NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: The Republican Party needs to get their heads screwed on straight about this, instead of kow-towing to their damned far right Fundamentalist base! It's been a long time since I read anything quite so illogical. :(


Disrespecting Women Soldiers (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/opinion/29sun2.html?th&emc=th)

Published: May 29, 2005
Showing bad timing as well as bad judgment, House Republicans chose the days before this weekend's patriotic holiday to deny needed health services to women serving the nation in the military.

On Tuesday, Republican leaders had the Rules Committee block the House from voting on two modest amendments to the military authorization bill that were intended to remove ideological barriers to providing decent care to military women who are victims of sexual assault. One amendment, offered by Representative Michael Michaud, a Maine Democrat, would have ensured that so-called morning-after emergency contraception, which can prevent pregnancy if taken within 120 hours of unprotected sex, was made available to sexual assault victims at military bases. The other, sponsored by Representatives Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Democrat of Florida, would have carved out a narrow exception to the ban on federal financing of abortions, for military women who have suffered rape or incest.

We understand why G.O.P. leaders wanted to prevent the House from voting on these measures: that would have required Republicans to go on record in favor of ill-treating female service members to placate their influential extreme-right wing.

On Wednesday, House members did vote on a perennial proposal, offered this time by three California Democrats, Representatives Susan Davis, Jane Harman and Loretta Sanchez, to permit American troops overseas and their relatives to obtain abortions at military hospitals and clinics if they pay the bills. Military doctors currently may perform abortions only in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is endangered. Even in cases of rape and incest, the women must pay. While women stationed in the United States who seek an abortion can at least go to public or private hospitals or clinics off the grounds of military bases, those options may not be available to many of the more than 100,000 American women living on overseas bases, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We ask women to put their lives at risk for our freedom, so why is it we do not support them when they require safe and legal medical services?" asked Representative Davis. That is the right question. Troubling figures released this month by the Pentagon show that the number of reported cases of sexual assault among service members continues to climb. Regrettably, this did not deter the House from defeating the amendment, 233 to 194.

Among those voting against it was Representative John McHugh, a New York Republican who, as chairman of a subcommittee looking into the military's sexual assault crisis, spoke only a year ago about the need to reassure women of Congress's "sincerity" in addressing the problem. House Republicans did back away from an effort to impose unwarranted new limits on women's service in combat support and service units. But that cannot reverse the hurtful message to female soldiers sent by the other votes. That task now falls to the Senate.

Take it with a pinch of salt. And porridge.

NOTE: The Republican Party needs to get their heads screwed on straight about this

They need to get their heads screwed on straight about a lot of things. That said, this is appalling... And disturbing.

They need to get their heads screwed on straight about a lot of things. That said, this is appalling... And disturbing.
It irritates the crap outta me! :mad:

It irritates the crap outta me! :mad:

Things like this used to irritate the utter fuck out of me. However, I've seen, heard, and read about so much similar bullshit that it really doesn't affect me in such a way these days.

NOTE: The Republican Party needs to get their heads screwed on straight about this, instead of kow-towing to their damned far right Fundamentalist base!
(snip).....
The other, sponsored by Representatives Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut.

First, you as a consumer have to put on your thinking cap and understand that this is first and foremost an opinion piece. Opinion meaning that it can be biased. From the simple quotes I provided it is demonstrated to be both inaccurate as well as biased. Additional bias is the one-sidedness of the story. There is no interview of a Republican to report their motivation, only conjecture. As a news consumer this should concern you, particularly from a news source as biased as this one.

Second, you may find this amazing, but the victims of violent crimes anywhere in the US are required to pay their own medical bills. They may sue in civil court for reimbursement or more, but the innitial treatment is their responsibility.

Third, if abortions were provided for free only to women who are victims of rape it is not hard to divine that rape rates would likely 'skyrocket' as women needing the service 'reassigned' the nature of their condition to take advantage of the free offer. It would waste considerable resources looking for phantom rapists as well as be a PR nightmare for so many 'unsolved' cases.

But then, it does kinda destroy this perfect opportunity for you to get all indignant. So, lets ust disregard critical thinking and run with the emotional nonsense - it is what liberals do best.

First, you as a consumer have to put on your thinking cap and understand that this is first and foremost an opinion piece.

Ah, so he's just a consumer, rather than a person, now?

I think the Republicans want less women in the armed forces, full stop.
Women have unique medical needs that don't apply to us males so the males in congress don't want to spend $$$ on women's health.

At what point, in a country where the freedom to swing your fists ends at the another persons nose, is it reasonable for politicians to interject themselves into the carefully considered medical decisions of disinterested third parties? Some stories only have one reasonable side.

I'd note that one of the benefits of the military, is medical, if they pick up the tab for births it only makes sense that they do so for abortions, in similar proportion.

I think you grossly over-estimate the willingness of women to file false police reports. No doubt a large number of false police reports are filed by women, but I somehow doubt a couple of hundred bucks is going have a great effect on that number. But even if your apocolyptic scenerio came to pass, it could have a strongly positive effect. This type of crime might be treated more seriously, putting careless and disturbed people in the kind of close contact with authority they so desperately need.

How about people live their own damn lives; after they're done with those, if they're still hanging around, we can look into letting them live someone elses on a provisional basis.

If an enemy soldier shoots me, the army will pay for my medical treatment, right? But if an enemy soldier...

Things like this used to irritate the utter fuck out of me. However, I've seen, heard, and read about so much similar bullshit that it really doesn't affect me in such a way these days.
Yeah, me either. But these are my sisters we're talking about here. :(

First, you as a consumer have to put on your thinking cap and understand that this is first and foremost an opinion piece. Opinion meaning that it can be biased. From the simple quotes I provided it is demonstrated to be both inaccurate as well as biased. Additional bias is the one-sidedness of the story. There is no interview of a Republican to report their motivation, only conjecture. As a news consumer this should concern you, particularly from a news source as biased as this one.

Second, you may find this amazing, but the victims of violent crimes anywhere in the US are required to pay their own medical bills. They may sue in civil court for reimbursement or more, but the innitial treatment is their responsibility.

Third, if abortions were provided for free only to women who are victims of rape it is not hard to divine that rape rates would likely 'skyrocket' as women needing the service 'reassigned' the nature of their condition to take advantage of the free offer. It would waste considerable resources looking for phantom rapists as well as be a PR nightmare for so many 'unsolved' cases.

But then, it does kinda destroy this perfect opportunity for you to get all indignant. So, lets ust disregard critical thinking and run with the emotional nonsense - it is what liberals do best.
Um ... did I understand you correctly? You're calling me a liberal? ROFLMAO!!!

Otherwise, a good post with some important things to consider. :)

Second, you may find this amazing, but the victims of violent crimes anywhere in the US are required to pay their own medical bills. They may sue in civil court for reimbursement or more, but the innitial treatment is their responsibility.

Third, if abortions were provided for free only to women who are victims of rape it is not hard to divine that rape rates would likely 'skyrocket' as women needing the service 'reassigned' the nature of their condition to take advantage of the free offer. It would waste considerable resources looking for phantom rapists as well as be a PR nightmare for so many 'unsolved' cases.

1. The military is required by law to provide medical care to it's members and their legal dependants.

2. A military member can get into serious trouble for getting medical care outside the military health care system.

3. The military should be allowed to perform abortions for military members and their dependants who are the victims of rape or incest.

Um ... did I understand you correctly? You're calling me a liberal? ROFLMAO!!!

Otherwise, a good post with some important things to consider. :)

If he's calling you a Liberal, then I'm Mao Ze Dong.

it is hard to balance out all your debts when you are a republican. you are promilitary but you cant be proabortion so you have to choose, do you support our women in the military or do you support your christian fundamentalists.

i guess they went where the money is. *sigh* i hate it when they make our soldiers lives harder for political reasons.

at least they backed off restricting women's jobs in combat zones. its a little late to tell women who have served in iraq for over a year that they are too delicate for the job they have been doing. (and it helps to have a female military vet on the armed services committee)

I don't want to pay for abortions. It's not like they're prohibitively expensive for soldiers anyway.

And why should they're status as victims matter? The position that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or insest is basically saying, "killing unborn children is murder, ...unless the father's an asshole."

/Credit to Doug Stanhope.

If he's calling you a Liberal, then I'm Mao Ze Dong.
*rereads bozzy's post*

nice to meet you mr mao.

(and it helps to have a female military vet on the armed services committee)

I wasn't aware of that. Who is she?

sorry to burst your little bubble but abortion is not a right

it is hard to balance out all your debts when you are a republican. you are promilitary but you cant be proabortion so you have to choose, do you support our women in the military or do you support your christian fundamentalists.

i guess they went where the money is. *sigh* i hate it when they make our soldiers lives harder for political reasons.

at least they backed off restricting women's jobs in combat zones. its a little late to tell women who have served in iraq for over a year that they are too delicate for the job they have been doing. (and it helps to have a female military vet on the armed services committee)
Who said I was a Republican? :)

I am deeply suspcious of all "ideological paradigms," especially when applied to politics. No philosophy or ideology that I'm aware of can anticipate every contingency or be sufficiently detailed to deal with the conflicts which inevitably arise in an ever more complex world. Committing yourself to one particular ideology severly limits your options, IMHO.

I should add that the Bush administration does give money to Planned Parenthood, the #1 abortion clinic chain in the US (and probably world), just like the previous administration did. Again, I don't want to pay for abortions.

sorry to burst your little bubble but abortion is not a right
I don't recall saying it was. What's upset me about this is the disparity of treatment. When the military hands out Viagra like candy, yet won't provide abortions for soldiers who are raped, something is out of kilter!

I don't want to pay for abortions. It's not like they're prohibitively expensive for soldiers anyway.

And why should they're status as victims matter? The position that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or insest is basically saying, "killing unborn children is murder, ...unless the father's an asshole."

/Credit to Doug Stanhope.

First, how much is an abortion? Secondly, do you have any idea of how much a soldier makes? Third, abortion is a medical procedure and a soldier can get into serious trouble seeking medical care outside the military system. Fourth, there are very few abortion clinics in such places as Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc.

Am I pro-abortion, definatly not. I am pro-life but allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest.

I don't recall saying it was. What's upset me about this is the disparity of treatment. When the military hands out Viagra like candy, yet won't provide abortions for soldiers who are raped, something is out of kilter!

Speaking of Viagra, it apparently makes some people go blind. Handy when you want be a soldier?

I wasn't aware of that. Who is she?
heather wilson R newmexico

she didnt even have to get it brought to a vote. she talked it around, made sure she would have had the votes and it was dropped as if it had never been seriously considered

sorry to burst your little bubble but abortion is not a right

sorry to burst your little bubble but ...

1. Whether abortion is or is not a right is not really relevant to the points raised by Eutrusca.

2. As a matter of law for the last 32 years in the US, it is a right. That is simply a fact. You may disagree about whether it should be a right, but it currently is.

3. Under the correct interpretation of US Constitution, it is a right. That is how it should be.

4. It is a moral right.

If you want to debate this further, start a separate thread.

Who said I was a Republican? :)

I am deeply suspcious of all "ideological paradigms," especially when applied to politics. No philosophy or ideology that I'm aware of can anticipate every contingency or be sufficiently detailed to deal with the conflicts which inevitably arise in an ever more complex world. Committing yourself to one particular ideology severly limits your options, IMHO.
oh im sorry. "you" didnt mean YOU. i wasnt implying anything about your politics or party affiliation. please excuse the confusion.

I should add that the Bush administration does give money to Planned Parenthood, the #1 abortion clinic chain in the US (and probably world), just like the previous administration did. Again, I don't want to pay for abortions.
The military providing abortions to soldiers who are raped would be a continuation of the free medical care we provide to all soldiers. I fail to see how that equates to any individual taxpayer "paying for abortions."

I have a personal aversion to abortion, but I can't come up with any practical way of prohibiting them without involving the pregnant female. Given that, how can we, in all good consience, not provide an abortion for a soldier who has been raped?

oh im sorry. "you" didnt mean YOU. i wasnt implying anything about your politics or party affiliation. please excuse the confusion.
LOL! S'ok. I said it a bit tongue-in-cheek. :)

But then, it does kinda destroy this perfect opportunity for you to get all indignant. So, lets ust disregard critical thinking and run with the emotional nonsense - it is what liberals do best.

Emotional nonsense, eh?

Seems to me that this post had enough vitriol in it to qualify as 'emotional' and your interpretation and extrapolations provide plenty of nonsense.

Sir, is that a log in your eye?

Speaking of Viagra, it apparently makes some people go blind. Handy when you want be a soldier?
So I've heard, as apparently does at least one of the other "erectile dysfuntion" drugs. 23 million men use Viagra; so far only 38 men have had partial blindness develop in one eye, and there is some evidence that those 38 may have developed the partial blindness even without taking the drug.

Most physicians don't recommend that Viagra users stop using the drug. As a matter of fact there is evidence that Viagra improves heart function. I don't see it as a major problem.

And to think they use to tell you that masturbation would make you go blind! :D

I don't recall saying it was. What's upset me about this is the disparity of treatment. When the military hands out Viagra like candy, yet won't provide abortions for soldiers who are raped, something is out of kilter!

*nods*

It makes me sick.

Enough said.

The military providing abortions to soldiers who are raped would be a continuation of the free medical care we provide to all soldiers. I fail to see how that equates to any individual taxpayer "paying for abortions."

I have a personal aversion to abortion, but I can't come up with any practical way of prohibiting them without involving the pregnant female. Given that, how can we, in all good consience, not provide an abortion for a soldier who has been raped?If I'm forced to pay taxes and those taxes are used to pay doctors to peform abortions, i'm paying for abortions. I oppose this, no matter what. I could not, in any good conscience, provide an abortion for a soldier whether she's been raped or not.

If I'm forced to pay taxes and those taxes are used to pay doctors to peform abortions, i'm paying for abortions. I oppose this, no matter what. I could not, in any good conscience, provide an abortion for a soldier whether she's been raped or not.
"That is most illogical." - Mr. Spock

sorry to burst your little bubble but abortion is not a right

Are any medical operations a right in the USA?

I'd assume it isn't since the health system isn't socialized.

If I'm forced to pay taxes and those taxes are used to pay doctors to peform abortions, i'm paying for abortions. I oppose this, no matter what. I could not, in any good conscience, provide an abortion for a soldier whether she's been raped or not.

I think everyone hates at least one tax-sponsored government program for whatever reason.

The question is, hate it or not, does the program have a definite factual benefit or are we objecting due to a moral issue or subjective opinion. Facts should outweigh opinion all the time.

Are any medical operations a right in the USA?

I'd assume it isn't since the health system isn't socialized.
In dear old North Carolina, many "public" hospitals ( as opposed to "privately owned" ) are prohibited by law from denying medical care to anyone who needs it regardless of ability to pay. This is one reason medical care is so expensive, the other being the damned lawyers encouraging what I consider to be frivilous lawsuits for medical procedures which go wrong.

I think everyone hates at least one tax-sponsored government program for whatever reason.

The question is, hate it or not, does the program have a definite factual benefit or are we objecting due to a moral issue or subjective opinion. Facts should outweigh opinion all the time.
As should logic outweigh illogic. High ideals, but all too seldom followed. :(

If I'm forced to pay taxes and those taxes are used to pay doctors to peform abortions, i'm paying for abortions. I oppose this, no matter what. I could not, in any good conscience, provide an abortion for a soldier whether she's been raped or not.
which is why the republicans nixed it, to satifsy cold uncaring people like YOU.

we arent talking about doctors performing abortions. we are talking about a woman who has just been raped, going to the doctors office for all the relevant tests that need to be performed for forensics and at the same time getting a pill to make sure that if "sperm met egg" it will not implant.

she is not pregnant. she has no way of knowing if conception occured or not. she just wants to make sure that if it did, the zygote becomes part of that 50% that never implant but just fall out of the system. no harm, no foul. just the ability to start coping with what happened to her without the addtional nightmare of being forced to bear a child from it.

NOTE: The Republican Party needs to get their heads screwed on straight about this, instead of kow-towing to their damned far right Fundamentalist base! It's been a long time since I read anything quite so illogical. :(


Disrespecting Women Soldiers (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/opinion/29sun2.html?th&emc=th)

Published: May 29, 2005
Showing bad timing as well as bad judgment, House Republicans chose the days before this weekend's patriotic holiday to deny needed health services to women serving the nation in the military.

On Tuesday, Republican leaders had the Rules Committee block the House from voting on two modest amendments to the military authorization bill that were intended to remove ideological barriers to providing decent care to military women who are victims of sexual assault. One amendment, offered by Representative Michael Michaud, a Maine Democrat, would have ensured that so-called morning-after emergency contraception, which can prevent pregnancy if taken within 120 hours of unprotected sex, was made available to sexual assault victims at military bases. The other, sponsored by Representatives Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Democrat of Florida, would have carved out a narrow exception to the ban on federal financing of abortions, for military women who have suffered rape or incest.

We understand why G.O.P. leaders wanted to prevent the House from voting on these measures: that would have required Republicans to go on record in favor of ill-treating female service members to placate their influential extreme-right wing.

On Wednesday, House members did vote on a perennial proposal, offered this time by three California Democrats, Representatives Susan Davis, Jane Harman and Loretta Sanchez, to permit American troops overseas and their relatives to obtain abortions at military hospitals and clinics if they pay the bills. Military doctors currently may perform abortions only in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is endangered. Even in cases of rape and incest, the women must pay. While women stationed in the United States who seek an abortion can at least go to public or private hospitals or clinics off the grounds of military bases, those options may not be available to many of the more than 100,000 American women living on overseas bases, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We ask women to put their lives at risk for our freedom, so why is it we do not support them when they require safe and legal medical services?" asked Representative Davis. That is the right question. Troubling figures released this month by the Pentagon show that the number of reported cases of sexual assault among service members continues to climb. Regrettably, this did not deter the House from defeating the amendment, 233 to 194.

Among those voting against it was Representative John McHugh, a New York Republican who, as chairman of a subcommittee looking into the military's sexual assault crisis, spoke only a year ago about the need to reassure women of Congress's "sincerity" in addressing the problem. House Republicans did back away from an effort to impose unwarranted new limits on women's service in combat support and service units. But that cannot reverse the hurtful message to female soldiers sent by the other votes. That task now falls to the Senate.

still you seem to be claiming abortion on demand is a constitutional right. It is not.
They have the morning after pill, let them use that.

sorry to burst your little bubble but abortion is not a right
Neither is forcing yourself on a woman and impregnating her and then having her forced to give birth to your child.

Neither is forcing yourself on a woman and impregnating her and then having her forced to give birth to your child.

Oh, good point.

Maybe the anti-abortionists should change their title to "pro-rapist" :p

Neither is forcing yourself on a woman and impregnating her and then having her forced to give birth to your child.
we have remedies for rape already. Though they need to be toughened to include the death penalty. it is not the child's fault what his father does.
You appear to be saying "If the child's father rapes me, then I going to kill the child for what his biological father did."
So the child is killed but the father, the person who did the rape, gets off scottfree.
Before you say anything, 2 months in prison is nothing but a slap on the wrist. It is the child you punishing for a crime he or she did not committ.

You ought to be killing for the death of the perpetrator, not the death of someone who was not voluntarily involved.

Oh, good point.

Maybe the anti-abortionists should change their title to "pro-rapist" :p
the rapists are not innocent but the children are.

still you seem to be claiming abortion on demand is a constitutional right. It is not.
They have the morning after pill, let them use that.

Whoa, there goes the point. Whitter has totally fumbled the catch.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE NOT PAYING FOR!

we have remedies for rape already. Though they need to be toughened to include the death penalty. it is not the child's fault what his father does.
You appear to be saying "If the child's father rapes me, then I going to kill the child for what his biological father did."
So the child is killed but the father, the person who did the rape, gets off scottfree.
Before you say anything, 2 months in prison is nothing but a slap on the wrist. It is the child you punishing for a crime he or she did not committ.

You ought to be killing for the death of the perpetrator, not the death of someone who was not voluntarily involved.


That can only be argued when you believe the premise that the child is an entity upon conception. I do not believe that and cannot be convinced otherwise, as I believe that you cannot be convinced away from your standpoint.

Whoa, there goes the point. Whitter has totally fumbled the catch.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE NOT PAYING FOR!
Then why doesn't it say birth control instead of abortion.

Nevermind I already know the answer. Cause most people still think the morning after is an abortion pill. Thing is its not. It prevents pregnancy by halting the process that (takes bout 48 hours to be exact) leads to conception.
If the egg and sperm have not fully merged, there is no human life, just two seperate cells.
Just because a sperm has entered the egg does not mean conception has ocurred. There is more to it than that.
I need to find that link again, but it takes at least 48 hours for the sperm to get to the egg, then (cause the egg is composed of a great labyrinth of mazes), once it enters the egg it takes at least 24 hours for it to find the egg's nucleus. And only when the spermatozoa finds the nucleus of the egg can fertilization take place.

From what I know bout how morning after works, it does not cause abortions. Hence, it should be fundable.

That can only be argued when you believe the premise that the child is an entity upon conception. I do not believe that and cannot be convinced otherwise, as I believe that you cannot be convinced away from your standpoint.
A given.
That is why taxpayers like me should not be forced to pay for abortions for anyone, cause it goes against our conscience.

I'm sorry. Can someone explain to me why soldiers (male, that is) that are defending freedom would need Viagra? :confused:

If they have heart conditions, would that then disqualify them from combat duty? If it is for erectile dysfunction (read: sex), I am so very sure that I would prefer that my tax dollars go to subsidizing an abortion for a female combatant (which they are whether they are on the front lines or not. If this war has driven home anything, it is that NO ONE, no matter what position you serve is safe) especially in the case of rape and NOT for providing a "knock 'em stiff" for a male combatant just so he can tell his buddies how many women he went through on leave. :mad:

we have remedies for rape already. Though they need to be toughened to include the death penalty. it is not the child's fault what his father does.
You appear to be saying "If the child's father rapes me, then I going to kill the child for what his biological father did."
So the child is killed but the father, the person who did the rape, gets off scottfree.
Before you say anything, 2 months in prison is nothing but a slap on the wrist. It is the child you punishing for a crime he or she did not committ.

You ought to be killing for the death of the perpetrator, not the death of someone who was not voluntarily involved.

Applying the death penalty to rape is stupid for a number of reasons, but that is a side point.

But you are advocating punishing the victim of the rape by forcing her to carry the rapist's child for nine months and give birth to the rapist's child.

Beyond the physical, emotional, and financial risks and costs inherent in pregnancy and childbirth and great personal burden of an entirely involuntary pregnancy, you are sentencing the victim to nine months of a second-by-second reminder of being horribly violated.

All to save a fertilized egg?

Morally reprehensible.

A given.
That is why taxpayers like me should not be forced to pay for abortions for anyone, cause it goes against our conscience.


That I cannot really take as an argument. That is the same as to say that only the supporters of the war on terror should foot the bill. Or that libertarians should be excempt from paying for the subsidicing of the american farmers.

I'm sorry. Can someone explain to me why soldiers (male, that is) that are defending freedom would need Viagra? :confused:


I think I'll add the "keeps the guards in rapin' condition" before someone less elegant gets the chance.

A given.
That is why taxpayers like me should not be forced to pay for abortions for anyone, cause it goes against our conscience.

Pffft.

So, I should not be required to pay taxes for anything to which I personally object? :rolleyes:

That some people object to something is not a sufficient reason in and of itself for it being wrong for the government to do. You have to have a reason why it is wrong.

A given.
That is why taxpayers like me should not be forced to pay for abortions for anyone, cause it goes against our conscience.

Hey, Whittier ole chum. See if you can tell me who said this:

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

EDIT

Oh lemme spoil the answer for all

http://www.bartleby.com/59/1/renderuntoca.html

Cause most people still think the morning after is an abortion pill. Thing is its not. It prevents pregnancy by halting the process that (takes bout 48 hours to be exact) leads to conception.
If the egg and sperm have not fully merged, there is no human life, just two seperate cells.
Just because a sperm has entered the egg does not mean conception has ocurred. There is more to it than that.
I need to find that link again, but it takes at least 48 hours for the sperm to get to the egg, then (cause the egg is composed of a great labyrinth of mazes), once it enters the egg it takes at least 24 hours for it to find the egg's nucleus. And only when the spermatozoa finds the nucleus of the egg can fertilization take place.

From what I know bout how morning after works, it does not cause abortions. Hence, it should be fundable.

Thank you very much. I did not know all that and it sure changes my mind about the "morning after" pill. For some reason I always thought the egg became fertilized as soon as the sperm entered it. This thing works similar to a birth control pill by preventing fertilization. Wow, cool.

Now the military will pay for birth control pills for military women and dependants, so why not the "morning after" pill in cases of rape or incest at the very least? Think I'll ask my Senator Dr. Tom Coburn (R OK) about this.

NOTE: The Republican Party needs to get their heads screwed on straight about this, instead of kow-towing to their damned far right Fundamentalist base! It's been a long time since I read anything quite so illogical. :(

Damnit, Eut .... will you run for Senate or something? You or Celtlund are probably the only Republicans I'd ever actually consider voting for.

I'm sorry. Can someone explain to me why soldiers (male, that is) that are defending freedom would need Viagra? :confused:


Because military members are recruited from the general population. Some members of the general population have erectile dysfunction. Many of these military members are married and would like to have sexual relations with their wife, so those who have erectile dysfunction are prescribed Viagra.

Viagra is not something that is put in a "You are going on leave and might get some kit."
:headbang:

we have remedies for rape already. Though they need to be toughened to include the death penalty. it is not the child's fault what his father does.
You appear to be saying "If the child's father rapes me, then I going to kill the child for what his biological father did."
So the child is killed but the father, the person who did the rape, gets off scottfree.
Before you say anything, 2 months in prison is nothing but a slap on the wrist. It is the child you punishing for a crime he or she did not committ.

You ought to be killing for the death of the perpetrator, not the death of someone who was not voluntarily involved.

Ah, but Whittier, you must remember: It's not a child yet, merely a fertilized egg. Wouldn't even have developed a working brain yet... And as someone already said, applying the death penalty for rape would be ineffably stupid...

Damnit, Eut .... will you run for Senate or something? You or Celtlund are probably the only Republicans I'd ever actually consider voting for.

Thank you Keru, but I will not seek office and if elected don't think I would serve. Getting to old for that and we already have to many old farts in Washington. I'll support Eut if he runs tough. :)

Thank you Keru, but I will not seek office and if elected don't think I would serve. Getting to old for that and we already have to many old farts in Washington. I'll support Eut if he runs tough. :)

Well then ... ok ...

If I drive, will you at least go up on capitol hill and slap the collective heads of knuckle for me? :D

Ah, but Whittier, you must remember: It's not a child yet, merely a fertilized egg. Wouldn't even have developed a working brain yet... And as someone already said, applying the death penalty for rape would be ineffably stupid...

At one time you could get the death penalty for rape. Don't know if the penalty was struck down by the Supreme Court or not.

Well then ... ok ...

If I drive, will you at least go up on capitol hill and slap the collective heads of knuckle for me? :D

Sure. :D

Sure. :D

Good ... cuz they don't take liberal hippie tree-hugger commies like me seriously.

Applying the death penalty to rape is stupid for a number of reasons, but that is a side point.

But you are advocating punishing the victim of the rape by forcing her to carry the rapist's child for nine months and give birth to the rapist's child.

Beyond the physical, emotional, and financial risks and costs inherent in pregnancy and childbirth and great personal burden of an entirely involuntary pregnancy, you are sentencing the victim to nine months of a second-by-second reminder of being horribly violated.

All to save a fertilized egg?

Morally reprehensible.
What is morally reprehensible is punishing a innocent child for the crimes of someone else. That is far worse than the woman carrying the child. Again, however, she still has the option of the morning after pill.
Abortion is never acceptable except under the most dire circumstances and this would not be one of them.

Ah, but Whittier, you must remember: It's not a child yet, merely a fertilized egg. Wouldn't even have developed a working brain yet... And as someone already said, applying the death penalty for rape would be ineffably stupid...
that is why we have the situation today. Children get executed while the rapists walk free. Anything short of execution, is not punishment, but a slap on the hand.

As for whether a fertizilized egg is a child, we are not going to convince each other. That is due to the limits of science. Science cannot tell us what constitutes being human. It can only tell us the egg belongs to species homo sapiens, not whether it has a personality or anything so such discussion is really mute.

What is morally reprehensible is punishing a innocent child for the crimes of someone else. That is far worse than the woman carrying the child. Again, however, she still has the option of the morning after pill.
Abortion is never acceptable except under the most dire circumstances and this would not be one of them.

except that what she is doing isnt punishing a child for the crimes of its father.

she is choosing to not continue a pregnancy (or in this case not to start one at all) at a time when the fetus is not a "child" or a "baby"

except that what she is doing isnt punishing a child for the crimes of its father.

she is choosing to not continue a pregnancy (or in this case not to start one at all) at a time when the fetus is not a "child" or a "baby"
but you don't really know that. There is no scientific evidence to back up claims of "it is a child" or "it is not a child".
You'll not sway me with emotions or religious arguments. Show me the science.

but you don't really know that. There is no scientific evidence to back up claims of "it is a child" or "it is not a child".
You'll not sway me with emotions or religious arguments. Show me the science.

You first. Since the majority of doctors and scientists believe the zygote is not a child, the burden of proof is on you, not us.

It's a moot point. There is no way to prove either case so there's no reason to judge a person wishing to choose either side and acting on it.

but you don't really know that. There is no scientific evidence to back up claims of "it is a child" or "it is not a child".
You'll not sway me with emotions or religious arguments. Show me the science.
i wasnt aware that "child" was a scientific concept

Thank you very much. I did not know all that and it sure changes my mind about the "morning after" pill. For some reason I always thought the egg became fertilized as soon as the sperm entered it. This thing works similar to a birth control pill by preventing fertilization. Wow, cool.

Now the military will pay for birth control pills for military women and dependants, so why not the "morning after" pill in cases of rape or incest at the very least? Think I'll ask my Senator Dr. Tom Coburn (R OK) about this.

Some links:
a paysite, don't know how much but its where I originally got the info from:
http://www.discover.com/issues/may-04/cover/?page=2

You first. Since the majority of doctors and scientists believe the zygote is not a child, the burden of proof is on you, not us.
that's not entirely accurate

that's not entirely accurate
Why?

Why?
because as stated earlier, by some one else, there is no scientific way to determine if a fertilized egg is a child or not. It's all based on religious convictions or emotions.

because as stated earlier, by some one else, there is no scientific way to determine if a fertilized egg is a child or not. It's all based on religious convictions or emotions.
dont try bouncing on your knee

dont try bouncing on your knee
just noting with the proabortionist claiming science is on their side that science can't tell us when a fetus becomes a person. You've seen the argument often enough "Doctors say they're people or some such". The doctor's saying those things are expressing opinions and not facts.

You had the right frame of thinking with your question.

That's why I said believed rather than proved.

The large majority of people don't want their tax dollars paying for abortions, period. Abortions due to carelessness, abortions due to rape, makes no difference. They simply don't want their dollar paying for it. Same goes for most liberals not wanting christmas cards or christmas caroles sung in schools.. they may not be anti-christmas, but don't want to foot the bill. Seems simple to me.

Put it this way: A Woman Soldier is raped. She is denyed a morning after pill. She gets pregnant. She is denyed abortion. Do you really want a pregnant woman, and later, a newborn in that situation. Don't be stupid, of course you wouldn't.

Put it this way: A Woman Soldier is raped. She is denyed a morning after pill. She gets pregnant. She is denyed abortion. Do you really want a pregnant woman, and later, a newborn in that situation. Don't be stupid, of course you wouldn't.
abortion is a far worse crime. If they don't give her morning after, she should sue them, not kill the child.

*pokes out tounge* You missed off the 'In your opinion'.

The large majority of people don't want their tax dollars paying for abortions, period.

Newsflash: Tax dollars do not now, nor have they ever, paid for abortions.

Newsflash: Tax dollars do not now, nor have they ever, paid for abortions.
under Clinton and Bush 1 they did.

under Clinton and Bush 1 they did.

Proof please.

Newsflash: Tax dollars do not now, nor have they ever, paid for abortions.

They don't nowadays, I know. Most people want to keep it that way. That's what I said.

just noting with the proabortionist claiming science is on their side that science can't tell us when a fetus becomes a person. You've seen the argument often enough "Doctors say they're people or some such". The doctor's saying those things are expressing opinions and not facts.

You had the right frame of thinking with your question.
thats why person (child and baby) is a legal definition and a very thorny one at that. so much of what defines the beginning of "person" can be used against us at the other end.

but you don't really know that. There is no scientific evidence to back up claims of "it is a child" or "it is not a child".
You'll not sway me with emotions or religious arguments. Show me the science.
This isn't going to be an emotional argument, but rather a series of questions for you, Whittier, with a buildup to the final question.

I assume from reading your comments that you believe that conception is the beginning of life, yes? If that's not true then please correct me. Are you aware that 10% to 15% of all women miscarry (http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/wha/wha_miscar_crs.htm), some before they even realize they're pregnant? Ectopic pregnancies are rarer--it involves a blastocyst that implants in the Fallopian tubes instead of the uterus and will not only never develop fully, but will kill the mother if not treated. So are those blastocysts alive?

Now remember, a miscarriage is defined as a spontaneous abortion before the twentieth week. Most abortions performed medically--the overwhelming majority, in fact--are performed before the 14th week, and if it's close, a lot of doctors won't perform them.

So why is it immoral for a doctor to perform a procedure that nature performs all the time? Remember--we're talking about 10 to 15% of pregnancies, and we haven't even mentioned the blastocysts that don't implant in the first place and are washed away during a woman's period.

Here's my overall point--scientifically speaking, there's an awful lot of work that goes into making a blastocyst--a fertilized ovum--into a fetus and from fetus into living human child. To argue that it's a child that early in the process, in the blastocyst phase, doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

thats why person (child and baby) is a legal definition and a very thorny one at that. so much of what defines the beginning of "person" can be used against us at the other end.
that's why the courts ruled that one guy could kill his. Cause their logic was that in their opinion, she wasn't a person.

that's why the courts ruled that one guy could kill his. Cause their logic was that in their opinion, she wasn't a person.
welll no
that was because she was unconscious and he was her husband, legal guardian, and the one who made her medical decisions.

This isn't going to be an emotional argument, but rather a series of questions for you, Whittier, with a buildup to the final question.

I assume from reading your comments that you believe that conception is the beginning of life, yes? If that's not true then please correct me. Are you aware that 10% to 15% of all women miscarry (http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/wha/wha_miscar_crs.htm), some before they even realize they're pregnant? Ectopic pregnancies are rarer--it involves a blastocyst that implants in the Fallopian tubes instead of the uterus and will not only never develop fully, but will kill the mother if not treated. So are those blastocysts alive?

Now remember, a miscarriage is defined as a spontaneous abortion before the twentieth week. Most abortions performed medically--the overwhelming majority, in fact--are performed before the 14th week, and if it's close, a lot of doctors won't perform them.

So why is it immoral for a doctor to perform a procedure that nature performs all the time? Remember--we're talking about 10 to 15% of pregnancies, and we haven't even mentioned the blastocysts that don't implant in the first place and are washed away during a woman's period.

Here's my overall point--scientifically speaking, there's an awful lot of work that goes into making a blastocyst--a fertilized ovum--into a fetus and from fetus into living human child. To argue that it's a child that early in the process, in the blastocyst phase, doesn't make an awful lot of sense.

I don't think he was arguing it was a child. He was asking for proof from both sides for their positions.

welll no
that was because she was unconscious and he was her husband, legal guardian, and the one who made her medical decisions.
the conflict was whether she was a person or not. the side that support her death, said she was not a person.

I personally do not like the idea of abortion, however i do beleive that it is your choice. THe idea that someone in the military could rape me and i would then have to pay (figurativly and literally) so i don't have a baby which was forced on me...i really don't like this. until this is changed there is no way i am ever going into the military.

the conflict was whether she was a person or not. the side that support her death, said she was not a person.
while some may have said that, the legal decision was based on the husbands right to refuse medical treatment on her behalf. the court did not rule that she wasnt a person.

I personally do not like the idea of abortion, however i do beleive that it is your choice. THe idea that someone in the military could rape me and i would then have to pay (figurativly and literally) so i don't have a baby which was forced on me...i really don't like this. until this is changed there is no way i am ever going into the military.

It won't be. The average citizen doesn't care if you have an abortion, but few want their tax dollar paying for it. Women in the military are free to go to a normal non-government-funded clinic any time.

It won't be. The average citizen doesn't care if you have an abortion, but few want their tax dollar paying for it. Women in the military are free to go to a normal non-government-funded clinic any time.
you mean the one in downtown baghdad??

It won't be. The average citizen doesn't care if you have an abortion, but few want their tax dollar paying for it. Women in the military are free to go to a normal non-government-funded clinic any time.

I am sure the average citizien would prefer not to pay for taxes at all, but that is not really a viable option is it? As a point of fact I don't want my tax money to pay for any millitary operations but that is not my choice is it? In so far as I know abortion is legal, it's a right, it's a medical procedure and there is no reason why that should be be devoid of tax money.

I am sure the average citizien would prefer not to pay for taxes at all, but that is not really a viable option is it? As a point of fact I don't want my tax money to pay for any millitary operations but that is not my choice is it? In so far as I know abortion is legal, it's a right, it's a medical procedure and there is no reason why that should be be devoid of tax money.
baby killing is not a right!!! :mad:

baby killing is not a right!!! :mad:

THat is great that you think so, that is why I don't want my money to pay for the millitary.....

baby killing is not a right!!! :mad:

Actually I quite agree with you but whether the fertilized egg is a baby is debatable, children that die as a result of war are not debatable.

but you don't really know that. There is no scientific evidence to back up claims of "it is a child" or "it is not a child".
You'll not sway me with emotions or religious arguments. Show me the science.
Just trying to cover up for your pro abortion views eh? That's what I call fence sitting.

Well, I know its a child cause the bible says so.

you mean the one in downtown baghdad??

Military doctors perform abortions in cases of emergency, rape or incest. I don't see a problem with providing emergency contraception, but not discretionary abortion as long as I'm paying for it.

Just trying to cover up for your pro abortion views eh?

Well, I know its a child cause the bible says so.

The bible also says women should be slaves to man

I am sure the average citizien would prefer not to pay for taxes at all, but that is not really a viable option is it? As a point of fact I don't want my tax money to pay for any millitary operations but that is not my choice is it? In so far as I know abortion is legal, it's a right, it's a medical procedure and there is no reason why that should be be devoid of tax money.

Maybe you should've watched the second presidential debate. This issue was explicitly discussed, and Bush's promise, should he be re-elected, was not to allow tax dollars to fund abortion. So you did have a choice - vote for someone else.

The bible also says women should be slaves to man
that is God's will for them. This whole world is going to hell cause it doesn't follow the bible to the letter.

Military doctors perform abortions in cases of emergency, rape or incest. I don't see a problem with providing emergency contraception, but not discretionary abortion as long as I'm paying for it.
oohhhhh
well then i think you should read the thread before you comment as that is in essence what we are talking about.

that is God's will for them. This whole world is going to hell cause it doesn't follow the bible to the letter.

You should visit the middle east and see what happens when the bible is followed to the letter.

oohhhhh
well then i think you should read the thread before you comment as that is in essence what we are talking about.

I have read the thread. Two amendments failed. One half was emergency contraception, the other half abortion.

You should visit the middle east and see what happens when the bible is followed to the letter.
the middle east? they're all going to hell cause they don't follow the Bible and they are following the antichrist Bush.

the conflict was whether she was a person or not. the side that support her death, said she was not a person.

:headbang:

wrong. wrong. wrong. wrong.

This was never an issue in the case whatsoever.

Ms. Schiavo was allowed to die because it was determined that it was her right not to be forcibly kept alive against her wishes.

You will find evidence of this -- lengthy quotes from the actual court opinions and links to the court opinions at this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8520404&postcount=404) and this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8541184&postcount=591).

And before anyone disagrees with my explanation -- you had better read at least one of those posts and the evidence of the actual court opinions first. Disagree with whether those were good grounds for allowing her to die is one thing. But that was the rationale.

If you'd like to start a separate thread about Terri Schiavo, feel free. But please don't. Just drop it.

the middle east? they're all going to hell cause they don't follow the Bible and they are following the antichrist Bush.

You are hilarious. But you are joking, aren't you?

that is God's will for them. This whole world is going to hell cause it doesn't follow the bible to the letter.

Then we should all praise the saintly doctors that perform abortions and mothers that get them.

Those aborted zygotes get to go to heaven and not go to hell with the rest of the world. Hallaluha!!

Right?

I have read the thread. Two amendments failed. One half was emergency contraception, the other half abortion.

and what part of this doesnt meet with your understanding of an emergency?
One amendment, offered by Representative Michael Michaud, a Maine Democrat, would have ensured that so-called morning-after emergency contraception, which can prevent pregnancy if taken within 120 hours of unprotected sex, was made available to sexual assault victims at military bases. The other, sponsored by Representatives Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Democrat of Florida, would have carved out a narrow exception to the ban on federal financing of abortions, for military women who have suffered rape or incest.

You are hilarious. But you are joking, aren't you?
joking?
bout Bush being the antichrist? hell, no. I know it for a fact cause he doesn't rule according to the bible like he is supposed to. He puts money before God.

The middle east? They all follow a false religion started by a false prophet who main motive was to make a profit.

Those who put money first are going to hell. Those who support Bush are going to hell. Everyone who supports abortion is going to hell.

and what part of this doesnt meet with your understanding of an emergency?

I think we have a misunderstanding of terminology. I have no problem with emergency contraception, i.e. the "morning after" pill, as it's essentially just a hyper-dose of regular birth control formula. Abortion isn't emergency contraception. Contraception means "against conception." An abortion occurs well after the baby has been conceived.

In your opinion.

^EDIT: To Achuella

Well, I know its a child cause the bible says so.

Ah, but the bible also says that Adam wasn't alive until God breathed Life into his lungs, so... Yeah.

joking?
bout Bush being the antichrist? hell, no. I know it for a fact cause he doesn't rule according to the bible like he is supposed to.
But guess what? The US is supposed to be ruled according to the Constitution, not the Bible. You know, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and all that?

But guess what? The US is supposed to be ruled according to the Constitution, not the Bible. You know, freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and all that?
Those nations that don't live according to the Bible shall be crushed under the feet of the Lord's servants.

The state belongs to God and should governed by his laws.

I think we have a misunderstanding of terminology. I have no problem with emergency contraception, i.e. the "morning after" pill, as it's essentially just a hyper-dose of regular birth control formula. Abortion isn't emergency contraception. Contraception means "against conception." An abortion occurs well after the baby has been conceived.

oh you threw me off with this


Military doctors perform abortions in cases of emergency, rape or incest. I don't see a problem with providing emergency contraception, but not discretionary abortion as long as I'm paying for it.

The middle east? They all follow a false religion started by a false prophet who main motive was to make a profit.



Ummm ... you do realise that Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion, right? Or do you think Jerusalem is in Kansas ...

sorry to burst your little bubble but abortion is not a right
sorry to burst your bubble but it is.
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

Those nations that don't live according to the Bible shall be crushed under the feet of the Lord's servants.

The state belongs to God and should governed by his laws.
Oh, so you're a theonomist, are you?

Well, you can hold your view on how America should be ruled, but the Constitution says "No". And the Constitution is the law of the land. If God doesn't like it, he can come tell us about it, but until we see a proof of God's existance and a proof that God wants a theonomist state, it's not gonna fly, luckily.

Ummm ... you do realise that Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion, right? Or do you think Jerusalem is in Kansas ...
that's why they're all going to hell for shunning it. They had their chance and they all rejected it.

Those nations that don't live according to the Bible shall be crushed under the feet of the Lord's servants.

The state belongs to God and should governed by his laws.

i blame this on jesussaves.

you need to study up a bit before you can reach his level of humor. this just isnt working.

Guys don't get to have an abortion when they get raped while they are in the military. (it's a stupid statement, but it makes sense if you read it right).

It has to do with equal rights between men and women.

Most republicans are pro-life anyways. We don't believe in that left-wing hippie crap.

Oh, so you're a theonomist, are you?

Well, you can hold your view on how America should be ruled, but the Constitution says "No". And the Constitution is the law of the land. If God doesn't like it, he can come tell us about it, but until we see a proof of God's existance and a proof that God wants a theonomist state, it's not gonna fly, luckily.
the constitution is an invalid scrap of shitpaper. It goes against the Bible. The bible is legit and the constitution isn't.

Guys don't get to have an abortion when they get raped while they are in the military. (it's a stupid statement, but it makes sense if you read it right).

It has to do with equal rights between men and women.

Most republicans are pro-life anyways. We don't believe in that left-wing hippie crap.
but still, Republicans go against the Bible. You and your anti christ leader Bush. I know you real intentions. You seek to force everyone to worship the beast and the false prophet. But it won't work. You see I'm locked in my basement with my shotgun waiting for the world to end day after tommorrow.

but still, Republicans go against the Bible. You and your anti christ leader Bush. I know you real intentions. You seek to force everyone to worship the beast and the false prophet. But it won't work. You see I'm locked in my basement with my shotgun waiting for the world to end day after tommorrow.

Haha, nice. You probably had some people going for a while there. ;)

Haha, nice. You probably had some people going for a while there. ;)
Your mocking me aint ya. Your in league with the anti christ.
Your all in league with the anti christ.

Well, you ain't taking me alive. I got me shotgun, some Ak 47's and enough ammo to last a month.

Guys don't get to have an abortion when they get raped while they are in the military. (it's a stupid statement, but it makes sense if you read it right).

It has to do with equal rights between men and women.

Most republicans are pro-life anyways. We don't believe in that left-wing hippie crap.
yes but arent republicans pro military and dont they support our fighting men and women and isnt it a bit sickening to expect a woman, ready to die for us in iraq, to be forced to carry the child of her rapist?

Your mocking me aint ya. Your in league with the anti christ.
Your all in league with the anti christ.

Well, you ain't taking me alive. I got me shotgun, some Ak 47's and enough ammo to last a month.
this just isnt working

trust me on this one

bad schtick badly done, BEEN DONE, been done much better.

ditch this puppet and start again with a different persona.

Haha, nice. You probably had some people going for a while there. ;)
Yeah, I got fooled there...
*facepalms*

yes but arent republicans pro military and dont they support our fighting men and women and isnt it a bit sickening to expect a woman, ready to die for us in iraq, to be forced to carry the child of her rapist?

No one's debating that. Military doctors are instructed to carry out abortions in cases of rape, incest, and emergency, like the article said.

abortion is a far worse crime. If they don't give her morning after, she should sue them, not kill the child.
abortion is a crime? did the supreme court reverse its decision overnight or did i suddenly develop dyslexia?

abortion is a crime? did the supreme court reverse its decision overnight or did i suddenly develop dyslexia?
he's a hypocrite can't you see? He claims to oppose abortion then he supports pills that cause abortion.
Anyone with a brain can see through the hypocrisy.

the constitution is an invalid scrap of shitpaper. It goes against the Bible. The bible is legit and the constitution isn't.

The US constitution is the document that forms the basis of our laws.Quoting scripture won't make it invalid.Disagreeing with it won't make it invalid.And in the United States, the constitution is what gives you the right to disagree and verbalize it, without fear of legal reprisal. :)

The bible is for believers in the Abrahamic religions.It can not be taken literally, for then the inconsistencies and errors become obvious.It was written in an allegorical and fabled manner to teach spiritual and psychological truths. It is best interpreted with current human conditions in mind.To read into its stories an absolute, inerrant, historical and prophetic truth is to invite doubt and disaster to your faith. :D

Lawmakers that will cover Viagra are proving themselves misogynists by not covering abortion. ;)

At least read the whole topic, would'ya?

EDIT: To thingumy at the bottom of the last page that hasn't read the whole topic.

Guys don't get to have an abortion when they get raped while they are in the military. (it's a stupid statement, but it makes sense if you read it right).

It has to do with equal rights between men and women.

Most republicans are pro-life anyways. We don't believe in that left-wing hippie crap.
No, but I bet if men could get pregnant, abortion would not only be legal, it would be covered under a universal health care program.

that's why they're all going to hell for shunning it. They had their chance and they all rejected it.

So there are absolutely no Christians in the Middle East? Wow ... must be paradise.

To Achuelia:

you can take your ignorance and your anti americanism and you can kmaa.

(I think I should use that in my sig. )

So there are absolutely no Christians in the Middle East? Wow ... must be paradise.
the guy's an obvious, (is idiot too strong a word?), doesn't know what the heck he is talking bout.
Course there are plenty of christians in the middle east.

Re: "I don't want to pay for it!"

And? Plenty of people don't want any kind of government subsidy going to religions organizations. Some people don't believe the US should have armed forces of any kind. Others don't believe in paying for the enforcement of drug laws. Still more are suspicious of the CIA. And hard core Libertarians are against goverment works in general (everything from roads to satellites). They don't get what they want, and you wouldn't want to give it to them. Why is your moral convienence so much more important than that of everyone else?

When I can make your medical decisions (and here's a preview, administer an overdose of secobarbital, donate body to science) then you'll have some basis for making them for other people. At least Christians have changed their tune recently. There was a time when they would have wanted all surgery illegal as it was a violation of the body, the sacred vessel of the soul. But I guess when it's another person's life on the line, compassion isn't the strong suit of their religion.

the guy's an obvious, (is idiot too strong a word?), doesn't know what the heck he is talking bout.
Course there are plenty of christians in the middle east.
alright i have to stop this. hes joking you idiots (yes he tricked you, making YOU the idiot.)

Why don’t republicans learn how to read. That way when an issue is put before them they can find out what’s going on, rather than just looking at what political party says about it. Republicans vote straight party without exception. My senator Sessions (alabama) did not even read the patriot act and voted for it and defended its right wing ways but accounting the rumors to be nothing more than "Woodstock myths". If politicians were more centralistic especially in war time we would all be better off.

Why don’t republicans learn how to read. That way when an issue is put before them they can find out what’s going on, rather than just looking at what political party says about it. Republicans vote straight party without exception. My senator Sessions (alabama) did not even read the patriot act and voted for it and defended its right wing ways but accounting the rumors to be nothing more than "Woodstock myths". If politicians were more centralistic especially in war time we would all be better off.
Way to stereotype :rolleyes:

Guys don't get to have an abortion when they get raped while they are in the military. (it's a stupid statement, but it makes sense if you read it right).

It has to do with equal rights between men and women.

Most republicans are pro-life anyways. We don't believe in that left-wing hippie crap.
Biological differences are a bitch aren’t they, Unless you can figure out how to erase the biological differences out there we have to have some compensation in care the sexes require

It won't be. The average citizen doesn't care if you have an abortion, but few want their tax dollar paying for it. Women in the military are free to go to a normal non-government-funded clinic any time.

This is not true. First of all a military member can get into a lot of trouble for seeking medical help outside the military system unless it is an emergency. Secondly, in many places military members are stationed there is no other place to go. Middle East for example.

Military doctors perform abortions in cases of emergency, rape or incest.

No, they do not. With the possible exception of an emergency, they are forbidden to perform an abortion even for rape or incest. Besides, the original post was talking about the "morning after pill" and only in cases of rape or incest, which is a lot different from an abortion
Now, for those of you who are worried about your tax dollars; if the military member is not allowed to take the morning after pill, your tax dollars will have to pay for the woman's medical care while she is pregnant, your tax dollars will have to pay for the child's medical care as long as the woman remains in the service, and your tax dollars will have to pay for increased housing benefits for the woman for as long as she remains in the service or until the child reaches the age of 18. So, what exactly is your objection to giving a pill to a woman who is the victim of a crime, a pill that will prevent the egg in her body from becoming fertilized? Hey, it isn't conception until that egg is fertilized and it isn’t abortion until after conception.

Those nations that don't live according to the Bible shall be crushed under the feet of the Lord's servants.

The state belongs to God and should governed by his laws.

Are you refering to the Bible or the Koran? In either case, chaper and verse please for this.

Ummm ... you do realise that Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion, right? Or do you think Jerusalem is in Kansas ...

ROFL. That's great Ker, simply great. :)

we have remedies for rape already. Though they need to be toughened to include the death penalty. it is not the child's fault what his father does.
You appear to be saying "If the child's father rapes me, then I going to kill the child for what his biological father did."
So the child is killed but the father, the person who did the rape, gets off scottfree.
Before you say anything, 2 months in prison is nothing but a slap on the wrist. It is the child you punishing for a crime he or she did not committ.

You ought to be killing for the death of the perpetrator, not the death of someone who was not voluntarily involved.
Actually, the maximum penalty for rape under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is death. To my knowledge, nobody's been executed for rape under UCMJ in my lifetime. I'm absolutely certain that most rapes that occur in the military go unpunished.

My senator Sessions (alabama) did not even read the patriot act and voted for it and defended its right wing ways but accounting the rumors to be nothing more than "Woodstock myths". If politicians were more centralistic especially in war time we would all be better off.

Senators and Congressmen of both parties do not read the bills they are voting on as the bills contain a lot of pages and they don't have the time to read them all. I guess the "responsibe" ones get a good briefing from their staff on what's in the bill. :(

So there are absolutely no Christians in the Middle East? Wow ... must be paradise.
Well there certainly are Christians in the middle east but there are definately the minority. And I should not have to tell you that it is not paradise, except for Dubai.

Then we should all praise the saintly doctors that perform abortions and mothers that get them.

Those aborted zygotes get to go to heaven and not go to hell with the rest of the world. Hallaluha!!

Right?

Actually, as they are unbabtized, they will end in Limbo

Senators and Congressmen of both parties do not read the bills they are voting on as the bills contain a lot of pages and they don't have the time to read them all. I guess the "responsibe" ones get a good briefing from their staff on what's in the bill. :(
that is true. but i think they should atleast skim the important ones.

A given.
That is why taxpayers like me should not be forced to pay for abortions for anyone, cause it goes against our conscience.

How can you possibly use an argument like this???? If we use your logic then taxpayers who are pacifists should not be forced to pay for the military because it utilises weapons and violence.

Actually, as they are unbabtized, they will end in Limbo
no. they go to the good part of hell with the castle where you get to play chess. (according to Dante i think). like the Jews before Jesus was born.

no. they go to the good part of hell with the castle where you get to play chess. (according to Dante i think). like the Jews before Jesus was born.


Which is called Limbo

Limbo


The concept of Limbo--a region on the edge of hell (limbus means "hem" or "border") for those who are not saved even though they did not sin--exists in Christian theology by Dante's time, but the poet's version of this region is more generous than most.

Linky (http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/utopia/circle1.html)

Since unborn or newborn babies are without sin, the they go to Limbo if they die before they are babtized.

But enough thread hijacking here, let's get back to the subject :)

Which is called Limbo



Linky (http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/utopia/circle1.html)

Since unborn or newborn babies are without sin, the they go to Limbo if they die before they are babtized.

But enough thread hijacking here, let's get back to the subject :)
my bad, but their is a castle and they do play chess... i think.

Which is called Limbo



Linky (http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/utopia/circle1.html)

Since unborn or newborn babies are without sin, the they go to Limbo if they die before they are babtized.

But enough thread hijacking here, let's get back to the subject :)

Wasnt that done away with in Vatican 2 along with eating meat on Friday during lent(or other specific religious event which I cant remember) being a mortal sin?

How can you possibly use an argument like this???? If we use your logic then taxpayers who are pacifists should not be forced to pay for the military because it utilises weapons and violence.
religious freedom. Abortions aren't done in the name of national defense. Wars are.

religious freedom. Abortions aren't done in the name of national defense. Wars are.
The current war has about as much to do with national defense as the christian right in the US has to do with the teachings of Christ--nothing.

The current war has about as much to do with national defense as the christian right in the US has to do with the teachings of Christ--nothing.
And you would know what about the teachings of Christ? That you would condemn a whole group of people.

we have remedies for rape already. Though they need to be toughened to include the death penalty. it is not the child's fault what his father does.
You appear to be saying "If the child's father rapes me, then I going to kill the child for what his biological father did."
So the child is killed but the father, the person who did the rape, gets off scottfree.
Before you say anything, 2 months in prison is nothing but a slap on the wrist. It is the child you punishing for a crime he or she did not committ.

You ought to be killing for the death of the perpetrator, not the death of someone who was not voluntarily involved.


Certainly, the child cannot be held responsible for the fathers actions. But what really is a child? And embryo or fetus, which does not think, simply is a pile of flesh inside the mother. You might argue that it is still a potential child, but let me remind you of something. The end function of everything in the body is to do one of two things: keep the brain alive, and reproduce. It's the reason we breathe, it's the reason we eat, it's the reason we have skin, to keep the brain alive. The only organs which don't do this are the reproductive organs. Clearly, we aren't going to say that we should define humans on whether or not they reproduce, because then we could go around killing impotent people at random. So the only thing we can logically base it on is the brain functioning. Because the embryo/fetus does not have a brain at this point, it may have organs and bones, but they do not achieve a goal. Now, if you say that you agree with me, and that someone is not a person without a brain, then these brainless embryos are indeed just hunks of flesh, and hunks of flesh have no rights. Now, if you say that people are people even without a brain, look at it this way. Because there is no brain, the organs really do not acheieve a goal, or do anything besides support themselves. They may as aswell not even be there. So, by that logic, every egg and sperm is a human being. Now, that means that the only way to prevent the destruction of human beings, is to extract the egg from every female before they have their period, and inject them with a single sperm, because sex the natural way, causes millions of needless deaths.

Certainly, the child cannot be held responsible for the fathers actions. But what really is a child? And embryo or fetus, which does not think, simply is a pile of flesh inside the mother. You might argue that it is still a potential child, but let me remind you of something. The end function of everything in the body is to do one of two things: keep the brain alive, and reproduce. It's the reason we breathe, it's the reason we eat, it's the reason we have skin, to keep the brain alive. The only organs which don't do this are the reproductive organs. Clearly, we aren't going to say that we should define humans on whether or not they reproduce, because then we could go around killing impotent people at random. So the only thing we can logically base it on is the brain functioning. Because the embryo/fetus does not have a brain at this point, it may have organs and bones, but they do not achieve a goal. Now, if you say that you agree with me, and that someone is not a person without a brain, then these brainless embryos are indeed just hunks of flesh, and hunks of flesh have no rights. Now, if you say that people are people even without a brain, look at it this way. Because there is no brain, the organs really do not acheieve a goal, or do anything besides support themselves. They may as aswell not even be there. So, by that logic, every egg and sperm is a human being. Now, that means that the only way to prevent the destruction of human beings, is to extract the egg from every female before they have their period, and inject them with a single sperm, because sex the natural way, causes millions of needless deaths.

That's why the gov. should fund and mandate the use of birthcontrol. No conception, no abortion. You mandate and fund birthcontrol you end all abortion. End abortion and you end baby killing.

That's why the gov. should fund and mandate the use of birthcontrol. No conception, no abortion. You mandate and fund birthcontrol you end all abortion. End abortion and you end baby killing.


Yes, because Rape doesn't exist, and contraception never fails. Ever.

Yes, because Rape doesn't exist, and contraception never fails. Ever.
If we had the death penalty for rape there would not be rape. People do it cause they know society will let them off. If you kill a few of them, that'll send a message to the rest of them.

And you would know what about the teachings of Christ? That you would condemn a whole group of people.
Oh, I know enough about the teachings of Christ that he wasn't very fond of hypocrites--offspring of vipers, I believe he called them. And that's precisely what the people who call themselves conservative christians in the US is made up of--hypocrites. They're so busy condemning everyone else as sinners that they forget that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. They're so busy condemning gays and anyone who doesn't follow their own narrow view of christianity that they forget that Christ's first commandment was to love--no exceptions. If you're really a christian, then you don't get to hate someone because they're a different race, or a different religion or of a different sexual persuasion. But today's christian conservatives don't get that. AFA, Focus on the Family, anyone remotely connected to Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc., they're all hypocrites, and I do condemn them as such.

Oh, I know enough about the teachings of Christ that he wasn't very fond of hypocrites--offspring of vipers, I believe he called them. And that's precisely what the people who call themselves conservative christians in the US is made up of--hypocrites. They're so busy condemning everyone else as sinners that they forget that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. They're so busy condemning gays and anyone who doesn't follow their own narrow view of christianity that they forget that Christ's first commandment was to love--no exceptions. If you're really a christian, then you don't get to hate someone because they're a different race, or a different religion or of a different sexual persuasion. But today's christian conservatives don't get that. AFA, Focus on the Family, anyone remotely connected to Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc., they're all hypocrites, and I do condemn them as such.
Ok, Hold it right there. I already see where you are going. This ain't no gay rights thread. So if you got a vendetta against christians cause they don't admit gays you should take to another thread.
This one is about whether of women in the military should get birth control.

If we had the death penalty for rape there would not be rape. People do it cause they know society will let them off. If you kill a few of them, that'll send a message to the rest of them.

you mean like you have the death sentence for murder?
Because the last time I checked, murder happens.

It's already illegal. Making it more illegal won't help, it's treating the effects, but not the cause.

Ok, Hold it right there. I already see where you are going. This ain't no gay rights thread. So if you got a vendetta against christians cause they don't admit gays you should take to another thread.
This one is about whether of women in the military should get birth control.
Hey--you're the one who questioned my ability to discern christian behavior. If you can't take it, tough shit. Besides, I answered a number of your abortion issues a few pages back and you never got back to me--I realize you probably missed it, but I have discussed the major issue of this thread at length already. And if you're going to play the christian card, then you better be ready to discuss it at length, because there's more than being anti-abortion to being christian.

you mean like you have the death sentence for murder?
Because the last time I checked, murder happens.

It's already illegal. Making it more illegal won't help, it's treating the effects, but not the cause.
murderers don't get death. They get life then they get early for good behavior meaning that in some cases they only serve 3 years of even a 20 sentence.
A lot rapists these days are people who already been in prison but got out early.
I say kill them and get rid of them for good.

Hey--you're the one who questioned my ability to discern christian behavior. If you can't take it, tough shit. Besides, I answered a number of your abortion issues a few pages back and you never got back to me--I realize you probably missed it, but I have discussed the major issue of this thread at length already. And if you're going to play the christian card, then you better be ready to discuss it at length, because there's more than being anti-abortion to being christian.
there you go again. Now your talking bout what it is to be a christian.
How bout I make us a thread and we stop hijacking this one?

murderers don't get death. They get life then they get early for good behavior meaning that in some cases they only serve 3 years of even a 20 sentence.
A lot rapists these days are people who already been in prison but got out early.
I say kill them and get rid of them for good.

So you say that by giving the death sentence, such crime will stop? That's silly. Crime used to be very harshly punished, in ancient China, Asia as a whole, Europe, South America, and North America. Crimes were still commited like murder and rape. They didn't stop. They will always happen unless we treat the cause. And victims of these crimes, and their family, should be given all the support they need.

So you say that by giving the death sentence, such crime will stop? That's silly. Crime used to be very harshly punished, in ancient China, Asia as a whole, Europe, South America, and North America. Crimes were still commited like murder and rape. They didn't stop. They will always happen unless we treat the cause. And victims of these crimes, and their family, should be given all the support they need.
we tried it your way and the violent crime rate went up

we tried it your way and the violent crime rate went up

They tried it your way too... it didn't make any difference either. People commit crimes regardless of the level of their illegality. Take prohibition, for example. Or modern day drug running. It's highly illegal if you take it to the wrong places. But it's still going, no?

Or, why don't we take the old British method. Criminals used to be sent to the other side of the world, even for lesser crimes. Sent to Australia for the rest of their life to die. Crime didn't stop. In fact, soon, there were enough people there to start their own country, supplanting the aboriginals. Or the Parthians. They killed their criminals by pouring molten metal down their throats. They evidently still had criminals, because they kept having to do it.

The Romans crucified their criminals, also. They still commited crimes.


Serious punishments for crime have been proven not to work. Deterrants don't deter.

They need to get their heads screwed on straight about a lot of things. That said, this is appalling... And disturbing.
In my humble opinion, the fucking two party system is bogus and both parties need their heads screwed straight.

religious freedom. Abortions aren't done in the name of national defense. Wars are.
are you retarded? religion never has and never will make you exempt from any taxes, nor should it.

That's why the gov. should fund and mandate the use of birthcontrol. No conception, no abortion. You mandate and fund birthcontrol you end all abortion. End abortion and you end baby killing.
abortion isnt baby killing because an embryo isnt a baby.

Certainly, the child cannot be held responsible for the fathers actions. But what really is a child? And embryo or fetus, which does not think, simply is a pile of flesh inside the mother. You might argue that it is still a potential child, but let me remind you of something. The end function of everything in the body is to do one of two things: keep the brain alive, and reproduce. It's the reason we breathe, it's the reason we eat, it's the reason we have skin, to keep the brain alive. The only organs which don't do this are the reproductive organs. Clearly, we aren't going to say that we should define humans on whether or not they reproduce, because then we could go around killing impotent people at random. So the only thing we can logically base it on is the brain functioning. Because the embryo/fetus does not have a brain at this point, it may have organs and bones, but they do not achieve a goal. Now, if you say that you agree with me, and that someone is not a person without a brain, then these brainless embryos are indeed just hunks of flesh, and hunks of flesh have no rights. Now, if you say that people are people even without a brain, look at it this way. Because there is no brain, the organs really do not acheieve a goal, or do anything besides support themselves. They may as aswell not even be there. So, by that logic, every egg and sperm is a human being. Now, that means that the only way to prevent the destruction of human beings, is to extract the egg from every female before they have their period, and inject them with a single sperm, because sex the natural way, causes millions of needless deaths.
but god says that a zygote is a human. what now?

If we had the death penalty for rape there would not be rape. People do it cause they know society will let them off. If you kill a few of them, that'll send a message to the rest of them.
there has never been a first degree murder in a state where the death penalty exists. clearly this proves your theory right.

religious freedom. Abortions aren't done in the name of national defense. Wars are.

And pacifist religions?
Everybody pays for something they don't like. Suck it up like the rest of us do.

Overall this thread has been hilarious. Especially the part where Eutrusca was called a liberal. LOL

are you retarded? religion never has and never will make you exempt from any taxes, nor should it.
I will pretend that you didn't say that.

I will pretend that you didn't say that.
Why?

Why?
I was actually referring to the first part of what he said. If I had said the same thing I would likely have gotten reported for it, by someone.

I was actually referring to the first part of what he said. If I had said the same thing I would likely have gotten reported for it, by someone.
Cool.

That's why the gov. should fund and mandate the use of birthcontrol. No conception, no abortion. You mandate and fund birthcontrol you end all abortion. End abortion and you end baby killing.

Ridiculous.

Your opinion is based on both an overinflated confidence in the effectiveness of contraception and an insultingly low estimate of the judgment of women who get abortions.

This view also has a complete disregard for the Constitution and principles of liberty.

No method or combination of birthcontrol is 100% effective in preventing conception.

In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 59% of women who get abortions in the US were using a method of contraception when they got pregnant.

Also, it is rather hard to mandate contraception for cases of rape and incest.

And some abortions are necessitated by medical developments during a wanted and intentional pregnancy.

Women in general don't have abortions because they are too irresponsible or stupid to use contraception.

And before anyone makes comments about anyone having an abortion being irresponsible or stupid: almost half of the women in the United States will have an abortion by the time they are 45. Do you really believe half the women in the United States are stupid or irresponsible?

Finally, one would think a champion of "religious liberty" would see some obvious problems with requiring everyone to use contraception. Not to mention that other Constitutional rights and the whole concept of liberty would be violated by such a mandate.

Ridiculous.

Your opinion is based on both an overinflated confidence in the effectiveness of contraception and an insultingly low estimate of the judgment of women who get abortions.

This view also has a complete disregard for the Constitution and principles of liberty.

No method or combination of birthcontrol is 100% effective in preventing conception.

In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 59% of women who get abortions in the US were using a method of contraception when they got pregnant.

Also, it is rather hard to mandate contraception for cases of rape and incest.

And some abortions are necessitated by medical developments during a wanted and intentional pregnancy.

Women in general don't have abortions because they are too irresponsible or stupid to use contraception.

And before anyone makes comments about anyone having an abortion being irresponsible or stupid: almost half of the women in the United States will have an abortion by the time they are 45. Do you really believe half the women in the United States are stupid or irresponsible?

Finally, one would think a champion of "religious liberty" would see some obvious problems with requiring everyone to use contraception. Not to mention that other Constitutional rights and the whole concept of liberty would be violated by such a mandate.

who said we had to require the women to use it. It would be more cost effective to cut it off at the source.
If males get their stuff turned off once a month, they can't produce sperm and if they can't produce sperm, no matter whether its consensual or forced, they can't get anyone pregnant.
And hence you deal an even bigger blow to abortion stats.
Course if they are sex criminals, then it wouldn't be voluntarily nor would it temporary. ;)

Easy solution to this problem, steralise all women who join the armed forces.
Bad as being raped by the enemy would be, at least the silly things wont get pregnant.

who said we had to require the women to use it. It would be more cost effective to cut it off at the source.
If males get their stuff turned off once a month, they can't produce sperm and if they can't produce sperm, no matter whether its consensual or forced, they can't get anyone pregnant.
And hence you deal an even bigger blow to abortion stats.
Course if they are sex criminals, then it wouldn't be voluntarily nor would it temporary. ;)

ROTFLASTC.

This only gets sillier.

You've invented a male birth control pill?

And it is 100% effective?

Assuming you have this priceless patent, you see no problem with requiring all men to take these pills?

No violation of religious liberty? No violation of any liberties or Constitutional rights?

What if people want to have children? (And before you say, "well, those men don't have to take it": what if they lie?)

And way to ignore cases where a pregnancy was wanted, but medical reasons compel an abortion.

If we had the death penalty for rape there would not be rape. People do it cause they know society will let them off. If you kill a few of them, that'll send a message to the rest of them.

You should read the whole thread. We used to have the death penalty for rape in the US. It did not stop rape. :headbang:

This one is about whether of women in the military should get birth control.

No, it is not as they can get birth control pills. It is about whether a female in the military or military dependant who has been raped or is the victim of incest can get the morning after pill or an abortion.

And why should they're status as victims matter? The position that abortion is wrong except in cases of rape or insest is basically saying, "killing unborn children is murder, ...unless the father's an asshole."
Thus your position is: No matter if you can call it a life for the kid, its mere existence is important.
Because kids growing up without a father and a mother who may despise them (kids born out of rape are much more likely to face neclect a/o abuse) or with severe birthdefects due to incest face much more hardships than children born into healthy families. Abortion in these cases isnt just a matter of convenience for the mother, it is not bringing another troubled kid into a world where pro-lifers are all up and in arms about feti and uncaring about the already born children. Please tell a unloved, abused or crippled child its suffering its miserable existence because you forced your morals unto others people lives. Or adopt some of the unwanted ones sitting in foster homes, at least you would be honest about it.

I was actually referring to the first part of what he said. If I had said the same thing I would likely have gotten reported for it, by someone.
fine then. religion never has and never will make you exempt from any taxes, nor should it.
care to respond now?

No, it is not as they can get birth control pills. It is about whether a female in the military or military dependant who has been raped or is the victim of incest can get the morning after pill or an abortion.
how many times do I have to tell people this? :rolleyes:
morning after pill=birth control

you give them morning after, you prevent the abortion. the morning after prevents conception, it does not cause abortion.