Quote :

"Face it, you're incorrect from both a legal standpoint (your assertion is not supported by legal precedent or The Constitution) and a moral stanpoint (you cannot justify it as moral behavior even by waving around The Bible)."

Yes, the 1st Amendment doesn't exist at all, and parents have zero right to make any medical decision for their child that you disagree with. I'm not even saying it's a morally correct decision.

^ forgive me if I don't take religious interpretations of the Bible from a religion-hating atheist.

Quote :

"so burro would an abortion be ok if it was done for religious reasons?"

do you have any one actually advocating, this, for one? Hey, would it be ok if a dog had 5 legs if I snorted coke?

[Edited on March 3, 2012 at 3:35 PM. Reason : ]

3/3/2012 3:35:41 PM

Quote :

"do you have any one actually advocating, this, for one? Hey, would it be ok if a dog had 5 legs if I snorted coke?"

You do realize that this response is the intellectual equivalent of waving a white flag. You have no answer because your shitty fucking logic breaks down...

3/3/2012 3:52:20 PM

aaronburro, the child says yes.

3/3/2012 3:54:45 PM

Quote :

"forgive me if I don't take religious interpretations of the Bible from a religion-hating atheist."

The only people allowed to interpret the Bible are the people who believe it?

3/3/2012 4:26:07 PM

^^ good argument you've got going there. lol

aaronburro 1
A Tanzarian 0

3/3/2012 4:27:49 PM

Quote :

"You do realize that this response is the intellectual equivalent of waving a white flag. You have no answer because your shitty fucking logic breaks down..."

No, I'm pointing out the absurdity of asking about hypotheticals that don't exist. Hey, what if a religion advocated snorting coke all day! what if a religion said 2+2=5!!! they don't. We're talking about CS. We're talking about parents making medical decisions for their children. We're not talking about random ass made up religions where dogs have 5 legs and 2+2=5

^^ no, but I'm not going to take religious interpretations from people who are hellbent on making it look as bad as they can.

3/3/2012 4:34:32 PM

Quote :

"does the child want to be honor killed? You'll have to note that hurling a stone at someone is massively different than praying for them. Abuse is not prayer, and prayer is not abuse"

--aaronburro

The child says yes.

Is an honor killing in this situation protected speech?

3/3/2012 4:38:47 PM

^^ actually you are refusing to answer the question because it points out the fallacy of your entire argument. Please continue to try and and dodge this simple fact.

3/3/2012 5:17:40 PM

if 2+2=5, then who was phone?

3/3/2012 6:29:55 PM

Quote :

"does the child want to be honor killed? You'll have to note that hurling a stone at someone is massively different than praying for them. Abuse is not prayer, and prayer is not abuse"

--aaronburro

The child says yes.

Is an honor killing in this situation protected speech?

3/3/2012 6:32:16 PM

keep asking stupid questions, dude.

3/3/2012 6:33:39 PM

Questions aaronburro won't answer:

1. How can failure to seek medical attention for children under your care be considered child abuse in one situation and religious freedom in another?

2. How do you balance the rights of parents against the rights of children, particularly in situations where excercise of the parents' rights (e.g., religious freedoms) can have significant life-altering or life-ending consequences for the child?

3. How are the rights of children protected when a child is not competent to make decisions regarding those rights?

4. Does the general rule of "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins" apply to parent-child relationships?

5. Or, are we back to children don't have rights?

6. Is an honor killing [...] protected speech?

3/3/2012 6:38:12 PM

keeping dodging perfectly ligitimate questions that points out how inconsistently you're willing to apply your "logic."

3/3/2012 6:39:45 PM

Questions A Tanzarian won't answer:
1) Do parents really have the right to make medical decisions for their children if they must do exactly what the gov't says?
2) How is prayer the same as honor killing?

3/3/2012 6:59:54 PM

1) Do parents really have the right to make medical decisions for their children if they must do exactly what the gov't says?

What's the basis for this question? Who is proposing the government approve all medical decisions?

2) How is prayer the same as honor killing?

Both are religious-based practices. Hence the question about whether or not parent-child honor killings are protected speech.

3/3/2012 7:33:10 PM

I most want to ask arronburro if he really believes that destroying an nonviable fertilized egg that will otherwise miscarry is abortion/murder.

3/3/2012 7:47:36 PM

ahhh, so praying is identical to an honor killing. it all makes sense now

^^ you are, effectively. You are saying that if the gov't doesn't approve of the decisions you make, then they can overrule you. There's no difference, then, if the gov't just makes the decision for you, because you have to do what they want anyway.

3/3/2012 8:42:34 PM

So, if you do something in the name of your religion that leads to the death or harm of someone, you should not be punished?

If that's the case, free anyone who killed/harmed someone in the name of their religion, as their punishment is a violation of the First Amendment.

3/3/2012 8:48:10 PM

Quote :

"ahhh, so praying is identical to an honor killing. it all makes sense now"

So..................

Are honor killings protected speech?

Quote :

"You are saying that if the gov't doesn't approve of the decisions you make, then they can overrule you. There's no difference, then, if the gov't just makes the decision for you, because you have to do what they want anyway."

Um...no. I did not say that.

3/3/2012 8:51:13 PM

Quote :

"You are saying that if the gov't doesn't approve of the decisions you make, then they can overrule you."

The government already can and does do this routinely. For example I could make the decision that I shouldn't pay taxes and the gov't would not approve of that decision and overrule it.

3/3/2012 9:03:34 PM

Quote :

"no, but I'm not going to take religious interpretations from people who are hellbent on making it look as bad as they can."

There's not much interpretation going on there. I read the passage in a couple of different versions, and it looks like if a woman was suspected of infidelity by her husband, the priest would give her some holy water. If she was pregnant by another man, the "curse" would cause her to miscarry and her womb would be barren for the rest of her days. Do you think that counts as a "holy abortion"?

3/3/2012 10:14:06 PM

^ well i suppose it would to anyone who believed in hocus pocus.

3/3/2012 10:31:34 PM

Quote :

"I most want to ask arronburro if he really believes that destroying an nonviable fertilized egg that will otherwise miscarry is abortion/murder. "

Depending on the state laws, and of course where you draw the line for life beginning, yes. If someone jumps off a building and you shoot them on the way down, the fact that they were in the process of committing suicide doesn't mean you aren't on the hook for murder.

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/3/if-you-kill-someone-who-is-committing-suicide-are-you-culpable-for-his-death

3/3/2012 11:14:25 PM

How can someone be against abortion if the definition includes this?

3/3/2012 11:23:46 PM

Quote :

"^ forgive me if I don't take religious interpretations of the Bible from a religion-hating atheist."

So the people who actually have a vested interest in it being true are the best interpreters?

Bible interpretation is the most gigantic case of confirmation bias in the history of humanity. Why do I respond to aaronburro's terrible logic?

3/4/2012 8:59:50 PM

i wonder what the quran says about abortion or about birth control.

actually no-one gives a fuck. but i do like how the liberals are using this as a deflection to the most important subject of the country right now.

very nice maneuvering though. i wonder how long this rhetoric and smoke-screening continues to work until gas prices hone in on $5.00 a gallon and the projected deficit hits around 20 trillion for 2016.

it'll be interesting.

3/4/2012 9:04:45 PM

^gas prices? gas prices? we talkin' bout abortion, no one pay attention to gas prices..we got fetuses yo

3/4/2012 11:22:14 PM

^^ lulz

it was the conservatives that made this an issue.

It's hilarious to watch people squirm when they come to the realization they're idiots for railing against birth control.

3/4/2012 11:51:11 PM

So, Santorum claims to be "personally" against contraception.

This shit is dumb. If you're against it on a personal level but would never take any policy action against it, then don't say you're against it - because you're not. Voters rightfully suspect that if someone says "I believe X on a personal level" then a national policy decision would lean toward X if that person was given such a decision.

Does anyone really think Santorum never used contraception himself? We all use contraception practically. You can get by with pulling out early for a while, but you expose yourself to the risk of a pregnancy. I don't think it's very sustainable, although that depends on the regularity of the woman's cycle, which is drastically different from woman to woman.

3/5/2012 12:27:47 AM

Quote :

" If you're against it on a personal level but would never take any policy action against it, then don't say you're against it - because you're not."

This statement is almost as dumb as Rick Santorum. Liberal democracy is reliant on people, particular elected officials, making a line between personal beliefs and policy decisions. At the most basic and absurd level, presumably Republicans are personally against Democrats, but they don't try to legislate Democrats out of existence.

Likewise, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be personally opposed to something while leaving that opposition out of your policymaking. I'm opposed to the existence of the Ku Klux Klan but I'm not rallying to ban it. There are plenty of pro-choice people who are strongly opposed, on a personal level, to abortion -- Bill and Hillary Clinton are pro-choice but I bet they'd be pissed if Chelsea got her uterus vacuumed out. And if the polls regarding this latest "birth control issue" are to be believed, there's quite a few Catholics in this country who are personally opposed to birth control but don't want to ban it or even overturn the President's efforts to get it covered by insurance.

Quote :

"Does anyone really think Santorum never used contraception himself?"

That's not too far-fetched. The man has had eight kids, for God's sake. Take rhythm method and withdrawal (the status of neither of which I'm sure of, vis-a-vis Catholicism), throw in the fact that Rick fucking Santorum might not be the most libidinous or virile of men ever to walk the face of the earth, and it seems plausible that he's never bought a condom or a pill before in his life.

---

Now, going way back to page 2 because I realized I never responded to disco_stu...

Quote :

"You mean, the media forced those involved to throw press conferences? Or make all-male, religious leader commities to discuss a woman's issue?"

Certainly the republicans involved bear their share of the blame. But I think even the ones who actively and politically oppose birth control would have kept quiet if the issue hadn't been brought forward in public discourse, forcing a response.

The other thing I think media outlets have done here is take what was initially for many a government involvement/free market/leave businesses alone thing and turn it into a sex thing. I can't blame them for that and don't think media bias need have played a role. Which makes for more compelling viewing: "Republicans oppose federal regulations on employers and insurance companies that force them to expand some coverage" or "old dudes want to take away your birth control"?

Quote :

"Besides that, "narrow part of society?" Clearly it must be less narrow than you believe or why would our politicians pander to them? 40% are creationists."

I suspect you'll find that even among creationists there are plenty who use or support the use of birth control. If nothing else, not all Christian denominations in this country are doctrinally opposed to contraception. The Catholics are vocal and numerous, sure, but they're still a minority of American Christians.

[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 1:20 AM. Reason : made a change that caused verb disagreement]

3/5/2012 1:19:19 AM

Quote :

"The other thing I think media outlets have done here is take what was initially for many a government involvement/free market/leave businesses alone thing and turn it into a sex thing. I can't blame them for that and don't think media bias need have played a role. Which makes for more compelling viewing: "Republicans oppose federal regulations on employers and insurance companies that force them to expand some coverage" or "old dudes want to take away your birth control"?"

I remember it being the right that framed this as Obama's was on Christianity before the left framed it as the Republicans war on birth control.

3/5/2012 1:30:01 AM

Quote :

"Bill and Hillary Clinton are pro-choice but I bet they'd be pissed if Chelsea got her uterus vacuumed out."

No, no, this is a case of personal views coinciding perfectly with policy. I think that if Chelsea gets pregnant with an unwanted child, then the Clintons would want the choice of whether to abort or not.

3/5/2012 1:30:51 AM

^^That may be the case. It would still surprise me that so many prominent Republicans would make such a stupid tactical decision, even though it would surprise me that they believed such a stupid thing. I can't emphasize that point enough: my incredulity doesn't stem from their idiotic beliefs. I can believe that. My trouble is in believing that any professional politician would charge into such a stupid debate without prodding, let alone en masse.

^No doubt they would. But -- and maybe I missed it -- but I don't recall Rick Santorum saying he wanted to deny people the choice of whether or not to use birth control.

3/5/2012 2:09:10 AM

I think that in certain cases he's ok with allowing an institution to take away the ability or means of someone to get contraception.

3/5/2012 2:50:54 AM

And I think there's a world of difference between saying that an institution shouldn't have to pay for birth control, and "taking away the ability to get contraception."

I think both are pretty dumb...in the long run, we probably save money by making BC cheaper. But from the perspective of our current argument, big difference.

3/5/2012 3:34:37 AM

In all honesty, the Democrats have a similar problem with health care that Republicans do with marriage.

If you say government gets out of health care, then the issue is settled. Same with marriage. Take away all federally mandated benefits and marriage becomes only a matter of the church. Take away all of the government mandated stuff with health care and it becomes an individual issue. There's nothing else to be said.

But the problem is when politicians want to:
- have government involved
- have it follow their agenda

The entire issue wouldn't matter if government wasn't involved. But it is. You can't agree to disagree anymore.

3/5/2012 10:25:14 AM

I can't conceive of anyone getting seriously sick or dying because they can't get married.

the right to marry and the right to healthcare are two entirely different things. I think the government has a vested interest in healthcare for its citizens.

3/5/2012 11:08:21 AM

There's also a clear vested interest for the government and for society as a whole that individuals or groups raising children have some support and benefits for providing something crucial to the future.

Up until now, we've used marriage as a proxy for that. Nowadays it's a shitty one, since there's tons of childless, married couples getting tax benefits for shacking up together, and there's gay couples raising children not getting shit, plus tons of single parents who get benefits but only if they qualify for welfare. We should restructure federal marriage benefits to simple derive from custody of a child. Obviously, hospital visitation rights and a few other legal rights are a plus, but no tax bennies to childless couples!

3/5/2012 11:12:41 AM

for liberals....


birth control and random republicans opinions of it in the primaries > THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD ECONOMIC COLLAPSE COMING LOLOLOL

3/5/2012 11:13:15 AM

For the 50th time, pack bryan, the right brought up contraception this time, not the left, despite all your efforts to claim so.

3/5/2012 11:13:50 AM

you're trolling is 100% failing. you are well understood at this point.

you know. putting the govt into a womans vagina once again. liberals can't get enough control can they?


[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 11:25 AM. Reason : lol hurry up and say this was a bill that republicans introduced. lol you know you want to]

3/5/2012 11:22:56 AM

Quote :

"you know. putting the govt into a womans vagina once again. liberals can't get enough control"

Offering women something optional to regulate their own vagina is not controlling them you stupid shit.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Virginia try to pass a law that will literally force an ultrasound probe into every woman's vag who wants an abortion, then literally force them to look at the ultrasound and hear the heartbeat.

And you're bitching about liberals being control freaks. Please, swallow some fucking bleach.

[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

3/5/2012 11:27:35 AM

Quote :

"Up until now, we've used marriage as a proxy for that. Nowadays it's a shitty one, since there's tons of childless, married couples getting tax benefits for shacking up together, and there's gay couples raising children not getting shit, plus tons of single parents who get benefits but only if they qualify for welfare."

Ok, I'm all for LGBT equality, but number-wise, the single parent dominates the societal problem we have out of those mentioned.

If Republicans would start proposing things to reduce the number of single parents then they would have some credibility to talk about family values. Why don't couples get married and establish a stable household? Why do women get pregnant without doing this? Those are the questions the "marriage" discussion should be addressing.

3/5/2012 11:45:15 AM

Clearly it's not actually about the sanctity of marriage so much as the sanctity of the church controlling our lives.

I mean, call me a religion hater all you want, but it is what it is. If it were really about marriage they'd be battling divorce, not gays.

3/5/2012 11:54:10 AM

Quote :

"Ok, I'm all for LGBT equality, but number-wise, the single parent dominates the societal problem we have out of those mentioned."

It doesn't matter if you just make it dependent on whether or not you're caring for children. It becomes the same problem.

Quote :

"Why do women get pregnant without doing this? "

+ A certain political party that most ardently denies anything that might provide birth control to the poor or teach them how to use it

[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2012 12:08:50 PM

nice he's resorted to death threats and silly cursing as his mode of argument for defending government getting into the private bedroom of every couple in america


lol pwnt

packbryan 1
str8foolish 0

3/5/2012 12:54:07 PM

That wasn't a threat, it was a request.

In lieu of that, please explain how "Providing an option to a woman" is controlling her?

Or, explain how the GOP can try to literally shove medical instruments into a woman against her will, and you still call liberals the control freaks.

Or, explain neither and go on another schizophrenic rant. I'll take a wild guess at which option you'll choose.

[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2012 12:57:58 PM

You have a lot of work to do to convince the under-employed / currently employed but worried / non idiot ghetto americans in this country that funding condoms for school girls and ghetto rats for a buck a fuck is more important than this:




(this doesn't even include underemployment lololol)

and last but not least, the business climate in america...



remember guys. this is meaningless in the face of important issues like government bc pills corporation thrusting itself upon the masses.

[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 1:11 PM. Reason : ,]

3/5/2012 1:09:31 PM

Explanation 3 it is

3/5/2012 1:15:01 PM

Quote :

"A certain political party that most ardently denies anything that might provide birth control to the poor or teach them how to use it"

Is it your contention that birth control methods have become harder to get and learn about since the 1980's? I would certainly like to see some statistics on that claim.

3/5/2012 1:24:03 PM