Derby Trail Forums - conservatives vs women

Page 2 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)

- The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - conservatives vs women (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45700)

Danzig

03-01-2012 09:43 PM

looks like a trifecta today, just read this one:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...-abc-news.html

just another reason for me to know i did the right thing in walking away from this church years ago.

bigrun

03-01-2012 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 842544)

Unreal..:zz::zz:

Danzig

03-02-2012 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigrun (Post 842554)

Unreal..:zz::zz:

yes, it is. i get that the priest might feel she wasn't in good standing-but timing is everything. for him to do that at that moment, and then to leave while she's delivering the eulogy. how crass and rude. then he piles on by not going to the cemetary. apparently when you graduate last in your class in theology school they still call you a priest.

dellinger63

03-02-2012 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 842183)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._old_one_.html

this is a new article on slate about the amended virginia ultrasound requirement. good article with great points made about doctors, their patients-and politicians who are trying to tell doctors how to do their job.

the last paragraph (and OH, the irony!) :

There is a debate raging now about whether it was a mistake for critics to focus on the transvaginal aspect of the law, as opposed to the fact that all mandatory ultrasounds represent an impermissible incursion into a doctor’s judgment and a woman’s rights. That, I suspect, depends on what women choose to make of Gov. McDonnell, who said yesterday that he was pleased with the passage of the new ultrasound legislation because "I think women have a right to know all the right medical information before they make an informed choice.” Yet the same McDonnell has loudly objected to TSA body scans and pat-downs in airports as crossing “the line” in regard “to people’s concerns about privacy” and “beneath the dignity” of air travelers. Everyone has a right to privacy and dignity, and if the government seeks to intrude on those rights it should be able to articulate a reason. “Women don’t really know what they’re doing” isn’t a reason. It never was.

Until someone finds situations where women are receiving abortions without pregnancy the requirement for an ultra-sound is most definitely an attack on women’s rights. Women seeking abortion certainly know their pregnant and don't require a needless test.

Plain and simple, some women find abortion the equivalent of murder and that’s their right. Conversely, some find it a mere inconvenience and that’s their right. Most women, of course fall somewhere in between.

However requiring a religion to provide something that goes against their doctrine is wrong. Separation of Church and State goes both ways and I believe the State is most definitely interfering with the Church in regards to the contraceptive requirement.

A simple solution would be to require all insurance companies to offer women of childbearing age health insurance with or without contraceptive protection coverage, with zero co-pay. Then let women make a decision individually. This would include women working for church related entities. Their rights individually are supreme to any church doctrine IMO.

If we are to believe the President; choosing the contraception coverage should be cheaper to purchase then opting out since we’ve been told insurance companies would provide it free, as it’s a net money saver. I choose not to believe the president but should he be right the Catholic church would actually be on the hook for more money than say a private corporation making a blanket decision to accept the contraception/abortion clause irregardless of their female employees individual choices.

Ultimately what a woman chooses should be of no concern and require no involvement from anyone, government included. The government needs to protect the legal right to abortion and contraception not to provide it.

For those still inclined to believe the government is not overstepping its bounds I ask you this. Do you want to open the door to government requiring property insurance? Whether it be renters’ or homeowners’ with say a gun clause? Since it could be argued a firearm in the house/apartment is a superb theft deterrent, especially in poorer areas, insurance companies would provide a firearm with each policy for free. Federal law protects American women’s right to contraception and abortion, the Federal Constitution protects the right to own and bear arms for all Americans, men and women.

Bottom line is the government should stick to governing. Let Dr.’s and hospitals provide the healthcare and their individual patients, employers or insurance companies pay for it. Just as it should not be requiring insurance companies to provide guns it should not be requiring them to provide free contraceptives. A woman’s right to abortion and contraception is absolute. It being free is not.

BTW The President has been recently reciting ‘be thy brother’s keeper’. That’s fine and dandy for him personally as a religious minded individual but it has obviously infiltrated and influenced decisions he has made administratively as president and in doing so has molested the Constitution’s dictation of separation of Church and State.

Recently, the a$$hole known as Rick Santorium treated us to a old JFK campaign speech where he said, in essence, if his (JFK’s) religion ever got in the way of making a Presidential decision he would then resign.

Too bad this President is no JFK.

Danzig

03-02-2012 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 842609)

Until someone finds situations where women are receiving abortions without pregnancy the requirement for an ultra-sound is most definitely an attack on women’s rights. Women seeking abortion certainly know their pregnant and don't require a needless test.

Plain and simple, some women find abortion the equivalent of murder and that’s their right. Conversely, some find it a mere inconvenience and that’s their right. Most women, of course fall somewhere in between.

However requiring a religion to provide something that goes against their doctrine is wrong. Separation of Church and State goes both ways and I believe the State is most definitely interfering with the Church in regards to the contraceptive requirement.
******** I think you'd have a point here if it weren't for the fact that many states already have similar requirements in place that the church has signed off on. Also, it's not an attack on the freedom of religion. The church maintains all it's abilities and freedoms-it just can't dictate those rules and regs to employees in hospitals and other church-owned facilities. after all, if you go down that road, any employer could choose to not cover certain illnesses if he claimed religious reasons. then where does it end??

A simple solution would be to require all insurance companies to offer women of childbearing age health insurance with or without contraceptive protection coverage, with zero co-pay. Then let women make a decision individually. This would include women working for church related entities. Their rights individually are supreme to any church doctrine IMO.
******* This is already what obama had backtracked to-putting the onus on the insurance companies to provide it in their package. the church is still up in arms tho.
If we are to believe the President; choosing the contraception coverage should be cheaper to purchase then opting out since we’ve been told insurance companies would provide it free, as it’s a net money saver. I choose not to believe the president but should he be right the Catholic church would actually be on the hook for more money than say a private corporation making a blanket decision to accept the contraception/abortion clause irregardless of their female employees individual choices.

Ultimately what a woman chooses should be of no concern and require no involvement from anyone, government included. The government needs to protect the legal right to abortion and contraception not to provide it.

For those still inclined to believe the government is not overstepping its bounds I ask you this. Do you want to open the door to government requiring property insurance? Whether it be renters’ or homeowners’ with say a gun clause? Since it could be argued a firearm in the house/apartment is a superb theft deterrent, especially in poorer areas, insurance companies would provide a firearm with each policy for free. Federal law protects American women’s right to contraception and abortion, the Federal Constitution protects the right to own and bear arms for all Americans, men and women.

Bottom line is the government should stick to governing. Let Dr.’s and hospitals provide the healthcare and their individual patients, employers or insurance companies pay for it. Just as it should not be requiring insurance companies to provide guns it should not be requiring them to provide free contraceptives. A woman’s right to abortion and contraception is absolute. It being free is not.

BTW The President has been recently reciting ‘be thy brother’s keeper’. That’s fine and dandy for him personally as a religious minded individual but it has obviously infiltrated and influenced decisions he has made administratively as president, including the GM bailout, and doing so has molested the Constitution’s dictation of separation of Church and State.

Recently, the a$$hole known as Rick Santorium treated us to a old JFK campaign speech where he said, in essence, if his (JFK’s) religion ever got in the way of making a Presidential decision he would then resign.

Too bad this President is no JFK.

Rick Santorum has already said he wants the SCOTUS to overturn their ruling that legalized contraception. i shudder to think how many kids i'd have if BC wasn't available. hell, i'd still be having them at 44. it's scary that pols still want to fight this battle, or that others support his thinking. luckily, not enough for him to get into office!

dellinger63

03-02-2012 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 842614)

Rick Santorum has zero chance at Pres but it would be scary to see him on a ticket knowing he's one bullet or heart attack away from taking over.

The country may be dumb but it ain't stupid

bigrun

03-02-2012 12:48 PM

Quote:

The country may be dumb but it ain't stupid

With the exception of 2000 and 2004...:D

Danzig

03-02-2012 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 842617)

Rick Santorum has zero chance at Pres but it would be scary to see him on a ticket knowing he's one bullet or heart attack away from taking over.

The country may be dumb but it ain't stupid

wasn't sure if you saw what i wrote in the body of your previous post....

and i agree he has zero shot at prez. and i doubt the eventual nominee picks him as running mate. that would be a mccain-esque mistake.

Danzig

03-02-2012 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigrun (Post 842636)

With the exception of 2000 and 2004...:D

imo we've had nothing but lightweights running for some time now for office, with both parties having unpalatable nominees. it's a disgrace when you look at leaders we've had in the last 50 years compared to previous. i have a hard time imagining history books in future talking about pelosi and boehner, obama and bush, kerry and gore, etc in the same vein as the book i'm reading now-about james k. polk...with a supporting cast of jackson, clay, daniel webster, john quincy adams, thomas hart benton, calhoun and the like.
where are our statesmen? why do we have what we have?

dellinger63

03-02-2012 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 842638)

wasn't sure if you saw what i wrote in the body of your previous post.....

I did and if certain churches, archdioceses sign off that's fine, it's then their decision. I also don't think mandating contraceptive coverage violates religious freedom unless one is forced on the pill or to an abortion clinic but it does seem like a needless intrusion by the State on the Church.

Bottom line is let the individual decide what insurance is appropriate. If Obama is to be believed a woman/church-entity opting out of contraceptive coverage would be a bigger risk and thus more expensive to insure. I think if a woman was quoted say $225/month with full contraceptive coverage as opposed $250/month w/o it, only those following religious doctrine would opt out. This of course hinges on Obama’s actuarial skills being correct.

And I was unaware of Obama allowing individual women to opt out of contraceptive coverage? If that is the case I applaud him, but I think you may be mistaken.

Danzig

03-02-2012 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 842647)

I did and if certain churches, archdioceses sign off that's fine, it's then their decision. I also don't think mandating contraceptive coverage violates religious freedom unless one is forced on the pill or to an abortion clinic but it does seem like a needless intrusion by the State on the Church.

Bottom line is let the individual decide what insurance is appropriate. If Obama is to be believed a woman/church-entity opting out of contraceptive coverage would be a bigger risk and thus more expensive to insure. I think if a woman was quoted say $225/month with full contraceptive coverage as opposed $250/month w/o it, only those following religious doctrine would opt out. This of course hinges on Obama’s actuarial skills being correct.

And I was unaware of Obama allowing individual women to opt out of contraceptive coverage? If that is the case I applaud him, but I think you may be mistaken.

i think this is in reference to the previous long post you made? what i was saying is that obama originally was going to force all employers to provide contraceptive coverage but the church squawked. that's when obama suggested putting that mandate on the insurance co. instead. not sure why an individual would demand the right to opt out of certain segments of coverage. i do know tho that currently you must pay extra for maternity benefits, as that is something that obviously would only affect a certain segment of the insured's.

certain insurance requirements are already mandated by states-minimum liability limits on vehicle coverage for instance. obviously there are precedents set in regulating things like that. i never understood why the pill was never paid for by insurers back when i took them. and yet other sexually connected medications have been since their inception. just seems inconsistent to me.

Danzig

03-02-2012 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 842647)

I did and if certain churches, archdioceses sign off that's fine, it's then their decision. I also don't think mandating contraceptive coverage violates religious freedom unless one is forced on the pill or to an abortion clinic but it does seem like a needless intrusion by the State on the Church.Bottom line is let the individual decide what insurance is appropriate. If Obama is to be believed a woman/church-entity opting out of contraceptive coverage would be a bigger risk and thus more expensive to insure. I think if a woman was quoted say $225/month with full contraceptive coverage as opposed $250/month w/o it, only those following religious doctrine would opt out. This of course hinges on Obama’s actuarial skills being correct.

And I was unaware of Obama allowing individual women to opt out of contraceptive coverage? If that is the case I applaud him, but I think you may be mistaken.

i don't view it so much as an intrusion on a church. if churches are going to run institutions other than their church, they are then employers with a larger and varied group of people working for them. to say that those employees must then bear a like burden based on their employers religion isn't something i would agree with. after all, if you open that pandora's box, where would it end??
for instance, washington state said pharmacists can opt out of dispensing the morning after pill because of their personal religious opinions...so how far could that go? could an employer then have arguments about his religious freedoms as far as his business goes? could he make arguments about hiring practices? other coverages? dress codes, firings, vacations? customers served?
if employers can opt out of offering birth control, what else could they claim is against their religion that they don't want to cover? vasectomy, hysterectomy? blood transfusions, organ donations, vaccines....the list can become endless.

Danzig

03-05-2012 09:01 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/op...ml?ref=opinion

Op-Ed Columnist
When States Abuse Women
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 3, 2012

“The state of Texas is waging war on women and their families,” Dr. Boyd added. “The new law is demeaning and disrespectful to the women of Texas, and insulting to the doctors and nurses who care for them.”

That law is part of a war over women’s health being fought around the country — and in much of the country, women are losing. State by state, legislatures are creating new obstacles to abortions and are treating women in ways that are patronizing and humiliating.

and further down, note this:

The small proportion of women and girls who aren’t using contraceptives account for half of all abortions in America, according to Guttmacher.

joeydb

03-05-2012 09:04 AM

Uhh... did anyone notice that the very title of this thread is illogical since about half of conservatives actually ARE women?

How about the reverse: a "liberals vs. men" thread. I'll bet I can find more evidence of that in the form of quotas and "diversity" legislation that try to promote the hiring of non-male candidates, and reduce the hiring of males.

The whole premise is absurd. You don't like the opposition - fine - but broad brushing it to "conservatives vs. women" is just plain stupid.

Danzig

03-05-2012 09:10 AM

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...u_a_slut_.html

Pills for Sluts?
Six questions for Rush Limbaugh about sex, promiscuity, and contraception.

By William Saletan|Posted Monday, March 5, 2012, at 8:41 AM ET

For three days last week, Rush Limbaugh ridiculed Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who had argued that health insurers should be required to cover contraception. Then, on Saturday, under pressure from his advertisers, Limbaugh apologized. The apology addressed Limbaugh’s personal language about Fluke, whom he had called a “slut” (and from whom he had jokingly demanded “videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money”). But it didn’t recant or rebut any of the ideas Limbaugh put forward during his rants against Fluke. And those ideas are worth examining, because, whether you love or hate Limbaugh, his impromptu monologues are a useful indicator of what many conservative Americans think. Let’s look at the questions he raised.

Danzig

03-05-2012 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 843508)

how is it illogical? there are conservative women who are helping to further attacks on others that share their sex, without sharing their idealogy. the current state of affairs bears out the premise that conservatives, both men and women, are in fact daily pushing legislation that is typically anti-women.
if you look at the numbers, most women consider themselves either democrat or independant, not republican.

as for it being broad brushing-that would have been the case had i said men vs women...or republicans vs women.

Danzig

03-07-2012 09:41 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-state...045059169.html

Riot	03-07-2012 06:34 PM

More bad anti-woman news - goverment mandated health care signed into law

Occurred today. Big Government intrusion into your health care and finances. Unbelievable what Gods Own Party feels empowered to do. Citizen payback at the election booth is a bit.ch.

Quote:

Gov. McDonnell ignores Virginians, signs anti-woman bill opposed by majority

In response to Governor McDonnell this afternoon signing HB 462, which mandates expensive and medically unnecessary ultrasounds for women seeking an abortion, ProgressVA Executive Director Anna Scholl released the following statement:

“The evidence is stacking up that Bob McDonnell is willfully out of touch with Virginia families. Faced with the opposition of 55% of Virginians, 33,000 petition signatures, and thousands of protestors on Capitol Square, McDonnell chose to answer the calls of extremists in his own party rather than those of his constituents. This move makes clear that Bob McDonnell prioritizes his national political aspirations over the well being of Virginia families.”

Danzig

03-11-2012 12:09 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/us...-with-gop.html

just what i figured would occur. this nominating process for the republican party has shown just how far the party has moved to the right. and that also shows just out of touch it has become.
the eventual nominee will then attempt to move center, which will expose him to cries of waffling, lying, etc.
i really wish a viable third party candidate would emerge. i'm tired of choosing between two bad guys. then again, three vomitous masses probably wouldn't be any better.

hi_im_god

03-12-2012 09:53 PM

http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/11d...d100163e41dd5b

Danzig

03-13-2012 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hi_im_god (Post 845387)

http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/11d...d100163e41dd5b

:tro:

bigrun

03-13-2012 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 844038)

Occurred today. Big Government intrusion into your health care and finances. Unbelievable what Gods Own Party feels empowered to do. Citizen payback at the election booth is a bit.ch.

Schapiro: Gov. McDonnell channels Capt. Queeg.

Quote:

Gov. McDonnell is channeling Captain Queeg — without the marbles.

Humphrey Bogart, as the off-center commander in "The Caine Mutiny," raged, "I tried to run the ship properly, by the book. But they fought me at every turn."

Bob McDonnell, as the right-of-center commander in chief, attacks a news media that, in his mind, fights him at every turn, casting Virginia as the Mississippi of the Mid-Atlantic and him as the Mullah of Movement Conservatism.

Unloading before a sympathetic audience, the online edition of the conservative National Review, McDonnell criticized reporters and pundits for focusing on pistols, probes and personhood rather than poll-tested proposals that are supposed to lift him to the vice presidency. And he alleged liberal bias in the media.

Really, what do you expect from the lamestream media?...btw, this paper leans hard right.

Quote:

"If you just read the papers, you have no idea what's going on in the legislature because the reporting has been so poor this session," said McDonnell.

"There has been inordinate focus on about three or four bills, to the exclusion of the other 1,000 bills — especially the big stuff such as higher ed, K-12, energy, veterans, pension reform and a lot of other things that are very significant and are getting virtually no attention. It's been pretty poor overall."

This is news to us.

"We have reported substantially on the budget, the state pension fund, education reform and key pieces of the governor's legislative agenda as well as issues surrounding abortion and gun rights that have sparked great public interest this year," said Times-Dispatch Editor Daniel Finnegan.

"And we have not heard one complaint from the governor."

Victimhood is a favorite strategy of politicians sinking in a bog of unflattering news stories. In this instance, it also means McDonnell becomes the narrative — again.

Hello! He's a politicion - what's new...

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2...eg-ar-1756486/

Riot	03-13-2012 03:31 PM

This is pretty funny

I am starting to pity the Republican state senators who have decided that Big Government mandated health care for women - particularly invasive transvaginal ultrasounds - is within their pervue.

You see, women have taken them up on their self-professed expertise.

Their facebook pages today are filled with women asking them their gynecologic opinions about periods, yeast infections, birth control, etc. And it's pretty damn funny.

You can see some of the victims, and their Facebook page comments, here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...inal-Medicine-

Some samples (there are plenty of other victims now that the meme has caught fire) from VA Senator Ryan McDougle's Facebook page:

*"Quick question for you-is it normal for my period to sync up with other female-bodied people? After doing the Vagina Monologues with 12 others, I got my period sooner! Gosh, ladybits are just so weird and confusing-but I don't have to worry about stuff like that now that you're looking out for me! ...And my vagina. And cervix. And uterus. And ovaries. Thanks for keeping my pretty little head from even having to think about 'down there', Senator Garrett!"

*"Hey, since you’re so interested in my health, I just wanted to let you know that I’ve been really horny lately because I’m ovulating. But don’t worry; I won’t engage in dangerous heterosexual sex that could result in a pregnancy. This is because I’m a really fat and hairy Lesbian and I plan on having sex with women for the rest of my life, the really butchy dykey kind. The current object of my affections, and central character in the majority of the sexual fantasies at the moment, is Alison Bechdel (pictured below). Thanks for showing me the light in regards to my own sexual health, in affirming that having sex with men in more trouble than it’s worth. The fact that women are sexier anyway, it just a happy coincidence."

*"Hello Senator. My daughter is still young, but will one day be a woman, and before I know it she'll be having her 'curse,' if ya know what I mean... it's not easy for kids, especially females, to have to deal with this fact of life. I don't raise my kids to be Christian, even though some of my best friends are, and they have family in Thailand, so essentially they're half Buddhist. My question to you is, is religion aside, what should she expect from a government here in the U.S. that wants to probe her vagina? How do I explain to her the whole 'good touch, bad touch' thing when politicians think it's acceptable to explore vaginas with plastic instruments? Also, is this part of a plan to create jobs somehow?"

Clip-Clop

03-13-2012 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 845484)

that is funny and appropriate.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 PM.

Page 2 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page