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
“She has a lot of spunk, she once [on a trip to Denver] kicked a homeless guy in the ass for grabbing her coat and asking for some spare change.”
Chan L.,
Yep, that sounds just like someone who’d be your girlfriend. What is so amusing about you conservative, macho types, is how many of you refuse to fight in wars you started.
Elaine:
Suffix-ist
Added to words to form nouns denoting:
One who follows a principle or system of belief.
Marxist, deist
Note, these are related to -ism, e.g. Marxism, deism
A member of a profession or one interested in something.
botanist, psychiatrist, one who studies psychiatry
So I am a definite believer in sex even though Buddha thinks I dont get any and I am definitely interested in sex, what young guy isnt? So based on this, yes I would say I am a sexist.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE8fn2nbUyY&w=480&h=390] Here’s the Glee cover with the pregnant women. My daughter had never heard the song until Glee.
Chan,
“you will notice that the implication in my statement is that it is the woman’s choice, not the mans.”
Psst, that’s the problem. It’s BOTH partner’s choice.
another question….when a governing body refuses to enforce the existing social compact in favour of an as yet unagreed upon one….what is that called?
and what can we expect to happen in it’s occurrance?
Elaine, This was in the early eighties. I had to watch their gory films and listen to testimony from Dr. Bernard Nathanson. I will always choose the pro-choice legislator over the anti-choice legislator whether he or she is corporatist or not. It is because of the work I did and what I witnessed that I vote this way. It is vary rare these days that one finds a pro-choice republican. Their platform is ant-abortion with few exceptions, and it will soon have no exceptions.
Sociopaths of a feather flock together.
Elaine:
you will notice that the implication in my statement is that it is the woman’s choice, not the mans.
But anyway, I probably am a sexist. But I don’t really care. It hasn’t hurt me. I hold doors open for the ladies, hold their chairs, pay for their dinner and movie. Accept no means no and I also appreciate my girlfriends mind. She is brilliant, oh and by the way she is conservative although not religious.
She thinks liberal guys are too feminine, she likes to hunt and fish. She was raised on a farm in Montana and rides and ropes as well. She has a lot of spunk, she once [on a trip to Denver] kicked a homeless guy in the ass for grabbing her coat and asking for some spare change. I had to hold her back she was so pissed off.
For the sexists among us:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNmBauXYzgc&w=640&h=390]
Swarthmore,
And I enjoyed it then. I’m sure I could get sick of it eventually, but it’d take awhile.
For Chan and Larry Summers:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQzf8lHuYPo&w=480&h=390]
W=C: “Giving up rights is not the same as having them wrenched from you. That said, is it fair to say that the ‘social compact’ is defined and protected by the laws set forth in the Constitution?”
First comes the social compact; then comes the laws of your state and your state constitution; then comes the U.S. Constitution. Any constitution is merely a more ‘firm’ expression of the social compact.
W=C: “And what does the Constitution say is to be done when tyranny or abuse of inalienable rights occurs…at the moment abortion is an inalienable right (once removed) and rape is a very clear abuse, other abuses not so clear but certainly present.”
I don’t understand the question. Once removed?
W=C: “I guess what I’m trying to say is, the argument is not just about abortion…”
Absolutely not; one’s gender does not afford any more or less rights. (See that Kant quote again)
W=C: “it is about keeping abortion safe and obtainable through proper channels so that the inalienable right to our own bodies is not tyrannically usurped…by”
It’s not about keeping abortion safe; that’s merely incidental to preserving the inalienable rights that exist a priori. Always keep the irrefutable argument out front
W=C: “Cause if it’s o.k. to wrench the physical ownership of people away from themselves whether they like it or not, despite the consequences to them….theres a few cute lookin lil boys in the neighborhood….”
Not sure what you mean here either.
Let’s just say when the Right attempts to convince you that they’re making some morally/legally superior argument for outlawing abortion in the first trimester, they’re full of shit like a gaggle of Christmas geese.
Swarthmore mom,
“I worked on a health and welfare committee at one time, and witnessed the harm these people can do when they take over a legislative body.”
And take control over women and their bodies.
I have played that James Brown song on here before. It is dedicated to those who wanted to get rid of Pelosi. She stopped this legislation from even getting a hearing. I worked on a health and welfare committee at one time, and witnessed the harm these people can do when they take over a legislative body.
BBB: “Locke is talking about a natural state. There is nothing “natural” about induced abortion. I’m sure Locke would approve of abortion to save the life of the woman, but I doubt he would join in on the chanting of “it’s my body and I’ll kill what is in my possession if I desire to.”
I’m not appealing to the authority of Locke; nor seeking his advice or consent per particular situations. I merely used Locke’s words to set forth the schematic of the social compact; the conditions which are required for its continued existence.
Your repeated pleas to craft laws based on ‘the circumstances of the world in which man is placed,’ much less ‘what Locke would think’ falls on deaf ears.
Again:
“Everyone must admit that if a law is to be morally valid as a ground of obligation, then it must carry with it absolute necessity. [One] must concede that the ground of obligation here must therefore be sought not in the nature of man, nor in the circumstances of the world in which man is placed, but must be sought a priori solely in the concepts of pure reason; he must grant that every other precept which is founded on principles of mere experience-even a precept that may in certain respects be universal-in so far as it rests in the least on empirical grounds-perhaps only in its motive–can indeed be called a practical rule, but never a moral law.”
The only way you win this argument is to ignore the underlying parameters of the social compact. And once you do that; it’s game over.
Elaine, Stamford, et all,
Did I call it or did I call it?
Also, this one’s going out to the ladies:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fd8_gojNXc&w=480&h=390]
Chan L.,
You’ll have to fault me for using a form of logic akin to yours. You appear to believe that a woman is only a true lady if she always says “no” to a man when asked to have sex. I assume a true gentleman would never respond to a woman the way you did…no matter what she may have said to you.
From reading your comments, I’ve inferred that you’re a sexist. Maybe you can prove otherwise. Let’s look at some of our previous comments:
Chan L. 1, February 14, 2011 at 6:50 pm
BBB:
I agree that an embryo or a fetus is indeed human life. Anyone that says otherwise is short on gray matter.
I also think education is the way to go. If women could see a sonogram I imagine more of them would not have the abortion and put the child up for adoption.
Elaine M. 1, February 14, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Chan L.,
“I also think education is the way to go. If women could see a sonogram I imagine more of them would not have the abortion and put the child up for adoption.”
How about all you guys “getting educated” about how and when to use prophylactics? We wouldn’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancies and abortions if you fellas took a little more responsibility!!!
Chan L. 1, February 14, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Elaine:
Maybe women should be educated about how to say no. Then a condom wouldn’t even be necessary.
My girl friend used to tell me no. I have quit asking. No planned or unplanned pregnancies around these parts.
Just say no to copulation or coitus wont beat us.
Elaine M. 1, February 14, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Chan L.,
Why is it that you only recommend “education” for women on these sexual issues–and not men? It appears to me that you have a double standard. You seem to think only women are responsible when they get pregnant. If a woman doesn’t say no–a man can’t put on a condom? You don’t think a male should take any responsibility–or any precautions in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies…or the spreading or contracting of STDs?
*****
I have not as yet received a response in regard to the questions I posed to you on February 14, 2001 at 8:32 pm.
*****
Chan L.
1, February 15, 2011 at 9:13 am
“And so we feminize men so that women wont feel insecure. You may be as smart as we are, although one of your own (liberal Larry Summers) wondered out load about the lack of women in math/science/engineering, but most of you are not as physically robust as we are and are not able to handle stress as well as we do.”
*****
Larry Summers is a liberal? Who knew? Larry certainly ain’t one of my own!
Women can’t handle stress as well as men? How did you determine that? Or is that just a preconceived belief of a young sexist?
Chan, ever wonder why some men are so sexist?
POLL:
Who on this blog is getting paid to post here????
Paid:____
just opinionated:_____
“Basically, mankind is born into nature with ALL rights. Then, in order to better protect those rights, mankind enters into a social compact; giving up some of those rights to better protect the remainder. In order to ensure that the contract between society and mankind does not become illusory, the distinction between alienable and inalienable rights becomes paramount. The exercise of power over an alienable right is termed ‘usurpation’ while the exercise of power over an inalienable right is ‘tyranny.’”~Bob, Esq
——————————————————
Giving up rights is not the same as having them wrenched from you. That said, is it fair to say that the ‘social compact’ is defined and protected by the laws set forth in the Constitution? And what does the Constitution say is to be done when tyranny or abuse of inalienable rights occurs…at the moment abortion is an inalienable right (once removed) and rape is a very clear abuse, other abuses not so clear but certainly present.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, the argument is not just about abortion…it is about keeping abortion safe and obtainable through proper channels so that the inalienable right to our own bodies is not tyrannically usurped…by physical force, by emotional force, by economic force, by psychological force….and so on….No?
‘Cause if it’s o.k. to wrench the physical ownership of people away from themselves whether they like it or not, despite the consequences to them….theres a few cute lookin lil boys in the neighborhood….
Bob Esq.,
Locke? Are you forgetting the fundamental principles of Locke?
“But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence : though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not another’s pleasure : and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice to an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.”
“They who allege the practice of mankind, for exposing or selling their children, as a proof of their power over them, are with sir Robert happy arguers; and cannot but recommend their opinion, by founding it on the most shameful action, and most unnatural murder human nature is capable of. The dens of lions and nurseries of wolves know no such cruelty as this: these savage inhabitants of the desert obey God and nature in being tender and careful of their offspring: they will hunt, watch, fight, and almost starve for the preservation of their young; never part with them; never forsake them, till they are able to shift for themselves. And is it the privilege of man alone to act more contrary to nature than the wild and most untamed part of the creation? doth God forbid us under the severest penalty, that of death, to take away the life of any man, a stranger, and upon provocation and does he permit us to destroy those he has given us the charge and care of; and by the dictates of nature and reason, as well as his revealed command, requires us to preserve? He has in all the parts of creation taken a peculiar care to propagate and continue the several species of creatures, and makes the individuals act so strongly to this end, that they sometimes neglect their own private good for it, and seem to forget that general rule, which nature teaches all things, of self-preservation; and the preservation of their young, as the strongest principle in them, over-rules the constitution of their particular natures. Thus we see, when their young stand in need of it, the timorous become valiant, the fierce and savage kind, and the ravenous, tender and liberal.”
Locke is talking about a natural state. There is nothing “natural” about induced abortion. I’m sure Locke would approve of abortion to save the life of the woman, but I doubt he would join in on the chanting of “it’s my body and I’ll kill what is in my possession if I desire to”.