While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

[vinoveri]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

You think contraception is "the deliberate termination of an innocent human life." Okay, that's what vino thinks.

I state a scientific fact Woods. You infer on you own a value judgment, and as usual neglect to answer directly.

So it is an issue of morality then, not medical or legal. You have a particular moral viewpoint and you want all others to orient their lives around it, I see.

And as usual, your vision is clouded with the apparent antipathy you feel for those who disagree with you. It is you who have the dogmatic viewpoint, but apparently you think that "going with the flow" and having a "liberally" oriented audience allows you to hide behind emotion vs thought; but they don't teach how to think any longer in the academies so you have the advantage (were you ever a college professor by the way - you seem quite experienced in berating those who don't subscribe to your own personal, and coincidently politically correct views)

I'm sure I can safely speak for all women everywhere.

I really wish you wouldn't, but if you must would you please get some new material

Socrates and Aristotle were both pederasts and had sex with boys and teenagers. Classical Greece and Rome were awash with brothels and sexual imagery. Poor old Hef was way late to the game.

Ad hominem again ... so Woodsie; MLK was an adulterer, so maybe we should discredit him too?
I take it you don't like the "golden mean" as you did not comment on it. Or perhaps it is too inconvenient? Rationality? Philosophy? no we wouldn't want to let those ever get in the way - first principles again, I know so retro, so hard to think and be consistent isn't it now

Curious how each time the right express concern about debasement and degradation, sex is the first thing that comes up

I believe it was you who brought it up and are in fact revealing a militant type of obsession about it.

confirming my understanding that right wing conservative evangelicals want to impose their moral and spiritual viewpoint on us all by force.

of course as is clearly evident by the facts - all those right wingers who control the courts, the academies, the Catholic church with its vast armies and enforcers - I can only accept that you are blinded by the reality that the actual facts show; the HL case was a small check against the continuing onslaught of governmental power, plain and simple

You're right, Woods, we probably won't agree b/c we can't seem to agree on first principles. I tend to subscribe to an Aristotelian ethical worldview if that helps. Let me ask you, do you believe in "human nature", i.e., a inherent nature shared by all human beings?

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

+1
ok woody - so i'm guilty of taking the thread off into libraries, omaha+parades, along with the bluestate crony class' hijinx - but chrikie mate - how in hell did we get to birth control and moral relativism?

can we go back to the diff tween hil and liz ???

I think you might better direct that at someone else, lek. Vino broached the subject of Hobby Lobby now having "conscience rights." and this was the start of the conversation.
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...916#post283916

To your question, those rights have now been created out of the controversy between the Green family and the companies they own versus the versus the HHS mandate that contraceptives and other reproductive health services be made available as part of health care benefits.

Following Vino's point, I then noted that in supporting their claims, the Greens argued that birth control harms women because men will only want them "for the satisfaction of [their] own desires" and that contraception leads to "the maximization of sexual activity".

From here, vino asked why abortion wasn't covered. JK then asked what Hobby Lobby supporters thought. VT followed up with questions that conflated abortion with the oral contraceptives the Greens want to deny their employees. JK added some detail in VT's questions about Christian Science and I followed with detail on the case and the facts about emergency contraceptives.

VT followed up and indicated some confusion on the matter and chastised me on my style of communication. I felt that I was not qualified to answer but offered him my opinion. Vino called BS and I made my best effort to highlight all the BS I could find. And as you saw there was so much of it I suggested we stop shoveling.

Hope that helps.

[lektrode]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Politicians are just looking for a steady pay check with a phenomenal defined pension plan.

As long as we believe these characters can rebuild our economy we are in trouble.

I'm waiting for the first politician who stands up and turns down all the financial benefits of being President in order to help rebuild the economy.....I suspect it won't happen in my life time.

+1
HEAR here!!!
why methinks one must be 'wealthy' (preferably NOT inherited) to even sign up to run for the job... they also REQUIRE some .mil experience.
and without both, i question whether how they could even possibly have the acumen to even contemplate the task

since its VERY SIMPLE in my book:
I do NOT want the occupant of The Most Powerful Office On The Planet to be thinking about ANYTHING other than running the USA; not their next book, nor their next campaign/re-election - since we've seen lately that its a very different set of attributes; ie: the campaigning vs the actual GOVERNING and MANAGEMENT of The USA

which is what the CEO's primary function is all about - read: style vs substance or form vs function and
FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION, in my book - since if something dont function, i couldnt care less what its form looks like

and what we've got now COULDNT POSSIBLY BE MORE DYSFUNCTIONAL

[lektrode]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

..... something tells me we're not going to agree, vino. Maybe we should stop now, unless there's more you want to share?

+1
ok woody - so i'm guilty of taking the thread off into libraries, omaha+parades, along with the bluestate crony class' hijinx - but chrikie mate - how in hell did we get to birth control and moral relativism?

can we go back to the diff tween hil and liz ???

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Women take them to prevent pregnancy no doubt. In any case, there effectiveness results in the deliberate termination of an innocent human life (blastocyst).

You think contraception is "the deliberate termination of an innocent human life." Okay, that's what vino thinks.

Unmitigated BS with respect Woods, half truth at best. Contraceptive don't encourage people to have sex; after all nature is pretty good at doing that after all. They do however effectively reduce the likelihood of pregnancy thereby allowing sex-on-demand lifestyle.

So it is an issue of morality then, not medical or legal. You have a particular moral viewpoint and you want all others to orient their lives around it, I see.

Should adult women have access to contraceptives? Absolutely.

I'm sure I can safely speak for all women everywhere. Thank you for recognizing their humanity. Next, maybe let's try a little less slut shaming.

Only diehards dogmatists will deny however that the rise of contraceptives is correlated with the rise of pornography, the exploitation of women as objects, breakdown of the family and IMO coarsening of the culture. I've always thought men were the primary beneficiaries of contraception, now enabled to hump anything that moves without the risk of a palimony suit; women who did not want to engage in sex (imagine that,OMG, the horror) could easily decline w/o prejudice b/c of the risk of pregnancy, but now there is nowhere to hide from those satyrs (or 17 year old sweetheart for that matter)

You think the culture declined and families have broken down because women have taken control of their sexual and reproductive health? That's the necessary condition? If the pill had never come into existence, the culture and families would have prevailed? Okay then.

Remember Griswold? Scotus decided that married couples have the right to privacy and thereby contraceptives.

Well, we've killed privacy. Contraception should be easy to turn back.

That was about the same time Hugh Hefner began to gain traction. And it was all downhill (or uphill depending on your POV). Boy what a different world it was 50 years ago, Playboy for goodness seek seems downright wholesome for the human degradration that one can observe on porn cable channels today. Where is the wisdom of Socrates and Aristotle? Where is the golden mean?

Socrates and Aristotle were both pederasts and had sex with boys and teenagers. Classical Greece and Rome were awash with brothels and sexual imagery. Poor old Hef was way late to the game.

Ignored while lives of women and children are crushed and ruined under the scourge of humans pursuing the latest form of debasement.

Curious how each time the right express concern about debasement and degradation, sex is the first thing that comes up.

The pendulum has swung too far and those who call for more "freedom" (read license) continue to sow the and fertilize the seeds of cultural destruction and that of individuals.

Everything was glorious before women could have sex on the same terms as men. Sounds familiar:



I appreciate your honesty, vino and for yet again confirming my understanding that right wing conservative evangelicals want to impose their moral and spiritual viewpoint on us all by force. Now if you could help me understand why they seem so terrified of women's sexuality and independence, we'd be going places.

Only something tells me we're not going to agree, vino. Maybe we should stop now, unless there's more you want to share?

[vinoveri]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Women take then not to induce abortions, but to prevent pregnancy from occurring after unprotected sexual intercourse or contraceptive failure.

Women take them to prevent pregnancy no doubt. In any case, there effectiveness results in the deliberate termination of an innocent human life (blastocyst).

They do not encourage women to have sex. Women who use them are already sexually active. They will not turn your daughter into a trollop or your son into a satyr. The American Academy of Pediatrics has time and again said that emergency contraceptives offer no increase in risky behavior and will not disrupt an established pregnancy. In Europe emergency contraceptives have been available to women for more than a decade and most of those years as an OTC drug and they've had no increase in the rate of abortions.

Unmitigated BS with respect Woods, half truth at best. Contraceptive don't encourage people to have sex; after all nature is pretty good at doing that after all. They do however effectively reduce the likelihood of pregnancy thereby allowing sex-on-demand lifestyle. Should adult women have access to contraceptives? Absolutely. Only diehards dogmatists will deny however that the rise of contraceptives is correlated with the rise of pornography, the exploitation of women as objects, breakdown of the family and IMO coarsening of the culture. I've always thought men were the primary beneficiaries of contraception, now enabled to hump anything that moves without the risk of a palimony suit; women who did not want to engage in sex (imagine that,OMG, the horror) could easily decline w/o prejudice b/c of the risk of pregnancy, but now there is nowhere to hide from those satyrs (or 17 year old sweetheart for that matter)
Remember Griswold? Scotus decided that married couples have the right to privacy and thereby contraceptives. That was about the same time Hugh Hefner began to gain traction. And it was all downhill (or uphill depending on your POV). Boy what a different world it was 50 years ago, Playboy for goodness seek seems downright wholesome for the human degradration that one can observe on porn cable channels today. Where is the wisdom of Socrates and Aristotle? Where is the golden mean? Ignored while lives of women and children are crushed and ruined under the scourge of humans pursuing the latest form of debasement. The pendulum has swung too far and those who call for more "freedom" (read license) continue to sow the and fertilize the seeds of cultural destruction and that of individuals.

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

But wouldn't a woman using the methods Hobby Lobby is not opposed to not find herself in a position of needing morning after solutions.

What if she found "herself in a position of needing morning after solutions" after being raped? What do we say to her then? No, I'm sorry you can't have this medicine?

I'm not wise enough to answer your question, mostly because I never worried about becoming pregnant or being raped, not once, so it's hard for me to relate. I'm not medically trained either, so any opinion I'd have about which contraceptive was best for your hypothetical woman in a position would be worth zilch. I guess that makes me wiser than five Supreme Court Justices, so I have that going for me. I can say that I believe whatever position a hypothetical woman may or may not find herself is immaterial to which medical treatment she and her doctor determine is best. That's really the best I can do here for you, vt.

What about the issue of STD, that seem to be on the rise? Many birth control methods do not protect. How can cheap, protective birth control also prevent disease?

Separate issue intended to muddy the waters, I believe.

One request: please do not assume someone opposed to an idea you may favor is an "idiot". You may find others more open if you are more tactful in presentation.

Oh dear.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia are issuing narrow rulings, knowing that lower courts will soon expand them into broader law.
Lets them appear more gradual and even-handed when the rulings are announced.
The fig leaves fall away later.

[vt]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Woodsman, appreciate your explanation.

The article below shows why even someone who reads about what is going on may be honestly confused.
.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...iuds/11768653/

The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case doesn't currently affect the birth control methods that are most commonly used. But Planned Parenthood Federation of America spokeswoman Justine Sessions says the decision "opens the door for other corporations to be able to opt out of providing any form of birth control."
It doesn't affect:
• Most birth control pills
• Condoms
• Sponges
• Sterilization
It does affect:
• Plan B "morning-after pill"
• Ella "morning-after pill"
• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)
The companies in the case and their supporters object to IUDs and morning-after pills, saying they cause abortions by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Groups that lobby for reproductive rights contend the drugs and devices prevent fertilization from occurring, which can lead to unwanted pregnancies and surgical abortions.

There are some health risks with IUDs though less than in the past:

https://nwhn.org/not-your-mother%E2%...ks-modern-iuds

Woodsman, you make a valid point about the prevention of abortions and the costs for the methods Hobby Lobby is opposed to. But wouldn't a woman using the methods
Hobby Lobby is not opposed to not find herself in a position of needing morning after solutions.

What about the issue of STD, that seem to be on the rise? Many birth control methods do not protect. How can cheap, protective birth control also prevent disease?you

Just trying to find a way to respect opinions on both sides of the issue, and hopefully come to a compromise.

One request: please do not assume someone opposed to an idea you may favor is an "idiot". You may find others more open if you are more tactful in presentation.

Thank you..

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

I'm not against abortion (nor gay marriage, but that's a different issue).

As for Hobby Lobby there are views on both sides. HL and supporters don't want to have their dollars pay for abortion. HL is not against birth control and provides that to employees.
HL just doesn't want to pay for a pill that would "abort" a very recent pregancy.

Abortion supporters want companies to cover all of this even though they can get what they want elsewhere very cheaply and easily.

I'm not up on Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, or other denominations.

The key point is why force them to do something they have strong convictions against if it can be easily and cheaply obtained, even free in some cases?

You're not up on the decision and you need get up to speed on what emergency contraceptives are all about, too. They are not "abortion pills" and do not trigger so-called spontaneous abortions. Except for higher doses of hormones, they are no different than regular, garden variety oral contraceptive pills. Women take then not to induce abortions, but to prevent pregnancy from occurring after unprotected sexual intercourse or contraceptive failure.

The level of ignorance of about this most basic issue of women's health is stunning to me, never mind the details of the Hobby Lobby decision. It's especially galling knowing that every swinging johnson out there in iTulipland has personally benefited from women's access to the very contraceptives so offensive to the tender faith of the Greens.

ECs do not terminate pregnancies; they prevent them. They do not encourage women to have sex. Women who use them are already sexually active. They will not turn your daughter into a trollop or your son into a satyr. The American Academy of Pediatrics has time and again said that emergency contraceptives offer no increase in risky behavior and will not disrupt an established pregnancy. In Europe emergency contraceptives have been available to women for more than a decade and most of those years as an OTC drug and they've had no increase in the rate of abortions. I wish these blind dogmatists and misogynists would get a clue and understand that emergency contraceptive results in fewer abortions because the women who take them do not wish to become pregnant and some will in the absence of these drugs seek to abort their pregnancies.

Contraception is a human right for women and to deny them access to it is to diminish them as human beings. I love women and children and I hate abortion. I find our willingness to resort to it to the degree we do utterly shocking and symptomatic of a fundamental sickness in our society. I want to do everything possible to reduce the number of abortions and give women a sense that there are other choices available to them. But with this decision, the Supremes, the Green family, the right wing conservative evangelicals who cheer this on, and most importantly President Obama himself - for his cowardly refusal to fight for a single payer public option - absolutely positively without a doubt guarantee that there will be more abortions, not fewer.

Forgive us Lord. We're idiots and we know not what we do.

[jk]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

You're speaking of ALL medical care vs. a very tiny subset of a procedure.

i thought i was speaking about religious belief. are you saying that we should "respect" the religious beliefs of people who only want to impose their beliefs on their employees if they want to exclude "a very tiny subset" of procedures, but not a larger subset? where's the line on "very tiny," and are you then saying we should ignore the religious beliefs of employers who have more than "very tiny" beliefs? also, what about jehovah's witnesses who want to exclude transfusions? isn't that a "very tiny subset" of procedures? that one ok?

[vt]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

You're speaking of ALL medical care vs. a very tiny subset of a procedure.

[jk]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

christian scientists do not believe in ANY medical care, whatsoever. [from wikipedia: " In particular they subscribe to a radical form of philosophical idealism, believing that reality is purely spiritual and the material world an illusion. This includes the view that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, and that the sick should be treated, not by medicine, but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health."] note that there have been instances of states intervening to take custody of the children of christian scientists so as to allow those children to receive urgent medical care for severe illnesses.

so should a closely held corporation owned by christian scientists, even one employing over 20,000 individuals as does hobby lobby, be allowed to opt out of regs requiring that they offer any medical insurance at all? there's big corporate money at stake, as well as the religious beliefs of the majority owners.

to expand this exercise a bit, should the employees of such a corporation be eligible for medicaid, tax supported by you and me, if their incomes are low enough to qualify, even as the christian science owned corporation gets to report higher profits?

surely, there is a big problem inherent in medical insurance being provided by employers, but that is the legacy of the wage control policies imposed during wwii, quite some time ago. is single payer the answer?

just askin' here.

[vt]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

I'm not against abortion (nor gay marriage, but that's a different issue).

As for Hobby Lobby there are views on both sides. HL and supporters don't want to have their dollars pay for abortion. HL is not against birth control and provides that to employees.
HL just doesn't want to pay for a pill that would "abort" a very recent pregancy.

Abortion supporters want companies to cover all of this even though they can get what they want elsewhere very cheaply and easily.

I'm not up on Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, or other denominations.

The key point is why force them to do something they have strong convictions against if it can be easily and cheaply obtained, even free in some cases?

[jk]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

re "conscience rights" and hobby lobby - i've been wondering if devout christian scientists can refuse to offer any health insurance whatsoever. and whether jehovah's witnesses can exclude coverage for transfusions.

i'm really curious about what hobby-lobby supporters think about these questions. they were not meant to be merely rhetorical.