Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
I don’t think Barry Goldwater would recognize Conservatism or his Republican Party if he was alive today. Conservatism used to mean belief in safe and sound economic spending and freedom for all from governments getting too large and too restrictive on personal freedoms. Recently we have seen Republicans offer up a brand new and dangerous definition of rape in an attempt to restrict abortions and to restrict government money being used to pay for them. Now we are seeing another Republican attempt to restrict the use of contraceptives under the guise of ending the alleged use of Federal funds to pay for abortions.
A recent article outlined the legislation proposed by Rep. Mike Spence of Indiana to eliminate the entire $327 million dollar budget for Title X. Title X is a program that provides funding for women’s health and family planning costs. “The measure would eliminate all $327 million in funding for Title X, a family planning program that began 40 years ago under President Richard Nixon. And while Planned Parenthood receives millions of dollars from the program, Title X funds cannot be used for abortion services. The money is to be used for noncontroversial family planning services, mostly for low-income families.”
Rep. Spence and his fellow Republicans are trying to defund Planned Parenthood because it receives millions from Title X funds to assist women in their family planning and health matters. In order to try to end abortions without testing the strength of Roe v. Wade in the courts, the sponsors and backers of this bill don’t care if low-income women suffer by not getting the health care that they so desperately need. Many of these same legislators also backed the repeal of the Affordable Health Care act which would also assist low-income women get affordable health care.
The proposed legislation would end all monies from Title X and the effects of those funds drying up could be catastrophic for women. “The pro-abortion-rights group NARAL said the legislation would lead to more unwanted pregnancies by cutting funding for contraceptives. “The new anti-choice House leadership now wants to take away birth control and cancer screenings from millions of American women and men,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL. “While these politicians attack abortion coverage from every angle, they now want to deny funding for birth control, even though that’s the best way to prevent unintended pregnancy. Americans will not stand for this blatant hypocrisy.” ‘
Is it just me or do I detect a pattern here? What do these mostly male Republicans have against women? I was thinking of writing an article asking when America will have its own “Egyptian” moment, but maybe I should ask when will American Women have their “Egyptian” moment?
Source: Raw Story
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
It’s nice that research proves what is readily gleaned from casual observation.
Namely that conservatives are fearful and liberals are fearless.
I’ll quote Frank Herbert again if I have to. 😉
Blouise, Elaine M., rafflaw, et al:
Study: Conservatives Have Larger ‘Fear Centers’ in Their Brains December 30, 2010
British study shows conservatives’ brains tend to have larger amygdalas, which responsible for primitive emotions.
Political opinions are considered choices, and in Western democracies the right to choose one’s opinions — freedom of conscience — is considered sacrosanct.
But recent studies suggest that our brains and genes may be a major determining factor in the views we hold.
A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other “primitive” emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate — the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.
If the study is confirmed, it could give us the first medical explanation for why conservatives tend to be more receptive to threats of terrorism, for example, than liberals. And it may help to explain why conservatives like to plan based on the worst-case scenario, while liberals tend towards rosier outlooks.
“It is very significant because it does suggest there is something about political attitudes that are either encoded in our brain structure through our experience or that our brain structure in some way determines or results in our political attitudes,” Geraint Rees, the neurologist who carried out the study, told the media.
http://www.alternet.org/news/149362/study%3A_conservatives_have_larger_'fear_centers'_in_their_brains/
—————————————————————-
Guess this gives credence to the phrase, “You can’t fix stupid.”
(except in cases
Elaine,
I answered you honestly. You did not answer my question.
I’ll be generous: Let’s say of the 50 million+ children that have been aborted, 15 million were aborted to save the mother’s life.
Are the extra 35 million+ justified if all unborn children are living persons?
Not only did I answer your question, my question underscores the inherent weakness of justifying abortion for the sake of a mother’s life. I also happen to have more faith in ingenuity and medicine rather than revert to the barbarism of abortion.
To turn your reference to Salem on its head, don’t you think killing innocent children for fear of a possible health goblin is a bit naive? By the way, abortion techniques allow for chemical burning (sort of like burning at the stake), beheading, and chemical induced abortions that lead to a woman delivering the body into a toilet…dangling the child from his/her umbilical chord.
“Abortion is a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor – that’s it.”~Stamford Liberal
===========================================
I agree, because of the times. Normally I would include the fetus’s father (in cases outside of consent or when the man is a responsible, respectful and concerned towards the woman involved and not a misogynistic control freak or self serving creep).
These days are becoming again what they have been in the past….a time to not even speak of the rape, or the mistake, or the negligence by ignorance or capitulation to fear, or especially the pregnancy but just to simply deal with it…
Craig,
Of those accused of being witches, nineteen were hanged, one was crushed to death, and some others died in prison.
Craig,
I asked you a question. Can you answer it honestly?
Are you suggesting that the life of an unborn child takes priority over the life of a woman who could die if her pregnancy isn’t terminated?
A lot of people do a lot of talking about the sanctity of life. Some of those same people don’t appear to care all that much about the sanctity of women’s lives.
Elaine: “Care to join in a modern-day version of the Salem Witch Hunt, anyone?”
Only 19 or so died in the Salem witch trials…50 million+ children have been murdered by “legal” abortions.
Elaine,
Let me pose to you a question that has priority:
If an unborn child is a living person, may a woman abort that child?
Of the 50 million+ abortions which have been done in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade, how many were to “save the life” of the mother? If we postulated 5% that is likely higher than the actual number. So in the face of 45 million abortions, if the unborn are living persons should women have a right to abort them?
On to your question:
I wonder why abortion is the first answer when a pregnant woman’s life is in danger? I happen to think medicine is a wonderful gift from God and doctors are more creative than just opting to murder babies. Medical advancement comes in the face of difficult scenarios. Why would you want to use the scenario of a woman’s life being in danger as your “proof” case?
I have more faith in medicine than others, I guess.
Elaine,
The Salem witch hunt is a good analogy. The Salem officials might be a little smarter than their current counterparts.
Blouise,
I think some of these politicians have been whipped up into a frenzy–and the crazies are leading the charge. They’ve gotten caught up in the anti-abortion cause and are beginning to take things too far. Witnessing what’s going on in this country today, I think, makes it easier to understand what happened in Salem/Danvers, Massachusetts in the late 17th century. Care to join in a modern-day version of the Salem Witch Hunt, anyone?
Blouise,
I think you are correct about religion being used as a crutch against the fear of the unknown. As to the second part, I think accurate is a better term than derogatory. But they both work for me! 🙂
Anonymously Yours
1, February 18, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Isn’t it the mantra of the Tea Party….What Rights? What Rights Do Women Have?
==================================================
I have the right to call you so answer the damn phone!!
rafflaw
1, February 18, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Blouise,
I think you are being too kind! I think most of them are afraid, but it isn’t science. It is a mix of religion, lack of intelligence and some of them are bats__t crazy as Elaine stated abve.
==================================================
Perhaps, but isn’t religion often a tool for handling the fear of the unknown? As to science … those afraid of the change science brings to their lives have been killing scientists and those who support science for centuries. Perhaps they are no longer killing them in this country, instead they are trying to kill the ideas and deny proven facts by rewriting the books.
As to batsh*t crazy … now you are making derogatory remarks about republican/teabaggers who are just trying to take back their country!
Isn’t it the mantra of the Tea Party….What Rights? What Rights Do Women Have?
Mike Spindell,
I am going to take the liberty of adding another “class” of men and women to your list.
I know, intimately, several couples who have grappled with the reality of the availability of abortion. The sonogram shows that the fetus has severe problems … the doctors can predict serious problems, even death, if the child is brought to full term. What to do? They all opted to bring the fetus to full term. In each case the doctors warnings were correct and the newborn had severe problems.
In the first case all those problems were corrected, thanks to the skill of the physicians and the advancements in medical knowledge and treatment. In two cases the problems could not be corrected (Down Syndrome)but all members of each family can not imagine life without the presence of these children. In the final case the child died within 3 days but the mother and father maintain that holding that child for those three days was the greatest blessing they have ever received.
Although none of these men and women opted for abortion, all of them are pro-choice for never, in a million years, would they presume to tell any expectant mother or father what they should do in such a difficult situation. As one mother put it to me, “Only those who haven’t been there would be so cruel.”
Craig,
Do you consider women who are alive to be “living persons?” Do you think that if a pregnancy puts a woman’s life at risk that the woman should have the right to try to save her own life?
Blouise,
I think you are being too kind! I think most of them are afraid, but it isn’t science. It is a mix of religion, lack of intelligence and some of them are bats__t crazy as Elaine stated abve.
Stamford Liberal,
Oh I understand … sometimes I use them to sharpen my argument … even organize my thoughts and sometimes it’s just plain fun to tease them into righteous sputterings. I used to feel guilty about that until I realized that they should have to work for their pittance.
Elaine M.
1, February 18, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Blouise,
IMO, there are too many politicians in this country who are batshit crazy! I can’t keep up with all the stories about nutty folks like Rep. Franklin and the bills they propose. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE???
=============================================
They’re scared … science and technology have overwhelmed them … the world changes daily in ways they can not comprehend and thus they feel as if they have lost control … so they attempt to gain some semblance of control by attempting to control others.
I believe it’s partially culture but I think science will also eventually find that it is also DNA related. In other words, they can’t help it … they have a built in fear of change, of upheaval, of things being “different” from that which they experienced as a child.
They were with us in the caveman days and in every century since. Yet they always end up losing for change continues to move ahead and with each discovery, each invention, they fall further behind.
They don’t understand people who aren’t afraid of change, they can’t comprehend why anyone would work to invoke change … they railed against the flint as a fire starter, against any thought that didn’t pay homage to the sun god, against the idea that man could sail the oceans without keeping land in sight, against the “horseless carriage”, against electricity, against immigration other than their own relatives, against those who wished to depose the monarchy, against, against, against.
They are deathly afraid of those who promote or welcome change and have spent centuries killing them. Yet change continues.
Having no idea how to adapt, they try to remake everyone in their own image. Perhaps science and technology will discover a vaccine …