RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception

RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Edwynn -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 6:23:15 AM)
I don't want to pay for women's health because I'm not a woman. Their bodies are too complicated, my body is not as complicated, so I shouldn't have to deal with all that mess. I am not a ten year old, so I shouldn't have to pay for any ten year old's education. I haven't flown in over ten years, why should I have to pay for all those air traffic controllers? If people want to take a plane, that is their choice, let them pay for the runways and the concourse. If I don't see it having any direct immediate benefit to me, and just me, forget future consequences even to myself I am too stupid to understand much less foresee ... then I shouldn't have to pay for it. I reject the tyranny of responsibility.

GotSteel -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 7:17:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: How can the government attempt to regulate women's bodies when they don't even know how contraception works? Same with with SOPA. http://www.dailydot.com/politics/congress-members-stumped-over-sopa/ You beat me to it, I was about to point out how these people routinely vote on things which they can't comprehend because they aren't "nerds".

erieangel -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 7:47:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pghays04 quote: So, oops, sorry. I guess a lot of women have their birth control pills paid with tax dollars. Even some women who work full-time because I work for a not-for-profit community mental health agency which gets its money to pay for things like salaries and employer-sponsored health insurance from the state and federal governments. I don't really support not-for-profit organizations receiving government money. I can support them not having to pay corporate taxes, but just turning money over to them without oversight seems to me to be poor stewardship of tax revenue. Did I say there is no oversight? Mental health in this country has been socialized for at least the past 150 years, first with the state mental health hospitals, now through community-based care. The organization which I work for started exactly 50 years ago when a group of women recognized that there was a huge population in the city of people who didn't know how to live in the community because they had been at the Warren, PA state hospital for years, discharged and pretty much "dumped" in Erie County with almost no social skills, work skills or experience and, for many, no place to go. From the time the organization began getting tax money, there has been oversight, through the county health department, through DPW. In 1998, Congress voted that those limited dollars that go for mental health and mental retardation treatment (including autism treatment) should be funneled through private, for-profit insurance--largely with little to no oversight from the state or feds.

DomKen -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 7:49:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pghays04 I don't quite see how it comes down to a vs. relationship between birth control and an amendment to define when a human being becomes a person with legal rights. I would have thought that birth control would make abortion a moot consideration. No pregnancy means no reason for abortion. Defining personhood as starting at conception means anything that interferes with the survival of an embryo is killing a person. All non barrier forms of birth control do not prevent fertilization but instead prevent implantation. So intentionally using those methods could be construed to be murder just like abortion.

PatrickG38 -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 9:36:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: LanceHughes ::: SIGH ::: The line IS currently defined as "constitutional rights at time of birth." The ploy to move that line toward conception is nothing more than an attempt to prevent abortions by using such a definition of personhood. That is, moving the line of personhood (WhateverTF that means) will make make abortion tantamount to murder. Actually, it makes taking hormonal birth control which prevents implanting the blastocyst murder. Never forget for a moment that their real goal isn't to end abortion. It's to end family planning and birth control. It's to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen where these Neanderthals think they belong. When we all know they belong in the kitchen, in a very revealing french maid's uniform and in 6"heels...LOL. If Republicans are going to oppress women (and they seem set on doing so), can't it be a little fun. Do understand this was written to be humorous.

SoftBonds -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 10:26:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pghays04 As for someone being anti women because they oppose taxpayers paying for a woman's birth control just doesn't fly with me. As a practicing agnostic, today is my day to be a Christian Scientist. I want to protest the use of taxpayer dollars paying for anything my religion does not support. If medicare dollars are going to any treatment other than a "cleansing," I demand it stop immediately on the grounds of violation of my first amendment right to freedom of religion!!!

Truthness -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 11:02:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle . It's to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen where these Neanderthals think they belong. So you're claiming almost 50% of women are Neanderthals who want women pregnant and in the kitchen?

tazzygirl -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 11:53:20 AM)
ah, again with your delusions. Tsk tsk.. so much for your screen name.

Truthness -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 11:55:16 AM)
You're the one lying.

xssve -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 12:12:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn I don't want to pay for women's health because I'm not a woman. Their bodies are too complicated, my body is not as complicated, so I shouldn't have to deal with all that mess. I am not a ten year old, so I shouldn't have to pay for any ten year old's education. I haven't flown in over ten years, why should I have to pay for all those air traffic controllers? If people want to take a plane, that is their choice, let them pay for the runways and the concourse. If I don't see it having any direct immediate benefit to me, and just me, forget future consequences even to myself I am too stupid to understand much less foresee ... then I shouldn't have to pay for it. I reject the tyranny of responsibility. It's an interesting thought, if consumption taxes were expanded to include extraction and use taxes, only people who flew would be taxed for flying, although I suppose you'd also have to tax cargo transported by air. Manufacturers would be taxed on raw materials, and taxed for transporting raw materials to the processing stations, and taxed for transporting the finished goods to market, taxed on the energy required to process the materials, and energy producers would be taxed similarly for extraction and transportation of fossil fuels used in energy production, a well as taxed on the power lines used to distribute the energy. Pro-lifers would not be taxed to provide birth control, but would have to pay all taxes related to pregnancy, childbirth, and all expenses related to reproduction, and would be accountable for creating jobs for them when they reach the age of employment. It's not a bad plan, the financial sector could be taxed according to whether they create or destroy jobs - taxed for every job they destroy to drive up stocks or increase margins, given a tax credit for every job they create. In each case the tax would be used to offset hidden costs and negative externalizes of specific markets of consumption/extraction, and taxation levels determined by the cost of compensating for those negative costs and externalities. By the time you've put all that into action, my guess is that overall taxation levels would end up being pretty progressive, it would even open up new opportunities for futures traders who could speculate on taxation levels, and their effects on various industries and/or financial practices.

tazzygirl -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 12:13:28 PM)
Coming from you, that is quite a compliment. [;)]

xssve -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 12:21:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn I don't want to pay for women's health because I'm not a woman. Their bodies are too complicated, my body is not as complicated, so I shouldn't have to deal with all that mess. I am not a ten year old, so I shouldn't have to pay for any ten year old's education. I haven't flown in over ten years, why should I have to pay for all those air traffic controllers? If people want to take a plane, that is their choice, let them pay for the runways and the concourse. If I don't see it having any direct immediate benefit to me, and just me, forget future consequences even to myself I am too stupid to understand much less foresee ... then I shouldn't have to pay for it. I reject the tyranny of responsibility. It's an interesting thought, if consumption taxes were expanded to include extraction and use taxes, only people who flew would be taxed for flying, although I suppose you'd also have to tax cargo transported by air. Manufacturers would be taxed on raw materials, and taxed for transporting raw materials to the processing stations, and taxed for transporting the finished goods to market, taxed on the energy required to process the materials, and energy producers would be taxed similarly for extraction and transportation of fossil fuels used in energy production, a well as taxed on the power lines used to distribute the energy. Pro-forced breeders would not be taxed to provide birth control, but would have to pay all taxes related to pregnancy, childbirth, and all expenses related to reproduction, and would be accountable for creating jobs for them when they reach the age of employment. It's not a bad plan, the financial sector could be taxed according to whether they create or destroy jobs - taxed for every job they destroy to drive up stocks or increase margins, given a tax credit for every job they create. In each case the tax would be used to offset hidden costs and negative externalizes of specific markets of consumption/extraction, and taxation levels determined by the cost of compensating for those negative costs and externalities. By the time you've put all that into action, my guess is that overall taxation levels would end up being pretty progressive, it would even open up new opportunities for futures traders who could speculate on taxation levels, and their effects on various industries and/or financial practices.

TrekkieLP -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 12:31:08 PM)
deleted post.

tazzygirl -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 12:44:16 PM)
Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs)—sometimes simply referred to as emergency contraceptives (ECs) or the "morning-after pill"—are drugs intended to disrupt ovulation or fertilization, which are steps necessary for pregnancy (contraceptives). There is controversy about whether such drugs may in some cases act not as a contraceptive but as a contragestive, a drug that prevents the implantation of a human embryo in the uterus, thus preventing pregnancy, although one study has concluded that this mechanism is unlikely.[1][2][3][4] The phrase "morning-after pill" is a misnomer; ECPs are most effective when used shortly after intercourse. Depending on the drug, they are licensed for use for up to 107 to 120 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse or contraceptive failure. Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) are not to be confused with mifepristone (RU486, Mifeprex), which is used as an "abortion pill". The term "emergency contraceptive pill" does not refer to mifespristone, which is most commonly used in 200- or 600-mg doses as an abortifacient.[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning-after_pill Plan B is a "morning after pill" not an abortifacient. Amazing how the "right to life" cant get this part straight.

Moonhead -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 12:47:09 PM)
Maybe the right to life idiots have the morning after pill confused with a punch in the stomach?

xssve -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 12:51:26 PM)
I keep saying it only makes sense as necessary to a human trafficking/extortion racket. It's a pattern in large civilizations: encourage the masses to reproduce beyond their financial means, thereby impoverishing them, then criminalizing poverty. It ensures a steady supply of cheap, perpetually indebted, and/or forced labor.

xssve -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 1:09:10 PM)
It's a necessary step to control and monopolization of the labor market, by controlling the means of production.

SoftBonds -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 1:13:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Maybe the right to life idiots have the morning after pill confused with a punch in the stomach? That will probably become the standard abortion procedure in Mississippi... Actually, I betcha that about 4 shots of whiskey would do the job, and if it didn't, repeat until either it does, or the kid counts as a birth defect baby from FAS... Lotsa low level toxics you can consume that will kill a fetus long before they kill the mom, including a lot of "herbal remedies," in sufficient doses. Certain vitamins taken in large quantities will become poisons, this will kill the fetus before the mother, and the vitamins will then be used and exit the system, which is a pretty safe way to go. Guess what Righties, there is more than one way to skin a cat (sorry Moonhead, realize that quote may be offensive with your profile pic...)

Real0ne -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 1:19:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: LanceHughes ::: SIGH ::: The line IS currently defined as "constitutional rights at time of birth." The ploy to move that line toward conception is nothing more than an attempt to prevent abortions by using such a definition of personhood. That is, moving the line of personhood (WhateverTF that means) will make make abortion tantamount to murder. Actually, it makes taking hormonal birth control which prevents implanting the blastocyst murder. Never forget for a moment that their real goal isn't to end abortion. It's to end family planning and birth control. It's to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen where these Neanderthals think they belong. and like I said it should go at least until 60!

Moonhead -> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception (4/8/2012 1:24:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Maybe the right to life idiots have the morning after pill confused with a punch in the stomach? That will probably become the standard abortion procedure in Mississippi... Actually, I betcha that about 4 shots of whiskey would do the job, and if it didn't, repeat until either it does, or the kid counts as a birth defect baby from FAS... Lotsa low level toxics you can consume that will kill a fetus long before they kill the mom, including a lot of "herbal remedies," in sufficient doses. Certain vitamins taken in large quantities will become poisons, this will kill the fetus before the mother, and the vitamins will then be used and exit the system, which is a pretty safe way to go. Guess what Righties, there is more than one way to skin a cat (sorry Moonhead, realize that quote may be offensive with your profile pic...) Gin's more traditional for that than whiskey: why do you think they used to call it mother's ruin?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875