,while you act like a neanderthal. There are those of us who do try to be funny without the racial stereotypes you seem to enjoy parading in front of us like crazy. I'd wish you'd stop it. You demean yourself every time you do this stuff.

    • Questions

      This is one of the funniest posts here I've seen in some time. Most American women are like children; their need for material gratification is limitless. That quote from Jack Nicholson's character in Mike Nichols' "Wolf" (1994) — perfect!


    Good write up Ben.
    There is a war against MEN:
    "Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed—not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed."

    • mrbean

      In the immortal words of Andrew Dice Clay; "MAD JEWESS, ASSUME THE POSITION!"

      • MAD JEWESS

        I will, just as I point a 30.06 at your nuts.

    • Jim_C

      "War against men"–gosh, I feel so threatened!

      • MAD JEWESS

        You should, if you didnt read the article, you are just another braindead dupe

  • crackerjack

    Yes it does, if religious beliefs colide with state law. Mormon polygamy or Muslim sharia, for example.

    • kentatwater

      Apples and oranges. The Catholic church is not trying to alter civil law. They are not trying to outlaw contraceptives.

      • crackerjack

        The Catholic church is trying to pressure and influence the state, but in a constitutional republic church and state are seperate.

        • kentatwater

          On the contrary, the government is seeking to force the Church to be an enabler of acts anathema to doctrine. To characterize their resistance to this attempt as "pressure" and "influence" is laughably disingenuous.

    • pagegl

      Wrong, in those cases the government is limiting behavior in the case of birth control they are trying to force behavior. Give it the power to do that and it can force you to do anything you don't want to do.

      • crackerjack

        And why should this apply only to BC? When the goverment decides to go to war, you have no rights to stop paying tax if you oppose the decision.

        A democratically elected administration has the mandate to pass legislation. Rick Santorum can declare family planning as not of national interest and pass legislation to end state support of BC for the 98% of women who benefit . Let him state his case and get a mandate and do so. Simple really.

        • kentatwater

          Yes, as it has been said:

          A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

          Perhaps, with "logic" such as yours, it is our time. If we continue down this road, it's inevitable.

      • Jim_C

        I've been forced to fund an effort that killed off thousands of my fellow countrymen for debatable gain to our national security, as well as thousands of other innocents in the name of my country–ostensibly because terrorists succeeded horribly once in attacking our country.

        Now, I do understand the reasoning behind that war, so I'm not debating that. Regardless of that, billions of taxpayer dollars disappeared into the coffers of warlords and private contractors–never to be accounted for, nor seriously asked to be. The Church, exempt from corporate and property taxes (property it leverages to pay for the endemic of child abuse it systematically enabled for decades), never had much to say on the war issue. But it will whine about being forced to allow the purchase of insurance to cover the Pill. Oh Heavens! I'm so touched by their moral courage and their civic responsibility! I weep for their liberties, because….something-something about the slippery slope and my liberties.

        So yes I'm familiar with the concept.

        • pagegl

          Well, that's about all we're allowed to fight nowadays given all the freedom the government has been taking from us since way the hell back when. The 9th and 10th amendments have been nothing more than words on parchment for years.

    • fiddler

      Really, how does that relate to someone accomodating their own bodily choice? If this is about women's "health", perhaps if she snorted crack we should pay for re-hab; that has to do with health.

  • kentatwater

    Well that's handy. Even the catholic church's problems are caused by the amorphous beast liberalism…

    Without the gratuitous scarey words, that is to a degree, the very problem. As a Jew, I don't have a horse in the race, as it were, but in talking to some very close friends who are Catholic, they echo this assessment, too.

    If a priest molests a child, you can't somehow put them ideologically outside the church for the purpose of protecting the church.

    No need to do such a thing. A molester, priest or not, is outside the Church, because the Church does not condone molestation.

    They are a part of the church and they are corrupt.

    What do you mean? Does the second "they" mean the the priest (which is bad form, especially since only men may be Catholic priests), or Church, in which case … blanket bigoted comment.

    The catholic bishops can say whatever they want.

    I'm sure they are gratified by your leave.

    A vast majority of their own membership is using or has used contraception.

    So, many may have lapsed, or are defying the Church's teaching. People are flawed. What of it?

    …so their wailing about this insurance issue has just highlighted how out of touch and behind the times these guys are…

    Oh, that is as good an argument as any as to why the government should be allowed to force the Church to abandon it's teachings…and the concrete exercise thereof…NOT!

    The establishment clause does not have a freshness date.

    out of touch with Catholic women imparticular.[sic]

    Ah, the old WoW bromide again. Fewer are falling for it with every passing day. But no one is forcing these women to be members of the Church, and no one is forcing them to work for organizations run by the Church.

    • Jim_C

      [i]No need to do such a thing. A molester, priest or not, is outside the Church, because the Church does not condone molestation. [/i]

      For decades, the Church ignored allegations and reveled in their autonomy from legal recourse, knowing no individual could touch them; and when faced with enough evidence, the Church simply pulled the offending priests from one parish and sent him to another. Decades of cover-up; decades of enabling abuse to continue instead of facing public outcry.

      • kentatwater

        That may have been an act of flawed individuals in the Church. The teachings of the Church never condoned such.

        • Jim_C

          "The teachings," well that is certainly a cute distinction! "Oh heavens, no, we don't TEACH that child molestation is OK! Sure, we'll ignore it, cover it up, and allow it to continue as long as we're not caught–but somehow that doesn't mean we CONDONE it! See? No teachings!"

          The Church acted as an institution. There is no "outside the Church," here–sorry.

          • kentatwater

            The "Church" is far more than the relatively small number of people who may have been involved in this abuse. Far from simply being a convenient bit of rhetoric, it is an important distinction, the efforts by those such as yourself to conflate the whole Church with these acts not withstanding.

            "The Church" includes the whole of its leadership, and the laity.

          • Jim_C

            Spin away, it's a lovely fairytale. Why you do so, I don't know. Hey, Joe Paterno has his die hard fans, too. At some point, people in the Church need to wise up to where their support was going all this time.

            And this scandal goes right to the top of the hierarchy, and further back than your dissembling Catholic friends (who conveniently try to shift blame this on Vatican II) would like you to believe. Word just today of the Dutch Church in the 1950s castrating kids for even reporting abuse: in the Church's view, these were perverted kids, and castration would curb their budding homosexuality. Church records showing that their view that this info needn't be shared with families–par for the course for the old days. And part and parcel with what they have taught as far as human sexuality. Ask anyone who grew up in Ireland pre-1960s. The Church was an autonomous power center and abuse was rampant.

            It's PART OF THE CHURCH: the fact that there happen to be millions of us around the world doesn't exculpate The Church, itself.

          • kentatwater

            Your continued impugning of the Church as a whole has now become thoroughly distasteful to me. I have many good friends, and even a few family members, who are observant Catholics.

            But before I discontinue participating in this libel, I will mention, since you bring the matter of sexuality up, that slightly more than 80% of the abuse cases reported, were of a homosexual nature. Also, the sudden rapid rise in reported cases of abuse, starting in the early 60's, coincided with a host of changes in the Church ultimately lead to the rampant spread of homosexual practices in American seminaries, which amounted essentially to open secrets and rites of passage.

          • Jim_C

            I am Catholic. I grew up in this world. If you find it distasteful, you might imagine how I find it. Imagine knowing someone who was abused by a priest, a priest who was then shuffled off to another parish to continue abusing kids. I do.

            Two days ago, I told you what the Dutch church did to children who reported abuse prior to the 1960s. Just yesterday, the Vatican reported on widespread abuse in the Irish Church. Now, hapless apologists, like yourself, would like to conveniently imagine that all of a sudden in the 1960s, the Church said "Let's allow gay priests!" and the abuse ran rampant.

            Yet I've just given one example of what happened to children who did speak out prior to the 1960s. What a thoughtful person, or one who grew up as I did in this milieu, might understand is that the Church enjoyed an inordinate degree of autonomy from the law up until (and to some degree after) the 1960s. Today, we are aghast that a school might punish a child without ever alerting the parents of that child's behavior. I can tell you for a fact this was SOP for Catholic schools.

            You would submit that perverts found a haven in the church come the 1960s and you suggest unscientifically that homosexuality and child abuse are related. I would argue that the Church's autonomy, its longstanding teachings on sexuality and its bizarre adherence to a medieval code of celibacy are the root of this scandal, of which more unfolds DAILY. These are institutional problems.

          • kentatwater

            Don't try to spin my position as disregard for the welfare of those who have been abused. Further, if you are going to disagree with me, then disagree with what I really said. You write:

            "Let's allow gay priest!"

            Who, exactly, are you quoting, here?

            You would submit that perverts found a haven in the church come the 1960s…

            Pervert is your word, not mine, but if we replace that word with homosexuals, then yes, that's what I said.

            …and you suggest unscientifically that homosexuality and child abuse are related

            Again, you misrepresent me. I said, "more than 80% of the abuse cases reported, were of a homosexual nature." This is a simple statistical fact. I offered no speculation as to why this is true, "unscientific" or otherwise. You may choose to ignore the testimony of priests' experiences in these homosexualized seminaries, but for every one who speaks out against it, there are several who were content with the state of affairs. The rapid rise in reports of abuse, shortly after the relaxation of vetting procedures for incoming seminarian may be all just a coincidence…where the unicorns roam.

          • Jim_C

            kent–don't know if you're still interested in this thread, but if you care, I just read a better version of what I'm saying from a speech just given by an Australian bishop. No easy condemnations, here, but some hard truths given.

          • kentatwater

            From your link:

            In that talk, Robinson called for a substantive rethinking of church teaching on sexuality, saying that while its emphasis on the profound significance of sex is correct, its natural law approach to sexual morality and its interpretation of ancient scriptural passages on homosexual and other sexual activity are in need of correction.

            IOW, ignore the 800-pound gorilla in the room.

          • Jim_C

            Except that he's the one talking about the gorilla. You (via your friend) would rather discuss the facile scapegoat.

          • kentatwater

            Except that he's the one talking about the gorilla.

            Really. I must have missed the part where the wildly disproportionate rates of reported homosexual assault was addressed. I also did not see the part where the homosexualization of many seminaries may have contributed to this statistic.

          • Jim_C

            No, you missed the part that reports of abuse came only after the Church became open to public scrutiny and lost the autonomy it enjoyed up until that point. Was child rape invented in the 1960s, kent? No? Then why didn't we hear more about it before that?

  • Western Spirit

    This is what the Fluke imbroglio was all about. The Left was attempting to inflame women against the GOP by insulting their intelligence.

    • Jim_C

      Good luck with that one. Fluke woke up the crazies–and the crazies are creeping out women.

  • lisag

    Here's an idea. Instead of women not having sex with men as a protest. Why don't men stop having unmarried sex with women. No need for contraception. No need for abortion. No war between men and women. STD's out the window. No unwanted children or abandoned children. Just men and women getting married and having babies. Men take charge and set the standard for classy behavior and manners.

  • truckwork

    "That’s because they believe that rights are given to you by governmental representatives, rather than freedoms that exist because the government leaves you alone."

    Our freedoms exist because they were God given, and requires the government to leave us alone. A minor but important distiction.

  • Jim_C

    I respect the Right's view on abortion. I share it personally, but not politically. "Safe, legal, and far more rare" is my motto, and I don't see why my opinion should supercede the will of the woman who wants, or needs, to abort a pregnancy.

    I want to ask: Do you think there's a sort of religious "karmic" price to be paid if we allow abortion in this society? That God will cause bad things to happen because of this?

    Do you take a less religious stance and just look at it as wanting a government that protects life until birth, after which you're on your own?

    If not, then why not let abortion be on the woman's conscience and strictly between her and her Creator?

    • kentatwater

      Rather than approach the issue with a stack of loaded questions, why not ask the one real question:

      When does the developing life in question, because a "person?"

      (We can substitute any other name we want in place of "person," but I think the meaning is rather plain.)

      • Jim_C

        Let's say for the sake of argument that the fetus is a "person." Now, answer, please.

        • kentatwater

          No. Not good enough. You wish for the act of abortion to remain legal. Since you position allows an action which may result in the extinguishing of a person's life, I think it is fair to ask my "when" question, and expect a straight (meaning in part, non-hypothetical) answer.

    • Eric G

      Why not let domestic abuse be on the abuser's conscience and strictly between him and his Creator?
      Why not let slavery be on the slaveowner's conscience and strictly between him and his Creator?
      Why not let eugenics be on the neo-Nazi's conscience and strictly between him and his Creator?

      • Jim_C

        Because I don't see any moral equivalence between Hitler and a woman having to make a tough choice about her life.

        • Eric G

          Therein lies the problem. She isn't making a choice about only her life. She is making a tough choice about her life *and* the life of another human being.
          I did not mention Hitler, only you did. I do mention neo-Nazis because they, too, believe they are improving the world by labling a group of humans as non-persons to make them easier to bring death upon.

          And I will agree — the moral equivalence is not between abusers, slave-owners, neo-Nazis and pregnant women. The equivalence is with abortionists who profit from the dismemberment of human beings.

          The moral equivalence is that by leaving something between a person and his/her creator is a justification to stand by and let bad things happen to others.

          • kentatwater

            The moral equivalence is that by leaving something between a person and his/her creator is a justification to stand by and let bad things happen to others.

            Very well said! In many cases, I suspect, it is also nothing more than a rhetorical cop-out, because so many on the pro-abortion side will subsequently mock the very notion of a Creator.

          • Jim_C

            It IS a good point; like I said: I respect your point of view. I certainly can't fault it.

            I guess what I'm saying is that I'm wondering if you therefore see the fetus as an individual human being and thus rights of personhood apply, or if you saw it in a more "God doesn't like our politics" way. That's all.

            My view on it has everything to do with the idea that it's a woman who bears the child, the woman who gives birth, and the woman who must take responsibility. For men–it's optional; we have always had the luxury of choosing to be part of the child's life or not, and have no idea what it is to be pregnant, to carry the outward sign of the result of intercourse for all to see and judge. Majority of women think abortion should be legal–works for me. Christians, Jews and atheists, republicans and democrats all have had abortions. If you doubt it, make it illegal and find out

          • kentatwater

            I guess what I'm saying is that I'm wondering if you therefore see the fetus as an individual human being and thus rights of personhood apply, or if you saw it in a more "God doesn't like our politics" way. That's all.

            Without even knowing whether or not you non-hypothetically acknowledge the "personhood" of an unborn child, I can't help but think the very question is not in earnest.

            The rest of your response is just a dodge worthy of "justquitknow." That's disappointing.

          • Jim_C

            Not a dodge at all. See my last paragraph. I said I'll side with women on this one. Plain as day.

            And your own rhetoric on the question of personhood, in my opinion, is just as slippery as mine is in your opinion. I suspect that is never going to change.

          • kentatwater

            Not a dodge at all. See my last paragraph. I said I'll side with women on this one. Plain as day.

            Now that's even dodgier. To say you "side with women" is meaningless rhetoric. I could say the same thing.

            As I said to "justquitnow," we both know why you won't answer this simple, unadorned, direct question.

            Since a frank and clear discussion on the issue obviously isn't possible with you, I'll not address the silly notion of abdicating responsibility on the basis of one's sex. Keep those blinders on.

          • Jim_C

            Ah, yes, so simple–isn't it great to have the luxury of sureness, especially when you can't get pregnant? What is "personhood," kentatwater? Are you so special that you know for sure? Or do you just have an opinion about it, like everyone else?

            Majority of women want the option of legal abortion; this has been borne out by countless surveys, polls and votes. For the reasons I've stated, I'm with them. (And should they change their minds, I'm with them.) It's easy to be against abortion as a callous form of birth control. It's harder when we talk about cases of rape and incest. And if you find abortion in cases of rape and incest permissible, then your definition of personhood certainly does not interest me. However, if you'd force the victim of rape and incest to give birth instead of allowing her the choice to terminate the pregnancy, then I congratulate you on your consistency. I'd be happy to overturn Roe, put abortion to a vote, and watch all the women from the boonies that outlaw it struggle to get to the next state for their procedures, then turn to their ballots in earnest next go-around.

          • kentatwater

            Ah, yes, so simple–isn't it great to have the luxury of sureness, especially when you can't get pregnant?

            Completely irrelevant. As I've said before, personhood is not subjective.

            What is "personhood," kentatwater? Are you so special that you know for sure?

            Still dodging? I'm not the one you is happy to allow a persons life to be snuffed out in ignorance. You are, however.

            Majority of women want the option of legal abortion; this has been borne out by countless surveys, polls and votes.

            And yet, they keep electing pro-life candidates. Last time I checked, though, half the electorate was men.

            It's easy to be against abortion as a callous form of birth control. It's harder when we talk about cases of rape and incest.

            Again, the humanity of the unborn child is the question. That you acknowledge the issue is easier on the birth control front, shows at least partial acknowledgement that we are talking about something much more grave than simply lancing a boil. What's the difference? You continue to dodge that question.

            And if you find abortion in cases of rape and incest permissible, then your definition of personhood certainly does not interest me.

            I am against allowing abortion in every case, except for cases where the mother's life is in danger. Anyone, even an expectant mother, may act in self-defense. Lest you think I adopt this position out of convenience for the purpose of debating with you here, look at my posting history.

            I'd be happy to overturn Roe, put abortion to a vote, and watch all the women from the boonies that outlaw…

            Nice bit of bigotry you got, there. AFA the whole vote to overturn Roe trope…nah, I likes my govmint to be republic-style. Now 'scuse me, while I doff my straw hat an' rustle up some vittles.

          • Jim_C

            I'll put my callous disregard for fetuses up against your callous disregard for women any day, kent!

    • fiddler

      11 Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back. 12 If you say, "See, we did not know this," Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts ? And does He not know it who keeps your soul ? And will He not render to man according to his work ? Proverbs 24:11

  • Heather

    A war on women? So who was fighting this war on women when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the House atfer 2004? Why didn't they address this issue then?

    But instead it suddenly appears during an election years! Just in time for an election the Democrats figure out that religious institutions have an exemption to not be required to cover birth control in their health plans! An examption they have had for decades!

  • Ester

    Well said.

  • kentatwater

    Yes and the men in that dystopian future had nothing do with these laws….they just hated this idea…lol.

    Uh, what? Besides being ungrammatical, the meaning is completely opaque.

    I thought you weren't going to reply to my post anymore, btw…

  • Trebuchet

    A cancerous tumor will not become a human and when you begin judging what is and is not human you have slipped a toe across the line into fascism as did Margaret Sanger. Also, the scientific method is based on the method used by the early Church to test scripture.

  • fiddler

    "And in Thy book they were all written, all the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them." Pslm 139

  • kentatwater

    The point where human life begins in utero is not a subjective matter. That's. The. Whole. Point.

  • pagegl

    Using your arguments I could make a great case for retroactive abortion.

  • pagegl

    But it is the left's business to tell someone that they are too fat or should quit smoking. And Obamacare is making health care everyone's business.

    Since the left has succeeded in making much of what people are allowed to do a matter of the lowest common denominator and wants the government to enforce that, we all have a responsibility to try to make sure others behave responsibly. Besides, isn't that basically what leftists and other nanny state types are trying to get the government to do, force us to behave responsibly or at least what they define as responsible. So, if the left wants to give the government the power to poke its idiotic nose into my business, I kind of feel some right to do the same when those who act irresponsibly being given my tax dollars to handle their lives.

    Back to a previous note of yours, in most cases late term abortion is an abomination. You want to know when life begins, let's make it real simple, if the fetus is viable outside the womb, life has, by any measure, begun. The article at this link: states that 90% of fetuses survive outside the womb after 26 to 27 weeks; that's about 6 months. Given that at least 90% of fetuses aborted by late term abortion are recognizable and viable as a real human, I will restate a previous statement. Unless the abortion is absolutely required to save the mothers life, late term abortion is not only an abomination, it should be regarded as murder.

  • kentatwater

    Legally speaking, that is your opinion….but more accurately, it is your belief.

    Wow. Not only are you wrong, but you're wrong in how you're wrong. First, I didn't share my opinion on the "when," only that it is not subjective. Further, it is the law which perpetuates fictions, which comfort some people as analogs of reality. For example, you are automatically vulnerable to prosecution for intent to distribute, if you have more than a certain quantity of certain drugs in your possession. Your actual intent is not the issue. You are guilty of driving under the influence if your BAC is above a certain threshold. Your actual impairment is not the issue.

    The historical denial of the personhood of certain people, has led to the crimes and atrocities such as slavery and the Holocaust. Stop projecting. You are on the side of the fascists and slavers.

    women what to do with their bodies

    As has already be pointed out, we are not talking about their bodies, but the body of the unborn child.

    I am saying you don't have that right and it's none of your business.

    The safety of the most innocent among us, from the knife, needle, and vacuum pumps of butchers, is everyone's business.

    (Good to see your tacit admission to being a liar, btw. I really didn't expect you to live up to your statement that you would no longer respond to my posts. Par for the course.)

  • kentatwater

    The leftist ghouls are way ahead of you. They've already proposed that.

  • kentatwater

    Huh? This little internet conversation is not about tricks and twisting people's words.

    You twist words. I untwist them.

    Yeah, if it's not subjective, it's objective…why be coy about "when"….surely it is conception that you mean or why did you pipe in?

    I would be fascinated to learn when you "know" an unborn child's humanity begins. Please share with us.

    Wow that is some dishonest philosophical acrobatics. "denial of personhood" sounds like some newspeak turd that assumes your beliefs are objective.

    The newspeak is "blob of tissue," or "non-viable mass." The traditional language is "unborn child."

    Sigh…yes, but this requires the underpinning of when the child gets rights in utero.

    So, when? Since your position is that it should be legal to kill the unborn child, I would be fascinated to know when it's no longer permissible, in your distorted view.

    Peace out right?

    Yeah. It doesn't quite have the same ring to it, when it's glib and insincere. Consistent, though. I'll grant you that.

    Well you were doing good there for a post by staying on topic and trying to add to the conversation.

    You don't get name the topic of conversation. As I said earlier, I never expected you to live up to your statement. Again, at least you're consistent.

    But I can feel you buckling under the weight of needing it to be about you.

    Another throw away meaningless line. Typical.

    Just behave yourself and I will argue with you.

    Oh, you'll continue arguing with me. You've demonstrated you can't help it. You've also demonstrated that you cannot behave yourself, so I don't entreat you to take your own advice, child.

  • kentatwater

    You believe an unborn child should be subject to summary extermination, yet you cannot explain when you think that child's personhood begins.

    If I'm misstating your position, please to us explain how. Trying to put the onus on those who think life should be spared, when you are comfortable with it being snuffed out without explaining why you think that is justifiable, is craven.

    The onus is on you to justify why you think it should remain permissible to take an action which could be murder.

    You hide behind the current state of the law, and wrap yourself in the language of "choice." Meanwhile a baby dies, and you can't elucidate why you think that's A-OK.

    You are a coward.

  • JoJoJams

    If the cessation of brainwaves is how we determine "death", then how come the beginning of brainwave activities isn't how we determine "life"? Is that because it's about the end of the FIRST trimester that there are brainwaves?

  • pagegl

    Obfuscation, probably not at its best but obfuscation nevertheless. What leftists, or better yet progressives, think sure as hell is at issue here. It is a fairly safe statement that many of Obama's advisers are leftists/progressives and what they believe and think has much to do with where this country is today. The intrusion by laws set up primarily by the left into what I do is ridiculous.

    Regarding the number of late term abortions, by doing a little online research I found numbers that range from 10,000 to 20,000 a year. Whether these numbers are accurate is debatable, mostly due to states not keeping or reporting at what stage in pregnancy the abortion was performed. Using a number given by an abortion supporter of 1.1% of all abortions are late term and approximately 1.2 million abortions a year we get about 13,200 late term abortions. That is not a trivial number and is more than people murdered by firearms.

  • pagegl

    I was kind of hoping they would think my intent was that it should apply to them. But, we know that they are so much smarter and compassionate and know way better than others what is best for the world, so, they must be spared. Yeah, right. I really believe that those who would like to aggressively reduce population should start with themselves.

  • kentatwater

    I may disagree with Jim_C, but he has at least demonstrated that it is possible to have a rational conservation with him, unlike you.

    But since you have chosen to intrude, I will point out that I posed the very same question to you, and you also refuse to answer it.

    Although you are unlikely ever to admit it, you know why you won't answer my question. It's because once you answer it, you will have no place else to go with your argument.

  • kentatwater

    In order to make abortion (of any kind) the moral equivalence of abuse, murder or genocide, then you must believe that at all stages the developing child is a person…whatever that means to you

    As I've already pointed out, the "personhood" of another is not a subjective matter. To argue such, is to tacitly concede Eric G's point.

    The rest of your laborious paragraph is an attempt to lampoon what you think others may believe, but you refuse to clearly state your own belief. This is very telling.

    So before kent gets ahead of himself….maybe he should first make the case for personhood at conception (or whatever his mysterious beliefs dictate) before he moves on to saying you are bad for sitting by and letting this horrible genocide of innocent babies continuue[sic].

    And now we move from erroneous speculation of what I think and believe, to laughable attempt to predict what I have yet to say.

    Well, this should have been easy to predict, because I've already said it once: You are a coward. You won't state clearly what your belief is on the question I've posed, because you can't face the logical consequence of the answer.

  • kentatwater

    I never said when I thought it began…please provide a quote.

    The most childish of dodges. I've asked you that very question several times, and you've cowardly refused to give it. To assert that I claimed you have answered the question is akin to the keen playground debate gambit of, "I know you are, but what am I."

    I don't know anymore what you mean when you say "baby".

    Heh. Excuse me, but you also use the word in the context of an unborn child. Per your own criteria, why don't you explain what you mean. After all, I'm not the one talking about allowing babies to be killed, you are.


  • kentatwater

    Another, as in "another" person. As in "respect for one another."

    Hmm. Bad example. You wouldn't understand that, would you?

    On another (oops, used it again) thread, you claimed to answer the question I posed, but I see it's just more wordplay on your part. I'm not surprised you don't care for the way I express myself, but the fact remains, you never answered my simple and direct question:

    When does the developing life in question, because a "person?"

    See? No word games. No loaded questions.

  • kentatwater

    Hmm. I can back up my citations, while you cannot, and that makes me d**ckish.

    I see my playground analogy was more accurate than I thought!

  • kentatwater

    Wonderful metric you propose. Let's have a person's humanity be determined by our technological prowess.

    Sounds like a nightmare.

  • kentatwater

    No Kent, it's because I don't assume that the decision (of when an individuated legal human person comes to be) is mine to make.

    Legal? That wasn't my question, and you know it.

    …is murky territory because it is still a part of the woman's body.

    No, it is not. He has his own body, with his own blood type, DNA, and sex.

    Drum roll please…….I DON'T KNOW.

    Well. Good for you. Finally, an answer.

    This means, that you would be willing to fire a gun in a dark room, oblivious to whether there is a fellow human being in your line of fire. Own that.

    Legally, as stated above, it becomes a "person" when it's viable. The Supreme Court has been through this again and again.

    It was once legal to own slaves. Again, the issue I brought forth was not legal. Legality is often a fiction or a convenience. Such is the case here.

    "When does the developing life in question, because a "person?"

    For any developing unborn child, I claim no knowledge of when that moment occurs. For a full term pregnancy, it clearly happens before birth, and we can push the threshold of ignorance of this moment of "quickening" back, second by second.

    That's why I'd never fire into a dark room, and why I want to see abortion made illegal. Because I am honest enough to admit I don't know if a person is there, and I don't want to see innocent people murdered.