Us Defining the Religious Right

by lisadawn82, Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 05:41:56 PM EST

I think that we need to start out in opposition by defining the Religious Right our way and get them to put some votes on record before the mid-term Congressional Election.

I think that we should play their best card against them.  Let us force a vote on

  1.  Make Divorce illegal.  They say they want to save marriage lets make them put their money where their mouth is.

  2.  Make Contraceptives illegal.  They want the Catholic vote so bad?  They want to save the unborn?  Well how about this one?  You know that they wouldn't want this to pass.  Think of the hit to the pharmacutical companies.

  3.  Make Abortion illegal.  Wow...how many kids can you stand to have with contraception illegal.

If they won on "Conservative Values"  wouldn't the repubs want to pass these issues?  Can you imagine the uproar if the first two were a possibility?

On postive promotion let us promote domestic partnerships in consideration of older Americans.  There are a lot of older folks out there who don't get married because there are many widows out there who don't want to lose their former husbands Social Security Benefits.  Those benefits may be the only thing keeping food on the couple's table.  



Tags: (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 7 Comments :: Post a Comment


Lack of Clarity (none / 0)

It is obvious your view of the "Religious Right" is way off. These ideas are pretty extreme. I would be opposed to the Federal Government making abortions illegal, just as I am apposed to it making it a "right". I would be for putting in the state's hands where it belongs. I don't think it is that extreme.

Instead trying to frame your opponent's views, why don't you formulate your own.

by Patrick Henry on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 06:17:25 PM EST

Re: Lack of Clarity (none / 0)

I don't think it's "obvious" that my views of the "Religious Right" are far off.  Living down here in Southern Virginia I've been talking to them about abortion and conservatistic views because I just don't understand why they believe this and I have to keep asking them if they really believe this.

I do have my own views.  I think that all of the above are wrong but I want my opponents on record as either supporting or opposing what I've listed.

A young girl, about 22, that I sit next to in Environmental Health class told me she voted for Bush because of his 'morals' and abortion.  I asked her that if I were pregnant and that I would die without an abortion would she deny me one.  She said yes.  That she trusts God to do the right thing.  That's the way they think down here so, no, I don't think that these views are extreme.  

Though I think that people really do think this way this was a slightly but not completely sarcastic post.

Plus, I think it's obvious that you're an ass because you don't know how to disagree with me without insulting me in public.

by lisadawn82 on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 06:31:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lack of Clarity (none / 0)

I am obviously a guest at this blog and I should show some respect. I apologize if I offended you. To be honest though I am unsure how I did in my post.

As far as the girl in your class goes, she sounds kind of extreme. While I think many mothers wouldn't kill babies to save themself, I certainly would be more leaning to save my own wife. How often does it really happen where you need to kill the baby to save the Mother? I know it is beyond rare in late-term abortions. I think this is a side issue and clouds the real one. I see it as using the exception as the rule.

I believe that everyone has to draw the line at where life begins. I myself tend to go with science and the law. According to the UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT when brainwaves stop, the person is legally dead. A baby, or fetus, has brain waves by the beginning of the third trimester. So I guess abortions performed after that point would be considered murder from my point of view. Today we have premature babies that live even when born in the 7th month of pregnancy.

Now, you may believe life begins at birth; well you certainly would be against killing the baby at that time. It just matters where the line is drawn. Personally I think late term is a little extreme. I also think the further towards conception you get the more extreme you get because of where I draw the line. The debate boils down to where should the government draw the line in a way in which more of the public can live with.

If it is about saving the life of the mother, I understand, but I don't see that as the issue. As soon as the issue becomes about saving the life of the mother the bill will pass with that revision. The truth is it hasn't been that easy and it may actually be a trick to get the bill passed. Pro-choice people have successfully put themselves in a box. Once the bill deals with the life of the mother they will have to pass it.

For the record I am opposed to all of the issues in your first post. I truly believe the President is too. I feel he is more spirtual than religous.

by Patrick Henry on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 07:39:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lack of Clarity (none / 0)

Generally, when the life of the mother is in danger and termination is necessary to save her, the survival of the fetus is not a possibility; it's simply a question of whether it dies alone or takes the mother with it.  Some women might choose not to have an abortion anyway, but they'd be committing suicide to no purpose.  This is also the case for the "health" exception the Republicans refuse to allow in their "partial-birth abortion" ban (that's as much a propaganda term as the left's "cop-killer bullets" -- you won't find it in any medical textbooks).  "Health," in this instance, generally means future fertility -- the abortion is necessary to prevent irreparable damage to the reproductive system in the process of bearing a stillborn baby.  I would support restriction of third-trimester abortions with the "life or health" exception; I cannot support without the "or health" clause.  (Incidentally, such a law, if applied only to the third trimester, would not contravene the right established under Roe v. Wade.)
Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President! Beat McCain!
by Alex on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 08:49:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lack of Clarity (none / 0)

I decided to read the bill before I talked about it anymore. It passed 10/21/03. Why are we still discussing this again? Don't I feel like an idiot? As you can see this issue is not very important to me, but over the years I have had to think it though.

I tend to define extreme when people make decisions based focusing in on irrelevant details. For example I think we both would call it extreme to wash every doorknob before you touch it, but in truth some doorknobs could have infectious diseases on them. Here is some content from the bill.

    "(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: An increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, `there are very few, if any, indications for * * * other than for delivery of a second twin'; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.

    (E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

Here is the full text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./temp/~c108cIYshV::

by Patrick Henry on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 09:57:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lack of Clarity (none / 0)

BTW: The bill doesn't ban abortion of a live fetus, much less a dead one. It only deals with partial birth abortion. Why is this an issue to you?
by Patrick Henry on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 10:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Us Defining the Religious Right (none / 0)

a friend of mine wrote today

"Now let's watch to see what Bush does with this (Excrement) Storm he's created."

...the war in Iraq
...getting recommitted coalition of the willing
...revamping social security & tax code
...appointing judges
...the ban on gay marriage

HISTORICALLY EXCESSES OF PRESIDENTS & THEIR ADMINISTRATIONS ARE EXPOSED IN 2ND TERMS

by GreyLion on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 06:30:28 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: