A group of female Democratic legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives has proposed a bill that would ban men from seeking vasectomies.
"Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies," said bill author Yasmin Neal in a statement. "It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women's ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/georgia-vasectomy-ban_n_1293369.html
SMH.
THIS - this is the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Thank you, Faye.
Fare is fare.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on February 22, 2012, 08:04:47 PM
SMH.
THIS - this is the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Thank you, Faye.
Are you kidding turnabout is fair play. This is a direct apples to apples comparison highlighting the hypocrisy.
Quote from: Garden guy on February 22, 2012, 09:47:03 PM
Fare is fare.
Fair is Fair. Sure.
We get snipped to PREVENT not terminate.
They (females) have the same option, look up Tubal Ligation. It's a similar, somewhat 75%
reversible operation (albeit extremely costly), though it's not an outpatient procedure. You'll probably spend the night in the hospital.
Yes that is why people use contraceptives.
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 22, 2012, 10:12:09 PM
Yes that is why people use contraceptives.
They want to ban Prevention? Aren't there a multitude of Prevention methods available to females that aren't offered widely to males? Both sexes have equal opportunity to use a few tried and true methods of Prevention: condoms and abstinence.
Whether the bill was introduced tongue-in-cheek or in seriousness, this is still the dumbest thing I've ever read.
The title of the bill should have been: Let's prevent prevention since THEY want to prevent termination.
Abstinence is the most failed form of birth control ever. As long as there have been people they have proven they do it and not just to have children. Sex has long been defined as a need and yet we act like it is an indiscretion particularly if a woman does it.
Am I missing it or isn't this a statement about the right claiming contraceptives should not be covered by insurance if the employer's church want some babies.(regardless of what the perspective parents want)
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 22, 2012, 10:24:48 PM
Abstinence is the most failed form of birth control ever.
Not many things work right if you don't follow the instructions.
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 22, 2012, 10:24:48 PM
Am I missing it or isn't this a statement about the right claiming contraceptives should not be covered by insurance if the employer's church want some babies.(regardless of what the perspective parents want)
It seems to be a proposed legislation to mock the Repubs for attempting to move the ban on abortions up from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. I didn't see anything referencing insurance, but I haven't read HB954 either.
Like I stated earlier, this is the absolute dumbest thing I've read, but probably pales in comparison to the dumbest thing I'm going to type tonight. See below.
I'm going to watch some internet porn now, someone better call 911 - I'm going to asphyxiate about 300million potential kids in about 10 minutes. 8)
Its a sort of reductio ad absurdum/ridiculum. As a protest, it gets attention. As reasonable thought, it fails. I guess politics works best as flash rather than substance.
The 9 MOST TERRIFYING WORDS HEARD:
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help"
Well mtraininjax, what do YOU do for a living to make the world a better place?
I'm an abortion rights activist!
Less babies means more resources for you and me!
Have a sense of humor. It's pretty funny. The people over at the Onion are probably sorry they didn't think of this.
Quote from: Ajax on February 23, 2012, 07:53:42 AM
Have a sense of humor. It's pretty funny. The people over at the Onion are probably sorry they didn't think of this.
Yeah we think it's funny when we talk about regulating men's contraception............. but "cost effective women's contraception should not be offered by insurance" :o , so why should cost-effective men's contraception be offered by insurance?
Men should use abstinence or buy their own, just like those self-righteous men tell their women.
Government interference in women's healthcare is a-okay, but when we try to do the same with men's healthcare......it's just "funny"
I must be completely missing the point, so if someone could help me out here:
A vasectomy is an outpatient surgical procedure that prevents a male from having kids.
An abortion is an outpatient surgical or chemical procedure that is used after prevention has failed.
What are we comparing?
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 22, 2012, 10:24:48 PM
Abstinence is the most failed form of birth control ever. As long as there have been people they have proven they do it and not just to have children. Sex has long been defined as a need and yet we act like it is an indiscretion particularly if a woman does it.(hence insurance coverage for viagra)
Am I missing it or isn't this a statement about the right claiming contraceptives should not be covered by insurance if the employer's church want some babies.(regardless of what the perspective parents want)
Thank you Jeffrey.
The fact that sex is defined as a need for men is clear from insurance coverage for viagra (see my added comment above). Yet SEX isn't considered a need for women as "they should choose absinence over the pill." ::)
In addition women should tolerate all kinds of government regulation over other aspects of their healthcare ::)
"because they cannot be trusted with their own decision making." ::)
Quote from: FayeforCure on February 23, 2012, 08:35:11 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 22, 2012, 10:24:48 PM
Abstinence is the most failed form of birth control ever. As long as there have been people they have proven they do it and not just to have children. Sex has long been defined as a need and yet we act like it is an indiscretion particularly if a woman does it.(hence insurance coverage for viagra)
Am I missing it or isn't this a statement about the right claiming contraceptives should not be covered by insurance if the employer's church want some babies.(regardless of what the perspective parents want)
Thank you Jeffrey.
The fact that sex is defined as a need for men is clear from insurance coverage for viagra (see my added comment above). Yet SEX isn't considered a need for women as "they should choose absinence over the pill." ::)
In addition women should tolerate all kinds of government regulation over other aspects of their healthcare ::)
"because they cannot be trusted with their own decision making." ::)
Faye,
I do not see where it says that sex is a need for
men, it merely says it is a
need. Let's not mischaracterize that statement. Women need it just as much as men.
In my discussion of the my opposing the government forcing the Catholic church to provide health care that includes birth control and abortion services, I made clear my thoughts on the matter. I do not support abortion for anthing but the most dire of circumstances and under no means should it be publicly supported. Some have drawn the analogy that it is akin to telling devout Jews that they are legally required to serve and consume bacon on Sunday mornings. Are you in favor of that?
In regard to contraception, I think I made it clear as well, if you cannot afford to be responsible, then maybe you should not do it. Seriously, the pill costs $10 most places and condoms are about the same. A vasectomy is covered under insurance after a deductible or copay is made as is a tubal ligation. I really do not understand the vehemence on this topic. Do you really want the government in charge of your reproductive rights?
Quote from: FayeforCure on February 23, 2012, 08:22:01 AM
Quote from: Ajax on February 23, 2012, 07:53:42 AM
Have a sense of humor. It's pretty funny. The people over at the Onion are probably sorry they didn't think of this.
Yeah we think it's funny when we talk about regulating men's contraception............. but "cost effective women's contraception should not be offered by insurance" :o , so why should cost-effective men's contraception be offered by insurance?
Men should use abstinence or buy their own, just like those self-righteous men tell their women.
Government interference in women's healthcare is a-okay, but when we try to do the same with men's healthcare......it's just "funny"
I just took the proposed bill as a tongue-in-cheek way to get some attention so that the legislators could promote their position. If I mistook their intentions and they were serious...well, I just can't believe they really meant that. I took it as satire.
I don't think you meant to imply that I ever said "cost effective women's contraception should not be offered by insurance", because I didn't. I just wanted to clarify that.
And I don't think government interference in anyone's healthcare is "a-okay." In fact, this whole discussion is a result of too much government intereference in healthcare.
I do laugh at a lot of inappropriate things, though. This apparently was one of them.
Perhaps ALL elective procedures should not be covered... Vasectomy is certainly elective... so far...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2012, 01:58:36 PM
Perhaps ALL elective procedures should not be covered... Vasectomy is certainly elective... so far...
If an insurance company wants to design a product that covers elective procedures, and there's a market for it, then I don't have a problem with it. My problem is when the federal government starts designing the product. And deciding how much it costs. And tells everyone they have to pay for it...
Quote from: Ajax on March 01, 2012, 02:04:33 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 01, 2012, 01:58:36 PM
Perhaps ALL elective procedures should not be covered... Vasectomy is certainly elective... so far...
If an insurance company wants to design a product that covers elective procedures, and there's a market for it, then I don't have a problem with it. My problem is when the federal government starts designing the product. And deciding how much it costs. And tells everyone they have to pay for it...
Agree...
Quote from: Ajax on March 01, 2012, 01:52:56 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on February 23, 2012, 08:22:01 AM
Quote from: Ajax on February 23, 2012, 07:53:42 AM
Have a sense of humor. It's pretty funny. The people over at the Onion are probably sorry they didn't think of this.
Yeah we think it's funny when we talk about regulating men's contraception............. but "cost effective women's contraception should not be offered by insurance" :o , so why should cost-effective men's contraception be offered by insurance?
Men should use abstinence or buy their own, just like those self-righteous men tell their women.
Government interference in women's healthcare is a-okay, but when we try to do the same with men's healthcare......it's just "funny"
I just took the proposed bill as a tongue-in-cheek way to get some attention so that the legislators could promote their position. If I mistook their intentions and they were serious...well, I just can't believe they really meant that. I took it as satire.
I don't think you meant to imply that I ever said "cost effective women's contraception should not be offered by insurance", because I didn't. I just wanted to clarify that.
And I don't think government interference in anyone's healthcare is "a-okay." In fact, this whole discussion is a result of too much government intereference in healthcare.
Thanks Ajax.
Government SHOULD be there to protect the people.
Women stand united against the Republicans attacks on their healthcare needs.Even if we must use a male analogy to make our points clear.
The Republicans have alienated women and their reproductive rights. They are against contraceptives; prenatal testing; and stem cell research. If you are a mother, a father of girls, or just an informed citizen, you should be outraged about these attacks and you should make your voices heard... We cannot go back to the days when women were second class citizens!!
QuoteThe Republicans have alienated women and their reproductive rights. They are against contraceptives; prenatal testing; and stem cell research.
Actually Faye... again... repeatedly... you show NO interest in what anyone is ACTUALLY for or against. You construct some phony strawman then rail against it.
Reps are NOT against contraception. Most are against making religious organizations go against their creed... and government interference in the practice of their religion. Many are also against government paid for elective prescription contraceptives.
They are NOT against prenatal testing. They are against the promotion of abortion in the event of a less than optimistic screening.
They are NOT against stem cell research. They object to embryonic stem cell research and the slippery slope that it entails...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 03, 2012, 02:01:15 PM
They are NOT against stem cell research. They object to embryonic stem cell research and the slippery slope that it entails...
Can we, as a people, really still claim stem cell research is a "slippery slope"??? What exactly is the downside here?
For anyone interested, we will be standing up for religious freedom and speaking out against the HHS mandate in front of the Federal Courthouse on Friday, March 23 at noon. We will gather for a peaceful protest against the HHS mandate that unjustly forces citizens to surrender their right to free exercise of their religious beliefs.
I am sure that we will be joined by many women despite the fact that they are in apparrent danger of being made second class citizens. Here's a link with some more information:
http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/ (http://standupforreligiousfreedom.com/)
I find it hilarious that the church is bitching about government in their business yet they love the whole idea of that same government allowing them to run their business scams with that nice big tax exemption....this is just one of the many examples of the right thinking they are "special"
If healing the sick, sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry, caring for the disabled, defending the unborn, taking in the orphaned, visiting the sick and imprisoned, educating children, aiding refugees, and building stronger families are scams, then we are guilty.
Quote from: ben says on March 03, 2012, 04:02:27 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 03, 2012, 02:01:15 PM
They are NOT against stem cell research. They object to embryonic stem cell research and the slippery slope that it entails...
Can we, as a people, really still claim stem cell research is a "slippery slope"??? What exactly is the downside here?
How 'bout a simple one... like say... creating fetus to harvest cells etc to make replacement parts... For me... the key word is harvest.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 03, 2012, 09:47:17 PM
Quote from: ben says on March 03, 2012, 04:02:27 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 03, 2012, 02:01:15 PM
They are NOT against stem cell research. They object to embryonic stem cell research and the slippery slope that it entails...
Can we, as a people, really still claim stem cell research is a "slippery slope"??? What exactly is the downside here?
How 'bout a simple one... like say... creating fetus to harvest cells etc to make replacement parts... For me... the key word is harvest.
Wow embryonic stem cell research does no such thing.
It recycles medical waste from ivf clinics with the express permission of the donors.
I do NOT see any "fetus created" nor any "harvesting" in this image do you?
(http://www.thetech.org/genetics/images/news/stemCell3.jpg)
Have you looked into Soilent Green lately?
I am perplexed by the whole political debate that is surrounding contraception. Our society has disdain for the stereotypical irresponsible single woman who has no problem with having as many children as she wants and then expects everyone else to foot the bill. The incorporation of birth control into health care plans, IMHO, is a rational and proactive way to make sure that women are able to have access to family planning resources. We are not going to stop people from having sex, but we can afford to make available the options to keep them responsible. On a side note, many young girls and women take birth control pills for their own general health.
Quote from: Jaxson on March 04, 2012, 11:39:41 PM
I am perplexed by the whole political debate that is surrounding contraception. Our society has disdain for the stereotypical irresponsible single woman who has no problem with having as many children as she wants and then expects everyone else to foot the bill. The incorporation of birth control into health care plans, IMHO, is a rational and proactive way to make sure that women are able to have access to family planning resources. We are not going to stop people from having sex, but we can afford to make available the options to keep them responsible. On a side note, many young girls and women take birth control pills for their own general health.
Your "perplexation" appears to come from not understanding the issue... The only area where the supply of birth control is an issue is for Catholics. It is a government interferance with religion issue. For the rest of the population... birth control as a practice is not an issue... It is not an issue with me, my wife, or my daughter. I am sure even rush limbaugh (whom I despise BTW) has probably participated in sex protected with birth control. THE issue is who should pay for it. There are a few very good options available "over the counter". THIS issue is who should be paying for the birth control... the government (taxpayers) or the individual.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2012, 08:21:33 AM
Quote from: Jaxson on March 04, 2012, 11:39:41 PM
I am perplexed by the whole political debate that is surrounding contraception. Our society has disdain for the stereotypical irresponsible single woman who has no problem with having as many children as she wants and then expects everyone else to foot the bill. The incorporation of birth control into health care plans, IMHO, is a rational and proactive way to make sure that women are able to have access to family planning resources. We are not going to stop people from having sex, but we can afford to make available the options to keep them responsible. On a side note, many young girls and women take birth control pills for their own general health.
Your "perplexation" appears to come from not understanding the issue... The only area where the supply of birth control is an issue is for Catholics. It is a government interferance with religion issue. For the rest of the population... birth control as a practice is not an issue... It is not an issue with me, my wife, or my daughter. I am sure even rush limbaugh (whom I despise BTW) has probably participated in sex protected with birth control. THE issue is who should pay for it. There are a few very good options available "over the counter". THIS issue is who should be paying for the birth control... the government (taxpayers) or the individual.
It is not so much an "issue for Catholics", many of whom use birth control despite what the church hierarchy says. It's an issue with the standing church hierarchy. Ever since the pill was invented (primarily by a faithful Catholic) there have been Catholics who have used it and argued that it should be approved. Even a vocal segment of priests and bishops have argued it should be approved and have done so since the beginning.
You're right that the main thing where some (NOT all) Catholics and others have an issue here is with the government telling the Church that it must provide contraceptive coverage to employees in its secular ventures. I think at this point most American Catholics consider the Church's stance on birth control to be backwards and ridiculous; some just believe Obama's mandate to be beyond what they think government's scope should be.
QuoteI think at this point most American Catholics consider the Church's stance on birth control to be backwards and ridiculous;
This may well be so... but it is
THEIR issue... an issue between the "hierarchy", clergy, and people.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2012, 10:53:08 AM
QuoteI think at this point most American Catholics consider the Church's stance on birth control to be backwards and ridiculous;
This may well be so... but it is THEIR issue... an issue between the "hierarchy", clergy, and people.
For many of us, yes, but even more don't see it that way. A recent Pew poll found that 52% of Catholics agree that religiously affiliated hospitals and colleges should have to provide employees with birth control coverage; 46% were against it. Amusingly, that's an even higher percentage than non-Catholics despite this being seen as a "Catholic issue".
http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/
Catholics don't speak with one voice on this topic or many others.
I am sure you would agree that religious dogma is not a popularity contest ...
Quote from: Garden guy on March 03, 2012, 08:31:31 PM
I find it hilarious that the church is bitching about government in their business yet they love the whole idea of that same government allowing them to run their business scams with that nice big tax exemption....this is just one of the many examples of the right thinking they are "special"
Gee, Garden Guy, could you have been alittle more offensive? When I speak of the Church, I speak of the Catholic church. Hardly a fly-by-night operation.
Churches are not running "scams." They serve a legitimate purpose in society and should left to fulfill that purpose. Sure, there have been some that have been mismanaged, but I think that that can be said about any organization run by man.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 04, 2012, 08:10:01 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 03, 2012, 09:47:17 PM
Quote from: ben says on March 03, 2012, 04:02:27 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 03, 2012, 02:01:15 PM
They are NOT against stem cell research. They object to embryonic stem cell research and the slippery slope that it entails...
Can we, as a people, really still claim stem cell research is a "slippery slope"??? What exactly is the downside here?
How 'bout a simple one... like say... creating fetus to harvest cells etc to make replacement parts... For me... the key word is harvest.
Wow embryonic stem cell research does no such thing.
It recycles medical waste from ivf clinics with the express permission of the donors.
I do NOT see any "fetus created" nor any "harvesting" in this image do you?
(http://www.thetech.org/genetics/images/news/stemCell3.jpg)
Fertilyzed egg = embyo.
PERIOD!Stem cells harvested from umbilical chords are the
ONLY exceptable cells for this usage.
Quote from: Jaxson on March 04, 2012, 11:39:41 PM
I am perplexed by the whole political debate that is surrounding contraception. Our society has disdain for the stereotypical irresponsible single woman who has no problem with having as many children as she wants and then expects everyone else to foot the bill. The incorporation of birth control into health care plans, IMHO, is a rational and proactive way to make sure that women are able to have access to family planning resources. We are not going to stop people from having sex, but we can afford to make available the options to keep them responsible. On a side note, many young girls and women take birth control pills for their own general health.
Jaxson,
Unfortunately, the irresponsible women you refer to, are for the most part women who do not have access to insurance. Thus, no access to birth control that is provided by said insurance company.
Further, even the very poor can get birth control from agencies for extremely reduced rates or free. Planned Parenthood will even give anyone who asks for it a package of condoms for free!
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2012, 11:42:17 AM
I am sure you would agree that religious dogma is not a popularity contest ...
I do agree with that. I don't agree that all Catholics find the mandate to be "government interference with religion", let alone that birth control is immoral to begin with.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 05, 2012, 12:01:32 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2012, 11:42:17 AM
I am sure you would agree that religious dogma is not a popularity contest ...
I do agree with that. I don't agree that all Catholics find the mandate to be "government interference with religion", let alone that birth control is immoral to begin with.
As a non practicing Catholic myself... I also do not think using birth control is immoral. I go against the teaching and dogma of the church in encouraging my wife and daughter to use birth control. I do however think the government is inserting itself or interfering with the Catholic churches teachings by attempting to force them as a church to pay for others birth control or abortion.... and they should not.
Quote from: Gonzo on March 05, 2012, 11:53:54 AM
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 04, 2012, 08:10:01 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 03, 2012, 09:47:17 PM
Quote from: ben says on March 03, 2012, 04:02:27 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 03, 2012, 02:01:15 PM
They are NOT against stem cell research. They object to embryonic stem cell research and the slippery slope that it entails...
Can we, as a people, really still claim stem cell research is a "slippery slope"??? What exactly is the downside here?
How 'bout a simple one... like say... creating fetus to harvest cells etc to make replacement parts... For me... the key word is harvest.
Wow embryonic stem cell research does no such thing.
It recycles medical waste from ivf clinics with the express permission of the donors.
I do NOT see any "fetus created" nor any "harvesting" in this image do you?
(http://www.thetech.org/genetics/images/news/stemCell3.jpg)
Fertilyzed egg = embyo. PERIOD!
Stem cells harvested from umbilical chords are the ONLY exceptable cells for this usage.
Wow, yeah........according the religious dogma Heaven must be populated by the Souls of embryos........and women are embryo killers every time they have their period :o
because millions of fertilized eggs never implant to even become an embryo (in the scientific meaning of the word).
BTW, the above picture showed the fertlized ovum magnified.......
Below you will find the actual "tip of a needle" size ovum depicted and the eventual picture of a first stage embryo still just the size of a period at the end of a sentence.........note that the word embryo is used only AFTER implantation:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2gZ68A2rFZQ/TZnT0wdGzGI/AAAAAAAACBA/6yV08OP4xws/s1600/11+weeks+15.jpg)
The very first speck after fertilized ovum is the blastocyst ( a 5 day old fertilized ovum)...........these are being discarded by the thousands EVERY day at ivf clinics around the US, and a minute number like .000005% are used in stem cell research with the express consent of the donors.
Why don't people like you go try to save them at the ivf clinics rather than harrass the sick and injured, and the scientists who recycle this ivf trash.
Not sure what you are in such a tizzy about Faye. Your side won... and we are now dissecting and removing desirable parts from 5-7 day old blastocysts and experimenting on them. My personal concern... is what happens when we discover that... for example... fetal skin is a much better replacement for burn victims. Will we let em grow a bit more before skinning em? Perhaps we find that fetal brain cells will replace brain cells of those with head injuries? Is a month old fetus more human than a 5-7 day old one? How about a two month old fetus? will we one day pay women to grow replacement parts for us?
I... me and myself... am concerned about the future ethics of scientists and medical officials in this area.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2012, 12:58:55 PM
Not sure what you are in such a tizzy about Faye. Your side won... and we are now dissecting and removing desirable parts from 5-7 day old blastocysts and experimenting on them. My personal concern... is what happens when we discover that... for example... fetal skin is a much better replacement for burn victims. Will we let em grow a bit more before skinning em? Perhaps we find that fetal brain cells will replace brain cells of those with head injuries? Is a month old fetus more human than a 5-7 day old one? How about a two month old fetus? will we one day pay women to grow replacement parts for us?
I... me and myself... am concerned about the future ethics of scientists and medical officials in this area.
Ironically fetal stem cell research has always been legal..........so to go after banning embryonic stem cell research to prevent fetal stem cell research from taking place is like putting the cart before the horse.
Of course the fetal stem cells are taken from spontaneously aborted fetuses, because believe it or not there are plenty of those without having to "grow them in a lab"
I'm in a tizzy on this because as a nationally recognized stem cell research advocate who was even quoted in the Wall Street Journal, I have to shake my head at the sometimes purposely ill-informed opposition to embryonic stem cell research, that tries to use the fear factor in dissuading the ignorant people from understanding the very limited scope of embryonic stem cell research that will nevertheless have a huge impact on our future health care and its associated costs.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2012, 12:58:55 PM
I... me and myself... am concerned about the future ethics of scientists and medical officials in this area.
Oh really? If you or your kids were vaccinated you were the beneficiary of human fetal cells, that were used to derive those vacines.
Did you object?
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/vaccine-components/human-fetal-links-some-vaccines
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 05, 2012, 01:15:00 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2012, 12:58:55 PM
I... me and myself... am concerned about the future ethics of scientists and medical officials in this area.
Oh really? If you or your kids were vaccinated you were the beneficiary of human fetal cells, that were used to derive those vacines.
Did you object?
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/vaccine-components/human-fetal-links-some-vaccines
I did not. I was unaware of this. It certainly illustrates the dilemma some including myself feel. One of the references listed in the article speaks to the considerations I brought up earlier...
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/files/nnii/files/Moral_Considerations_With_Certain_Viral_Vaccines.pdf
Well. hopefully you understand my annoyance at worries over stuff that has already been going on for decades for immense human benefit.
To retroactively try to stop embryonic stem cell research from receiving federal funding is just soooo ludicrous, after fetal stem cells are completely legal to be used and have been used for decades.
What we have to do is regulate ESCR and provide appropriate oversight instead.
Hopefully the line remains just where it is. I am skeptical. In the case of the vaccinations... one... the rubella vaccine... the fetus was aborted because it and the mother had rubella and those cells have been used ever since. In the other cases the same cells have been duplicated and used for decades. I personally think medical ethicists will continue to push that line further... "Since this was ok... lets go here." "Since that was ok... lets go there." Is there a line? What is the line? Who decides the line? ???
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2012, 01:50:28 PM
Hopefully the line remains just where it is. I am skeptical. In the case of the vaccinations... one... the rubella vaccine... the fetus was aborted because it and the mother had rubella and those cells have been used ever since. In the other cases the same cells have been duplicated and used for decades. I personally think medical ethicists will continue to push that line further... "Since this was ok... lets go here." "Since that was ok... lets go there." Is there a line? What is the line? Who decides the line? ???
Regulation and oversight should police this............or maybe we just shouldn't be so afraid........after all decades of legal fetal cell use have not created abuse.
Who is "regulation and oversight"?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2012, 02:33:39 PM
Who is "regulation and oversight"?
Government's role to protect its citizens.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2012, 12:15:39 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 05, 2012, 12:01:32 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2012, 11:42:17 AM
I am sure you would agree that religious dogma is not a popularity contest ...
I do agree with that. I don't agree that all Catholics find the mandate to be "government interference with religion", let alone that birth control is immoral to begin with.
As a non practicing Catholic myself... I also do not think using birth control is immoral. I go against the teaching and dogma of the church in encouraging my wife and daughter to use birth control. I do however think the government is inserting itself or interfering with the Catholic churches teachings by attempting to force them as a church to pay for others birth control or abortion.... and they should not.
And you are of course entitled to that belief. Just note that not all, or evidently even a majority, of Catholics share it.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 05, 2012, 03:14:22 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2012, 12:15:39 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 05, 2012, 12:01:32 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 05, 2012, 11:42:17 AM
I am sure you would agree that religious dogma is not a popularity contest ...
I do agree with that. I don't agree that all Catholics find the mandate to be "government interference with religion", let alone that birth control is immoral to begin with.
As a non practicing Catholic myself... I also do not think using birth control is immoral. I go against the teaching and dogma of the church in encouraging my wife and daughter to use birth control. I do however think the government is inserting itself or interfering with the Catholic churches teachings by attempting to force them as a church to pay for others birth control or abortion.... and they should not.
And you are of course entitled to that belief. Just note that not all, or evidently even a majority, of Catholics share it.
Thank you...
First, regarding whether the HHS mandate is a "Catholic issue," the answer is no. It is an American issue because it concerns the rights guaranteed to all Americans in our Constitution. That's why other religious leaders from Jewish rabbis to Southern Baptists have joined the fight. Whether a majority of Catholics disagree with the Church on contraception is irrelevant because if they can take freedoms from one minority what is to stop them taking them from others. That's how tyrants are made.
Also, Faye and I have already had a discussion at length about embryonic stem cell research, but let me just say that the fact that Faye can talk about a human life as medical waste that can be recycled actually illustrates what's wrong with both IVF and embryonic stem cell research and why it is a slippery slope. What I think BridgeTroll was getting at Faye with his point about fetal stem cells is that the way your side of the argument defines a human is very hazy at best. Case in point. I read the other day that some people in the Netherlands are now debating about the merits of "after-birth abortion" These Dutch bioethicists claim, “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.â€
The fact that such an atrocity is being seriously discussed illustrates how subjective your definition of life is. The only logical and consistent point of view is that life begins at conception, and based on that truth IVF, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion are immoral regardless of any positive outcomes that could result. And just to illustrate that point you only need to look at the Holocaust. Even though we learned a lot about the human body from the tortuous Nazi research on the Jews we could never claim that their actions were justifiable because that good came at the expense of another person's right to life. So even if IVF can produce a precious little child or embryonic stem cell research can possibly produce medical treatments they are immoral because those treatments are coming at the expense of of other human lives. That's a price we cannot force someone to pay, and if we cannot even protect the most basic of human rights for all what does that say about our society?
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 05, 2012, 12:27:22 PM
Wow, yeah........according the religious dogma Heaven must be populated by the Souls of embryos........and women are embryo killers every time they have their period :o
because millions of fertilized eggs never implant to even become an embryo (in the scientific meaning of the word).
BTW, the above picture showed the fertlized ovum magnified.......
Below you will find the actual "tip of a needle" size ovum depicted and the eventual picture of a first stage embryo still just the size of a period at the end of a sentence.........note that the word embryo is used only AFTER implantation:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2gZ68A2rFZQ/TZnT0wdGzGI/AAAAAAAACBA/6yV08OP4xws/s1600/11+weeks+15.jpg)
The very first speck after fertilized ovum is the blastocyst ( a 5 day old fertilized ovum)...........these are being discarded by the thousands EVERY day at ivf clinics around the US, and a minute number like .000005% are used in stem cell research with the express consent of the donors.
Why don't people like you go try to save them at the ivf clinics rather than harrass the sick and injured, and the scientists who recycle this ivf trash.
How utterly ubsurd you are, a woman's monthly cycle is NOT the same ting as harvesting embryonic cells. It boggles the mind that you would even go there! And, you are a woman who supposedly is somewhat intelligent. Tell me, how could a natural occurance be considered willful distruction of a fertilized fetus?
As stated before, my objection is to the use of fertalized and growing fetuses. Life begins a conception, there is no other benchmark that can be used to determine this. Intentionally harvesting these viable fetuses for use in scientific is the of immorality and absolutley wrong. Theuse of stem cells from the umbilical cord, however, is not an issue.
Instead of attacking me for my views, why not advocate the use of umbilical stem cells and respect not only life, but other's opinions and closely held beleifs?
Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on March 05, 2012, 08:51:13 PM
First, regarding whether the HHS mandate is a "Catholic issue," the answer is no. It is an American issue because it concerns the rights guaranteed to all Americans in our Constitution. That's why other religious leaders from Jewish rabbis to Southern Baptists have joined the fight. Whether a majority of Catholics disagree with the Church on contraception is irrelevant because if they can take freedoms from one minority what is to stop them taking them from others. That's how tyrants are made.
Well, as I said, a majority of American Catholics agree with the mandate (even more of them disagree with the Church on birth control). I would say a large portion of us wish they hadn't picked this particular wedge issue to take a stand on, as it's a losing battle in the long run. Is this really where we want to spend our energy and resources? For most Catholics, it is not.
The priorities are just ridiculously off. In terms of just our diocese, for instance, I wish they'd take just half the time they spend droning on and on about birth control and abortion and use it for more effective outreach to young men who may feel called to become a priest. That way we wouldn't have to lean so heavily on priests past the age of retirement or imported from far-flung dioceses. Without shepherds you eventually lose the flock.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 03, 2012, 02:01:15 PM
Reps are NOT against contraception.
Santorum: Contraception is ‘a grievous moral wrong’.
Quote from: finehoe on March 06, 2012, 10:13:29 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 03, 2012, 02:01:15 PM
Reps are NOT against contraception.
Santorum: Contraception is ‘a grievous moral wrong’.
As a devout catholic... this makes sense...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 06, 2012, 10:27:42 AM
As a devout catholic... this makes sense...
What doesn't make sense is thinking that those of us who aren't Catholic, much less devout, should have this view imposed on us.
Quote from: finehoe on March 06, 2012, 11:39:12 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 06, 2012, 10:27:42 AM
As a devout catholic... this makes sense...
What doesn't make sense is thinking that those of us who aren't Catholic, much less devout, should have this view imposed on us.
I disagree with his view also... but why would his viewpoint be an imposition on you or me?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 06, 2012, 12:15:42 PM
... but why would his viewpoint be an imposition on you or me?
Oh, I don't know...maybe because politicians run for office in order to impose their worldview on the country?
Quote from: finehoe on March 06, 2012, 12:26:03 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 06, 2012, 12:15:42 PM
... but why would his viewpoint be an imposition on you or me?
Oh, I don't know...maybe because politicians run for office in order to impose their worldview on the country?
I always thought that their 'worldview' always seemed to change depending on whichever state/city/demographic they're stumping. Maybe I'm wrong....
Quote from: finehoe on March 06, 2012, 12:26:03 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 06, 2012, 12:15:42 PM
... but why would his viewpoint be an imposition on you or me?
Oh, I don't know...maybe because politicians run for office in order to impose their worldview on the country?
So I guess that applies to any and all politicians... not just catholic Santorums?
Quote from: Gonzo on March 06, 2012, 07:52:32 AM
How utterly ubsurd you are, a woman's monthly cycle is NOT the same ting as harvesting embryonic cells. It boggles the mind that you would even go there! And, you are a woman who supposedly is somewhat intelligent. Tell me, how could a natural occurance be considered willful distruction of a fertilized fetus?
As stated before, my objection is to the use of fertalized and growing fetuses. Life begins a conception, there is no other benchmark that can be used to determine this. Intentionally harvesting these viable fetuses for use in scientific is the of immorality and absolutley wrong. Theuse of stem cells from the umbilical cord, however, is not an issue.
Instead of attacking me for my views, why not advocate the use of umbilical stem cells and respect not only life, but other's opinions and closely held beleifs?
Only somewhat intelligent? I beg to differ. I was the only female in 1980 to receive a masters degree in Economics from the University of Amsterdam. I actually consider myself highly intelligent, thank you very much.
Even attended medical school in my early thirties.
So please refrain from talking down to me. And you are not attacking me for my views?
There are states that want to criminalize natural miscarriages, so how is a woman supposed to prove that her early pregnancy ended natuarally in those states? As many as 25% of implanted fertilized eggs never develop. Many more never implant. Natural genocide?
http://reason.com/archives/2004/12/22/is-heaven-populated-chiefly-by
Why don't you practice your religion privately without imposing your views on others like me and my paralyzed son.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 06, 2012, 12:37:59 PM
So I guess that applies to any and all politicians... not just catholic Santorums?
Obviously. That's why we vote for candidates who's positions most closely approximate our own. Or at least that's what I do. Maybe it's different for you.
Quote from: finehoe on March 06, 2012, 12:43:32 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 06, 2012, 12:37:59 PM
So I guess that applies to any and all politicians... not just catholic Santorums?
Obviously. That's why we vote for candidates who's positions most closely approximate our own. Or at least that's what I do. Maybe it's different for you.
Nope... that is why I do not consider his views an imposition. Now we know where he stands and more importantly... why his views are as they are. Good for us. You really should not consider him speaking his views as an imposition...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 06, 2012, 12:49:29 PM
Nope...
So how do you evaluate a candidate? On whether or not you'd like to have a beer with them?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 06, 2012, 12:49:29 PM
You really should not consider him speaking his views as an imposition...
I don't. It's when a politician translates his/her views into law that I view it as a possible imposition.
Quote from: finehoe on March 06, 2012, 12:54:40 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 06, 2012, 12:49:29 PM
Nope...
So how do you evaluate a candidate? On whether or not you'd like to have a beer with them?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 06, 2012, 12:49:29 PM
You really should not consider him speaking his views as an imposition...
I don't. It's when a politician translates his/her views into law that I view it as a possible imposition.
The "nope"... is in response to your... "Maybe it's different for you" quip. You and I are very much alike...
QuoteIt's when a politician translates his/her views into law that I view it as a possible imposition.
We could be long lost twins! :)
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 06, 2012, 12:39:44 PM
Quote from: Gonzo on March 06, 2012, 07:52:32 AM
How utterly absurd you are, a woman's monthly cycle is NOT the same ting as harvesting embryonic cells. It boggles the mind that you would even go there! And, you are a woman who supposedly is somewhat intelligent. Tell me, how could a natural occurrence be considered willful distruction of a fertilized fetus?
As stated before, my objection is to the use of fer talized and growing fetuses. Life begins a conception, there is no other benchmark that can be used to determine this. Intentionally harvesting these viable fetuses for use in scientific is the of immorality and absolutely wrong. Theuse of stem cells from the umbilical cord, however, is not an issue.
Instead of attacking me for my views, why not advocate the use of umbilical stem cells and respect not only life, but others opinions and closely held beliefs?
Only somewhat intelligent? I beg to differ. I was the only female in 1980 to receive a masters degree in Economics from the University of Amsterdam. I actually consider myself highly intelligent, thank you very much.
Even attended medical school in my early thirties.
So please refrain from talking down to me. And you are not attacking me for my views?
There are states that want to criminalize natural miscarriages, so how is a woman supposed to prove that her early pregnancy ended naturally in those states? As many as 25% of implanted fertilized eggs never develop. Many more never implant. Natural genocide?
http://reason.com/archives/2004/12/22/is-heaven-populated-chiefly-by
Why don't you practice your religion privately without imposing your views on others like me and my paralyzed son.
Wow, and now she pulls out the paralyzed son card. I had no idea you had a paralyzed son, nor is it germain to this conversation. I am truly sorry for you and your son, it is an unfortunate occurrence just as any other affliction is. Both of my mother's parents died with Alzheimer's, but I still do not advocate the use of fetal materials to find a cure for that terrible disease.
I congratulate you on your educational accomplishments, as well. Surely you have a right to be proud of them. But, you know nothing of my accomplishments and insist on making somewhat absurd comments about a woman's period being a willful natural abortion. Hogwash! I would certainly like to hear more about states that want to make that illegal. I tend to think that there is more to any such law than you are revealing here.
So far, you have managed to dance around my questions by constant changing of the subject. My religious beliefs are what they are. Yours are what yours are. I merely say I object to willful destruction of innocent life to carry out medical experiments. Especially since there is no need to do it when stem cells can be obtained by other means. I have not attacked you in any way. A reference to a relatively intelligent person means that you have a good head on your shoulders, it is not "talking down."
I ask you again:
How could a woman's natural monthly cycle be considered willful abortion?
What makes you believe that life does not begin at conception?
If life does not begin at conception when does it begin?
Where will science draw the line and say, "we cannot cross this line without being morally corrupt?"
Why do people such as yourself think that it is OK for science to play God in this way?
With the birth rate what it is, why is it not an acceptable alternative to harvest stem cells from umbilical cords?
Quote from: finehoe on March 06, 2012, 12:54:40 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 06, 2012, 12:49:29 PM
You really should not consider him speaking his views as an imposition...
I don't. It's when a politician translates his/her views into law that I view it as a possible imposition.
How is this different from Obama forcing a health care bill on us that requires the Catholic church to do something that is steadfastly against their religious beliefs?
Quote from: Gonzo on March 06, 2012, 01:46:10 PM
How is this different from Obama forcing a health care bill on us that requires the Catholic church to do something that is steadfastly against their religious beliefs?
When legislation is passed by both chambers of the Congress and signed into law, that is not the president "forcing" a bill on us. It's the way our government works.
Romneycare in Mass. has the same requirement in that state, and the Catholic church hasn't had an issue with it. Why all of a sudden is it now a problem?
Quote from: finehoe on March 06, 2012, 01:52:39 PM
Quote from: Gonzo on March 06, 2012, 01:46:10 PM
How is this different from Obama forcing a health care bill on us that requires the Catholic church to do something that is steadfastly against their religious beliefs?
When legislation is passed by both chambers of the Congress and signed into law, that is not the president "forcing" a bill on us. It's the way our government works.
Romneycare in Mass. has the same requirement in that state, and the Catholic church hasn't had an issue with it. Why all of a sudden is it now a problem?
I think you lost me there, one man -- a Republican candidate -- speaks his mind about his beliefs regarding the issues, while another -- the sitting president -- says he believes all Americans should be required to have health insurance whether it violates their religious freedoms or not. How again is it different?
And I must confess, I have not read much about Romneycare nor do I keep abreast of the news within the state of Mass. However, I will look into it. If the same rules are in there, I will be just as outspoken against them.
Quote from: Gonzo on March 06, 2012, 02:05:30 PM
I think you lost me there, one man -- a Republican candidate -- speaks his mind about his beliefs regarding the issues, while another -- the sitting president -- says he believes all Americans should be required to have health insurance whether it violates their religious freedoms or not. How again is it different?
Having health insurance is now a violation of someone's religious freedoms? I presume you're talking about Christian Scientists, not Catholics.
I guess you missed the part where I said
Quote from: finehoe on March 06, 2012, 12:26:03 PM
...maybe because politicians run for office in order to impose their worldview on the country?
Santorum can speak his mind all he wants about his beliefs. All candidates should. But if those beliefs don't jibe with at least 51% of the electorate, then he won't get elected. And that's the difference between "a candidate" and "the sitting president". One can translate his views into policy and one can't.
For Gonzo whomever you might be.
I don't have to pull the paralyzed son card.........I have been making it my life's mission to let others know how inhumane a paralyzed existence is and how adult stem cells even from umbilical cords do nothing at all to even make rats walk again, whereas there are many studies showing ESCs able to make rats walk again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faye_Armitage
Regarding criminalizing miscarriages.........will 2 states' bills suffice for you?
Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage
by Rachel Larris
February 20, 2010 - 9:00am (Print)
Tags: fetal homicide | Utah | Access to Abortion
A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this week and waiting for the governor's signature, will make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage, and make induced abortion a crime in some instances.
According Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, what makes Utah's proposed law unique is that it is specifically designed to be punitive toward pregnant women, not those who might assist or cause an illegal abortion or unintended miscarriage.
The bill passed by legislators amends Utah's criminal statute to allow the state to charge a woman with criminal homicide for inducing a miscarriage or obtaining an illegal abortion. The basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. Although the girl gave birth to a baby later given up for adoption, she was initially charged with attempted murder. However the charges were dropped because, at the time, under Utah state law a woman could not be prosecuted for attempting to arrange an abortion, lawful or unlawful.
The bill passed by the Utah legislature would change that. While the bill does not affect legally obtained abortions, it criminalizes any actions taken by women to induce a miscarriage or abortion outside of a doctor's care, with penalties including up to life in prison.
"What is really radical and different about this statute is that all of the other states' feticide laws are directed to third party attackers," Paltrow explained. "[Other states' feticide laws] were passed in response to a pregnant woman who has been beaten up by a husband or boyfriend. Utah's law is directed to the woman herself and that's what makes it different and dangerous."
In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by "reckless" behavior.
Using the legal standard of "reckless behavior" all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to lose the pregnancy. Drink too much alcohol and have a miscarriage? Under the new law such actions could be cause for prosecution.
"This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder," says Missy Bird, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah. Bird says there are no exemptions in the bill for victims of domestic violence or for those who are substance abusers. The standard is so broad, Bird says, "there nothing in the bill to exempt a woman for not wearing her seatbelt who got into a car accident."
Such a standard could even make falling down stairs a prosecutable event, such as the recent case in Iowa where a pregnant woman who fell down the stairs at her home was arrested under the suspicion she was trying to terminate her pregnancy.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/19/utah-passes-bill-that-charges-women-for-illegal-abortion-or-miscarriage
Must Reads, Reproductive Rights, Sex and Gender
Ga. Law Could Give Death Penalty for Miscarriages
â€"By Jen Quraishi
| Wed Feb. 23, 2011 4:32 AM PST
It's only February, but this year has been a tough one for women's health and reproductive rights. There's a new bill on the block that may have reached the apex (I hope) of woman-hating craziness. Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklinâ€"who last year proposed making rape and domestic violence "victims" into "accusers"â€"has introduced a 10-page bill that would criminalize miscarriages and make abortion in Georgia completely illegal. Both miscarriages and abortions would be potentially punishable by death: any "prenatal murder" in the words of the bill, including "human involvement" in a miscarriage, would be a felony and carry a penalty of life in prison or death. Basically, it's everything an "pro-life" activist could want aside from making all women who've had abortions wear big red "A"s on their chests.
I doubt that a bill that makes a legal medical procedure liable for the death penalty will pass. The bill, however, shows an astonishing lack of concern for women's health and well-being. Under Rep. Franklin's bill, HB 1, women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was "no human involvement whatsoever in the causation" of their miscarriage. There is no clarification of what "human involvement" means, and this is hugely problematic as medical doctors do not know exactly what causes miscarriages.
Miscarriages are estimated to terminate up to a quarter of all pregnancies and the Mayo Clinic says that "the actual number is probably much higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't even know she's pregnant. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus isn't developing normally."
Holding women criminally liable for a totally natural, common biological process is cruel and non-sensical. Even more ridiculous, the bill holds women responsible for protecting their fetuses from "the moment of conception," despite the fact that pregnancy tests aren't accurate until at least 3 weeks after conception. Unless Franklin (who is not a health professional) invents a revolutionary intrauterine conception alarm system, it's unclear how exactly the state of Georgia would enforce that rule other than holding all possibly-pregnant women under lock and key.
I've seen a lot of anti-woman, hate-filled bills this year, but this one takes the cake. And it's not just anti-woman, it's anti-logic. The bill contends that Georgia is exempt from upholding Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade because the Constitution's Article I only governs five crimes: counterfeiting, piracy, high seas felonies, offenses against the law of nations, and treason. According to the bill, since murder is not one of those five crimes, it should be solely governed by the state. The bill also mandates that doctors must try to save the mother and the fetus, even though as we know, there are many situations in which both cannot be saved. It also changes medical terminology, re-designating all zygotes, embryos, and concepti as fetuses. In the bill's logic, a fertilized egg is the same as a person, and its destruction is murder. Sometimes even a fertilized egg will fail to adhere to the uterine lining, so would that make a uterus a murderer? At least the bill doesn't propose instituting pro-life Stork Bucks or outlawing "space abortions"...yet.
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-georgia
Quote from: Tacachale on March 06, 2012, 08:59:17 AM
Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on March 05, 2012, 08:51:13 PM
First, regarding whether the HHS mandate is a "Catholic issue," the answer is no. It is an American issue because it concerns the rights guaranteed to all Americans in our Constitution. That's why other religious leaders from Jewish rabbis to Southern Baptists have joined the fight. Whether a majority of Catholics disagree with the Church on contraception is irrelevant because if they can take freedoms from one minority what is to stop them taking them from others. That's how tyrants are made.
Well, as I said, a majority of American Catholics agree with the mandate (even more of them disagree with the Church on birth control). I would say a large portion of us wish they hadn't picked this particular wedge issue to take a stand on, as it's a losing battle in the long run. Is this really where we want to spend our energy and resources? For most Catholics, it is not.
The priorities are just ridiculously off. In terms of just our diocese, for instance, I wish they'd take just half the time they spend droning on and on about birth control and abortion and use it for more effective outreach to young men who may feel called to become a priest. That way we wouldn't have to lean so heavily on priests past the age of retirement or imported from far-flung dioceses. Without shepherds you eventually lose the flock.
Sorry to go off on a sidebar conversation, but you bring up an interesting point about priests which I agree should be an absolute priority for Catholics. So let me counter with this: would you be willing to make the radical sacrifices that preisthood requires for a Church that does not actually stand by its own teachings? Truth inspires. Courage inspires. I say living lives of heroic virtue is exactly what reaps workers for the vineyard. Like they say, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. I actually agree with what someone said on here, where was the outcry before in each of these states when Romneycare or in some of these other states with similar mandates? This is a fight that needed to be had a long time ago, and now we're playing from behind.
And Faye, we actually agree on one thing! It should not be a crime to have a miscarriage unless it's caused intentionally. Unfortunately, we still disagree on a ton of other issues. lol. So I want to reiterate, the ends do not justify the means. A man who robs a bank to pay for an operation to save his son's life is not justified even though the end is unquestionably good because stealing is objectively immoral by its nature. Similarly, taking another person's life whether by IVF, embryonic stem cell research, ella, plan b, abortion, or old-fashioned murder is objectively wrong by the nature of the act itself regardless of the possible positive outcomes.
Beyond immoral, these acts are also unamerican. Our own Declaration of Independence tells us, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. -
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
These rights do not exist because the government tells us they exist. These rights are inherent to the human person, and the government exists to defend those rights.
There is no "end justifying the means" here.
Simply making the specks that are trashed (at ivf clinics) come to some human good rather than being simply waste. Besides it is up to the donors to decide, not you.
Is it better to throw the specks away than to have these specks save another human life?
In your words........you have a dying (potential child)life (which is sure to die in the trash), do you donate its cells or do you rather have them perish in the trash?
It would be cruel to not use these cells for good.
I see your point Faye, and I appreciate your good intentions. However, the situation remains problematic for a few reasons.
1. IVF is itself immoral for many reasons including the fact that several lives are created which are then as you say tossed in the trash or destroyed. Of course, this is different from a normal miscarriage because it is a deliberate rather than natural act. To equate miscarriage and IVF (or ESC) is like saying that being murdered is the same as dying of natural causes. Same result but much different ways of getting there.
2. Also, the donors do not have the authority to make a decision about whether to take another human life. We would not say that a mother has the right to kill her child because that child has a right to life that is independent of the mother. Those persons created for IVF or ESC research have an inherent right to life that does derive from their biological parents or anyone else. Thus, the "donors" or me do not have the right to decide whether they are destroyed even if for the sake of an admirable cause such as researching cures for disease.
3. Finally, embryonic stem cell research (as well as IVF) disrespects the inherent dignity of a human person. The language used in describing IVF and ESC is telling. "Specks that are trashed." "Medical waste." "Use these cells." It is a utilitarian view of a human life in which a person's value is measured by their usefulness. I know you would reject that view if we talking about your son because I have a disabled brother. A person's value comes from the fact that they are a person not how they can be used. It does not matter what stage of development a person is in. We all once were a speck, but from the moment of our creation we were endowed with certain unalienable rights.
I understand what it like being willing to give almost anything cure a person you love or others like him. I respect you for that, but again the ends (a cure, a child born to infertile parents, the financial stability of a family, etc.) do make an inherently evil act justifiable. There are some prices we just cannot pay no matter the benefits.
The religious hysteria against ESCR has NEVER translated to ivf, and this is why:
More than 3.5 million children have been born worldwide following assisted human reproduction (AHR) (ESHRE, 2008). Today, approximately 1 in 50 births in Sweden, 1 in 60 births in Australia and up to 1 in 100 births in the United States result from IVF (Velda et al., 2009). As infertility is known to affect at least 1 in 6 couples in Canada, Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) are beneficial to family health, including the ability to preserve future fertility capability (Royal Commission, 1993).
http://www.ahrc-pac.gc.ca/v2//pubs/moc-erc-eng.php
Until that hysteria translates to ivf, where the supposed embryos are "murdered" (when they are thrown away in the trash), I cannot take any opponent to ESCR serious.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 06, 2012, 05:54:28 PM
For Gonzo whomever you might be.
I don't have to pull the paralyzed son card.........I have been making it my life's mission to let others know how inhumane a paralyzed existence is and how adult stem cells even from umbilical cords do nothing at all to even make rats walk again, whereas there are many studies showing ESCs able to make rats walk again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faye_Armitage
Regarding criminalizing miscarriages.........will 2 states' bills suffice for you?
Faye,
Thank you for providing the articles about miscarriages. As I read them it became very apparent that you are not characterizing them in the correct light and that the liberal media has tried to spin them to make them look nefarious. While they do make miscarriage illegal, they only make miscarriages that are the result of the mother's willful actions illegal. They DO NOT make natural miscarriages illegal in any way. The only nefarious intent that I see in either of these laws is to stop mothers from seeking to illegally terminate a pregnancy.
As Fallen Buckeye so eloquently wrote:
Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on March 06, 2012, 06:07:46 PM
A man who robs a bank to pay for an operation to save his son's life is not justified even though the end is unquestionably good because stealing is objectively immoral by its nature. Similarly, taking another person's life whether by IVF, embryonic stem cell research, ella, plan b, abortion, or old-fashioned is objectively wrong by the nature of the act itself regardless of the possible positive outcomes.
And:
Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on March 06, 2012, 07:15:38 PM
The language used in describing IVF and ESC is telling. "Specks that are trashed." "Medical waste." "Use these cells." It is a utilitarian view of a human life in which a person's value is measured by their usefulness.
To me, this type of language is the height of callousness. While, as I expressed in an earlier post, I am truly very sorry for the circumstances you and your son are in, I still cannot get past the point that his life is no more important than anyone else's.
My grandparents died not knowing who they were, where they were, or even who their family was. They died lonely, afraid, and confused. And, since they both suffered early onset, there is a one in two chance that I could get this terrible disease, too. But, even this possible eventuality does not sway my stance that the use of embryonic stem cells
FOR ANY PURPOSE is inherently and irrevocably immoral.
This is not just "religious hysteria" as a matter of fact, let's remove religion from it altogether. This is a matter of respect for human life in all of its forms. The fact that IVF has resulted in so many births plays no part in this conversation. It is merely another red herring for us to chase.
In no way do I dislike you for your views. As a matter of fact, I find this conversation stimulating and, as I told Stephen on another thread, I like this type of discourse because I learn quite a bit from them. But, no matter how noble your intentions, or how ground-breaking the result is to the human race, the methods are fatally flawed.
I would still like to hear responses to my direct questions, as well.
Who is going to be the arbiter on whether a miscarriage was natural or as a result of willful action.
I could lose my pregnancy while falling down the stairs. Did I do this willfully or not? Who decides?
This means any woman who miscarries could potentially be on trial.
It's like that all male contraception panel deciding about the contraception pill for women..........it's another way men want to control women, plain and simple.
Which is probably in line with your religion too.
I think you replied earlier that the government would be the arbitrator. I guess that would be the court.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 07, 2012, 01:42:12 PM
I think you replied earlier that the government would be the arbitrator. I guess that would be the court.
ah, so I guess you don't mind us taking your wife to court to determine if she had a natural miscarriage?
Guilty until proven innocent, right?
No... I think this... is prosecutable. Dont you?
QuoteThe basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 07, 2012, 05:24:59 PM
No... I think this... is prosecutable. Dont you?
QuoteThe basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage.
Who said so?
The man?
Typical case of Republicans acting punitively to an alleged case (and with severe overreach in an attack on all women who miscarry) rather than preventively.
I would have much rather have had this girl have access to free birth control, if she really does exist.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 07, 2012, 07:43:05 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 07, 2012, 05:24:59 PM
No... I think this... is prosecutable. Dont you?
QuoteThe basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage.
Who said so?
The man?
Typical case of Republicans acting punitively to an alleged case (and with severe overreach in an attack on all women who miscarry) rather than preventively.
I would have much rather have had this girl have access to free birth control, if she really does exist.
Is it prosecutable?
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 07, 2012, 07:43:05 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 07, 2012, 05:24:59 PM
No... I think this... is prosecutable. Dont you?
QuoteThe basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage.
Who said so?
The man?
Typical case of Republicans acting punitively to an alleged case (and with severe overreach in an attack on all women who miscarry) rather than preventively.
I would have much rather have had this girl have access to free birth control, if she really does exist.
Wow, Faye. The more you reply, the more I get that you really have a hatred for men. "If she exisits." Really? So, are you saying that the whole thing is manufactured? Do you think there are black helicopters following you, too?
Seriously, Bridge Troll asked you a valid question, why don't you answer it? Or any of mine for that matter?
A woman who is accused of inducing her own miscarriage has the same rights under the law as anyone else. Innocent until proven guilty. As someone who ran for office you, of all people, should know this.
As far as my religion, I think I can refer you to this quote, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.†(Matt:25) That was Jesus who said that. I give Him a lot of credibility over you.
We seem to have crossed into the twilight zone.
Jumped the shark, as it were.
The burden of proof for any murder is on the prosecution.
IIRC only a handful of cases have ever been prosecuted on behalf of a fetus/human/citizen killed In Utero.
The burden of proof was on the prosecution.
If I read this argument right (and I could be misreading) Faye seems to think no woman should face a tribunal/prosecution for having a miscarriage. I happen to agree.
I also believe that we need to legally define at what point a fetus becomes a human and therefor protected by the US constitution.
I've been very close to a woman who has experienced a miscarriage. It is VERY traumatic. I would have become homicidal towards anyone who attempted to drag her through having to defend herself at this devastating time in her life.
Justice is never perfect nor absolute. It seems to me that we should trust women on this issue. It won't be a perfect system for absolute justice, but it's far better than prosecuting the innocent.
Quote from: buckethead on March 08, 2012, 10:36:25 AM
If I read this argument right (and I could be misreading) Faye seems to think no woman should face a tribunal/prosecution for having a miscarriage. I happen to agree.
I also believe that we need to legally define at what point a fetus becomes a human and therefor protected by the US constitution.
I've been very close to a woman who has experienced a miscarriage. It is VERY traumatic. I would have become homicidal towards anyone who attempted to drag her through having to defend herself at this devastating time in her life.
Justice is never perfect nor absolute. It seems to me that we should trust women on this issue. It won't be a perfect system for absolute justice, but it's far better than prosecuting the innocent.
Bucket,
I agree as well. She was framing it as a law that was openly hostile to women in general. When, in fact, the law is meant only to stop women from terminating a pregnancy in an illegal manner. And, while I am not supportive of abortions, in a ham-handed way, the laws attempt to criminalize back-alley abortions that could potentially kill the woman. I'm pretty sure the authorities would have to have very compelling proof that a woman tried to induce a miscarriage before they would even attempt prosecution. It was an extreme example meant to make it seem that the world is out to get women. Paranoia and hysterics, no more.
Quote from: buckethead on March 08, 2012, 10:36:25 AM
If I read this argument right (and I could be misreading) Faye seems to think no woman should face a tribunal/prosecution for having a miscarriage. I happen to agree.
I also believe that we need to legally define at what point a fetus becomes a human and therefor protected by the US constitution.
I've been very close to a woman who has experienced a miscarriage. It is VERY traumatic. I would have become homicidal towards anyone who attempted to drag her through having to defend herself at this devastating time in her life.
Justice is never perfect nor absolute. It seems to me that we should trust women on this issue. It won't be a perfect system for absolute justice, but it's far better than prosecuting the innocent.
Thank you buckethead.
I happen to have had a miscarriage as well.........my 6th pregnancy after 5 life births.
It was the most devastating experience, on par with my divorce and the paralysis of my son.
To have to defend myself against false accusations (potentially the case in bad relationships), would be just incredibly traumatic. These laws would create the potential for any woman to be falsely prosecuted for murder when she miscarries.
Per Gonzo: "I'm pretty sure the authorities would have to have very compelling proof that a woman tried to induce a miscarriage before they would even attempt prosecution."
Is the sayso of a nasty boyfriend compelling enough? How can this possibly be proven one way or the other?
My wife recently had a miscarriage actually, and you're right it was devastating. I think it is a little disingenuous to say women are going to become suspects as soon they have a miscarriage, however. It would like any other crime. There needs to be probable cause. If you were accused of such a thing you would have due process, and, like someone mentioned, the burden of proof would rest on the prosecution. Like you say Faye, this would be difficult to prove that a miscarriage was intentionally caused by the mother.
But let's turn the table for a moment. What if a man were to harm his pregnant wife in a way that directly led to a miscarriage? Wouldn't we want justice done in that case? Wouldn't we mourn the loss of this child? I know I personally still mourn the loss from when my wife miscarried naturally (and she even more so), and you yourself called the experience devastating. Those feelings of loss and mourning should speak to the humanity of the unborn more than anything I can say.
Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on March 08, 2012, 10:04:36 PM
My wife recently had a miscarriage actually, and you're right it was devastating. I think it is a little disingenuous to say women are going to become suspects as soon they have a miscarriage, however. It would like any other crime. There needs to be probable cause. If you were accused of such a thing you would have due process, and, like someone mentioned, the burden of proof would rest on the prosecution. Like you say Faye, this would be difficult to prove that a miscarriage was intentionally caused by the mother.
But let's turn the table for a moment. What if a man were to harm his pregnant wife in a way that directly led to a miscarriage? Wouldn't we want justice done in that case? Wouldn't we mourn the loss of this child? I know I personally still mourn the loss from when my wife miscarried naturally (and she even more so), and you yourself called the experience devastating. Those feelings of loss and mourning should speak to the humanity of the unborn more than anything I can say.
Well said, Buckeye. I in no way want to diminish the devestation that a miscarriage can cause. I have had friends who have had this happen to them and I sympathize with them deeply. But, the laws mentioned by Faye, do not seem mean-spirited as she would have us believe.
Quote from: Fallen Buckeye on March 08, 2012, 10:04:36 PM
My wife recently had a miscarriage actually, and you're right it was devastating. I think it is a little disingenuous to say women are going to become suspects as soon they have a miscarriage, however. It would like any other crime.
But let's turn the table for a moment. What if a man were to harm his pregnant wife in a way that directly led to a miscarriage? Wouldn't we want justice done in that case? Wouldn't we mourn the loss of this child? I know I personally still mourn the loss from when my wife miscarried naturally (and she even more so), and you yourself called the experience devastating. Those feelings of loss and mourning should speak to the humanity of the unborn more than anything I can say.
FB, thank you for sharing the pain of a miscarriage. Clearly 25% of all pregnancies results in a miscarriage. Women should not be criminalized for suffering a miscarriage, period.
In the case that you mentioned, the tables are indeed turned. It would be the man who caused the miscarriage through abuse to the woman who would be criminalized.
To criminalize abuse to yourself is a completely different matter. Any woman who miscarries can potentially be prosecuted for "causing" the miscarriage. IE, a woman who smokes has a premature delivery and the baby dies. Should we criminalize her too.
All these laws are meant to portray women as bad by definition. Women have to be policed while they are pregnant? I don't think so.
Besides lets focus instead on ending the war in Afghanistan and NOT starting one with Iran.
I don't want children to grow up motherless or fatherless.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 09, 2012, 11:17:45 AM
IE, a woman who smokes has a premature delivery and the baby dies. Should we criminalize her too.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 09, 2012, 11:17:45 AM
To criminalize abuse to yourself is a completely different matter. Any woman who miscarries can potentially be prosecuted for "causing" the miscarriage. IE, a woman who smokes has a premature delivery and the baby dies. Should we criminalize her too.
All these laws are meant to portray women as bad by definition. Women have to be policed while they are pregnant? I don't think so.
Again I ask you Faye, do you see black helicopters, too. To characterize these laws as meant to portray women as "bad by definition" is just paranoid and ridiculous. The intent of the law is to be able to bring a woman who causes
intentional harm to herself in order to abort a fetus to justice. The only "Bad" woman here is the one doing harm to an entity that is completely unable to defend itself.
Just as law-enforcement and/or our justice system cannot rely on heresay as proof of a crime, a woman who falls down the steps could not be brought before the law unless and until there is
proof that she
intentionally threw herself down the steps.
Your discussion on these laws that swerve outside of these lines is merely pandering to hysteria.
Quote from: Gonzo on March 09, 2012, 12:32:33 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 09, 2012, 11:17:45 AM
To criminalize abuse to yourself is a completely different matter. Any woman who miscarries can potentially be prosecuted for "causing" the miscarriage. IE, a woman who smokes has a premature delivery and the baby dies. Should we criminalize her too.
All these laws are meant to portray women as bad by definition. Women have to be policed while they are pregnant? I don't think so.
Again I ask you Faye, do you see black helicopters, too. To characterize these laws as meant to portray women as "bad by definition" is just paranoid and ridiculous. The intent of the law is to be able to bring a woman who causes intentional harm to herself in order to abort a fetus to justice. The only "Bad" woman here is the one doing harm to an entity that is completely unable to defend itself.
Just as law-enforcement and/or our justice system cannot rely on heresay as proof of a crime, a woman who falls down the steps could not be brought before the law unless and until there is proof that she intentionally threw herself down the steps.
Your discussion on these laws that swerve outside of these lines is merely pandering to hysteria.
Without having cameras installed to police every move a pregnant woman makes, you cannot have any proof whatsoever. You'd even have to have cameras installed in bathrooms.
How rediculous, please just stay out of women's uteri.
Mind your own business and try to make life better for the already born, by stopping the war in Afghanistan and NOT starting one in Iran.
We don't need more children growing up motherless and fatherless.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 09, 2012, 01:35:24 PM
Quote from: Gonzo on March 09, 2012, 12:32:33 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 09, 2012, 11:17:45 AM
To criminalize abuse to yourself is a completely different matter. Any woman who miscarries can potentially be prosecuted for "causing" the miscarriage. IE, a woman who smokes has a premature delivery and the baby dies. Should we criminalize her too.
All these laws are meant to portray women as bad by definition. Women have to be policed while they are pregnant? I don't think so.
Again I ask you Faye, do you see black helicopters, too. To characterize these laws as meant to portray women as "bad by definition" is just paranoid and ridiculous. The intent of the law is to be able to bring a woman who causes intentional harm to herself in order to abort a fetus to justice. The only "Bad" woman here is the one doing harm to an entity that is completely unable to defend itself.
Just as law-enforcement and/or our justice system cannot rely on heresay as proof of a crime, a woman who falls down the steps could not be brought before the law unless and until there is proof that she intentionally threw herself down the steps.
Your discussion on these laws that swerve outside of these lines is merely pandering to hysteria.
Without having cameras installed to police every move a pregnant woman makes, you cannot have any proof whatsoever. You'd even have to have cameras installed in bathrooms.
How rediculous, please just stay out of women's uteri.
You are starting to fall apart here Faye. Cameras? Really?
Are cameras necessary to make a finding in a murder case? Do you have to have photographic evidence to convict a bank robber? Nope and nope. What you do have to have is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. No one will be tried under those laws you cited without that.
So where does the proof come from? It comes from competent medical personnel who have examined a woman with an injury that resulted in a spontaneous abortion. Just as the same medical personnel are used to substantiate rape claims, child abuse claims, and spousal abuse claims.
The way you present these laws you would have people believe there will be jack-booted patrols knocking on the doors of pregnant women demanding to examine them for any signs that they may be endangering their unborn child.
Your brand of hysteria is exactly why our country is so screwed up to begin with. It is based on supposition and what-if scenarios instead of solid data and evidence. A conservative few errs to the side of safety rather than to the side of hysteria. It seeks to stop meddling in your business by NOT forcing others to do things for you. In short, it makes YOU responsible for YOUR actions.
Quote from: FayeforCure on March 09, 2012, 01:35:24 PM
Mind your own business and try to make life better for the already born, by stopping the war in Afghanistan and NOT starting one in Iran.
We don't need more children growing up motherless and fatherless.
Hello kettle? This is the pot. Your black!
Mind my own business? You broached the subject! Your president is meddling in my business, he is telling me that I do not have the right to believe the way my religion has taught me and that my Church must now go against its central precepts. Seems to me that it is someone else who is not minding their own business. Obama maybe? You?
But, now that you are on the ropes, you seem bent on changing the subject to a completely unrelated topic. You have not even bothered to answer my questions posed to you several days ago. And yet, I continue to counter-point your diatribes and answer with the reasons why I believe the way I do.
Quote from: Gonzo on March 09, 2012, 02:51:31 PM
Are cameras necessary to make a finding in a murder case? Do you have to have photographic evidence to convict a bank robber? Nope and nope. What you do have to have is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. No one will be tried under those laws you cited without that.
So where does the proof come from? It comes from competent medical personnel who have examined a woman with an injury that resulted in a spontaneous abortion. Just as the same medical personnel are used to substantiate rape claims, child abuse claims, and spousal abuse claims.
Mind my own business? You broached the subject! Your president is meddling in my business, he is telling me that I do not have the right to believe the way my religion has taught me and that my Church must now go against its central precepts. Seems to me that it is someone else who is not minding their own business. Obama maybe? You?
But, now that you are on the ropes, you seem bent on changing the subject to a completely unrelated topic. You have not even bothered to answer my questions posed to you several days ago. And yet, I continue to counter-point your diatribes and answer with the reasons why I believe the way I do.
So now after a spontaneous miscarriage, I have to be subjected to a medical exam?
QuoteEarly pregnancy loss is so common that many obstetricians consider these miscarriages a normal part of reproduction.
up to half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage during the first trimester
accept that you may never know why you miscarried. “The majority of the time miscarriage is a random, isolated event and we can’t pinpoint a cause
http://www.conceiveonline.com/articles/seven-most-common-miscarriage-causes
Dear oh dear, there are no finger prints, no witnesses, even the doctors don't know. But every woman is now suspect.
Now if we really are concerned about fetal death, lets focus on the men who kill their pregnant partners.
The most leading cause of death for a pregnant woman and her fetus is murder by the man who impregnated her.
And with that I'm out of here. Your President does not tell you that your wife has to use the pill, period. You can still believe the way your Church has taught you.