Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It boils down to abortion.

Anti abortion people are trying to get the camel's nose under the edge of the tent. Personhood laws are just a first step. If it's a person you can't abort it.

Same thing for the pill/IUD etc. If life begins when the sperm meets the egg, then you can't support interfering with implantation.

Religious people can't compromise on when life begins. They can't give any deadline when eliminating a zygote is OK. Because that would be admitting that there is some deadline where eliminating a zygote is OK.

Now, why this concern for the unborn in a society that shows so little regard for the living? That is another question. Of course there's the adorable little baby factor.

But if you ask many feminists, they will go back to power, specifically sexual power, specifically the awesome power of life that women possess, and me do not. Men's desire to own and control that power is what has defined gender roles and laws for millenia.

Basically I believe that allowing abortion acknowledges that females are the ultimate earthly arbiters of life and death. And no patriarchal religion, and no person indoctrinated by said religions, can tolerate that.

So how do you explain women who are pro-life? Are we all indoctrinated and incapable of coming to a pro-life conclusion without being pressured by men? If that is what you believe, you have a pretty dim view of the intelligence of hundreds of thousands of women.

I would say that you, like all women, are free to come to your own conclusions about abortion. No one should ever force you to have an abortion. Or to be pregnant.

I do believe that we are in part brainwashed by our patriarchal culture, yes. I was baptized and confirmed and went to Catholic school with nuns for 13 years. I know about indoctrination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. contraceptive rights are not going anywhere, though you shouldn't make religious institutions violate their faith. there are good and bad results to society since the widespread availability and acceptance of contraceptives, but I'd argue more good than bad.

2. abortion is a completely different issue. opponents of abortion are interested in the welfare of the baby. they are not trying to trample women or hold women back. 50% of the babies are female, obviously.

But WHY are they so interested in the welfare of a child that has not been born yet and that is dependent on a woman for survival? Why is there interest in the baby more important than hers? Is it not absurd to think that a fetus should have the same rights that you and I have? Even if it is "alive"? If men carried babies, this would not be a debate. Period.

no, it is not absurd to me. I think it absurd to feel otherwise. If one thinks the baby is a person, of course it should be protected. What is more innocent and important than our future? Seriously, clearly we approach this from different views.

What does this even mean?

Following up to ask, what are you so afraid of with regard to the future? That women will just stop having babies if they can have abortions? come on. I really want to know why so much importance is being placed on the fate of unborn children. So much importance that the life of a mother becomes second to it. It doesn't make sense to me from a social or moral standpoint. When I was pregnant, my husband and I decided from the very beginning that we would safe my live over our unborn baby's. I think that is myright. How dare anyone try to legislate that right away from me? But that's exactly what people who want to give unborn baby's "rights" want to do. How is that not oppressive? How does that not take away a woman's right to control her life?

you are not following. if someone is pro-life, that normally means they think with 100% certainty that the unborn baby is a separate living person. so saving a life is more important than a woman's right to "control". now, the only time it gets tricky is if the life of the mom is in danger if the pregnancy were to continue. in this case I don't think you can make one life more important than another life. but yes, a life > control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It boils down to abortion.

Anti abortion people are trying to get the camel's nose under the edge of the tent. Personhood laws are just a first step. If it's a person you can't abort it.

Same thing for the pill/IUD etc. If life begins when the sperm meets the egg, then you can't support interfering with implantation.

Religious people can't compromise on when life begins. They can't give any deadline when eliminating a zygote is OK. Because that would be admitting that there is some deadline where eliminating a zygote is OK.

Now, why this concern for the unborn in a society that shows so little regard for the living? That is another question. Of course there's the adorable little baby factor.

But if you ask many feminists, they will go back to power, specifically sexual power, specifically the awesome power of life that women possess, and me do not. Men's desire to own and control that power is what has defined gender roles and laws for millenia.

Basically I believe that allowing abortion acknowledges that females are the ultimate earthly arbiters of life and death. And no patriarchal religion, and no person indoctrinated by said religions, can tolerate that.

So how do you explain women who are pro-life? Are we all indoctrinated and incapable of coming to a pro-life conclusion without being pressured by men? If that is what you believe, you have a pretty dim view of the intelligence of hundreds of thousands of women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. contraceptive rights are not going anywhere, though you shouldn't make religious institutions violate their faith. there are good and bad results to society since the widespread availability and acceptance of contraceptives, but I'd argue more good than bad.

2. abortion is a completely different issue. opponents of abortion are interested in the welfare of the baby. they are not trying to trample women or hold women back. 50% of the babies are female, obviously.

But WHY are they so interested in the welfare of a child that has not been born yet and that is dependent on a woman for survival? Why is there interest in the baby more important than hers? Is it not absurd to think that a fetus should have the same rights that you and I have? Even if it is "alive"? If men carried babies, this would not be a debate. Period.

no, it is not absurd to me. I think it absurd to feel otherwise. If one thinks the baby is a person, of course it should be protected. What is more innocent and important than our future? Seriously, clearly we approach this from different views.

What does this even mean?

Following up to ask, what are you so afraid of with regard to the future? That women will just stop having babies if they can have abortions? come on. I really want to know why so much importance is being placed on the fate of unborn children. So much importance that the life of a mother becomes second to it. It doesn't make sense to me from a social or moral standpoint. When I was pregnant, my husband and I decided from the very beginning that we would safe my live over our unborn baby's. I think that is myright. How dare anyone try to legislate that right away from me? But that's exactly what people who want to give unborn baby's "rights" want to do. How is that not oppressive? How does that not take away a woman's right to control her life?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. contraceptive rights are not going anywhere, though you shouldn't make religious institutions violate their faith. there are good and bad results to society since the widespread availability and acceptance of contraceptives, but I'd argue more good than bad.

2. abortion is a completely different issue. opponents of abortion are interested in the welfare of the baby. they are not trying to trample women or hold women back. 50% of the babies are female, obviously.

But WHY are they so interested in the welfare of a child that has not been born yet and that is dependent on a woman for survival? Why is there interest in the baby more important than hers? Is it not absurd to think that a fetus should have the same rights that you and I have? Even if it is "alive"? If men carried babies, this would not be a debate. Period.

no, it is not absurd to me. I think it absurd to feel otherwise. If one thinks the baby is a person, of course it should be protected. What is more innocent and important than our future? Seriously, clearly we approach this from different views.

What does this even mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The larger issue is that Republicans don't want ANY EMPLOYER to be forced to provide insurance that covers birth control, period. They're just dressing it up as a matter of religious freedom when it is anything but. They don't want to pay for things they don't like. Fair enough. But let's not pretend that the government is persecuting Catholics. No one is forcing Catholics to take birth control.

RantingAtheist, I am a non-ranting atheist and I do not think religious employers should be forced to provide birth control through their insurance plan. This is not just the fringe issue you think it is.

I'm not the RantingAtheist. lol I'm the liberal Catholic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The larger issue is that Republicans don't want ANY EMPLOYER to be forced to provide insurance that covers birth control, period. They're just dressing it up as a matter of religious freedom when it is anything but. They don't want to pay for things they don't like. Fair enough. But let's not pretend that the government is persecuting Catholics. No one is forcing Catholics to take birth control.

RantingAtheist, I am a non-ranting atheist and I do not think religious employers should be forced to provide birth control through their insurance plan. This is not just the fringe issue you think it is.

Anonymous wrote:
The larger issue is that Republicans don't want ANY EMPLOYER to be forced to provide insurance that covers birth control, period. They're just dressing it up as a matter of religious freedom when it is anything but. They don't want to pay for things they don't like. Fair enough. But let's not pretend that the government is persecuting Catholics. No one is forcing Catholics to take birth control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. contraceptive rights are not going anywhere, though you shouldn't make religious institutions violate their faith. there are good and bad results to society since the widespread availability and acceptance of contraceptives, but I'd argue more good than bad.

2. abortion is a completely different issue. opponents of abortion are interested in the welfare of the baby. they are not trying to trample women or hold women back. 50% of the babies are female, obviously.

But WHY are they so interested in the welfare of a child that has not been born yet and that is dependent on a woman for survival? Why is there interest in the baby more important than hers? Is it not absurd to think that a fetus should have the same rights that you and I have? Even if it is "alive"? If men carried babies, this would not be a debate. Period.

no, it is not absurd to me. I think it absurd to feel otherwise. If one thinks the baby is a person, of course it should be protected. What is more innocent and important than our future? Seriously, clearly we approach this from different views.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love birth control and use it all the time.

However, I do not think that religious employers should be forced to pay for it, through insurance or not.

And I take as genuine some people's belief that life begins at conception. That makes some forms of birth control a difficult call for them. It doesn't have to be about hatred toward women or the desire to control them.

Not every person working for a Catholic institution is Catholic. Should we penalize them for having different beliefs?

are they being FORCED to work for a religious group? you want to make orthodox jews serve non-kosher food? come on, that is silly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love birth control and use it all the time.

However, I do not think that religious employers should be forced to pay for it, through insurance or not.

And I take as genuine some people's belief that life begins at conception. That makes some forms of birth control a difficult call for them. It doesn't have to be about hatred toward women or the desire to control them.

Not every person working for a Catholic institution is Catholic. Should we penalize them for having different beliefs?

are they being FORCED to work for a religious group? you want to make orthodox jews serve non-kosher food? come on, that is silly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. contraceptive rights are not going anywhere, though you shouldn't make religious institutions violate their faith. there are good and bad results to society since the widespread availability and acceptance of contraceptives, but I'd argue more good than bad.

2. abortion is a completely different issue. opponents of abortion are interested in the welfare of the baby. they are not trying to trample women or hold women back. 50% of the babies are female, obviously.

But WHY are they so interested in the welfare of a child that has not been born yet and that is dependent on a woman for survival? Why is there interest in the baby more important than hers? Is it not absurd to think that a fetus should have the same rights that you and I have? Even if it is "alive"? If men carried babies, this would not be a debate. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love birth control and use it all the time.

However, I do not think that religious employers should be forced to pay for it, through insurance or not.

And I take as genuine some people's belief that life begins at conception. That makes some forms of birth control a difficult call for them. It doesn't have to be about hatred toward women or the desire to control them.

Not every person working for a Catholic institution is Catholic. Should we penalize them for having different beliefs?

Anonymous wrote:I love birth control and use it all the time.

However, I do not think that religious employers should be forced to pay for it, through insurance or not.

And I take as genuine some people's belief that life begins at conception. That makes some forms of birth control a difficult call for them. It doesn't have to be about hatred toward women or the desire to control them.