Abortion Politics USA (Was "requiring...", was was "Ron Paul...")

Discussion in 'What's On Your Mind?' started by Lisa Simeone, Feb 8, 2012.

  1. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I said in an earlier response that I support the option of abortion in the case of rape. I agree that abortion is not an either or issue but I also do not support abortion on demand, especially when used as a form of birth control.
     
  2. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Another red herring ... she can still get an abortion, not in Catholic hospital.

    I just love how some people seem to feel that the first amendment applies to themselves, but it's perfectly ok to force Catholics to do something that violates their conscience because it would be really inconvenient to drive farther & have the services provided by non-Catholics.

    As far as counseling by the military is concerned, that's completely unrelated to the topic of this thread.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  3. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I moved the post about the military & rape counseling to a separate thread.

    This thread is about requiring medical providers to perform abortions in violation of their conscience and religious beliefs.
     
  4. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Wait - what happened to the 'Ron Paul's Offensive War on Women' thread? Are all of the posts now in this thread?
     
  5. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    It was never about just Ron Paul -- the alleged "offensive & war on women" itself was just as another red herring.

    Ron Paul is an Ob-Gyn who is opposed to abortion, and the topic expanded to cover other medical providers (e.g. Catholic facilities) that do not provide abortions.
     
  6. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    This thread title was changed. I didn't post this thread title. I simply posted a blog title with link to the blog entry. And the writer of that blog entry never claimed that anyone should "perform abortions in violation of their conscience and beliefs." That is a totally misleading title. So please remove my name as the initiator of this new title.
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  7. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    We are 65 posts into the thread and that is exactly what the subject has been for the most part.

    If you or anyone else would like to suggest an alternative title that accurately describes the discussion in the thread, I'll consider it.
     
  8. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I respectfully submit to all that s/he who "controls the language controls the argument."

    When overheated rhetoric is used in inflame the sensibilities, as it often is in this culture, issue at hand is usually obscured by emotion. Mike's new characterization of the discussion may seem unfair, but neither was the original headline fair. It was a wild mis-characterization of Ron Paul's views on states' rights issues as they might be applied to the abortion industry.

    Let's cool it folks. I'm not kidding when I say that at 50 years of age I have no use for the Pro-choice or Pro-life movement. They both lie without the slightest inhibition or shame, both camps' faithful followers exhibit the worst characteristics of cluster b personality disorders, and neither faction will ever be allowed to prevail in the United States. You can take that to the bank.

    Let's not get distracted by this debate. It's not the primary purpose of this forum.
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  9. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Interesting twist today in the "compromise", which is really quite clever: Insurance companies, not employers, will be required to pay for birth control (which I presume includes the abortion-inducing drugs) ...

    Breaking: Catholic and pro-life leaders slam White House ‘compromise’ on birth control mandate

    If we had a true single-payer healthcare system, would these people object to funding it? Whether it's funded by employer contributions or personal taxes, they're still funding it.

    ObamaCare in essence is a single payer system with the existing insurance companies subordinated as sub-agents of the state and assigned the tasking of collecting premiums and making payouts -- and a few gazillion exceptions thrown in, but in essence that is the organization.

    In the past, people have tried and failed to get tax reductions or exceptions based on conscientious objector status -- a phone tax to support the Vietnam War was one of the best examples, and that objection didn't fly.

    Methinks the Catholics & others may have been outmaneuvered here. That won't mean that Catholic medical providers can be forced to provide services contrary to their beliefs, but their employees will have access to those services via their insurance providers.

    The only glitch here might be if there's a Catholic or similar religious non-profit insurance coop out there underwriting such polices.

    This just hit the news, have to see how other people size it up, but the advantage may have shifted here.
     
  10. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    Agreed.

    I started up a thread elsewhere - in the 'questions' section of the site asking if it's possible for a thread to have a sub-title. If it's possible, then the thread can have its original name, but whoever posts after that can choose a sub-title for their post that makes more sense to them. I don't know if the code can support that change or not...

    I'm not wild about having my words changed mid-stream unless it's something that we've talked about and agreed on (like when I accidentally created a thread about a topic that already had its own thread). Maybe I'm the only one who cares about that, I don't know...

    Yeah, probably true.

    I see it as all related. Abortion, birth control, the TSA -- all come with First and Fourth Amendment issues.

    Personally, I like that we can have this discussion in its own little walled garden and not have it spill out into the pure DHS/TSA areas of the site. And it's been a pretty polite discussion at that. There aren't a lot of places (that I've seen) where this type of discussion can be had without people banging each other over the head with stuff. In one forum where I spend time one anti-choice guy was called a pedophile because of his views!!!! :eek::(

    I'll also admit that being part of the left, hanging out with the left (along with a few libertarians that lean left) I don't always understand how someone on the right thinks. I just don't hear that viewpoint in my circle of friends. I've actually learned a lot from you. So -- as long we can all continue being respectful of each other I'm all for continuing the discussion!
     
  11. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    As always, I use the same title for a thread as the title of whatever article/blog entry I'm posting. It's just easier. Only time I change it is if it's too long for the thread title space and will get truncated. Or if my insufferable schoolmarmishness rears its head and I don't like the wording an author uses (for instance, I changed Glenn Greenwald's "de-prioritize" to "minimize"). Otherwise, I just reproduce the title the author wrote. It's obvious to the reader from the links I provide that those are the author's words, not mine.

    Since nowhere in the original blog entry or in this discussion did anyone say or imply that people should be required to perform abortions against their beliefs, this title should be changed. If you don't want to use the original title, which was blog writer litbrit's title, then go with something generic like "Ron Paul's views on abortion."
     
  12. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Ah, no. Maybe "Divide and Conquer: Slandering Ron Paul":p?,
    "Red Meat for the Faithful"?...
    Seriously, a generic title would be "Abortion Politics USA" or something to that effect, not repeating the original author's BS.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  13. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Read that histrionic diatribe again. The author is as intellectually dishonest as they come. I don't care to pick apart all her "arguments", because reading her rant makes me physically ill. The Core of Ron Paul's position on the abortion issue respects the rights and opinions of all who are involved or effected by abortion. Litbrit doesn't even respect the right of people who disagree with her to have an opinion, much less scruples.



    Litbrit doesn't think an Obstetrician (Ron Paul) is entitled to a scruple about abortion, much less a right to chose an ethical course of action, if he happens to be male. Furthermore, she doesn't enterteign the possibility that an ethical person of either gender might disagree with her, claiming that anyone who's an "anti-choicer" doesn't "see women as fully human."

    By writing such a dishonest attack against Ron Paul's defense of real choice for everyone effected by abortion, Litbrit gets no pandering from me. She's doing what clever propagandists have always done. She's avoiding a statement of the core issue of the conflict, because once the genuine issue is directly examined the moral poverty of her position is laid bare. Her piece was propaganda directed at the readers' emotions, an attempt to sway the readers into agreeing with her on an emotional level without intellectually examining what they were agreeing to.

    I call Bravo Sierra.
     
  14. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Sorry, Elizabeth, you are mis-reading what she wrote and putting words in her mouth. (And it really seems like the objection is to criticizing Ron Paul at all, as if he's some Holy Man whose word isn't to be disputed, just because he opposes the TSA.)

    As always when we post threads here, TUG members are free to go over to the original sites and post their comments, which they do all the time.

    The title of this thread as it now stands -- "Requiring medical providers to perform abortions in violation of their conscience & beliefs" is dishonest. I understand that we won't all agree on all political issues; I never expected us to. But I certainly never expected dishonesty.
     
  15. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    My position is clear. I am quoting Litbrit directly and my political support of Ron Paul is based on his entire platform, personal record and political record.

    This is my last post on this topic. As stated earlier, I have no use for Pro-life and Pro-choice ideologues. Neither group is honest.
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  16. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I'm going to do some other work for an hour or two at which point, unless there are loud screams or a better suggestion, "Abortion Politics USA" will be the new title.
     
  17. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    I thought this was interesting, dissecting the debacle on the contraception policy, and WH damage control:
    Talking points memo.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  18. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Just my two cents but however a person titles their post should stand unless there is a legal, profanity or other such issue. If a person disagrees with how something is posted then make a post so stating.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  19. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Titles must reflect the content of the thread. Moderators Coaches can and will change them as necessary.
     
  20. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Didn't ask or expect agreement. I think in this case Moderator is the right word.
     

Share This Page