Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/9/2012 8:57:56 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Personhood Amendment vs Contraception


I'm thinking of a business venture, so I should get full rights as a corporation, and my idea should as a person, per the Supreme Court.

After all, life begins at conception, right?

(in reply to hlen5)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/9/2012 9:25:08 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
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.


I thought they did both:

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm
It's pretty common for people to be confused about how birth control pills work. Here’s what it boils down to: birth control pills are made of hormones. Hormones are chemicals made in our bodies. They control how different parts of our bodies work.

Some birth control pills contain two hormones — estrogen and progestin. These are called combination pills. Some are progestin-only pills. Most women on the pill take combination pills.

The hormones in the pill work by keeping a woman’s ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormones in the pill also prevent pregnancy by thickening a woman’s cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.

The hormones also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/9/2012 9:46:47 AM   
SoftBonds


Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Personhood Amendment vs Contraception


I'm thinking of a business venture, so I should get full rights as a corporation, and my idea should as a person, per the Supreme Court.

After all, life begins at conception, right?


Not only that, but if you had an idea for a business venture 18 years ago, it should be able to vote by now.

_____________________________

Elite Thread Hijacker!
Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply)

The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/9/2012 1:22:58 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
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.


I thought they did both:

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm
It's pretty common for people to be confused about how birth control pills work. Here’s what it boils down to: birth control pills are made of hormones. Hormones are chemicals made in our bodies. They control how different parts of our bodies work.

Some birth control pills contain two hormones — estrogen and progestin. These are called combination pills. Some are progestin-only pills. Most women on the pill take combination pills.

The hormones in the pill work by keeping a woman’s ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormones in the pill also prevent pregnancy by thickening a woman’s cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.

The hormones also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.


These nuts are unconcerned with that it might prevent ovulation or thicken mucus. All they care about is that stopping implantation is abortion.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/9/2012 6:09:07 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
All they care about is "Family Planning is The Devil's Work!" and "BURN THE WITCHES!"

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/9/2012 8:58:54 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel
The problem with your solutions, softbonds, is that women across the country have already been arrested for using such methods. One women, I can't remember the state (I'll have to look it up) was arrested after she miscarried following a fall. She admitted to hospital staff to having been suicidal.



Yes but we need to understand THIS IS THE LAND OF THE FREE is it not?

I think we need more freedom! At least one gubafia peanut inspector up every persons asshole FOR THEIR PROTECTION AND SAFETY!



_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/9/2012 9:01:35 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

All they care about is "Family Planning is The Devil's Work!" and "BURN THE WITCHES!"



yeh I read your idea of family planning earlier and its more like shit all over the floor then plan how to mop it up. contradiction in terms to the absurd.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/10/2012 7:58:48 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Hang on, does that mean that as a practicing pastafarian I can't get free spaghetti at the tax payer's expense?


Is spaghetti a medical treatment?

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/10/2012 8:30:22 AM   
SoftBonds


Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Hang on, does that mean that as a practicing pastafarian I can't get free spaghetti at the tax payer's expense?


Is spaghetti a medical treatment?


He got you there Moonhead!
Every pastafarian knows that only lasagna will cure cancer... tut tut...

_____________________________

Elite Thread Hijacker!
Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply)

The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/10/2012 10:50:34 AM   
xssve


Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Personhood Amendment vs Contraception


I'm thinking of a business venture, so I should get full rights as a corporation, and my idea should as a person, per the Supreme Court.

After all, life begins at conception, right?

I don't think you have to make up the absurdities here:
quote:

It isn’t just porn stars who are chastised when their breasts suddenly become utilitarian, though. We Americans love us some boobs, until they’re desexualized — then they seem obscene. Just think of all the moms who have been kicked out of restaurants for flashing a wee bit of cleavage while trying to feed their fussy newborn. That isn’t to mention the disgust directed at women who dare talk about the physical pleasures of breast-feeding. We don’t like to think of moms as sexual beings — except for in the taboo-busting world of porn (paging Dr. Freud). It’s fitting for a porn star mama, the rare industry “MILF” who is actually a mom, to remind folks that, generally speaking, one has to have sex in order to become a mom.


http://www.salon.com/2011/08/16/madison_young_2/

I'm not even going to mention the fact I've been modded for mentioning possible biological responses to breastfeeding that may have evolved to make women more philosophical about letting them little suckers chew on that thing and squeeze it out like tube of Gogurt, let's just say we honor their sacrifice and the pain they endure for benefit of all Mankind.

But, if the sight of an infant breastfeeding is tantamount to child pron for you, you have problems - i.e., there's a woman and a tit, and a baby, which one is the sexual object?

There is a correct answer or answers here, and if it's the tit, then a healthy adult male would be expected to wait politely until baby has finished lunch and gone down for a nice long nap before availing himself of similar opportunity - what I'm saying is, as a practical thing, if Miss Young is the sex object, rather than, for the sake of argument, her lovely teats, which are going to be quite sore already, then the baby is not an enhancement, it's an obstacle.

I mention this, I'm choosing my words very carefully here to try to convey a concept without getting modded, but if the fetus, or fetonucleus, in this instance, is considered to be a full person, the equal of a post birth baby, then admiring your wife while she's still pregnant is child porn, if you touch her, it's molestation, or at the very least contributing to the delinquency - isn't it?

If it seems ridiculous, it seems less ridiculous to me given that has already occurred w/respect to breastfeeding, i.e., you can't put it past them, and if you can't put it past them, then it might still be ridiculous, but ridiculous no longer means out of the question.

To put it a little more succinctly, if the eroticization of the mother (who is also wife, girlfriend, lover, etc.) is axiomatically extended to cover the baby, who we all agree is a person, then that has to apply to the blastocyst too, if that's a person, and from what I gather from at least one other poster, apparently as soon as the semen enters the vaginal vault, there's life, and a child involved -making every act of sex between consenting adults of opposite gender, an act of child sexual abuse.

Now I think we all know there's something wrong with that, but what is it? It has to be put into words, and I don't even want to try at this point, but otherwise, it has to be that way if the law is to be consistently applied: that's the letter of it, and we all know these people are sticklers for the letter, regardless of how ridiculous it is from any empirical or objective standpoint.

_____________________________

Walking nightmare...

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/10/2012 12:38:42 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
He got you there Moonhead!
Every pastafarian knows that only lasagna will cure cancer... tut tut...


I do however think that Pastafarian noodle houses, bars and stripper factories should be tax exempt.

(in reply to SoftBonds)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/10/2012 12:49:20 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
These nuts are unconcerned with that it might prevent ovulation or thicken mucus. All they care about is that stopping implantation is abortion.


In the Republicans own words we're on the side of the "educated elite". I wonder if they've noticed that means they are implicitly calling themselves team stupid... But I digress, I think plenty of people on that side managed to get at least part way through the explanation of how birth control works before this happens so you probably shouldn't oversimplify things, that's likely to just confuse them more.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/11/2012 9:34:27 AM   
xssve


Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
Nah, it has to do with social perceptions: they don't associate themselves with the financial elite pulling their strings, the conservative philanthropies that are the legacy of the Robber Barons, wealthy televangelists, Banks, Financial markets, etc., no, they see that they're football and NASCAR, we're Soccer and Mountain biking, they wear jeans ball caps and boots or tennis shoes, we wear shorts, Birkenstocks and pile, they drink beer and eat Potato Chips, we drink wine and eat exotic cheeses, we live in big houses, they live in trailer parks, etc., etc.

And there is some truth in that: Liberal urban housing markets are characterized by extremely high property values, rents and prices are inflated way beyond what one would normally expect, completely out of synch with the rest of the market, unattainable basically, by anyone without a college education, and that is also associated with being politically correct, adopting liberal values and prejudices - prejudices against poor, ignorant, semi-rural bible thumpers basically.

And the housing thing is a big problem, the weakness of liberals is the difference in value systems, liberal value systems started in the Seventies as more of a rural thing, do it yourself, organic gardening, build your own house, make your own furniture, grow your own food, generate your own energy - the Whole Earth catalog thing, republicans were "fat cats" urban bankers and businessmen, financiers, etc . Nowadays, the fat cats are still republicans, but the do-it-yourselfers are all conservatives: survivalists, etc., and the liberals are all urban consumers, with consumer values, which are largely aesthetic: quality, cutting edge consumer products with high production values - slick marketing, rather than stiff amateurs on public access, organic chain groceries instead of wooden crates with hand painted signs by the side of the road, etc.

Essentially, we're pricing ourselves out of the political market here, liberals complain about the two tiered economy, but liberals are the upper tier, and the lower one feels completely left in the dust - that's why they're digging their heels in on this one, it's about all they have left in terms of political legitimacy, as a class.

As a party, they're basically being used as stooges for the same old fat cats, Banks and corporation, that fleece them regularly and constantly, but offer them political legitimacy and the appearance of dignity while doing it, while liberals basically mock them.

Hell, like I said, 30, 40 years ago, these were the rural democratic liberals, and we were the urban republican conservatives, it's completely flipped, the republicans are more like the Democrats, pre-Kennedy, with their power base in the rural South (with the glaring exception of organized labor, which they still hate with choking passion), while the formerly republican urban North are now largely liberal democrats.

Pro-no choice is a wedge issue: there are still a lot of religious liberal democrats, by making it a religious issue, I think they hope to make religious belief the hot button issue, since it's the most basic litmus test, i.e., the more religious you are, the less likely it is you support Roe v. Wade, and everything else it represents, i.e, social, political and economic parity for women.

They're counting heavily on it, although I think for most, including swing voters and even solid percentage of conservatives, Roe v. Wade is an acceptable compromise, they may not like it but they're willing to live with it, while the personhood agenda is a distinctly far right religious issue, and it will be effective to the extent it drives conservatives to the polls if they succeed in framing it as a God vs. Moloch issue.

The level of rhetoric here can only be being fed by those Robber Baron Philanthropies I mentioned, who have considerable PR and political clout, although they seem to focusing more on the "Obabma is a N****r issue".

_____________________________

Walking nightmare...

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/12/2012 1:17:45 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
The Daily Show Reveals Republican Hypocrisy Over Women�s Reproductive Rights (MUST SEE VIDEO, especially 2:40)

Back in February, the Republican controlled Oklahoma Senate passed a bill that defines life as beginning at conception, which would effectively ban all abortions in the state, even in cases of rape and medical emergency. The bill would even ban many forms of contraception such as the morning-after pill. Because Republicans are trying to legislate what women do with their reproductive organs, Democratic Oklahoma state Senator Constance Johnson proposed an amendment that would ban men from depositing semen anywhere except inside a woman’s vagina. The amendment basically makes it a crime for men to masturbate. The amendment was defeated by the Republican Senate.

The bill has now passed a House Committee and Republicans are salivating over the prospect of killing women’s rights in Oklahoma. Now enter The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

On Wednesday night, the April 11th edition of The Daily Show ran a segment all about the Oklahoma Personhood Act. Al Madrigal went to Oklahoma to sit down with Constance Johnson and a Republican supporter of the bill, Senator Ralph Shortey. The interview reveals the incredible hypocrisy of Republicans and their views of women. Madrigal sat down with Johnson first:

JOHNSON: I put forth an amendment that outlaws the depositing of sperm anywhere other than in a woman’s vagina.

MADRIGAL: Why?

JOHNSON: If we’re talking about protecting life, then let’s talk about life at its very basic beginning.

The segment then switches to Ralph Shortey as Madrigal tells us that Republicans believe Johnson’s amendment is an overreach.

SHORTEY: I think the Johnson Amendment is an egregious attack on personal liberties from the government. And quite frankly it’s embarrassing that this was even brought up because it’s a ridiculous notion. One, it would be a huge free choice issue. Basically, the government is telling a man what he can and cannot do with his body.

MADRIGAL: Okay…

SHORTEY: There’s not another individual that knows what’s better for you than you.

MADRIGAL: And who are women to think that they can control our bodies?

SHORTEY: Right, just like there isn’t a man who thinks they can control a woman’s body.

MADRIGAL: You?

SHORTEY: Um, well I don’t know, that would be, uh, you know, it’s not about the government trying to control a woman’s body. It’s about protecting a life. When you have life inside your body, it should be the government’s place to protect that life, even if it does infringe on your liberties.

MADRIGAL: But Senator Johnson’s view of when life begins is earlier than yours. Shouldn’t we play it safe?

SHORTEY: I don’t think it’s necessary. A single sperm cell on it’s own cannot create life.

MADRIGAL: So your all about protecting the product and not the ingredients?

SHORTEY: Right, yeah.

Senator Constance Johnson says that “if killing a zygote is murder, wasting sperm should also be murder.” And she is absolutely correct. There is clearly a double standard being practiced by male Republicans. This stunning segment demonstrates the incredible hypocrisy of those male Republicans. To them, it’s a violation of personal liberties for the government to try to regulate the reproductive rights of men, but it’s absolutely fine to violate the personal liberties of women. Shortey doesn’t think the government has the right to tell a man what can or can’t do with his body, but it’s apparently acceptable to tell women what they can and can’t do with their bodies. It’s utter hypocrisy. And Republicans wonder why they’re being accused of waging a war on women and why women are flocking to support Democrats. They should watch this Daily Show segment. The fact is, if men could get pregnant, each of these male Republicans would be the first to line up at an abortion clinic.

“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
~Florynce R. Kennedy

Here’s the clip, via The Daily Show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

(in reply to xssve)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/12/2012 1:39:40 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
Watched it last night, hilarious and horrible.

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/12/2012 5:24:02 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Personhood Amendment vs Contraception


I'm thinking of a business venture, so I should get full rights as a corporation, and my idea should as a person, per the Supreme Court.

After all, life begins at conception, right?


I am thinking of 20,000 of them where I am the sole administrtor so I get 20,0000 vvoteds!


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 96
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094