Two Faced Republicanism

[Buboni Cleg]

I can no longer ignore the republican moral conflict of being pro-life AND being against serious health care reform. . Republicans are making abortion look more necessary and attractive than birth because of the limited medical options poor mothers would have if republicans had their way on health care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26blow.html

[Little Shepherd]

Being against what the Democrats are trying to pass off as healthcare reform is not the same thing as being against healthcare reform, per se. False dilemma.

[rogue06]

Moderated By: rogue06

Thread moved to Civics

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[TimZim]

Being against what the Democrats are trying to pass off as healthcare reform is not the same thing as being against healthcare reform, per se. False dilemma.

No it is not. It is not because he wrote, "if Republicans had their way." to be sure, this require some acceptance of what that way is, but regardless, it is not a false dilemma, as you said it was.

[Little Shepherd]

Yeah, I suppose I should wait for Buboni to specify exactly what he thinks "their way" is.

[Darth Executor]

It's a Charles Blow article, which means it can be safely ignored knowing you're no worse off than you would have been if you had read it.

[Da Blonde]

Charles Blow is too nice a guy to say it but I will: such repeated inconsistencies reveals the right-wing antiabortion stance in never so much due to a belief in the fictitious notion a fetus is a person, but due to a desire to exercise power and control over women. The "it's a bay-bee" rhetoric is nothing but maudlin attempts to fool the public.

[Hamster]

Why would republicans want to have power over women? And in what way?

[wonbyone]

Charles Blow is too nice a guy to say it but I will: such repeated inconsistencies reveals the right-wing antiabortion stance in never so much due to a belief in the fictitious notion a fetus is a person, but due to a desire to exercise power and control over women. The "it's a bay-bee" rhetoric is nothing but maudlin attempts to fool the public.

You are a wicked person.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

When the slaves in this country wake up and realize they have more in common with the slaves who revolted in Egypt than they have in common with wall street our own government will quickly shut down the internet, cell service and phone service. Health care and abortion politics will take a back seat.

[TimZim]

When the slaves in this country wake up and realize they have more in common with the slaves who revolted in Egypt than they have in common with wall street our own government will quickly shut down the internet, cell service and phone service. Health care and abortion politics will take a back seat.

Hey, is that Maat, from the Book of the Dead -- maintaining equal justice under the law?

Great avatar.

[TyRockwell]

Charles Blow is too nice a guy to say it but I will: such repeated inconsistencies reveals the right-wing antiabortion stance in never so much due to a belief in the fictitious notion a fetus is a person, but due to a desire to exercise power and control over women. The "it's a bay-bee" rhetoric is nothing but maudlin attempts to fool the public.

The "notion" that a fetus is a person is not based on anything other than truth. Before a woman can even know she is pregnant, the child in her womb has a heart beat, and brain wave activity. Should a mature person be found without a heart beat and brain wave activity, that person would be considered dead. The opposite of being a dead person is being an alive person, such as a fetus is.

Furthermore, God told the prophet Jeremiah, "Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you, and ordained you to be a prophet to the nations." Since God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb, Jeremiah was a person that could be known, while still an unformed fetus.

Regarding the conservative stance against abortion: it is not inconsistent with our desire that children not be killed before they are born. Every living human being has a God-given human right to life, and the Consitution recognizes this. Without the right to life, no one is safe.

Births have taken places for millenia outside of hospitals, or medically trained persons in attendance. Not that a conservative wants no healthcare laws. The issue is, how much healthcare? and, provided and paid fo by whom? Conservatives want to see people taking personal responsibility for their lives, and the lives of the children. But, when such things are provided as a so-called right, there is less concern on the part of families and relatves to exercise self-control, or to make plans for their future, or for providing for their own families.

There is no right, God-given or Contitutionally recognized right that a person's medical expenses be paid for by other people by forcing those who earn a living to dispose of their hard-won living to persons who don't or won't make a living. Christians, and all people who love one another already are motivated by their love to give what they can to family and people they know who are in need of help, whether food, medicine or clothing and housing. This happens all the time, without it being forced or extracted by taxation. And, that is the way it should be. Loving means giving; seeing a need, and being moved by love and compassion to meet that need through free-will givng. But if people don't love and give, neither will they be given to, for there is no right to have that which belongs to another person. That is what the Bible calls "coveting," to appropriate other peoples' goods or income for purposes of your own choosing, and not the choice of the owner of the goods and income. It is a little different than stealing, but not by much.

[TimZim]

There is no right, God-given or Contitutionally recognized right that a person's medical expenses be paid for by other people by forcing those who earn a living to dispose of their hard-won living to persons who don't or won't make a living.

Follow the argument, please. Suppose a 17-year-old pregnant girl is kicked out of her home, because she is pregnant. What is she suppossed to do to survive? One might think the people who vehementally oppose abortion would be thrilled to have an opportunity to help a young lady in such a situation. Rather, you have already tagged her with a "welfare queen" tag that would follow her the rest of her life. . . Unless, she has an abortion, doesn't tell anyone, and then later marries a nice, but unwitting, Christian man, whose family is thrilled that he married such a "responsible" young lady, who never did anything so foolish as those welfare-dependent teen mothers. In other words, the policies Christians commonly advocate, when analyzed collectively give the impression that conservative Christians often have an invested interest in trying to control the behavior of women through public policy.

[TyRockwell]

Follow the argument, please. Suppose a 17-year-old pregnant girl is kicked out of her home, because she is pregnant. What is she suppossed to do to survive? One might think the people who vehementally oppose abortion would be thrilled to have an opportunity to help a young lady in such a situation. Rather, you have already tagged her with a "welfare queen" tag that would follow her the rest of her life. . . Unless, she has an abortion, doesn't tell anyone, and then later marries a nice, but unwitting, Christian man, whose family is thrilled that he married such a "responsible" young lady, who never did anything so foolish as those welfare-dependent teen mothers. In other words, the policies Christians commonly advocate, when analyzed collectively give the impression that conservative Christians often have an invested interest in trying to control the behavior of women through public policy.

That is ridiculous. Every step along the way, the girl has made choices of her own. She has not been "controlled." From the choice to have sex, resulting in pregnancy, she has made her own choices. If her parents kick her out of the house, that is their choice. The girl can choose to seek to put her baby up for adoption, or to work and support it. You can throw in countless "what ifs" into the equation, but the fact that she doesn't have help is why people must be self-responsible. Still, there are many charities that will help her, but she will be expected to be self-reliant at some point in time. It is a built-in fact of life that with God's help, if the girl so chooses, she can have provision, and raise herself above her present circumstances. There is no free ride. But, even the poorest people in this country are far better off than people in third-world or aboriginal groups.

[TimZim]

That is ridiculous. Every step along the way, the girl has made choices of her own. She has not been "controlled." From the choice to have sex, resulting in pregnancy, she has made her own choices.

So!? A girl who is pregnant, when confronted with a desperate situation, and is possibly facing the lose of everything she has or knows, might conclude (foolishly, or not) that her life will be too perilous, unless she has a abortion. Surely, you are aware that women have gone to great lengths to get abortions, often at great risk. Once this girl has made her mistake ( though maybe not her mistake, but abuse or rape), you are advocating policies that will make her life onerous, if not completely untenable. A woman in that situation, has the right, whether you agree with it, or not, to take steps to mitigate her problems. It is her body, which you have no right to touch, or restrain.

And you, by the way, you have no way of controlling my brain. So I don't need you to tell me what i ought to conclude about the way you treat women. It is pathetic. And it is pathetic whether you believe it is, or not. and it nobody should accept that it is pathetic because I say it is, either. Rather it is hard not to conclude it is pathetic, and oppressive, based on the evidence women who have been affected by it have shared with the world.