Ann Romney: Housewife extraordinaire....

[Darth Executor]

Basically, being a stay at home mother is only a real job and respected choice in modern conservative society if you are shouldering the majority of work for a man's kids that he gets equal authority over, cleaning the home he lives in, feeding him and his children, ironing their work/school clothes, and attending to his sexual needs in a satisfactory manner. If you're just shouldering all of the work raising your kids and therefore limiting the non-resident father's authority, and keeping the house clean that only you and they live in, feeding just your kids and ironing just their clothes; and choosing if you date, when you date and who you date (however discretely); you're a lazy, whorish disgrace who needs to get off her scrounging behind and get into work pronto.

How come Bristol Palin not only got no grief for it but is defended far more than she is attacked then? I honestly can't remember a single blog comment advising her to get back together with her douchebag ex and if there is one place where people feel the need to criticize people without mercy, it's blog posts.

[CodewordConduit]

How come Bristol Palin not only got no grief for it but is defended far more than she is attacked then? I honestly can't remember a single blog comment advising her to get back together with her douchebag ex and if there is one place where people feel the need to criticize people without mercy, it's blog posts.

"what's amazing is that this girl is in fact falling in line with conservative values. she's taking responsibility for her behavior (may it never be!) by marrying the father of the child.

i think jgarden and liberals like him are mad because she isn't defering responsibility for raising her child to society as a whole by becoming a welfare case, or god forbid, getting an abortion." - Sheepdog, TWeb 2008

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ar.../t-117954.html

With 4 "Amens" - Frogwarrior, JonLanceBarker, semmie, TyRockwell

Though I think JLB has moved on somewhat since then.

[CodewordConduit]

Aside from that, she never stated any intent to become a stay-at-home mother as far as I know.

[Darth Executor]

"what's amazing is that this girl is in fact falling in line with conservative values. she's taking responsibility for her behavior (may it never be!) by marrying the father of the child.

i think jgarden and liberals like him are mad because she isn't defering responsibility for raising her child to society as a whole by becoming a welfare case, or god forbid, getting an abortion." - Sheepdog, TWeb 2008

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ar.../t-117954.html

Not really relevant as Bristol later dumped Levi (and rightfully so).

It would be more accurate to say that conservatives don't usually consider what you do respectable if it's done on state money (regardless of what that is). Their problem is with the welfare part, not the housewife part.

[Darth Executor]

Sometimes, I just plain appreciate "The Daily Show." Tonight, Jon Stewart dug up this chestnut from a Romney town hall meeting on January 4 (~41:00):

Mitt Romney, New Hampshire event, January 4

. . . when I was governor, 85% of the people on a form of welfare assistance in my state had no work requirement. And I wanted to increase the work requirement. I said, for instance, that even if you had a child two years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, "Well that's heartless!" And I said, "No, I'm willing to spend more to provide day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more to provide that day care but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work and get people back into the workforce."

© source where applicable

So . . . apparently Rosen's statements unmasked a Democratic war on women by tearing down stay-at-home mothers. But Romney, three months prior, wanted to increase the work requirement for women on welfare assistance so that they could "have the dignity of work." Now, there's obviously a clear disconnect between having financial stability and being able for a couple to make the choice that one stay home and raise children and having no financial security but welfare — it would be wrong to suggest that Romney's "dignity to work" remark is generalized to all women.

But one has to pick a road here: either being a stay-at-home mother is "one of the hardest jobs in the world" and should therefore be prioritized for the welfare and function of the family unit or it's a great option to have if a family can afford it. Either way, this Romney speech goes a long way towards showing just how incredibly ginned-up this particular controversy is.

—Sam

Romney doesn't say anything about women specifically. Men can be stay at home parents too. I've actually run into quite a few single dads out there (don't tell Epo). The Internet is a strange thing. Anyway, the parenting is given as an example to his broader point (that he thinks people need to pay their own way through life) and parenting is brought up because it is a common objection.

[CodewordConduit]

Not really relevant as Bristol later dumped Levi (and rightfully so).

1) I was talking specifically about stay-at-home mothers, and you brought Palin into it, who showed no intent whatsoever of being a stay-at-home mother, was not and never has been a stay-at-home mother, and so was irrelevant to begin with.

2) I demonstrated a blog post that surmised pretty much entirely what I said because you seemed sure you'd never seen one. I even linked it to Bristol, because you for some reason thought that she was relevant as an example of a stay-at-home mother. If we were talking teen pregnancies and attitudes to that the she would have been a relevant person to bring into this particular discussion.

3) It is stupid beyond belief to assume that without any further knowledge about his character, that the 18 year old high school drop-out impregnator of a 17 year old girl is by default a good choice of husband for this young woman, or anyone, until he has firstly demonstrated that he has the means to effectively co-contribute to what is supposed to be a lifelong partnership. To advocate marriage between children in this day and age is generally ludicrous. Most conservatives wouldn't even let their 17 year olds get tattoos for pity's sake.

It would be more accurate to say that conservatives don't usually consider what you do respectable if it's done on state money (regardless of what that is). Their problem is with the welfare part, not the housewife part.

Okay, a policeman controlling a student demonstration does his job on state money.
The guy who flips the switch and fries the mentally retarded man on death row does his job on state money.
St Ronald of Reagan did his job on state money.

Are stay-at-home mothers doing a job?

[Darth Executor]

1) I was talking specifically about stay-at-home mothers, and you brought Palin into it, who showed no intent whatsoever of being a stay-at-home mother, was not and never has been a stay-at-home mother, and so was irrelevant to begin with.

She isn't one now but she was one at the time.

2) I demonstrated a blog post that surmised pretty much entirely what I said because you seemed sure you'd never seen one.

Not true, it only demonstrates the first part of what you said (which I agree with). But you also said this:

"If you're just shouldering all of the work raising your kids and therefore limiting the non-resident father's authority, and keeping the house clean that only you and they live in, feeding just your kids and ironing just their clothes; and choosing if you date, when you date and who you date (however discretely); you're a lazy, whorish disgrace who needs to get off her scrounging behind and get into work pronto."

This never happened with Bristol even after she told Levi to take a hike.

3) It is stupid beyond belief to assume that without any further knowledge about his character, that the 18 year old high school drop-out impregnator of a 17 year old girl is by default a good choice of husband for this young woman, or anyone, until he has firstly demonstrated that he has the means to effectively co-contribute to what is supposed to be a lifelong partnership. To advocate marriage between children in this day and age is generally ludicrous. Most conservatives wouldn't even let their 17 year olds get tattoos for pity's sake.

I agree it's stupid (the Levi thing), and I never said I hold these beliefs so I don't know why you're telling me this. About the marrying young thing, it's not as uncommon as you think. Even if they're not happy with it, once the cat is out of the bag most conservatives are happier with the kids getting married than splitting up.

Okay, a policeman controlling a student demonstration does his job on state money.
The guy who flips the switch and fries the mentally retarded man on death row does his job on state money.
St Ronald of Reagan did his job on state money.

They would not consider it done on state money since they are contracted by the state to do a specific job, whereas welfare is money given to people so they can survive.

IOW, in the case of the former it's the worker's money, in the case of welfare it's the state's money.

Are stay-at-home mothers doing a job?

Yes.

[CodewordConduit]

She isn't one now but she was one at the time.

She was no more a stay-at-home mother than I was when I was pregnant. It's more akin to being either slightly or very disabled throughout the duration of your pregnancy, depending on any complications, health issues or how far along you are. There are no daily childcare responsibilities, and she was a kid living with her rich parents so in no way shape or form responsible for much of the household budgeting or cleaning.

Not true, it only demonstrates the first part of what you said (which I agree with). But you also said this:

"If you're just shouldering all of the work raising your kids and therefore limiting the non-resident father's authority, and keeping the house clean that only you and they live in, feeding just your kids and ironing just their clothes; and choosing if you date, when you date and who you date (however discretely); you're a lazy, whorish disgrace who needs to get off her scrounging behind and get into work pronto."

This never happened with Bristol even after she told Levi to take a hike.

She's received $$$thousands for public appearances since having her child. Was she keeping home in its entirety as I did whilst simultaneously working up from having less than 5 GCSES to maintaining steady firsts at degree level (from home), getting a job interview in Westminster for a Parlimentary placement and then securing a work position in a heavily competitive field dominated by graduates, and moving cities at massive expense to do so? No. She is in no way comparable to the likes of me and other struggling lone parents; she's a spoilt and hypocritical (shamelessly plugging abstinence-only) rich woman surrounded by a massive support network, when I had nobody. Yet who is the conservative's darling in comparison? You don't have to answer, I've watched and experienced it on this site for years.

I agree it's stupid (the Levi thing), and I never said I hold these beliefs so I don't know why you're telling me this.

It wasn't aimed at you, it was at anyone who agrees that marriage is the best thing to do in these sorts of circumstances, especially if welfare is the only other option.

About the marrying young thing, it's not as uncommon as you think.

I didn't think it was uncommon, just that it's more often than not an unwise choice until the unit can sustain itself; not just financially but emotionally, too.

Even if they're not happy with it, once the cat is out of the bag most conservatives are happier with the kids getting married than splitting up.

Tell me about it. My father suggested it to me. My ex was banned from crossing the family threshold because of his behaviour (don't blame them), but my father informed me that if I were to marry him then we could all "work on making things work out".

I'm so happy that I broke off my engagement when I was pregnant and 17. Best and cleverest choice I ever made to do with a man.

They would not consider it done on state money since they are contracted by the state to do a specific job, whereas welfare is money given to people so they can survive.

If you do a crap job as a mother, you are subject to review and the kids and the money you get to look after them are removed. Pretty close to being contractual i.e. you have a set of responsibilities which you must uphold in order to receive renumeration. It's close enough.

IOW, in the case of the former it's the worker's money, in the case of welfare it's the state's money.

If a stay-at-home mother is a worker then surely she is receiving worker's money same as the above? The only part (In England anyway) that she gets for herself is the income support element, which is usually more-or-less deleted upon receipt of child support if the father is resident. She gets that for herself until the child is old enough that it can be put into childcare; then she is obliged to look for work the same as any other job seeker, and under the same rules.

Yes.

[Darth Executor]

She was no more a stay-at-home mother than I was when I was pregnant. It's more akin to being either slightly or very disabled throughout the duration of your pregnancy, depending on any complications, health issues or how far along you are. There are no daily childcare responsibilities, and she was a kid living with her rich parents so in no way shape or form responsible for much of the household budgeting or cleaning.

She's received $$$thousands for public appearances since having her child. Was she keeping home in its entirety as I did whilst simultaneously working up from having less than 5 GCSES to maintaining steady firsts at degree level (from home), getting a job interview in Westminster for a Parlimentary placement and then securing a work position in a heavily competitive field dominated by graduates, and moving cities at massive expense to do so? No. She is in no way comparable to the likes of me and other struggling lone parents; she's a spoilt and hypocritical (shamelessly plugging abstinence-only) rich woman surrounded by a massive support network, when I had nobody. Yet who is the conservative's darling in comparison? You don't have to answer, I've watched and experienced it on this site for years.

You are adding extra details. I was responding to your previous (fairly generic) post. I agree her situation is not all that comparable to yours.

It wasn't aimed at you, it was at anyone who agrees that marriage is the best thing to do in these sorts of circumstances, especially if welfare is the only other option.

Money wouldn't be an issue in her case because her parents are loaded anyway. As a general rule though, I like (or used to like, until my cynicism levels became skyscraper high) to give the benefit of the doubt to people. One libertarianish blogger I read on occasion (Ed Morrisey of Hot Air) has a stepson who impregnated his girlfriend in high school. They got married, have another daughter now and are doing fine. I was quite retarded in HS myself, but I like to think I'd have done the right thing if I had been in that situation and automatically being judged to be a bastard who won't take responsibility by default is more likely to send someone flying.

Tell me about it. My father suggested it to me. My ex was banned from crossing the family threshold because of his behaviour (don't blame them), but my father informed me that if I were to marry him then we could all "work on making things work out".

I'm so happy that I broke off my engagement when I was pregnant and 17. Best and cleverest choice I ever made to do with a man.

I'm happy you did too.

If you do a crap job as a mother, you are subject to review and the kids and the money you get to look after them are removed. Pretty close to being contractual i.e. you have a set of responsibilities which you must uphold in order to receive renumeration. It's close enough.

Not from the conservative perspective which places a lot of value on mutually agreed upon contracts. The government doesn't usually contract people to have kids in exchange for a sum of money. People have kids, then apply for aid, which the state must supply or leave the kids starving/without shelter. So it comes off as emotinal blackmail. Even if a conservative is fine with aiding such people voluntarily via charity, the conservative will likely resent being forced to help via the state which in turn will result in scorn directed at the government and individuals who have the kids.

If a stay-at-home mother is a worker then surely she is receiving worker's money same as the above?

Yes, but for work that was not contracted. To a conservative (and to a much lesser extent me, though my views are a lot more complex, I'll be more than happy to discuss them in another thread if you want, preferably after exams) it is akin to having someone come paint your fence and extracting payment from your wallet, even though you never contracted the person to paint your fence. The painter in question is still a worker, but the circumstances are different.

The only part (In England anyway) that she gets for herself is the income support element, which is usually more-or-less deleted upon receipt of child support if the father is resident. She gets that for herself until the child is old enough that it can be put into childcare; then she is obliged to look for work the same as any other job seeker, and under the same rules.

I believe that matches up with Romney's proposal.

[lilpixieofterror]

Thankfully, it is for now. I was operating under a mistaken impression earlier -- I thought at the time that the Blunt Amendment was still being debated -- now that I know that it has been defeated, the issue remains narrowly focused -- for now.

And I should remain that way.

With the cost of medical care, a person would have to be crazy to willingly eschew insurance.

Yep, that is why it would be foolish not to.

If his feelings on the matter supersede your own, I suspect both the father and the government will be pleased.

People are always going to feel different NP, but it is silly to say that abortion doesn't effect men too.

So how about a third party -- who had no part whatsoever in the matter -- stepping in to override the wishes of both the father and the mother?

In many cases a third party, IE social services, does overstep and override the wishes of both parents in cases such as abuse and they rightfully should. Now I believe social services has gone a little nuts, but when parents stop being parents, there needs to be somebody that can step in. Rather it be the government or our own family.

But they don't like it -- all you have to do is wait for Obama to sneeze and hear the howls of "socialism!" coming from the Right.

Nevertheless, even you must agree that there are limits to the degree that other people should control your life -- and I suspect you'd react most strongly to anyone who (in your opinion) stepped over the line.

How many Democrats blame the ills of the world upon Bush? He hasn't been president for 3 years now and I still find many democrats still blame him for everything bad that ever happens. Second, yes their should be, but if you put the lives of those around you in danger, somebody has to step in. Our laws are written this way too, so the right to choice is not as important as the right to life. You do not have the right to choose to drink and drive and if you choose so, the government or perhaps your own family will step in and do something about your dumb choices.

What you believe would've been irrelevant had the Blunt Amendment passed -- the only beliefs that would've mattered would've been your employer's.

Did I say I supported the Blunt Amendment anywhere? No I did not, so it is irrelevant to this conversation since I made it quite clear that saving lives is more important then choice. Since contraceptives are not about 'saving lives' and there are several options out there, it really doesn't look to me to be 'life saving'.

Now, as a government worker, you'd have been protected from potential abuse by the First Amendment -- The government cannot push a religious agenda on its people. The private sector would've had no such safeguards.

Traditionally that has been maintained to mean they are not allowed to deny you life saving measures. IE blood transfusions are a life saving measure, birth control is not.

Those who opposed the bill did complain that it was too broad, but the issue of "life or death" decisions being covered regardless (good idea though it is) was never mentioned, AFAIK -- and the fact that the vote went down almost exactly along party lines says something.

Again, since I am not arguing for it, it is just a distraction.

Only because the Blunt Amendment was defeated, my friend -- an employer would've had unfettered moral/religious right to declare an apple to be an orange -- and make you pay by the bushel.

That's and I argued for it to be passed were at? Since I didn't, this is just a distraction.

You really need to realize the bullet that was just dodged -- no matter how much you would've liked a "life-saving" clause in the Blunt Amendment... it did not exist.

So? Did I argue for the Blunt Amendment anywhere at all? Was it mentioned anywhere? Nope, so what does this conversation have to do with anything? Nothing.

Maybe Congress should spend more time doing their jobs and less time campaigning to keep their jobs -- when pigs fly, I suspect.

That is why I tend to be in favor of preventing lifers from staying in Congress.

Jehovah's Witnesses don't care -- given the choice, the more devout would rather die than betray their religious beliefs.

If I may ask a familiar question: Why should they be forced to pay for medical procedures they are morally and religiously opposed to?

Answer: Because currently, Obamacare's religious exemption only to reproductive and contraceptive services. The Blunt Amendment would have removed that restriction.

And where in this thread have I supported the Blunt Amendment? Answer, no where so stop with the strawmen or I'm just going to start ignoring your post since you will not deal with my points and the argument I brought forth. I didn't support the Blunt Amendment, I didn't say one thing about it, I didn't mention it, and I don't believe it should pass. Understand that yet?

Why the procedure is done would've been completely irrelevant under Blunt -- employers would've had literally limitless authority over what insurance covered. Again, employees dodged a bullet.

Again, another strawmen. I didn't say a word about the Blunt Amendment, YOU DID. Now drop the strawman and deal with what I actually said.

And Blunt would've applies to apples, oranges, tangerines, pineapples, you name it -- or have I not yet stressed enough that the bill would've given unlimited power to employers to refuse insurance based on moral/religious reasons? As you said, that was [probably] why it was defeated.

Strawman, never said a word about the Blunt Amendment nor did I support it. Stop beating the strawmen, it is dead, now deal with the argument I put forth.

Blah blah blah...

Sorry, I have grown tired of your strawmen and red herrings. I said NOT a word about the Blunt Amendment, you did. I said not a word about supporting it, you brought it up. The phrasing of how I started this argument should have made it 100% clear that I did not support anything that would allow employers to deny life saving care. If you are not going to deal with what I said, just don't bother to post back because I will just ignore it. My argument has been and always has been that an employer should not be forced to provide something that violates their moral beliefs, as so long this does not violate another persons ability to receive life saving care. Blood transfusions are a common life saving device used across hospitals all over the world and far more people would have died without the ability to do a blood transfusion, therefore a JW does not have the right to enforce their moral belief here since it would violate other people's ability to receive life saving care. That is my argument and always has been, now either deal with it or I'll just ignore your next post and assume you're not interested in discussing the issue I have brought forth.

[lao tzu]

The answer is no... only if they are a church employer paying for contraception.

They don't pay for contraception. It's not a cost; it's a discount.

[Nathan Poe]

And I should remain that way.

Here's hoping it does.

Yep, that is why it would be foolish not to.

Agreed.

People are always going to feel different NP, but it is silly to say that abortion doesn't effect men too.

I never said it didn't -- I only said it doesn't affect me. I'm personally against abortion -- but I've even more against meddling in the lives of people I've never met and who don't affect me.

If we were talking about my own wife, I'd, of course, have a different opinion -- but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to give a crew of Washington Stooges the power to treat every woman in America as if she was their wife/daughter -- make such a decision on their behalf without consulting them, and then making tracks like so many deadbeat dads.

In many cases a third party, IE social services, does overstep and override the wishes of both parents in cases such as abuse and they rightfully should. Now I believe social services has gone a little nuts, but when parents stop being parents, there needs to be somebody that can step in. Rather it be the government or our own family.

So we agree that government intervention can and occasionally has gone too far -- even though it is, occasionally necessary. Shall we then keep them reined in as much as possible, only allowing them to intrude on families in extreme circumstances, or shall we set them loose, and let them impose their "family values" on families as a matter of course?

How many Democrats blame the ills of the world upon Bush? He hasn't been president for 3 years now and I still find many democrats still blame him for everything bad that ever happens.

Perhaps you should take that gripe up with them? You are not currently talking to such a person.

Bush was a buffoon, yes; Obama is spineless, yes; but America has survived worse presidents than them. There are plenty of Dems and Reps who really need to stop whining about the past and look to the future.

Second, yes their should be, but if you put the lives of those around you in danger, somebody has to step in. Our laws are written this way too, so the right to choice is not as important as the right to life. You do not have the right to choose to drink and drive and if you choose so, the government or perhaps your own family will step in and do something about your dumb choices.

And the choice to believe that a fetus has more rights than a full-grown human being is arguably one such dumb choice. Your drinking and driving is more like apples and oranges.

Did I say I supported the Blunt Amendment anywhere? No I did not, so it is irrelevant to this conversation since I made it quite clear that saving lives is more important then choice. Since contraceptives are not about 'saving lives' and there are several options out there, it really doesn't look to me to be 'life saving'.

You didn't say you agreed with it because you showed no indication that you were even aware of it. You asked if an employer should be forced to provide services they don't believe in. That was Blunt's question exactly.

I thought you might be interested in the potential implications if your statement: "Should an employer be forced to provide services they don't believe in?" So I showed you the implications -- the Blunt Amendment and everything that could've happened had it passed. Sorry if you don't like what you've found.

Traditionally that has been maintained to mean they are not allowed to deny you life saving measures. IE blood transfusions are a life saving measure, birth control is not.

What is "traditional" and what the laws allow are two different things -- if you're not very in your demands, there will always be people -- lawyers, politicians, shady employers -- who will find a loophole and exploit it.

Again, since I am not arguing for it, it is just a distraction.

But you were arguing for it -- you just didn't know. Granted, your version contains a caveat ("unless it saves lives") not in the original, and as I've said, that caveat doesn't even exist now.

In a perfect world, what you're proposing would've been in the law. This world look perfect to you?

One can only hope that Blunt (or someone like him) puts a caveat similar to your own in the next draft of this amendment -- I doubt it, but one can always hope.

That's and I argued for it to be passed were at? Since I didn't, this is just a distraction.

Again, it's the exact same philosophy as what you were arguing for: Should employers provide services they don't believe in? Blunt just came closer to making that answer a reality that you ever will.

Again, your exception is a good idea -- a pity it'll fall on deaf ears.

So? Did I argue for the Blunt Amendment anywhere at all? Was it mentioned anywhere? Nope, so what does this conversation have to do with anything? Nothing.

It's hardly my fault if you don't see the parallels between your own question and Blunt's. He believed, as you do, that employers should not have to compromise their religious or moral beliefs.

There are people in this world, littlepixie, who will stand fast to their convictions even unto death -- you know this as well as anyone else -- a Jehovah's Witness will refuse a blood transfusion even if their own life is at risk. If they're willing to stand fast even in the face of their own death, why should they be forced to compromise when their own lives are not at issue?

That is why I tend to be in favor of preventing lifers from staying in Congress.

As do I -- a pity it'll never happen. Only Congress can vote term limits; you see them neutering themselves any time soon?

And where in this thread have I supported the Blunt Amendment?

You didn't support it; you echoed it without even realizing it. Now you know.

Answer, no where so stop with the strawmen or I'm just going to start ignoring your post since you will not deal with my points and the argument I brought forth. I didn't support the Blunt Amendment, I didn't say one thing about it, I didn't mention it, and I don't believe it should pass. Understand that yet?

As long as the question "should an employer be forced to provide services they don't believe in" is limited only to churches and contraception, we're in agreement. If you want to broaden that question, be careful what you wish for...

Again, another strawmen. I didn't say a word about the Blunt Amendment, YOU DID. Now drop the strawman and deal with what I actually said.

Are you now saying that you are only referring to churches and contraception?

Strawman, never said a word about the Blunt Amendment nor did I support it. Stop beating the strawmen, it is dead, now deal with the argument I put forth.

As long as... well, you know the rest. Religious organizations are not required to compromise their beliefs in regads to contraception, but are required to do so in regards to any other health service they may otherwise object to.

You want to extend the power to refuse beyond churches to include any employer -- and the only restriction is that they cannot refuse a "life saving" treatment.

That sound about right? Because sadly, what you were proposing was a lot closer to Blunt's proposition than current reality.

Sorry, I have grown tired of your strawmen and red herrings. I said NOT a word about the Blunt Amendment, you did. I said not a word about supporting it, you brought it up. The phrasing of how I started this argument should have made it 100% clear that I did not support anything that would allow employers to deny life saving care.

Well, unfortunately, there were only two options on the table -- Obama's, or Blunt's. Your third option is only slightly flawed, but mostly workable -- and not on anyone's radar.

If you are not going to deal with what I said, just don't bother to post back because I will just ignore it. My argument has been and always has been that an employer should not be forced to provide something that violates their moral beliefs, as so long this does not violate another persons ability to receive life saving care. Blood transfusions are a common life saving device used across hospitals all over the world and far more people would have died without the ability to do a blood transfusion, therefore a JW does not have the right to enforce their moral belief here since it would violate other people's ability to receive life saving care.That is my argument and always has been, now either deal with it or I'll just ignore your next post and assume you're not interested in discussing the issue I have brought forth.

So, a JW's believes are protected in regards to contraception, but violated in regards to something considered "life saving." Fair enough.

How about we get back on topic and discuss something a little less cut and dried? Vaccinations. There are plenty of people out there who are opposed to vaccinations, precisely because they believe them to be more harmful than beneficial. So... are vaccinations life saving, or not?

[CodewordConduit]

You are adding extra details. I was responding to your previous (fairly generic) post. I agree her situation is not all that comparable to yours.

I suppose that in a nutshell, if she's part of whatever group you identify with, you'll have an easier time seeing her as a human being. If she's part of a group that you've been taught to scorn and castigate then she's fair game for abuse. Suppose we all have to try to transcend that. I never attacked Bristol at the time, in fact I got a bunch of liberal atheists to apologise on another forum I post on for being such vile pigs about her and her situation when she was pregnant. I lost a lot of respect for her when she started raking it in off the back of her celebrity, and failed to take the opportuntiy to show solidarity with the likes of me when she had such a public platform from which to say a few simple words of support, but it was just the same old "keep your legs together" crap that got publicized; if there was anything about improving society to help lone parents aside from that, then I missed it. Your point seemd to be that as Bristol Palin wasn't attacked for being a lone parent, that my point was moot; when I really should have clarified that I don't count celebrities or the idle rich in that bracket. I count people who have to do the donkey work themselves.

Money wouldn't be an issue in her case because her parents are loaded anyway. As a general rule though, I like (or used to like, until my cynicism levels became skyscraper high) to give the benefit of the doubt to people. One libertarianish blogger I read on occasion (Ed Morrisey of Hot Air) has a stepson who impregnated his girlfriend in high school. They got married, have another daughter now and are doing fine. I was quite retarded in HS myself, but I like to think I'd have done the right thing if I had been in that situation and automatically being judged to be a bastard who won't take responsibility by default is more likely to send someone flying.

I'd contend that there are lots of shades of grey between total abandonment and marriage. The best thing for the child, in my opinion, is for parent/partners/friends who are willing to be caregivers to do so to the very best of their capacity, and to keep working towards being better parent/partners/friend until the best situation that can be arrived at is actualised; mentally, emotionally, financially and commitment-wise.

I'm happy you did too.

Not from the conservative perspective which places a lot of value on mutually agreed upon contracts.

Everybody places a lot of value upon that!

The government doesn't usually contract people to have kids in exchange for a sum of money.

Welfare in regard to children is part of the social contract that is mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people in our respective countries. The government does contract people to care for children in exchange for a sum of money, just never their own or those they are related to. It has been established through numerous studies (e.g. the Romanian orphans adopted by Western families, after the fall of communism, who had previously been cared for in state-run homes) that it is better for society as a whole for children to be raised by a stable primary caregiver, as they tend much less toward mental disorders and criminal/antisocial behaviour; which costs society and the taxpayer much more money in the long run. Kids happen, and it's pretty much conclusive that on the whole they're better off with carers who are bonded with them and won't abandon them. Any sound-minded conservative can see the long-term fiscal logic in this.

People have kids, then apply for aid, which the state must supply or leave the kids starving/without shelter.

Only if you're a citizen. I've had the lot denied. Because I wasn't part of the social contract of the country I was living in when I got pregnant and had my daughter. They will let you starve and not bat an eyelid.

So it comes off as emotinal blackmail.

Government has no soul.

Even if a conservative is fine with aiding such people voluntarily via charity, the conservative will likely resent being forced to help via the state which in turn will result in scorn directed at the government and individuals who have the kids.

Yes, because they like to pretend that they are good people, just like everyone else does; but history pretty much puts to bed the notion that any large civilisation can have its citizens simply care for one another. Even in the pentateuch we find landowners ordered to let impoverished people take the scraps from their fields. Jesus had to repeatedly hammer the notion of charity and giving. He didn't have to tell them to wash or they'd stink. He didn't state the obvious. He ordered charity at the same time that he ordered people to give unto Caeser what is Caeser's. And that taxpayer money paid for his own unjust execution! Charity is giving unto God what is his. People are supposed to do both. People who imagine that without taxes they would spend that same amount on helping anyone outside of their "in group" are self-deluded liars. People are crap, governments are crap. Call out both and do what you can to make things better, and never find yourself justifying the hate spewed out towards the sick, needy and vulnerable.

Yes, but for work that was not contracted. To a conservative (and to a much lesser extent me, though my views are a lot more complex, I'll be more than happy to discuss them in another thread if you want, preferably after exams) it is akin to having someone come paint your fence and extracting payment from your wallet, even though you never contracted the person to paint your fence. The painter in question is still a worker, but the circumstances are different.

Unless all these miserable conservative bastards don't want young, healthy, kind and professional humans around when they're old, frail and weak; they'd better start thinking more in depth about these issues.

Good luck with your exams bro, you're doing great, you'll ace them

I believe that matches up with Romney's proposal.

It's a hella good proposal, I've been crying out for it for years!

[Darth Executor]

I suppose that in a nutshell, if she's part of whatever group you identify with, you'll have an easier time seeing her as a human being. If she's part of a group that you've been taught to scorn and castigate then she's fair game for abuse.

There was a study suggesting just that floating around the internet recently. Lemme see if I can find it.

here it is:
http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/0...h-others-pain/

Suppose we all have to try to transcend that. I never attacked Bristol at the time, in fact I got a bunch of liberal atheists to apologise on another forum I post on for being such vile pigs about her and her situation when she was pregnant. I lost a lot of respect for her when she started raking it in off the back of her celebrity, and failed to take the opportuntiy to show solidarity with the likes of me when she had such a public platform from which to say a few simple words of support, but it was just the same old "keep your legs together" crap that got publicized; if there was anything about improving society to help lone parents aside from that, then I missed it. Your point seemd to be that as Bristol Palin wasn't attacked for being a lone parent, that my point was moot; when I really should have clarified that I don't count celebrities or the idle rich in that bracket. I count people who have to do the donkey work themselves.

I never particularly liked her to begin with. Also, if the Daily Mail is to be believed...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...epublican.html

Everybody places a lot of value upon that!

I don't. Bless my totalitarian heart, you will all be signed on to my singularly agreed upon contracts or you will cease to exist.

Welfare in regard to children is part of the social contract that is mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people in our respective countries. The government does contract people to care for children in exchange for a sum of money, just never their own or those they are related to. It has been established through numerous studies (e.g. the Romanian orphans adopted by Western families, after the fall of communism, who had previously been cared for in state-run homes) that it is better for society as a whole for children to be raised by a stable primary caregiver, as they tend much less toward mental disorders and criminal/antisocial behaviour; which costs society and the taxpayer much more money in the long run. Kids happen, and it's pretty much conclusive that on the whole they're better off with carers who are bonded with them and won't abandon them. Any sound-minded conservative can see the long-term fiscal logic in this.

I agree, but it's immaterial, because the issue isn't with the kids, it's with the parents. That they will take care of the kids does not mean they will not blame the parents for creating the necessity in the first place. The only people I see pouring scorn on the kids themselves are the Roissy types.

Only if you're a citizen. I've had the lot denied. Because I wasn't part of the social contract of the country I was living in when I got pregnant and had my daughter. They will let you starve and not bat an eyelid.

Adults, yes, but not children. They'd have taken your daughter and given her basic care. It's not a good thing mind you, just saying she wouldn't have starved.

Government has no soul.

No but we are discussing colliding worldviews which are held by people. Whether people have souls remains to be seen.

Yes, because they like to pretend that they are good people, just like everyone else does; but history pretty much puts to bed the notion that any large civilisation can have its citizens simply care for one another. Even in the pentateuch we find landowners ordered to let impoverished people take the scraps from their fields. Jesus had to repeatedly hammer the notion of charity and giving. He didn't have to tell them to wash or they'd stink. He didn't state the obvious.

I reckon in ancient Israel water was at a premium and most people did, in fact, stink.

He ordered charity at the same time that he ordered people to give unto Caeser what is Caeser's. And that taxpayer money paid for his own unjust execution!

Rome used that money to maintain law enforcement and keep control of its provinces. It was by no means a left wing paradise. Not sure how any of that translates to divine support for a state welfare system, which is not charitable giving on behalf of its operators or enablers. I don't consider it charitable giving at all actually.
The taxpayer does not get credit because they have no choice.
The government does not get credit because the politicians who create it and support it do it with someone else's money.
It's true that it requires conservatives to pay for a welfare system if one is demanded by the government, but that does not translate to having to go out of their way to support it. If that were true then Christians would be obligated to enthusiastically support anything a government came up with, including abortion, the Holocaust, slavery and countless other government supported, sanctioned or operated atrocities (not saying welfare = holocaust, merely that one is not required to support a policy just because the government does). Furthermore, in a democratic society, Caesar is not the PM or the president, it is the citizens, so I'm not sure how applicable that verse is to today at all.

Charity is giving unto God what is his. People are supposed to do both. People who imagine that without taxes they would spend that same amount on helping anyone outside of their "in group" are self-deluded liars.

Not true, I would. I have 13 dollars left in the bank to last me for food until I get a job (i have a bunch of food stored up so it's not as dire as it looks). If you want I'll paypal it to you this instant along with a screenshot of my balance. I literally could not care less about money for my own use. I further find it utterly repulsive how so many people, from conservatives to liberals and from lower classes to upper classes are willing to trample not just through strangers but through their own friends and family just to get more and more money. Almost makes me want to just pack up all my crap and isolate myself from society entirely.

Furthermore modern societies are far more prosperous than ancient ones. I'm not going to dispute your assertion in general, but I can't agree with it either simply because I don't have any direct evidence either way. I've seen people claim that, relative for their time, the poor were helped more effectively in the past. And quite frankly I'd need to see some statistics on charitable giving before I call people "miserable bastards" for not agreeing with my political views. According to Kristof (a leftish columnist), conservatives give more to charity than liberals. It is conservative doctrine to generally oppose state welfare, but that tells me absolutely nothing about their actual contributions to helping the poor. Support for or opposition to welfare are opinions on one's preferred system. Someone can enthusiastically support welfare and still fight tooth and nail to keep every cent he has for himself.

People are crap, governments are crap. Call out both and do what you can to make things better, and never find yourself justifying the hate spewed out towards the sick, needy and vulnerable.

The few times I can be bothered to spew hate I spew hate at those guilty of certain evils. They may sometimes cross with your list, but the things you listed are morally neutral values to me and thus don't particularly register for bile (or praise). I suspect that we simply compartmentalize people differently.

Unless all these miserable conservative bastards don't want young, healthy, kind and professional humans around when they're old, frail and weak; they'd better start thinking more in depth about these issues.

It doesn't matter. Even if welfare made people decent (it doesn't, if everybody who grew up financially stable was a great human being the world would look nothing like it currently does), liberals have murdered so much of the next generation via abortion alone that the elderly will inevitably destroy the social safety nets. I doubt the West as we know it will live out the century. And I for one have no intention of leaving my fate or the fate of anyone I care about in the hands of people I don't know, welfare or no welfare.

Good luck with your exams bro, you're doing great, you'll ace them

I was so absorbed with writing the last reply I was half an hour late to one of them.

[lilpixieofterror]

I never said it didn't -- I only said it doesn't affect me. I'm personally against abortion -- but I've even more against meddling in the lives of people I've never met and who don't affect me.

In normal day to day affairs, I am not a fan of meddling in the lives of others I do not know either. In the case of saving lives or when a persons decisions will negatively cause harm to others, I am all for doing it.

If we were talking about my own wife, I'd, of course, have a different opinion -- but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to give a crew of Washington Stooges the power to treat every woman in America as if she was their wife/daughter -- make such a decision on their behalf without consulting them, and then making tracks like so many deadbeat dads.

Yet, that is just what our laws do everyday. Laws, for the most part, are there to keep the order of things and to keep people from causing problems. I mean, just to name a few... we have laws against making too much noise after a certain hour, we have laws against drinking and driving, we have laws against excessive drug use, and that is just to name a few. When it comes to protecting the lives of others, do you think our government and/or or family should step in and do something? I think so.

So we agree that government intervention can and occasionally has gone too far -- even though it is, occasionally necessary. Shall we then keep them reined in as much as possible, only allowing them to intrude on families in extreme circumstances, or shall we set them loose, and let them impose their "family values" on families as a matter of course?

Most of the problem with the government doing too much is because it seems the government is never able to do things the way required, it seems it always either over reacts or under reacts. Of course, the reason the government often has to step in is because the American family unit has fallen apart so much. Before, families had a tendency to keep each other in line.

Perhaps you should take that gripe up with them? You are not currently talking to such a person.

So why bring it up? I sure didn't.

Bush was a buffoon, yes; Obama is spineless, yes; but America has survived worse presidents than them. There are plenty of Dems and Reps who really need to stop whining about the past and look to the future.

And the choice to believe that a fetus has more rights than a full-grown human being is arguably one such dumb choice. Your drinking and driving is more like apples and oranges.

Why? Does the unborn not have the right to live? In almost every case, it sure wasn't the choice of the kid to find his or her way there, it was a free choice made by his or her mother and father. All of us have had biology 101 and all of us are well aware of what sex is for, so if you knew what could happen. whose fault is it? Actions have consequences, like it or not.

You didn't say you agreed with it because you showed no indication that you were even aware of it. You asked if an employer should be forced to provide services they don't believe in. That was Blunt's question exactly.

Might want to go re read all of my post instead of parts of it. I made it pretty obvious that this should only extend to non-life saving measures. Since birth control is not a life saving measure, should it extend there?

I thought you might be interested in the potential implications if your statement: "Should an employer be forced to provide services they don't believe in?" So I showed you the implications -- the Blunt Amendment and everything that could've happened had it passed. Sorry if you don't like what you've found.

Sorry, but you really need to go back and read carefully. I already addressed that, you ignored it and/or didn't read far enough. If you are not going to read what people say, don't bother to respond to start with.

What is "traditional" and what the laws allow are two different things -- if you're not very in your demands, there will always be people -- lawyers, politicians, shady employers -- who will find a loophole and exploit it.

Hummm... my statement was life saving care should not be denied regardless of beliefs. Blood transfusions save thousands of lives all over the world every single year. Therefore, blood transfusions are life saving care that can not be denied due to belief. Doesn't seem that hard to figure out. You know why loop holes exist? Because these politicians spend too much time making them so complex that nobody can understand what they are saying, so it can be interpreted to mean almost anything.

But you were arguing for it -- you just didn't know. Granted, your version contains a caveat ("unless it saves lives") not in the original, and as I've said, that caveat doesn't even exist now.

I don't care, I said not one word about anything actually going on, did I? You did, so again, respond to what I said instead of what you want to hear. Is that so hard to ask?

In a perfect world, what you're proposing would've been in the law. This world look perfect to you?

And that has what to do with my argument?

One can only hope that Blunt (or someone like him) puts a caveat similar to your own in the next draft of this amendment -- I doubt it, but one can always hope.

Shouldn't be that hard, but I do find that politicians do tend to spend a lot of time making everything they write as complex as possible. Guess it gives them a job and makes it look as though they are doing a lot.

Again, it's the exact same philosophy as what you were arguing for: Should employers provide services they don't believe in? Blunt just came closer to making that answer a reality that you ever will.

Again, I didn't argue for that, try to actually respond to what I argued for instead of what you THINK I argued for. If you're not going to read what people say, don't bother to respond back. I'm sure not going to if you keep up with this strawmen.

Again, your exception is a good idea -- a pity it'll fall on deaf ears.

And I said anything about the 'real world' anywhere in my argument? Perhaps you could show where?

It's hardly my fault if you don't see the parallels between your own question and Blunt's. He believed, as you do, that employers should not have to compromise their religious or moral beliefs.

No, I find Blunt wasn't thinking and/or was being an idiot when he made this proposal. I made it pretty specific, as long as it does not deny life saving care, why should it be accepted? Blood transfusions are LIFE SAVING CARE!!! Is there something that prevents you from reading and responding to what people say instead of what you want to hear? I added in a cause Blunt did not add in, therefore my argument and his are two different things. Apples to oranges, now respond to my argument instead of his. Is that so hard for you to get though your thick skull?

There are people in this world, littlepixie, who will stand fast to their convictions even unto death -- you know this as well as anyone else -- a Jehovah's Witness will refuse a blood transfusion even if their own life is at risk. If they're willing to stand fast even in the face of their own death, why should they be forced to compromise when their own lives are not at issue?

Yep they should be. They are not risking their own, the are risking other people's lives. You seem to be making yet another mistake, I did not say that beliefs should always be respected, did I? Nope, so again, respond to what I said instead of what you want to hear. Do you have some sort of disease that prevents you from reading and responding to what other people say that makes you throw up strawmen in some desperate attempt to avoid admitting you didn't read before you jumped into a thread?

As do I -- a pity it'll never happen. Only Congress can vote term limits; you see them neutering themselves any time soon?

Push hard enough and do not vote for those that refuse, and they will. Problem is, the issue is not pressed enough.

You didn't support it; you echoed it without even realizing it. Now you know.

No I didn't idiot, I said:

And the question is rather or not easy access to contraceptives are preventative medicine or not. What are they preventing in terms of disease? The only one that really prevents any disease is a condom and I know they are not that expensive if you want the fancy stuff or that hard to come by if you want free ones. In the strictest sense of the word, pregnancy is the natural cycle that results from sex and I know many religious groups tend to believe that as being one of the reasons contraceptives are wrong. They prevent this natural cycle, I kind of think they are wrong since medicine in general could vaguely be connected that way, but I don't see their views as seriously hurting people and it isn't as though most of them are trying to force others to agree with them. I know where I live the Catholic hospitals will not allow their hospital to be used for any contraceptive service in a non-life saving measure, that is their right, but it is not as though I could go down the street to the non-religious affiliated hospital and have it done. I do not think forcing them to provide this service is right and when there are other places to go, it makes it even more wrong.

I know this reading thing is very hard for you, what did I say there and do you want to actually respond to it instead of burning more strawmen? If you do not read what people say, let me know now so I can just skip past anything you have to say because I would already know it would be a waste of time bothering with you.

As long as the question "should an employer be forced to provide services they don't believe in" is limited only to churches and contraception, we're in agreement. If you want to broaden that question, be careful what you wish for...

And since I said this in relationship to life saving measures, you have no argument. Like I said, respond to what I said instead of what you wanted to hear. Is that so hard?

Are you now saying that you are only referring to churches and contraception?

You really love strawmen don't you? No, I am ONLY referring to non-life saving measures. Is that hard to figure out?

As long as... well, you know the rest. Religious organizations are not required to compromise their beliefs in regads to contraception, but are required to do so in regards to any other health service they may otherwise object to.

That's nice, but I really do not care. Saving a life is more important, simple as that.

You want to extend the power to refuse beyond churches to include any employer -- and the only restriction is that they cannot refuse a "life saving" treatment.

That sound about right? Because sadly, what you were proposing was a lot closer to Blunt's proposition than current reality.

Nope, since you claim of Blunts proposition said nothing about life saving care. Did it or didn't it?

Well, unfortunately, there were only two options on the table -- Obama's, or Blunt's. Your third option is only slightly flawed, but mostly workable -- and not on anyone's radar.

Show the flaw please and I don't care if it is or not. Since I said nothing about that. Really, do you have a problem reading and responding to what people say?

So, a JW's believes are protected in regards to contraception, but violated in regards to something considered "life saving." Fair enough.

How about we get back on topic and discuss something a little less cut and dried? Vaccinations. There are plenty of people out there who are opposed to vaccinations, precisely because they believe them to be more harmful than beneficial. So... are vaccinations life saving, or not?

Too bad vaccinations are life saving care and if somebody does not think they are, I would suggest they go and talk to well... any health care professional or actual heath care group. Vaccinations are arguably one of the most important medical break throughs in history that have saved more lives then blood transfusions. Those who think they are 'more harmful' should go and read actual medical journals instead of quackery.