Author Topic: Would the Republican presidential candidates restrict access to birth control?  (Read 1971 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
This is a petition that's been started because most of the Republican Candidates will outlaw forms of birth control if they win the Presidency.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/bc_repub/?r=231946&id=30558-4594515-6xx0Rax

More Christians trying to control other people's lives and create a burden which need not be there.

They whine about abortion yet want to outlaw that which can prevent abortions. Such idiocy to appeal to Christians...

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Well, I hope so.

If we have a high enough birth rate then we can fill up the country so there won't be any room for the $&#**^% foreigners to get in.[1]



 1. Sarcasm

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Darwins +164/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Another clear sign that some Christians want nothing more than to watch over everyone who has sexual intercourse.  It's a sickness...for sure.  But not surprising to me.

Offline violatedsmurf80

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
 I believe that these pro-lifers are a bunch of hypocrites, all about trying to stop birth control, abortions. But when it comes to the death penalty and stem cells they differ in stances, I think they misunderstand that in stem cell research cell are potentially capable of developing into any kind of cell. Then you have people who are pro-capital punishment and pro-life which is hypocritical or maybe it is just me that don’t understand.
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”--- Sinclair Lewis

I believe there is something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
We will be back to the Puritans before you know it.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline One Above All

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9435
  • Darwins +223/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
The very term "pro-life" is an appeal to emotion and hypocritical. I am not "against life"; quite the opposite. I am "pro-choice" and "pro-life". I don't think people should perform abortions, especially given the fact that we have contraceptives and impulse control, but I also think women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies.

If they don't want the mass of cells in their body to develop into a baby, it is their right to abort it. If they were raped and got pregnant, they have the right to abort it. If the contraceptives they were on failed (highly unlikely but still possible), they have the right to abort it.

This is the same as getting a haircut or a blood draw. The cells are a part of the person's body; they are not sentient, but they are alive. So are bacteria and viruses(?).
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 09:30:06 AM by Lucifer »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Darwins +164/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Let's not forget also that most of the abortions are done very early, using a pill, which causes the menstrual cycle to flush the fertilized egg.  It's not some beautiful little human with a cute nose.  It's identical to your ordinary, run of the mill, early miscarriage - you know, God's abortions.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11501
  • Darwins +560/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
The very term "pro-life" is an appeal to emotion and hypocritical.

yeah.  It's not like they are pro-life either.  They aren't.  They overwhelmingly are against using taxes to help the needy, provide health care, etc.  They are also overwhelmingly for the death penalty for many crimes.  what a bunch of assholes.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
well, many anti-choice people equate with anything that prevents conception as "abortion".  which is mildly amusing sincen that would also include their god.  But they are generally too ignorant and hypocritical to admit this.

As far as I can see, the current GOP candidates are anti-life since they are not concerned with a child once they are born, unless of course they grow up to be a GOP voter.  They do not advocate food programs, education, etc.  They only care about a fetus before it clears the vaginal opening.  IMO, it is not a pro-child stance at all, it is only a theocratic stance, where anything that the Christians want is more important than the thoughts and feelings of a woman and where control and obediance is the most important thing. 

One of the few things that give me some consolation is that if there is a theocracy in the US, it'll be torn apart by sectarian conflict within six months, as each Christian decides that those "others" aren't Christian "enough" and they become jealous of power. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Backspace

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1173
  • Darwins +42/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • IXNAY
Regardless of what a hypothetical Republican President wanted, it would still need to pass votes in the House and Senate.  While not always the case, the legislative branch of the US government has been known to have lucid moments of rationality.

I agree with Velkyn: "pro-life" types are really "pro-birth", completely unconcerned about what happens to the child after it leaves the birth canal.  Furthermore, many pro-lifers are pro-death penalty, and will proudly tell you so with a straight face.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 01:50:24 PM by Backspace »
There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.
-- Bernie Katz

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
That's why Ron Paul is the dude!

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Darwins +164/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
That's why Ron Paul is the dude!

Nope - he rejects evolution.  He is an idiot.

Offline jedweber

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3791
  • Darwins +19/-0
  • Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
GOP frontrunner of the week Newt Gingrich not only supports a federal "personhood" law, he thinks he's found a way to impose it by a simple majority vote of Congress (avoiding a Constitutional amendment), and then prevent the courts from ruling on it!

He said this at a Christian candidates forum in Iowa this week:

Quote
"I am intrigued with something which Robby George at Princeton has come up with, which is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, in which it says that Congress shall define personhood. That’s very clearly in the 14th Amendment. And part of what I would like to explore is whether or not you could get the Congress to pass a law which simply says: Personhood begins at conception. And therefore—and you could, in the same law, block the court and just say, ‘This will not be subject to review,’ which we have precedent for. You would therefore not have to have a constitutional amendment, because the Congress would have exercised its authority under the 14th Amendment to define life, and to therefore undo all of Roe vs. Wade, for the entire country, in one legislative action."

He (and Rick Santorum) then advocated removing specific judges and abolishing entire courts (i.e. the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) over their rulings on "moral issues" like prayer, gay marriage and abortion. So this forum featured major candidates openly promoting theocratic rule, and yet received almost no coverage in the mainstream press!

Quote
Rule of Lord
The Republican plan to nullify the courts and establish Christian theocracy.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2011/11/christian_theocracy_how_newt_gingrich_and_the_gop_would_abolish_courts_and_legislate_morality_.html

^ According to the article, Cain, Bachmann and Perry were also there promoting theocratic policies, and the only dissent came from Ron Paul.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Republicans would restrict how many times you take a dump if they could.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 564
  • Darwins +7/-0
  • Gender: Male
The answer to the OP is that it would be a complete lottery!

With flip-flops and political spin who knows what side the coin would end up in the unlikely situation that a Republican would be the next POTUS.

Maybe '2012 political' randomness may end up a better measure of randomness than radioactive decay!
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
That's why Ron Paul is the dude!

I find that this "libertarian" wants liberty for only those who agree with him.  It's those "other" people that need to be watched by gov't.

these are all a bunch of wannabee dictators.  They think that god has told them they deserve to win and what they think God "really meant" is what should be forced on everyone. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline violatedsmurf80

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
GOP frontrunner of the week Newt Gingrich not only supports a federal "personhood" law, he thinks he's found a way to impose it by a simple majority vote of Congress (avoiding a Constitutional amendment), and then prevent the courts from ruling on it!

He said this at a Christian candidates forum in Iowa this week:

Quote
"I am intrigued with something which Robby George at Princeton has come up with, which is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, in which it says that Congress shall define personhood. That’s very clearly in the 14th Amendment. And part of what I would like to explore is whether or not you could get the Congress to pass a law which simply says: Personhood begins at conception. And therefore—and you could, in the same law, block the court and just say, ‘This will not be subject to review,’ which we have precedent for. You would therefore not have to have a constitutional amendment, because the Congress would have exercised its authority under the 14th Amendment to define life, and to therefore undo all of Roe vs. Wade, for the entire country, in one legislative action."

He (and Rick Santorum) then advocated removing specific judges and abolishing entire courts (i.e. the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) over their rulings on "moral issues" like prayer, gay marriage and abortion. So this forum featured major candidates openly promoting theocratic rule, and yet received almost no coverage in the mainstream press!

Quote
Rule of Lord
The Republican plan to nullify the courts and establish Christian theocracy.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2011/11/christian_theocracy_how_newt_gingrich_and_the_gop_would_abolish_courts_and_legislate_morality_.html

^ According to the article, Cain, Bachmann and Perry were also there promoting theocratic policies, and the only dissent came from Ron Paul.

When an governing body becomes irrelevant it will resort to fascism to save itself, this includes the USA. Is it me or are we going backwards and the rest of the World ,Europe, parts of South America, and Australia laugh at us?
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”--- Sinclair Lewis

I believe there is something out there watching over us. Unfortunately, it's the government.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4288
  • Darwins +441/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I see the Republicans are working very diligently to ensure that I will never vote for one again.
Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.

Offline blue

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
  • Darwins +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Not cool, Zeus.
I see the Republicans are working very diligently to ensure that I will never vote for one again.
Ain't that the truth. I used to be a Republican, worked on campaigns (I miss putting up signs some times), was an intern for a Congressman's satellite office. Nowadays though, I don't think I can vote for the GOP because of how they've let the social issues wing of the party become the sole enforcer of party virtue and loyalty.  I do think though that this particular line of attack is going to play a large part in their undoing. The genie of women being able to control their reproduction isn't going back into the bottle easily or quietly. But maybe a few years in the political wilderness will teach the party some lessons.

Not holding my breath though.
There’s no difference between a bunch of theologians sitting around debating scripture than a bunch of D&D nerds sitting around debating which version of the Player’s Handbook to use.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3748
  • Darwins +67/-10
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Well, I hope so.

If we have a high enough birth rate then we can fill up the country so there won't be any room for the $&#**^% foreigners to get in.[1]
 1. Sarcasm
If you aint an Indian you are a foreigner
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Well, I hope so.

If we have a high enough birth rate then we can fill up the country so there won't be any room for the $&#**^% foreigners to get in.[1]
 1. Sarcasm
If you aint an Indian you are a foreigner

If Jews have the right to Israel because it was their land two thousand years ago, how come the same principle doesn't apply to American Natives?
Shouldn't they have the right to kick everyone else out and get THEIR Homeland back?

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3748
  • Darwins +67/-10
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
^^^ I like that idea :police:
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 564
  • Darwins +7/-0
  • Gender: Male
What about bisons in the americas.

Do they not have prior rights to all the humans?
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
I can see the development of fair voting rights being put in place after a period of Republican rule.  There will be a "God Test" given in order to be allowed to vote.  You must pass with a correct God view in order to be considered worthy of a vote.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Darwins +164/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog

If Jews have the right to Israel because it was their land two thousand years ago, how come the same principle doesn't apply to American Natives?
Shouldn't they have the right to kick everyone else out and get THEIR Homeland back?

Sorry, the native americans were not chosen by God, and granted that promised land.  No deal.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Both parties suck............a lot! Criticizing one and siding with the other is like having the criminal that breaks into your house and steals all of your possessions arrested while holding hands with the other criminal that broke in, abused, and held your family hostage.

Why can't there be more John Stossels, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel#Political_and_personal_beliefs
and Harry Brownes http://www.harrybrowne.org/about.htm out there?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
^^^^ what a lot of concentrated crazy in those two links.  :o
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11982
  • Darwins +251/-31
  • Gender: Male
The entire "pro-life" movement and its positions make a whole lot more sense when one refrains from the assumption that they want to protect the unborn, and instead work from the assumption that they want to oppress women.

The dual positions of "no abortions" and "no contraception", combined as well with the promotion of counter-productive abstinence-only sexual education, opposition to socialized medicine, and a traditional patriarcial attitude, all work well toward that goal - and are often found together.

It is better, from this perspective, to impregnate a poor woman who cannot afford a child and deny her an abortion, than it is to impregnate a wealthy woman of means - because the former woman will be more oppressed than the latter as a result, and oppression is the goal.
Unless you are Scarlett Johansason or something.  lol  i'd like to punish her with  my baby.  lol

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
The entire "pro-life" movement and its positions make a whole lot more sense when one refrains from the assumption that they want to protect the unborn, and instead work from the assumption that they want to oppress women.

The dual positions of "no abortions" and "no contraception", combined as well with the promotion of counter-productive abstinence-only sexual education, opposition to socialized medicine, and a traditional patriarcial attitude, all work well toward that goal - and are often found together.

It is better, from this perspective, to impregnate a poor woman who cannot afford a child and deny her an abortion, than it is to impregnate a wealthy woman of means - because the former woman will be more oppressed than the latter as a result, and oppression is the goal.

"Unionizing" the INDIVIDUALS that are pro-lifers under the same umbrella may be a flawed approach. Not all or perhaps even many are apart of the "larger movement." Using terms like "pro-life movement" IMO, uses too broad a brush in attempting to charactorize a not necessarily homogenious group of individuals and their beliefs. Many pro-life folks are in fact women; why do you feel they want themselves oppressed?
Many have not been co-opted and for whatever reason simply believe an 11 week old fetus/embryo/zygote is a person as opposed to an undeveloped, not fully functional thing that is not yet fully human and thus is not entitled to the rights afforded humanity.