If you'd like to keep government from coming between women and their doctors, drop by the federal courthouse in downtown Sioux Falls at lunchtime Thursday. NARAL and Planned Parenthood are rallying to support basic health care for women. Remember: men in Washington and in Pierre are using their power to make women second-class citizens in the doctor's office and in insurance plans.
Here's the press release from NARAL and PP:
Health Advocates Gather to Ask Senator Johnson to Help Protect Access to Birth Control
Thursday, February 23, 2012, local women's health advocates will gather at the Federal Courthouse in downtown Sioux Falls to urge Senator Tim Johnson to continue to support women's access to health insurance that covers birth control, regardless of where they work. Advocates from NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota and Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota will thank Senator Johnson for his consistent efforts to "Let Women Speak" &ndash a reference to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing last week on the new women's contraception policy where the makeup of the panel was all-male and opposed to birth control coverage.
Anti-contraception politicians in Congress are acting to limit women's access to birth control coverage and other women's preventive health care. Recently, the White House issued a new policy to ensure women get insurance coverage of birth control without a copay. Employees at religious entities like Catholic universities and hospitals which choose to opt out will receive coverage through their health insurer. However, opponents of women's access to birth control continue calling for an even more far-reaching exemption that would allow corporations and insurance companies to not only deny access to birth control, but to any essential health care service, including maternity care, HIV/AIDS treatment, mammograms, and cancer screenings.
- What: Women's health advocates gather to support access to birth control
- Where: Federal Courthouse, Downtown Sioux Falls, 400 S Phillips Ave.
- When: 12:00pm
- Who: NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota and Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota
Cory, your are confusing healthcare with the worship of sex, which is part of the New Age Theology pushed by Planned Parenthood, the military arm of the New Age Movement:
http://www.trdd.org/EUGBR_5E.HTM
And Cory, this post proves your denial was false:
http://dakotawarcollege.com/archives/24272/comment-page-1#comment-132278
I would have left a comment over at the SDWC, but they won't let me.
To all pastors, priests, all believers: This rally will provide a fertile venue to for ministering to those who need God the most. These are the souls that need the Grace of God, the love of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives to open their hearts to the forgiveness of God as they repent of their sins. Go there and pray for these people that are lost in their selfishness, sinfulness and hedonism. Deliver the good news of God's forgiveness of them!!! God's church must confront evil by ministering to the sinners, not by violence or force but through prayer and testimony.
fertile...grace...hedonism: jesus' got a gun...his whole world's come undone...his dog day's just begun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_KytLO2WME
...don't get a nosebleed, boys.
Randazzo is practically salivating at the possibility of seeing women who are sexually active. Down boy, down. Most of tehm are either married or in committed relationships and are simply approaching family planning responsibly. They won't be needing any help from you, lard ass.
Your fantasies and judgements about who they are and what they are thinking reveals far more about you than it does about them.
In fact it makes you look like a loathesome, sex-deprived, self-righteous idiot.
"Fertile venue" indeed.
Go to your room, Ed.
And don't take any of those magazines in there with you.
So Fleming, explain the 40% of children born out of wedlock. In case you don't know, your hatred is showing through.
ed can't even see his unit anymore.
First, Planned Parenthood, which focuses on providing affordable health care including screening for cancer and treating infections, as well as birth control for men and women, is hardly a military arm of anything. They have been forced to defend themselves in fortresses bv the sometimes militant extremists protesting outside their walls, especially since some have hunted and killed doctors and nurses in their own homes and churches.
Second, contraception, which is used for birth control as well as to treat many other serious health conditions, is not the "worship of sex." That would be the promotion of Viagra, Cialis and similar best-selling potions for men who are often past the age of procreation and are therefore using these prescription medicines to, well, enjoy sex for no other purpose than the enjoyment of sex.
What's to explain, Sibby. They don't want to get married. So? That's their business, not mine. Not yours either.
I don't answer to you, Bill Fleming. The vitriol, judgment, hate and fear that you spew exposes for all to see the void in your life where God should be. You have no knowledge of the contents of my heart. You bluster with name-calling and condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you. Your selfishness is exposed. But the good news is that God still loves you and His forgiveness is there for you. I hate the evil that you vomit as though from the mouth of satan, but I will love you into the acceptance of Jesus Christ and I will pray that God will open your heart soon, before your judgment before Him.
If you don't answer to me, Ed, then why did you? You are a very internally conflicted individual, Ed. Get some help.
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." — Matt. 6:6
Like I said, go to your room, Ed.
And pray for your own sanity.
I have mine, thank you very much.
Barbara, Bill and Larry are proving my point and exposing your view as pure New Age propaganda. I do agree on you position regarding Viagra. The same thing (sex worshipping) is done in our schools with Planned Parenthood's sex (so-called) education agenda.
"I have mine, thank you very much."
Bill, you just exposed yourself as the real self-righteous idiot and now a hypocrit. Nice job!
Democrats: if we don't start plowing the road for our candidates, earth haters like Ed are going to plow your state under and spill bad seed into her furrows.
Get angry.
Bill, I have help, I have Jesus in my life.
I don't worship sex, Sibby. But what are we to make of a God who requires it to bring forth a Son? i.e. why was it necessary for Jesus to be born of a virgin? Fertility is an ancient mystery. Birth and death. Combine it with sunlight and you have the basis for most if not all religious mythology. Nothing "New Age" about it. Your own faith is steeped in it.
Good, Ed. Listen to him, then.
"Nothing “New Age†about it."
Yes it is really ancient paganism.
Steve, I am a hypocrite and self-righteous because I am rational? Not by any standard I am aware if.
Alas, another soul to pray for.....Larry. I don't hate the earth. It was the creation of God and He will decide which seeds will grow. That anger and hate will cause furrows in your brow!!!
The myth of Christ being born to a virgin is Paganism, Sibby? You could be right, defending on how you define paganism, I suppose.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm
Let's face it fellas, the right-wing position on contraception and personhood at fertilization is completely irrational. You are totally within your rights to believe in any fairy tales you please, but not at the expense of the liberty of your fellow human beings.
(...so far, neither Ed nor Steve has made even one rational argument here. All they have done is try to impose their immoral belief system on people who damn well know better.)
When I was a kid, women had to cover their heads in church.
Lavabo inter innocentes manus meas. et circumdabo altare tuum, Domine. I wash my hands in innocence, and I go around Your altar, O Lord, giving voice to my thanks, and recounting all Your wondrous deeds.
Ne perdas cum impiis, Deus animam meam: et cum viris sanguinum vitam meam: in quorum manibus iniquitates sunt: dextera eorum repleta est muneribus. Gather not my soul with those of sinners, nor with men of blood my life. On their hands are crimes, and their right hands are full of bribes.
Ed: hoist on his own teatard....
"You are totally within your rights to believe in any fairy tales you please, but not at the expense of the liberty of your fellow human beings."
"What’s to explain, Sibby. They don’t want to get married. So? That’s their business, not mine. Not yours either."
You are violating my liberty via taking property so that the government takes care of children born out of wedlock via the Department of Social Services instead of the father of the child. It is my business and you are the irrational one.
It is no fairy tale that children who have fathers in their homes are better off than those who don't. I have already provided statistical proof of that. It is largely due to the sex worhsip of the New Age Theocrats that so many children are raised without their fathers. Ignoring the impact of the New Age Movement is worse than irrational, it is dysfunctional.
No rational person should believe Fleming's anti-Christian bigotry as exhibited by has hate-filled rant toward Ed. From Matthew Chapter 1:
18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[a]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[b] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins.â€
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuelâ€[d] (which means “God with usâ€).
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
blow up yer teevee, eat a lot of peaches...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whpf4Xs2ww8
A bill being introduced in the Georgia legislature has got me thinking.
I think what’s missing is our gross insensitivity to men in this discussion. We need to bring them, and their needs, into the debate.
Nearly 30,000,000 men worldwide are having vasectomies, usurping God’s will and conducting genocide on half of the component needed so desperately by unborn children.
Why shouldn’t they have the same freedom and liberty that women are empowered with in the reproductive process? The State of South Dakota has totally ignored the fact that men may be pressured into their reproductive decisions and may not have all of the facts or support that they need in making this important decision.
Not to mention, men who may be pressured into vasectomies are being denied their rights and liberty, causing the premature killing of half of the conception process, denying thousands of potential children that key element to becoming a person.
What I’m recommending is that before men can undergo a vasectomy, effectively killing their reproductive rights, they have to view their biological sperm as it waits in their bodies to create new life. To do that they will first have to go through counseling 72 hours before the procedure can take place and then submit and pay for out of their own pocket a transpenile ultrasound, using the same device that women enjoy in examining their reproductive organs. The transpenile ultrasound device is the same as the transvaginal ultrasound device so that women can’t claim that they are being given preferential treatment.
So Jana, you believe life begins before conception.
"Second, contraception, which is used for birth control as well as to treat many other serious health conditions, is not the “worship of sex.†That would be the promotion of Viagra, Cialis and similar best-selling potions for men who are often past the age of procreation and are therefore using these prescription medicines to, well, enjoy sex for no other purpose than the enjoyment of sex." Amen, Barbara. And Viagra, Cialis, etc., are always covered by health insurance policies.
Steve, if you completely outlaw contraceptives there are going to be a lot more people needing your tax dollars. Better quit blogging and get back to work. You're gonna need the money, brother... especially when they start giving zygotes and blastocysts social security cards. You'll go broke just paying the funeral bills and the court costs on trying the murdeous heathens who let them die by not getting pregnant at the right time of the month.
Sheer idiocy.
Not my call on deciding when life begins...there's a panel of men that have made that decision for us. Some of them may even be Free Masons!
Steve, you are a learned man, so maybe you can tell me when the Bible says that life begins...seems to me it was when the baby quickened (as in the quick and the dead.)
The men making the rules have been playing Calvin Ball and changing the rules as to when life begins...so you tell me what the next step in the personhood debate is.
By the way, you, Ed, Roger Hunt or Alan Unruh could do a great service and show us on live TV how simple and unintrusive a penile ultrasound can be. Must see TV!
By the way, does insurance cover vasectomies?
Why don't you convene another panel of men to decide what should be done to make sure that the rights and liberties of men should be in the reproductive process.
Oops, I messed up. That panel should be made up of women to make that decision for you.
I'm just trying to make sure that men have the same rights and liberties that you want women to enjoy.
Jana, why all the angry sexism. Can't we just get along.
Eve, what percent of contraception is for birth control and what is for medical?
Bill, money is more important than people? The New Age Theocrats created the sexual revolution, and now these Theocrats want to use population control to reign in the error. What is next, gas chambers for the handicapped? It will save money Bill, is that what you want?
Oh Steve, don't you worry your pretty little head about sexism, there's smart people out there that will make sure it doesn't happen. The added bonus is that they will even make your decisions for you!
This is about white populations not breeding while rates for non-whites is spiking: it's just that simple.
Steve, you're the one who was complaining about the money, not me.
...and once again, the conversation about women's health and bodily autonomy starts turning into a biblical pissing contest.
Steve - it's great you think Jana's proposal is "angry sexism", because that means you understand her point. Also, if pregnancy isn't medical, then why do most of us need doctors and hospitals to help us through it? The prevention of pregnancy is just as medical as pregnancy itself.
Larry - based on what I've heard from Brian Liss, I'm afraid you're right.
Erika, If pregnancy is medical, then logic says preventing pregnancy is anti-medical.
Bill, you want my money to pay for conception, and if it does not work then you want my money for abortion, and if the baby survives all of that then you want my money to pay for its food, shelter and medical needs while the single sex-crazed single mother runs around with a cigarette in her mouth, and a cell phone in her ear trying to find out where the next major party is.
"The statistics say that 48 percent of Christian families are dealing with the issue of pornography in their home," Gross says. "I would say the other 52 percent are just unaware of it being an issue in their house."
christians=pornographers.
So Larry, is it accurate to call Christains those who believe they are following a Christian religion that is actually Satan using his deception?
13 moons, stevie: Istáwicayazan Wi – Moon of Sore Eyes (Snow Blindness)
Steve, you're babbling. Zip it.
Mr. rational resorts to personal attacks when confronted with reality.
Yesssssssss!! Jana and Erika, you are nailing it right on the head. If it's men trying to control a woman's body and life, it's biblically correct. If a woman wants to do the same to men, that's "angry sexism."
I don't need anyone else to make my medical decisions for me. Myself, doctor, and loved ones do really well without anyone else trying to crowd in.
The point is - I will make my medical decisions for myself. I don't care if I'm 9 months pregnant, it's still My Decision.
I don't care if you think life begins when an egg and a sperm are in the same room! It's still My Decision. (Sounds like the beginnings of a joke: An egg and a sperm walk into a bar . . .)
I don't care how many children you think I ought to have. It's still My Decision.
I don't care what the damn Vatican thinks about birth control. It's still My Decision.
What a bunch of hairy old white men think I ought to do with my body is irrelevant.
What the damn Vatican thinks I ought to do with my body irrelevant.
Your personal sense of right and wrong, or self-righteousness (Randazzo), is irrelevant.
You, meaning anyone who is not me, have absolutely no standing in my medical decision-making regarding Legal Medical procedures or courses of treatment.
There you go. Simple and clear. I am an adult, competent, autonomous individual and you may not take any of that away from me. Period.
(I ignore Sibson. He's out of his tiny, little delusional mind.)
"If it’s men trying to control a woman’s body and life, it’s biblically correct."
Where did that come from? A woman who has sex outside of marriage just for the sake of pleasure is being controlled by the man and that is suppose to be biblical?
The point is that should we be made to pay for someone else's tools to participate in their hedonistic worship of sex? Anybody disagree that would violate the separation of church and state?
Anybody disagree with tearing somebody's limbs off and then crushing their head to end the suffering? Isn't that messing around with someone else's body?
"What a bunch of hairy old white men think I ought to do with my body is irrelevant."
Take that argument to the female pro-life political activists once.
Steve,
Your musings on a NWO and New Age propaganda remind me of what Pope Benedict XVI called a "dictatorship of relativism ". I do not know how much you have delved into this, but it may be worth a look.
If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and [for] men who claim to be bearers of an external objective truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascist attitudes.
—Benito Mussolini
If you oppose abortion in general, but make exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, you are taking a "relativist" position and are, in fact, pro-choice, even pro-abortion under these circumstances. There is no rational way around this. Further, if you don't allow for these exceptions, there is arguably something seriously wrong with your mind.
Would you support a person's absolute right to religious freedom if it meant:
(1) that you would be refused a blood transfusion, even if you were bleeding to death?
(2) that you and/or your children would be refused vaccinations?
(3) that you and/or your children would be refused medical treatment other than faith-based healing?
All of the above - and more - are religious beliefs of various Christian denomination/sects.
The Catholic church, and any other church, and their adherents, including Steve Sibson, all have the right — a right guaranteed under the First Amendment — to preach doctrine, and to ask their adherents to follow that doctrine. But none of them have the right to use our government - on a federal, state, or local level - to enforce their religious beliefs on any one, especially those who do not believe in or belong to their religious sect or denomination. (Which is exactly what the Catholic Church tried to do.) We have a secular government so that you may practice your religion yourself, not so that you can enforce it on anyone else.
Instead, what is currently occurring is a consistent effort on the part of various politicians and pundits to make women - and only women, no matter what their religious persuasion - obey their particular belief system. Religious freedom has nothing to do with it: this is all about limiting women's rights and options in order to prove men's power, purity, and control.
Yup. Eve F is right. I will believe differently when I see bills proposed that limit a man's sexual activities and reproduction.
Regardless of that, this is still true:
"You, meaning anyone who is not me, have absolutely no standing in my medical decision-making regarding Legal Medical procedures or courses of treatment."
More evidence of white paranoia congealing in Arizona.
"If you oppose abortion in general, but make exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, you are taking a “relativist†position and are, in fact, pro-choice, even pro-abortion under these circumstances."
What we think don't matter. The person deserves due process based on the 14th Amendment. If a court wants to issue the death penalty to a child in the womb, then so be it.
"But none of them have the right to use our government – on a federal, state, or local level – to enforce their religious beliefs on any one, especially those who do not believe in or belong to their religious sect or denomination."
The New Age Theocrats are pushing their pro-sex worshipping beliefs on Christian parent's children in public schools today. And they are even pushing to take it to three and four year-olds. Stop being a hypocrite.
Eve, I have no problem with a woman going to court saying their child is violating their civil rights. And if the court agrees and issues the death penalty, then the state carries it out, not some non-profit with a political/religious agenda in the name of health care.
Due process is already in the history books. It's called Roe v. Wade and has been upheld as settled law "stare decisis" at least 20 times.
Steve: what are you giving up for Lent? i'm giving up civility.
http://blog.onbeing.org/post/18031238554/living-in-a-material-world-lent-and-our-bodies
Hmmm, LDS=cult or Catholics=cult:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/does-santorum-really-want-to-make-a-stand-on-mormonism/253460/
Roe v Wade did not deal with the personhood of the child. Scientific DNA research since that ruling makes it clear. The child also deserves due process. The feminist complaint is that man should not power over the woman, then why should the woman have power over the child? No more than a white person should have power over a black person. The civil right is called "life". Only a court should take that away after due process. Roe v Wade opened up that can of worms, and it is past time to revisit it.
Steve, just realized that you are still just dead on with that sexist stuff.
Washington is making sure that there is nothing sexist about the debate.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73132.html#.T0QkMPcH4IR.twitter
So sorry to have questioned you.
By the way, this little war on women that the Republicans are waging...does that have anything to do with the New World Order?
Of course Roe v. Wade dealt with personhood, Steve. It stipulated that it doesn't make any difference. I get that you don't like it, but that's the decision. It's the law of the land. Besides this thread is about contraception, not abortion. Different issue entirely.
DNA structure was discovered in 1953. Francis and Crick were awarded their Nobel Prize in 1962. Science has known what human genetic material is since the 1930's.
The Roe v Wade decision was in 1973.
The whole "new DNA research" argument is bogus.
I don’t check in for two days,â€two days†and I come back to find this going on.
Ed dragging his god dog down the road trying to get people to feed the poor thing.
Sibby trying to raise everyone's awareness of his subconscious genius trying but without success to escape his body.
I had to read Janas comment twice before I could get what it was. Its funny what the mind can do to your body, it didn’t hurt any less the second time I read what she was talking about. The transpenile ultrasound indeed! I even went to look at what one that they use on women looks like.
http://gizmodo.com/5886967/here-is-the-dildonic-device-women-seeking-an-abortion-in-virginia-will-have-to-endure-nsfw
Good luck with that I can still run pretty fast “IF I HAVE TOâ€.
Fleming trying to aggravate Sibby by telling the truth about life.
DE as always putting into words what is actually going on and making sense of it all.
Eve telling us in a concise and straight forward way that there really is a war against women going on in our state and our country, imagine that? A war against women. If they start fighting back I don’t want to get caught in the crossfire.
Erika reminding us that a pissing match is only fair if both genders get to compete. I suspect that Ed and Sibby couldn’t win on either the coverage or the accuracy part of the match. So much for big guns. As for me “Huston we have a problemâ€.
The next thing is probably going to be Little Bobby Elis peddling his big wheel down the main street of Madville shouting drive by slurs at us from his banana seat. WTF is going on?
Why cant we just let the girls do girls things and the boys, well stay the hell out of the girls business? I have a female doctor and I sure don't relish the thought of a possibly premenstrually unfriendly woman jabbing a transpenile ultrasound device at me saying “I don’t know why your yelling it isn't going to hurt me a bitâ€. Jana only mentioned one reason for the use of that device, I'm sure that if you get two or more doctors together they can come up with a few more, “you know just for the moneyâ€. What's next low voltage electricity to judge reaction times?
Let me make this perfectly clear. It doesn’t mater what the damn device is that another person wants to put in your body without your permission “IT IS RAPEâ€.
Even without having had it actually done I still feel the pain. Thanks Jana. I guess there really is such a thing as “Mind Rapeâ€.
The Blindman
"By the way, this little war on women that the Republicans are waging…does that have anything to do with the New World Order?"
Yes, the feminist movement is designed to bring in the New World Order. Note that the New Age Movement is bipartisan.
Bill, Dred Scott was the law of the land at one time. That was about denying personhood too. So all we need is a decision that says the handicapped are not persons and off to the gas chambers.
Obama for President of Earth!
Steve, here's some science. Once every month or so, the lining of a woman's uterus changes texture in such a way as to make it difficult for a zygote to implant, grow, and form a placenta.
A little later, the entire uterine wall flushes out during menses carrying any fertilized eggs along with it to their death. If you want to regard this natural process as a "slaughter of the innocents" you are welcome to, I suppose, but most reasonable people would consider such a position sheer lunacy.
For one thing, it would make murderers out of any couple practicing the rhythm method, since they were knowingly allowing nature to destroy any gametes that may have conjoined as a result of their sexual activity.
Likewise, many of the most common forms of female contraceptives mimic this natural action of preventing fertilized eggs to implant. And again, to consider people who use these forms of birth control to be murderers is irrational to the extreme.
That's not to say you don't have every right to hold such a position. But it's fool hardy on your part to expect to be taken seriously.
Finally, recent science makes it possible that any cell in your body could be cloned to become another person. That's right. Every cell you generate is fully equipped to become another Sibby given the right tweaks in the lab and (at least for now) a willing uterus in which to implant.
That means (following your irrational thought process) that every time you shed a cell from anywhere on your body, you are destroying another little Sibby.
No wonder you are so anxiety ridden.
Larry, sorry... Bill Clinton's already got the gig, bud.
Bill, you are being irrational, abortion is not the shedding of a cell. It is a process where a human person is ripped limb from limb and then the head is crushed.
And Bill, you are arguing that life begins before conception, are you not?
steve: yer the hannibal lecter of the anti civil rights wing.
Larry, all deserve civil rights based on due process. And those charged with a crime deserve a day in court and their punishment must be humane if found quilty.
Steve, are you, or are you not arguing that a fertilized egg is a person?
I am arguing that it is not, for precisely the reasons I have outlined above.
Bill, are you a person?
On good days.
Ron Paul was the only earth hater defending women's rights last night: "In case you missed it, video of the debate audience booing birth control question." Planned Parenthood @PPact
For all of you who persist in trying to engage Mr. Sibson in debate, please remember that he is one of those for whom abortion is the sole topic of discourse. Since he knows that only he is right, and since he refuses to answer any question without reverting to his views on that topic, debate is impossible. My suggestion is to talk around him.
Eve, yes, that's probably the most sensible policy. I however have advised Sibby that as per Thomas Jefferson, the only weapon that can be used against ideas such as his is ridicule, and further that I will be glad to prove him with a good dose of it as many times as he cares to present his psychotic pathology.
Hey... he's obviously not getting therapy anywhere else. I think of it as a benevolent intervention.
Bill at one time you were a fertilized egg, so yes a fertilized egg from the homo sapien species is a person.
...on the other hand, I suppose we could just go with this idea tha my friend Bob Newland came up with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9bV_v9b8go&feature=share
At one time Steve, I was stardust. So were you. That's the science, brother.
So Eve, you are against granting the child due process even though you insist "women" have it? Since you decided not to address that issue and instead attack me and promote cutting off communication, then that is where you left yourself. There is a rule that one does not need to deal with strawman arguments. I think there is also a rule of debate that says those who resort to personal attacks lose. Right Bill?
Bill, thanks for providing an example of a strawman...stardust.
Nancy Pelosi bringing power to bear on US House: "Average woman spends 5 years pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant, and 3 DECADES trying to avoid an unintended pregnancy." Planned Parenthood @PPact
Steve, if you're going to say a single cell is a person, or a molecule (which is what DNA is) why stop there? Just move on to the atoms.
Sibby likes to say that "life begins at conception." It doesn't. The sperm cell and the egg cell are both alove, and each gamete contains a complete human genome (in addition to the half set it carries for reproduction.) DNA itself is not a "living" substance. It is inert. That's the science.
Further, all those full sets of DNA in the gametes is female (mtDNA). It's a woman's world, Sibby. Get used to it.
Steve, unlike your fairy tales, I'm providing you with the actual facts of science. It's up to you if you want to reject the truth once you've heard it, but don't try to claim, when the Lord wants to know why you were such an asshole to women, that nobody ever told you how it really is with life. Because we all did. You just refuse to listen.
"DNA itself is not a “living†substance. It is inert."
Bill there you go with deception. The cell is living, the DNA proofs that the body of the person is different than the woman's. Typical Catholic to call this a woman's world, when in fact it is Jesus, not Mary that we are to worship. The Queen of Heaven goes back the ancient paganism too.
http://www.topical-bible-studies.org/37-0012.htm
So now Bill Fleming has demonstrated the true New Age agenda of Planned Parenthood...the worship of goddesses. It has been reframed into "women's rights", but the real agenda is women being oppressive to others by violating their civil rights, including their own children. Next, we can discuss the ancient pagan practice of child sacrifice.
The DNA isn't a "proof" Steve, it is a program. A set of instructions. If anything, it "proves" the fact of evolution and genetic mutation. Further, it is the male sperm that determines the sex of the offspring. A little over half the time it produces females. In some species, there are no males. Conversely, there are no species that are exclusively male. Even God knew this apparantly. That's why he needed a female to have a son.
I don't worship any goddess, by the way, Sibby. I simply acknowledge the primacy of the female in biology. Because that's the science.
(...notice how Steve's not really interested in science. Just his paranoid fantasys.)
Bill, science proves that we are not talking not just about one woman's body but two distinct persons where civil rights need to be protected for both via due process.
So Bill, do you do the Rosary?
Sorry one too many nots.
Three distinct persons, Sibby, the father, the child, and the mother.
Sound familiar? Three in one?
Dear Mr. Sibson, I am providing you with the more due process than you accord to the sluggards of the world, whom you condemn to disdain and hellfire without ever personally talking with any of them.
In order to have a discussion or a debate, both parties must abide by certain rules of conduct, including listening to what the other person has to say and answering questions as they are asked. Talking at people, without reference to the topic (such as birth control or religious freedom), does not constitute either a debate or a discussion.
So, if you are willing to discuss or debate, again, I will ask, do you support someones right to "freedom of religion" if it means that you and/or your family will not receive a blood transfusion, even if you are bleeding to death?
"I will ask, do you support someones right to “freedom of religion†if it means that you and/or your family will not receive a blood transfusion, even if you are bleeding to death?"
The individual has that civil right, but a family member should not be bound by it. I do believe that belief has been taken out of context by the Jehovah Witnesses. Let us take this further. Does a religion have the right to give poison to its member? Does a religion have a right to child sacrifice? Do we respect the religious right of Satanists and Luciferians?
Now answer my question, should the child receive the same due process that is demanded of by the mother?
Red states continue to struggle with child poverty: Georgia Public Broadcasting.
Top 10 Catholic canons rejected by Rick Santorum: Juan Cole.
Good link Larry.
I personally enjoy Bill's toying with Sibson. I rarely read Sibson's comments because they are so bizarre. Also because he really does have some mental health issues. As Eve said, discussions aren't really possible with him.
In the meantime, I want to offer kudos to Blind Man for his last comment. Yeah!
And still, all the talk about science, paranoid theories, and religious values and faith are irrelevant in a discussion of decisions reached by a woman and her support system, whoever they may be, regarding legal health care. No one else has any business telling her what she can or cannot do. Simple.
Let me add something else:
I don't need to explain or justify my decisions to anyone. I don't need to convince anyone that I have deserve the same basic human rights everyone else has. Of course I do.
Realizing that has made my life much easier and lowered my blood pressure significantly. I don't need to be defensive. You who want to restrict my basic human rights ought to be ashamed.
So f..... (I so badly want to close with a favorite epithet. Argh!)
D.E. Bravo!
Let's let Cee Lo handle it, okay sister?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0mxOXbWIU&ob=av2e
Ohhhhhh yeahhhhhhhh.
Eve,
Let me respond to your post.
1). The comparison of critical care to prevent imminent death (bleeding to death) to preventative care for a lifestyle choice (sex) is disproportionate.
2). Your vaccination argument doesn't apply. Nobody is proposing to make birth control or vaccinations illegal or deny access. This argument is whether or not an institution that considers a matter illicit should be forced to pay for it.
3) See above for a response to your faith based healing. This not about access but your forcing another to pay for it.
Regarding your comment " (The Catholic Church does not) have the right to use our government – on a federal, state, or local level – to enforce their religious beliefs on any one, especially those who do not believe in or belong to their religious sect or denomination," I couldn't agree more.
My question to you:. Why do you think it OK for the government to force its views on the Catholic Church And other religions?
"We have a secular government so that you may practice your religion yourself, not so that you can enforce it on anyone else." Again, I agree. I just don't get why you think it licit to force us.
"Instead, what is currently occurring is a consistent effort on the part of various politicians and pundits to make women – and only women, no matter what their religious persuasion – obey their particular belief system."
Sheesh. Doesn't even deserve an answer. This is a narrow question. Should the government be able to directly force one to pay for what they consider illicit? How about I force you to pay for my domestic protection if I want to move to a location which has high odds of me getting robbed. I want a Flock.
" Religious freedom has nothing to do with it: this is all about limiting women’s rights and options in order to prove men’s power, purity, and control."
This all about religious freedom. If you want to buy birth control, get sterilized, you can before this was announced and can if it is rescinded. If you can't afford it, go to Planned Parenthood.
Final comment: Many ridicule Sibson for seeing everything as part of a large conspiracy. "New age Theocracy" or making this misogyny is exactly the same.
"Should the government be able to directly force one to pay for what they consider illicit?"
Apparently so, Troy, sadly.
You and I both pay taxes that fund capital punishment and unjust wars. Would that it were otherwise and that we could direct our tax dollars to fund only those causes that do not insult our spiritual sensibilities. But alas, we cannot.
Bill, you are confusing "direct and material" which is what this mandate proposes and "direct and immaterial " via taxes.
Meant indirect and immaterial via taxes.
The courts are being exploited by cults like the Roman Church hiding behind tax-shielded resources under the guise of holy war.
"I don’t need to convince anyone that I have deserve the same basic human rights everyone else has."
Except you are denying basic human rights to the preborn. And without due process. That is not a religious based argument, it is a constitutional one.
know the enemy: http://www.personhoodusa.com/
Troy, no, I'm not confusing them really, I'm just sayin'. ;^)
Sorry, I still say that it's not about religious freedom, but about obsession with women's sexuality. Otherwise, for one thing, people would recognize the doors they're opening: once you say that people have the right to opt out of paying for something or providing something that they are opposed to on religious grounds, that opens the door to everyone being able to claim their religious beliefs when something comes up that they oppose. With that you do indeed make it possible for Jehovah's witnesses to refuse people blood transfusions, or other belief systems to refuse people vaccinations, etc.
Let me point out that the NRA recognizes all kinds of slippery slopes when it comes to ANY limitation on the 2nd amendment, and fights them tooth and nail - with remarkable success. And every other case of this attempt to financially opt out of government decree has pretty much failed: even the Amish - while not having to serve in wartime - have to pay taxes, including Social Security taxes, which go for things that they are religiously opposed to, such as wars and insurance. Finally, allow me to remind everyone that we fought a civil war, not over slavery, but over states' rights, and states' rights lost to federal union. Abraham Lincoln recognized that allowing nullification on any level weakened the union, and so he went to war.
As to why I believe the government has the "right" to impose its views on people, that's the basis of government. I believe in the social contract (this is John Locke, not Karl Marx): we, the people, combine together in a government in order to have safety, civility, and civilization. There are common rules, and common duties, and common sacrifices required. It's all in Plato, Aristotle, and John Locke. This is the first generation in a very long time to consider government the enemy, and, to me, it proves that Plato was correct when he said that one of the great dangers of a democracy is that over time people demand more freedom than democracy can bear - they will not be ruled, they constantly demand "their rights" and thus they literally destroy their own government, forgetting that, without government, life literally is "nasty, brutish, and short" in the "war of all against all".
"How about I force you to pay for my domestic protection if I want to move to a location which has high odds of me getting robbed." I already do: the world is a location in which you have high odds of getting robbed, or hurt, or damaged, etc., and the domestic protection is called the police, the highway patrol, the national guard, and the army.
With regard to birth control: There are indeed medical reasons for birth control pills that have nothing to do with birth control or "life style choices". If any women in your family ever suffer from endometriosis or fibroids, you'll find out about those reasons. To deny them access is exactly the equivalent of requiring them to bleed to death so as not to offend someone else's religious values.
And, Mr. Sibson, if a woman's life is at stake - such as in a tubal pregnancy where both the fetus and the mother will die if the pregnancy is not terminated - what about the right of self-defense? If you can shoot and kill an intruder without due process - happens all the time - why should you need due process if having the baby is going to kill you? Just asking.
LOL.
I used to love liberals for their intellectual integrity and fidelity to intellectual honesty. Frankly, Eve that is moronic and has the appearance of intentionally ignorant. Grossly so.
The Supremes changed the rules, Mr. Jones: now the ball is in our court.
Move to Amend.
Oh Sibson. Remember: You have no business in my legal medical decisions, regardless of what you think!
Troy, if you want to see moronic, look in the mirror.
Or maybe I should have said, "Troy, if you want to read moronic comments, read your own."
There, that's better. Didn't want to be personally insulting you, just your comments.
Eve:. "I still say that it’s not about religious freedom, but about obsession with women’s sexuality."
Besides the reality there are abortion rights advocates who oppose it, this statements arrogance to claim to the motive is comparable to me saying Eve likes abortion because they are disproportionately done to babies from minority and poor situations. This Eve wants to kill poor people.
Eve:. "once you say that people have the right to opt out of paying for something or providing something that they are opposed to on religious grounds, that opens the door to everyone being able to claim their religious beliefs when something comes up that they oppose."
Yep. That is correct. We are not talking about taxation or taxes. We are talking about private dollars. But it is broader than that. If Eve wants to use contraception or have a gym membership, she gets to pay for it.
Eve: "
With that you do indeed make it possible for Jehovah’s witnesses to refuse people blood transfusions, or other belief systems to refuse people vaccinations, etc.
Let me point out that the NRA recognizes all kinds of slippery slopes when it comes to ANY limitation on the 2nd amendment, and fights them tooth and nail – with remarkable success. And every other case of this attempt to financially opt out of government decree has pretty much failed: even the Amish – while not having to serve in wartime – have to pay taxes, including Social Security taxes, which go for things that they are religiously opposed to, such as wars and insurance. Finally, allow me to remind everyone that we fought a civil war, not over slavery, but over states’ rights, and states’ rights lost to federal union. Abraham Lincoln recognized that allowing nullification on any level weakened the union, and so he went to war.
As to why I believe the government has the “right†to impose its views on people, that’s the basis of government. I believe in the social contract (this is John Locke, not Karl Marx): we, the people, combine together in a government in order to have safety, civility, and civilization. There are common rules, and common duties, and common sacrifices required. It’s all in Plato, Aristotle, and John Locke. This is the first generation in a very long time to consider government the enemy, and, to me, it proves that Plato was correct when he said that one of the great dangers of a democracy is that over time people demand more freedom than democracy can bear – they will not be ruled, they constantly demand “their rights†and thus they literally destroy their own government, forgetting that, without government, life literally is “nasty, brutish, and short†in the “war of all against allâ€.
“How about I force you to pay for my domestic protection if I want to move to a location which has high odds of me getting robbed.†I already do: the world is a location in which you have high odds of getting robbed, or hurt, or damaged, etc., and the domestic protection is called the police, the highway patrol, the national guard, and the army.
With regard to birth control: There are indeed medical reasons for birth control pills that have nothing to do with birth control or “life style choicesâ€. If any women in your family ever suffer from endometriosis or fibroids, you’ll find out about those reasons. To deny them access is exactly the equivalent of requiring them to bleed to death so as not to offend someone else’s religious values.
And, Mr. Sibson, if a woman’s life is at stake – such as in a tubal pregnancy where both the fetus and the mother will die if the pregnancy is not terminated – what about the right of self-defense? If you can shoot and kill an intruder without due process – happens all the time – why should you need due process if having the baby is going to kill you? Just asking.
Also, Troy, if you persist in believing this is all about religious freedom, why is no one objecting to the standard insurance coverage for Viagra, Cialis, and other drugs for "erectile dysfunction"? The Catholic church, and others, oppose recreational, non-procreative sex, and yet that is exactly what these drugs are for. They have no medical function. Taking them is indeed a "lifestyle choice", and it doesn't seem to bother anybody that our tax-dollars may be paying for that choice.
I suppose what's considered moronic depends on whether or not the decision made means you get to live or die. For example, the Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix, said: "There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can't do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means." So let them both die. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072) Personally, I find this morally repugnant, but others may not...
Thx for the satori, Mr. Jones, be it ever so humble....second trimester: it's not just a good idea; it's the law.
Accidentally hit send.
Regarding Jehovah's witnesses, logically she is also really saying it is legitimate for the government to force one to do an act against their conscience. I guess she probably thinks it OK to force women to HAVE abortions like in Chna.
Her Amish argument is about taxes. This is not taxation (indirect and immaterial participation) vs. private expenditure (direct and 100% paying for it.
Her most honest statement is her view on government's right to impose on the people. She just doesn't have any civil liberty restraint (at least to the degree it conforms to her world view). Under our Constitution there are limits.
Her last comment about the other uses of them:. If that is her view, why does the bill have to allow it to be for birth control?
Finally comment:. This bill gives to middle class and upper class people an entitlement that will divert resources from the mission of the institution, whether it be student aid, caring for the sick, or meals at soup kitchen. Furthermore, if this order stands, the Catholic Church will get out of providing charity services for the poor. For 2,000 years it has had this teaching.
Eve's hatred of the poor so her more affluent "sisters" can get free birth control is obvious.
Just a little old historical patriot doing her job. :)
Santorum=Sandusky.
Amish argument:. That is about taxation. This is about imposing direct and material.
Jehovah's witness:. Eve's obviously thinks it is legitimate to impose conscience violations on people. The Shakers don't have to go to war. But, for Eve it appears to be licit to force women to HAVE abortions like in China.
If this isn't about paying for middle class birth control but about those other issues, limit to them.
ED mess can be used for licit reasons (procreation and the marital embrace). The Church does allow the pill to be used for medical reasons other than birth control.
Eve, as you said above I get you believe government has the right to force itself on the people with little regard to one's individual conscience which explains why you refuse to even consider this is a freedom issue. However, our Constitution protects the people from totalitarianism.
If you want birth control, I do not have the right to stop you from using it. I just wish you respected me enough not to force my Church to violate a teaching it has held since inception 2,000 years ago And divert resources from its missions (Soup kitchens, hospitals, colleges, etc.) so the more affluent can have free contraception.
You keep comparing having to pay for mess to prevent pregnancy with the threat of imminent death via bleeding. This logic equates all "danger" and leads to no limit on what the government can do to mitigate potential harm. We could have less crime if we allowed law enforcement to go in homes without warrants. Is this acceptable to you?
The Vatican is Switzerland for pedophiles: Charlie Chaput is just another hiding crimes against women and children under his habit.
Nationalize churches masquerading as charities.
Hutterians, FLDS, and the Roman Church are tax shelters: nothing more.
"Prez Obama's apology to Prez Karzai was appropriate demonstration of respect for Afghan people and their religious faith." Katrina vandenHeuvel †@KatrinaNation
Troy, you are making a great argument for Universal Health Coverage.
None of us employers should have to be in the Health Insurance business, nor should our employees have to be dependent on our moral code for their coverage. They, not we, are the ones paying the premium, afterall. I don't consider my employees' premiums to be "my money" and neither should the church.
If a person pays for health coverage, they HAVE paid for the health care benefits.
Thats the deal.
I don't understand why you are arguing otherwise.
ye, verily: mr. fleming....
p.s. Troy, I seriously doubt the Church is going to cease to be a charitable organization over this issue. If it does, then what is the Church anyway? And why in the world would you want to put a threat like that out there? It bolster your points or the Church's position one iota as far as I can tell.
"It DOESN'T bolster your points or the Church’s position one iota as far as I can tell." Sorry... have to remember to actually type the words I'm thinking...
LOL.
Pretty soon I'll have to make a claim for Alzheimers, I suppose... if I can just remember where I left my BlueCross/Blue Shield card.
Bill,
Good point. Logically my argument can be used for UHC or people to procure their own where different positions are arrived at because of personal values, knowledge and experience. Both respect individual freedom and conscience. This mandate disrespects both and belies an attitude the individual and their conscience belongs to the State.
I agree, Troy. It's a sticky wicket alright. Let's all keep our heads and figure it out.
Actually, as Cardinal George said, it will cease to provide health care, education, and soup kitchens to non-Catholics if this stands.
http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2012/0226/cardinal.aspx
Another is on the record he will go to jail but his Archdiocese will not cooperate with this and he will teach the American government is no longer legitimate thus allowing any form of civil disobedience licit, including violating laws like tax law.
Maybe for some free birth control is worth this tearing of our social fabric. But do not underestimate the consequences or actions of the Church or individual Catholics if this stands. More than withholding support for institutions that conform to this mandate, I for one am willing to follow my Bishop to jail.
Capitalist celibacy:
http://thenewyorkcrank.blogspot.com/2012/02/chastity-belt-manufacturers-association.html
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/804698/opus_dei_and_the_war_on_birth_control%3A_neofascism_within_the_catholic_church/
Troy, I am saying that once you allow the Catholic Church (or any church) to decree that what they oppose must be accommodated by all, you open the floodgates to other churches/religions/sects to demand - and get - accommodations for their religious beliefs regarding health and life. You have set precedent. This is dangerous. This is why we have a secular government. This is why the founding fathers enshrined separation of church and state.
I notice, too, that nobody seems to be bothered by the decree of the Roman Catholic Ethics Director for the diocese of AZ. Sigh.
Eve,
We have a Constitution to protect the civil liberties of the minority. But for a totalitarian who is willing to allow mob rule that means nothing. This is the French Revolution all over.
And all so some middle class people can get benefits from an organization whose secular mission is a preferential option for the poor. How you must hate the poor.
When you come for me, I will surrender in peace. But you will have to come for me and you have my prayers.
Just make it national health care insurance tax, and Troy will be fine with it.
Bill, I won't be fine with it. It still is a expense I think users should pay and in the scheme of things birth control pales against every other national priority and justice for the poor but you are correct the gravity making my very government illegitimate is mitigated.
"Can you imagine what would happen in this country if hundreds of Muslim imams were raping thousands of kids?" #catholicism Retweeted @drgrist.
Understood, Troy.
You and Steve are always in my prayers, Troy.
“If I wanted government in my womb I’d (boink) a Senator!â€
http://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/change-coming-or-they-say-oklahoma-if-i-wanted-government-my-womb-id-fck