The Religious Right vs. Birth Control

Isn't that the good old classic American way?

The right is anti-choice, anti-female, and anti-freedom. They hate "liberals" b/c liberal means free; ergo, they hate liberals for their freedoms. Just like the muslim terrorists do!!

While they are against abortions, they yearn for the days of old. They don't like women in the workforce because after all, those jobs could be going to white men. Women in their ideal world are tucked away in the home and seen, but not heard and producing child after child while getting the house cleaned and dinner on the table by 5 for their husbands. They don't feel women have any worth beyond that and it sends them into a rage if they get out of their "God-given" roles.

They don't feel women have any worth beyond that and it sends them into a rage if they get out of their "God-given" roles.

Now I call this the Insecure Little Tiny Penis Syndrome. There are those out there are that are so insecure that they have to suppress the female population. This is done in order to make themselves feel good about themselves. It also gives them the false impression/security that they have somehow greater value and importance than the other half (women).

ILTPS is most prevalent in societies that are religiously dominated. ILTPS is treatable and can be prevented. Please observe a Keep Separate the Church & State society soon.
[*chuckles*]

Insecure Little Tiny Penis Syndrome. There are those out there are that are so insecure that they have to suppress the female population.

This actually rings true.

I have had men tell me that their wife divorced them because their penis was too small --- which it probably was, but I suspect the real reason that their wife left them was because the man's mind was too small.

The right is anti-choice, anti-female, and anti-freedom. They hate "liberals" b/c liberal means free; ergo, they hate liberals for their freedoms. Just like the muslim terrorists do!!

I take it we've learned nothing about what these types of dram-laden generalizations and angry over-the-top rhetoric that we sling at each other from either side of political aisle accomplishes.....which is nothing.....but more angry over-the-top rhetoric.

It needs to stop...by all of us.

True...and then I proceed...:)

My major point here is that Conservatives rarely "hate" Liberals....that seems to be one of the major differences. Perhaps it's a Christian thing?

I'm a Christian and I don't hate "liberals". But i have seen many hateful and/or negative comments directed towards liberals from conservative and Christians alike. And the reverse is also true. But change has to begin somewhere. It will never happen if we keep saying that the other "side" has to change -first-. Civil and respectful discourse has to begin with each of us as individuals regardless of the flames being directed at us.

I can ask for respectful and civil discourse and an end of the pot shots and angry snark-laden rhetoric, plead for it even....as I have been doing....but my pleas are meaningless if I don't also engage in it myself.

But...we're going off topic here and derailing Soph's seed so back on topic...

My major point here is that Conservatives rarely "hate" Liberals....that seems to be one of the major differences. Perhaps it's a Christian thing?

This is a good point. I often see "I *hate* religious zealots". Or "I *hate* big corporations"....from those on the left. I even saw one thread entitled.."I *hate* re-reggers" one time. I can see being annoyed by re-reggers, but *hating* them? That seems a little over the top.

But back on topic: Is the 'satire' tag missing from this thread? Since when does the religious right oppose birth control? Even back in my CATHOLIC school days in the early and mid-80's, it was taught as a means of responsible, safe sex.

Seems to me that this is one of those 'assumptions' that are floating around out there because one small handful...a very small percentage of the general public...believes in abstinence only. Making declarations like this is akin to implying that ALL of the 'non-religious' left throws hissy fits when they see a nativity scene.

mrsR...there is a difference between hateful and negative....that's my point. I also understand leadership by example,etc., but I again must disagree.....there is not equality from both sides in terms of how each conducts themselves.

The title is a lie. I have seen numerous examples regarding "liberal articles and seeds". Ignoring the problem does not make it go away.

I hope this does not come between us.....note how we can discuss the issue in a civil manner.

Pat.....agreed.

Of course it won't come between us!

If you turn into a stark raving @!$%#-slinging over the top piss in everyones cornflakes type of person....well I'll consider de-friending you then. I figure that gives you about ...oh, say...another 50 years as a blue post-er here.

;-P

PatN;

Very good points. I know a lot of practicing Catholics who don't agree with the Church's stance on birth control. They use it and don't apologize for it.

I would rather see birth control over abortion and birth control being readily available should impact the abortion stats significantly (I hope).

If you turn into a stark raving @!$%#-slinging over the top piss in everyones cornflakes type of person.

LOL! Great description. I was on a seed earlier today where the MODERATOR was doing it. Sheesh.

phew...."turn into"..I guess I'm safe for now.

The difference...as I continue to be off topic.....I don't like to be "first" to be rude, I'm sensitive to being rude to those I rarely see being rude, and I'm willing to admit if I inadvertently was rude....sorry, my shoulder just got dislocated from patting myself on the back...:)

ROFL!

:-P

Yeah, it's kinda wierd when these older seeds pop up on the tracker every now and again.

But all of you rock - seriously it is sooooooo nice to see this civilised debate even including from my much love frenemies

Hey, Soph, howya doin? Long time no see you drama-headline-seeding liberal whore you! I've been gagging over here for lack of knowing what I'm supposed to think, I'm glad one of your seeds popped up to get my head straight!

Waving to Soph. How are you feeling?

We are certainly enjoying this seed. It is an important part of the discussion on abortion and birth control and women's rights.

Pat, are you sure that was really a "catholic" school. The high school I went to, they actually ripped out the pages in the sex ed books that mentioned contraception in any form. And this was in 1978-79. Any discussion on sexuality that didn't involve abstinence and marriage simply didn't happen.

And the catholic church I see hasn't moved an inch from that position, although a lot of the laity has.

they actually ripped out the pages in the sex ed books that mentioned contraception in any form. And this was in 1978-79

Wow, that sounds pretty drastic for the late 70s.

I spend a lot of time in pain from an repetitive task injury around 10 years ago; but I don't miss working. Miss the extra money, but not working... :-)

I have a picture in my head of a very frustrated God looking down upon us saying: "Heavens years and years ago I told them to "Be fertile, Go and populate the world. And they listened and listened and listened and now they have overpopulated the earth and I can't get them to stop. Hey, you down there - yes you- stop populating the earth before you find you have made yourself extinct from starvation. lack of air, lack of water. Stop being fertile and populating the earth. Please" /Satire

ROFL!

Hey, you down there - yes you- stop populating the earth before you find you have made yourself extinct from starvation.

When in history have the Christians really paid attention to what God told them to do or not to do?

Christians seem to take their direction from wolves ahh... men in priest's clothing who tell them what God wants them to do.

About the only thing these "godly" men can agree on is that women have no rights to much of anything including their own body... and that children are God's "gifts" to women.

Science has proven how babies are made and doctors can now start babies outside of a body and implant them into another body. God has nothing to do with it.

Women should always have access to any birth control method that they feel comfortable with and that works for them.

No one has the right to demand a woman be an incubator for a man's seed.

Mizzu, You are right, but Christians believe that abortion is murder when in fact, the Biblical command is: "Be Fertile. Go forth and populated the earth." It is in the Talmud, the words of the Rabbinical Sages (Pharisees and Teachers of the Law) that banned abortion as a means of birth control, but not as a way to save the mother's life. In the bible it says, do not cook the baby in its mother's milk; do not kill the mother. Jesus says if you find a nest with babies in it, do what you want with the babies, but do not touch the mother.

In the bible women are important, men do not like this. Religion is "man" made. How many times are we warned in the bible "Beware of false teachers" and what do we have? "Wolves in sheep's clothing" leading the sheep.

In the beginning, it was necessary for us to fertile so that we could increase in number and preserve our species. In the beginning there are two versions of Adam and Eve. In the first one, they were created together, at the same time, out of dust and they were equal. "Man" didn't like that so wrote the second version, making woman subservient by being created from Adam's rib.

Men and Woman were created equal and woman has just as much right over her body as does a man. If she doesn't want to have children she doesn't have to have children.

No one has the right to demand a woman be an incubator for a man's seed.

What the hell Bible are you reading from, huskergal?

Could you please cite references for these:

1) In the bible it says, do not cook the baby in its mother's milk; do not kill the mother.

2) Jesus says if you find a nest with babies in it, do what you want with the babies, but do not touch the mother.

Well mrsR.

1. Do not cook a baby goat in its mother's milk. Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21.

In each and every appearance it stands by itself, its meaning unclear. It is not until Deueronomy that it becomes part of the Kosher laws. It stands alone so meaning is really unclear. It is like it doesn't belong there but put there because it had to go somewhere. Since Deuteronomy finally made it part of Kosher laws, well, could be, but...

2. In looking this up, I found that I attribute it to Jesus but it is in the Torah

If you find a bird's nest by the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young birds or eggs, do not take the mother bird with the young. You may take the young birds but you must let the mother go free, Then things will go well for you, and you will live a long time. Deuteronomy 22:6-7.

I also made another mistake. So for clarity I will correct it

1. In the bible it says, Do not cook the baby goat in its mother's milk = do not touch the mother =do not hurt of kill the mother.

2. If you find a bird's nest by the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young birds or eggs, do not take the mother bird with the young. You may take the young birds but you must let the mother go free, = do not hurt or kill the mother.

Number 1 never made sense to me as it doesn't go with the verse it is in and it stands alone. It is like it doesn't belong there; just added because no one knew where to put it. When I read number 2, number one made sense as the mother's milk can nourish other babies. Men just do not understand these things so put number 1 where they thought it belonged.

God or the Bible has a way of saying the same thing over and over agains, but in different ways.

I hope I explained it properly. Thanks for calling attention to these for me. I appreciate it.

Thanks for the clarification and....

those verses have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion and everything to do with conservation.

LOL

MrsR.

Like I said, it is the Talmud that says abortion should not be used for birth control except to save the mother's life. the Rabbinic Sages of the times took those verses to mean to conserve the mother's life. So you are right about the verses being about conservation.

Which suggests that now might be the time to differentiate between abortion and birth control...I might also mention that the discussion is going exactly where I said it would go, based on the erroneous assertion in the title, and, I would suggest, the reason for the title being what it is.

It just goes to show the effort certain people make to change the subject of the debate as opposed to debating the actual subject.

Sorry Soph and Socrates if you believe that I took it elsewhere. I had a funny picture in my head and had to share it with you all.

Socrates, abortion is a form of birth control and there are many who use it as such. However, the other forms of birth control are much better and should be available to every female of reproductive age. I am in total agreement with that.

huskergirl....thank you for your reasonable response...to continue that trend...without getting into the abortion debate...my theme regarding this article is that bc and abortion are not the particular issue in this case....who pays for it is.

I can see someone having a beef with paying for an unnecessary abortion (i.e.; no one's life is at risk and not product of incest) but not paying for birth control for people who can't or won't pay for it themselves is counterproductive. The Religious Right (Reich?) are typically right-wingers who are likely opposed to welfare babies as well, seems like prevention would be way cheaper and less touchy.

As to my understanding, everybody is going to be able to buy affordable healthcare. I hope this also means affordable drug plans. If my understanding is correct, the individual will be paying for it. It will work the same way your coverage works. You pay a premium to the insurance company and in return, after you pay the co-pay the insurance company pays the rest of the cost.

Perhaps, but in terms of this article, the Heritage Foundation is considered the "Religious Right". I would disagree and suggest it is a misnomer.

Don't most people who are pro-choice take exception to it when those who are pro-life say that people use abortion as a form of birth control? And yet here I read:

Socrates, abortion is a form of birth control and there are many who use it as such.

I'm confuseled. LOL

If the inclusion of Birth control on Obamacare also includes the costs of abortion. Then yeah, I have an issue now. Preventative measures to pregnancy all fine and good but abortion is not birth control and should not be used -as- birth control.

If the inclusion of Birth control on Obamacare also includes the costs of abortion. Then yeah, I have an issue now.

There are all kinds of things in place to exclude abortion from being paid for by tax dollars. What one of the groups mentioned in the article is complaining about is that they don't consider birth control to be "preventative" health care because fertility isn't a disease so it shouldn't be included.

Good to know.

they don't consider birth control to be "preventative" health care because fertility isn't a disease so it shouldn't be included.

exactly.

Thanks for the clarification.

Socrates, abortion is a form of birth control and there are many who use it as such.

Ah my comment. Very good mrsr. Now let's go back and get the rest of it shall we?

However, the other forms of birth control are much better and should be available to every female of reproductive age. I am in total agreement with that.

I admit that I am pro-life - for myself, but I'll fight tooth and nail for my neighbor or friend to have the right to have an abortion.

What one of the groups mentioned in the article is complaining about is that they don't consider birth control to be "preventative" health care because fertility isn't a disease so it shouldn't be included.

Most likely a predominately male group who want their wives under them. You do realize that if men got pregnant there wouldn't be this argument. Any form of birth control would be fine with them and they'd want it cheap or free.

And, once again, the questions, in terms of this article, are

1. Who is this "Religious Right" of whom the title speaks....The Heritage Foundation?

2. Should various forms of birth control, including apparently abortions, be paid for by public funds?

3. Why is the title misrepresenting the article?

Answers

1. http://www.askheritage.org/?utm_source=Yahoo-Bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=2011CC

http://www.heritage.org/issues/health-care

Socrates, it is easy to find.Iif you wanted to know the Heritage Foundation are, you should have just looked them up. I posted links to make this easier for you, :)

2. Since this planet is becoming vastly overcrowded, birth control is a necessity. For those who can not afford it because they do not have affordable drug coverage, yes it should be paid for by public funds. Every man, woman, and child should be able to have good health care and this includes all kinds of birth control, including vasectomies.

3. It is not, unless it should read the extreme religious right vs birth control. Headlines are written to attract readers. This group. The Heritage foundation, is as far right as one can get and is against any form of public money be spent on birth control.

1. The Heritage Foundation...you miss the point....I'm glad you looked them up...I assume you realize that they are not the "Religious" Right.

2. Fine, at least you are addressing the actual subject of the article.....not the topic misprepresented in the title.

3. Based on What????? What in the article supports the title? The article discusses FREE birth control...which you did address in number 2. The Heritage Fund may be far right....but it is not the "religious" right. and, no, the title should not read...the extreme right vs. birth control...I have already posted suggested accurate titles. Headlines may be written to attract readers, but they should have some relationship to the article.

I'm sorry...I just don't get it....defending a title which does not reflect the article.

A lot of Headlines do not reflect the article. It is called sensational journalism. This article is just one of many.

Now run off and bother someone else,. I have had enough of your infantile pandering on this seed.

It was interesting and I learned a lot about you and I do hope we will meet again. :)

I am a female, British Muslim, human rights lawyer.

With respect, how is it possible to justify your faith in regards to your education and profession?

Considering the misogyny, bigotry, racism, war-mongering, slavery, allowance for deceit, etc. clearly stated within the Koran, Haddith and Sunnah...

As a Muslim, you believe that the Koran is the divine word of Allah (all contradictions and inconsistencies aside) or you do not. If you do not, you are an apostate and open to punishment of death and are thus, not a Muslim.

Or are you conveniently "cherry-picking" your belief system? If so, do you cherry pick secular laws that do not parallel your faith?

With respect, how is it possible to justify your faith in regards to your education and profession?

Muslims are as varied as Christians or any other faith in their observation and interpretations. I also think it's unfair to play the "if you do/think such-and-so then you are not a true believer" no matter what faith you're talking about.

@Blue Archer

Very unfair comment. I know thousands of Catholics that don’t stone adulterers, eat meat on a Friday, enjoy shellfish and a million other things that technically condemn them to hell. Moderates are what is required in any religion and the fact that you’re berating a moderate Muslim for no reason other than the fact that she is proud of her heritage is an unfair and frankly puzzling response.

The greatest criticism I have heard regarding Muslims is their treatment of women, and how they don’t speak out and change the way things are done. Here is a well educated women who seems to work hard in defence of female rights….What more can you want from an individual?

You criticise a moderate, liberal thinking Muslim for daring to oppose female inequality? Change come from within a community, no matter how the outside screams at them.

Laochra. Thank you,

If there are two things that the world is short of it’s moderation, and women who speak out for it. I will admit that I do get a massive buzz every time I knock the spots of a single minded bigot in court though.

Those who cherry-pick their faith, be it Catholic or Muslim or Baptist or whatever, seem to only cling to the title of the religion for social or traditional reasons.

I also think it's unfair to play the "if you do/think such-and-so then you are not a true believer" no matter what faith you're talking about

"I'm a Catholic, but I eat meat on Friday, and I have sex outside of wedlock, and I don't go to church, etc etc" means that you're not a Catholic, you just call yourself one for convenience. This isn't a bad thing, it's just dishonest. That would be like me saying "I'm a Messianic Jew, but I don't believe in God or Jesus."

In order to be a member of a religion, you have to adhere to the rules of that religion, or else you are not of that religion. Again, this isn't a bad thing. You can't worship Zeus and claim to be a Christian and expect to be accepted as a Christian. There's nothing wrong with shedding the meaningless title and just believing what you believe, but if you're going to claim to be a Catholic, or Muslim, or Wiccan, you better be a shining example of it, because you're going to be judged by the definition that you supply for yourself.

When I Christians who judge the actions of others, I know, for a fact, that the person is not a Christian, because Christ was specific about that thing. A Christian who hates is not a Christian. A Muslim who doesn't pray X amounts of times a day is not a Muslim.

I just don't see the reason for claiming to be something when you don't follow that faith the way it is layed out. There is nothing wrong with claiming no religion while still practicing the faith you feel comfortable with.

Iron Lung.

So many religious beliefs were created so many years ago. Time has moved on. For example you say that you are a Catholic. Therefore your beliefs will include that of Jesus Christ. He was around over 2000 years ago. He walked a lot, he didn’t own a car, because there were none. But I bet he would have played golf and enjoyed a few beers with the boys after in the 19^th. Too if that had all exsisted then, He seems that kind of guy, modern for his time. What the religious leaders need to do, in most religions, is modernise their thinking to today’s problems, and today’s way of life. Thats all you are doing. So feel good about yourself.

Or perhaps you love you're God, perhaps you draw different conclusions on how that God is portrayed within the religions holy book of choice and do not want to give up on your belief and worship as a whole but instead better it from within. This is why there are so many different sects of Christianity. It's human nature to change what they don't agree with. It is not a bad thing to gain solice from faith, so long as you live by a live an let live creed. I personally am agnostic.

The new testament contradicts plenty from the old testament, but it's still considered a part of the bible. Religion is not clear cut and never was. The world is also not black and white, you can believe in an institution and not agree with other aspects of it. That's my point.

I see what you are both saying, and I agree that the times change. I couldn't agree more. My point is that yes, times change, and religions are proven wrong, and their rules are made obsolete, which means that the religions are dying, not redefining.

For the record, I am not Catholic, I am an atheist, I just use them as my easiest example.

Religion is very Black & White, I do disagree there. A Religion is nothing more than a definition to simply describe what set of beliefs you have. If you follow the teachings of Christ, which is why he supposedly built his Church to do, then you are a Christian. If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but you don't think anything that he said, other than that one fact, is true, then you are not a Christian, because you don't follow the teachings of Christ. You may still be a very devout believer in whatever you believe, but you don't fit into the definition of "Christian" again, this isn't a bad thing.

We're all free to believe what we want, no matter how silly it is, but when defining yourself, you should be specific and accurate, unless you want to be judged by standards that are not your own. You can't tell someone you're a Muslim, while eating a bacon sandwich at noon during Ramadan, and expect to be treated like a faithful Muslim. You're going to be questioned, and probably written off as a false-Muslim, which is also fine, because who cares what people think, it's a personal choice. But you will be judged by the traditional standards of the age-old religion that you claim to be a member of.

Personally, I say break all those quaint and silly rules that don't run parallel to the Laws of Man. I think all Muslim should eat pork, pray once a week, and think very little about their god and religion. The same goes for Christians and Jews. But I also believe that all Muslims, Christians, Jews and others should dump their useless religions and focus on reality instead. If nothing else, that would curb a large number of rapes, murders, and wars.

But then again, I'm just a simple Messianic Islamic Jew who doesn't believe in God, so my opinion doesn't matter much ;)

I also think it's unfair to play the "if you do/think such-and-so then you are not a true believer" no matter what faith you're talking about.

Your statement shows a misunderstanding of my post. It is not about "true-believers". It is about how educated individuals with a foundation of logic and reason justify the contradictions and absurdities of their chosen creed.

Minimizing and cherry picking their belief system to justify continued belief...that is intellectually dishonest and unacceptable to a rational individual.

Iron Lung did a great job of conveying my thoughts and to avoid redundancy...

BTW, sayeed, please answer my question in regard to secular laws.

It is about how educated individuals with a foundation of logic and reason justify the contradictions and absurdities of their chosen creed.

Maybe she wants to make it - or the lives of those in it - better.

which is why drugs with death as a side effect and known neurotoxins are allowed in foods by the FDA/

Please take the tin foil hat off. The children are scared enough.

Lisa, right now, this very second, we have pharmacists who claim the right to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions - Target is a biggie for accepting this behavior.

I don't trust the FDA and haven't since it was filled with Reagan cronies who didn't care if lots of people died just as long as they could please Big Pharma. That is a different problem. Tin foil hat or not.

I know we can go to a different pharmacist NOW, but the right wing wants to curtail this by overturning Roe v. Wade and going from there.

the right wing wants to curtail this by overturning Roe v. Wade and going from there.

And they seem to think the only way this can legally be done is to declare that "personhood" (and thereby constitutional protection) begins at conception. Which would also affect contraception for millions of women.

Exactly! And I so fear that my younger sisters just do not understand the rights they could lose.

And I so fear that my younger sisters just do not understand the rights they could lose.

I worry about my 9yo daughter, too.

BTW, love your handle. That's what I ask friends or acquaintances who forget their pleases and thank-yous. "What, were you raised by wolves?"

And I was! My gram raised me; her surname was wolf - she was a wild gypsy woman who inhabited the outer parts of Hollywood crowds who summered at the beach in Santa Monica. I ran the beach when there was a lot less horror than you must face worrying about your 9 year old in these days.

So, yeah! I was raised by wolves. As you see me on the vine, well sometimes I'll be right out side of the lines!

she was a wild gypsy woman who inhabited the outer parts of Hollywood crowds

LOL! Maybe I should change my kids' last name. There's a rumor that one of the relatively recent forebears on their dad's side of the family (still living in England) was the offspring of a gypsy canal-dweller and her titled lover. But I wouldn't know what last name to use. :-P

Your gram sounds like a character worthy of some documentation. ;-)

*ahem*

Stories abound, Shannoscuble. I'm in the process of scanning our family photos and writing short stories about them and about my life at the beach. Hard to beat "Gidget" though, who was a real character albeit about 20 miles north of my stomping grounds.

I'm in the process of scanning our family photos and writing short stories about them and about my life at the beach

Fantastic, I'm sure there's a lot to read about and I look forward to it!

Please take the tin foil hat off. The children are scared enough.

No you need to put one on and read about aspartame and how dangerous it is to the brain.

I didn't discount what the drugs do to women's bodies.

I discounted your assertion that the FDA is attempting population control by legalizing things that will kill us. That is tin foil hat worthy.

Yeah, there is never any propaganda by the Right to wade through. /s

How dare those liberals.

lol.....deflection is also a very common tactic on the part of the Left.

I find little, if anything, that a liberal says to be based on fact or have any type of solid foundation...generally they start from the middle to avoid acknowledging the causes and end in the middle so they can avoid acknowledging the consequences.

Socrates - that is so rich. And do you point out deflections on seeds or articles about Rush Palin or others when a person on the right brings up Obama, Pelosi, Reid when they have nothing to do with the discussion? You are so obviously one sided it is pointless to have a discussion with you. It's like speaking to a 2 year old - you are right because... SARC

Yeah, there is never any propaganda by the Right to wade through

So your theory is that *propaganda* is bad, and if you see it coming from the other side of the political aisle, it then entitles you to engage in bad behavior as well.

Got it.

Yes, Socrates is completely one-sided. Actually if I deflected then so did you, (note: I did deflect cause I'm not the target you speak of)

I just find it highly amusing when someone who is completely partisan calls out the other side for partisanship. Now I know I can, on the majority, completely discount anything Socrates says as based completely in Right-Wing idealogy, which isn't in itself a bad thing, but the extreme Socrates has clearly taken it too, is the bad thing.

Pat N
You have the absolute worst habit of putting words into other people's responses. Where did I promote bad behavior? Yeah, no where.

I was merely pointing out how completely one-sided Socrates1 view is by using sarcasm to call out the obvious that both sides do it. Maybe you should consider just read the words people write rather then instill your own meaning, just something to consider.

You have the absolute worst habit of putting words into other people's responses. Where did I promote bad behavior?

I never said you promoted it. I said your "neener-neener, the right does it too" post sounded like justification for the bad behavior from the left.

Let's see how long it lasted....not too long....How "bout we pick a couple of threads and count insults? I feel pretty comfortable that over 50% will come from the Left.

I find it highly amusing that pointing out the fact that the Left engages in name calling virtually on every thread is considered partisan.

I think it goes along with the type of thinking associated with the title of this article....partisan and misleading....I don't see anyone on the Left complaining....which is what started this whole fuss.

So your telling me your not the Right calling out the Left, Socrates1?

Regardless, it's all a matter of which subject the thread is about. Obama, Pelosi, Health care threads gets right-wing haters, BEck, Rush, Tea Party threads get left-wing haters.

Calling it out does nothing, but that won't stop me from doing it. As I see now in calling you out. But acting like children and perpetuating it because they feel justified because it was done to you first is just sad. Both sides do that.

Every issues has it's sycophants who would lay down their life for the cause, just like every issue has it's haters who try to break it down and every step on the road. At the end of the day, where does all your posturing about the Left being more vitriolic get you??
I surmise no where.

So your theory is that *propaganda* is bad, and if you see it coming from the other side of the political aisle, it then entitles you to engage in bad behavior as well.

Propaganda is neutral; there is good propaganda, and there is bad propaganda, and the evaluation of such has little to, ultimately, with its rhetorical utility. It's fair to say that propaganda without recourse to the facts has very little such utility.

So let's rewind past the place that you found to uncover what you perceived as hypocrisy, and actually address the topic. Is it your opinion that the right, on the whole, supports birth control? If so, why do you think the perception has arisen that conservatives oppose it? If not, on what basis do you defend that lack of support? Or do you also have discomfort with that lack of support?

Socrates1 - Why are you making "liberals" the topic of discussion? The subject is birth control, and the perceived antipathy toward it from the right. Is it your opinion that the right is more supportive of contraception than it appears? What is your basis for believing this?

The subject is birth control, and the perceived antipathy toward it from the right.

The article doesn't try to paint the entire right as anti-birth control. It lists some very specific organizations that are "up in arms" over the idea of HCR expanding access to birth control coverage and asks why birth control can't be more of a common ground between the anti-abortion and pro-choice crowds.

I actually wasn't...if you'll note my first comment it suggested that the title misprepresented the truth...followed by my suggestion it was not an unusual occurance.

Regardless of any other "proof" or "opinion" from myself, or any other source, the article itself is speaking to the question of whether birth control should be free and/or covered, thus the real subject is under what conditions birth control should be available, not whether it should be available.

The article doesn't try to paint the entire right as anti-birth control.

Nope. Just every single person that identifies as anywhere from centrist to far right and has a belief in a higher power.

Did you miss the title?

Just every single person that identifies as anywhere from centrist to far right and has a belief in a higher power.

No, pretty much just these people:

Predictably, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the National Abstinence Education Association, and the Heritage Foundation are up in arms.

And the article specifically mentions centrists as being interested in better access to birth control:

Many centrists hope that contraception will be a source of “common ground” between the pro-choice and anti-abortion camps. The premise sounds reasonable. If anti-choicers oppose abortion, surely they will support measures proven to reduce the abortion rate, like expanded access to contraception.

Maybe there's a better phrase for people like the UCCB than "religious right" but I doubt it would fit in a headline. Would you be more willing to discuss the article if the headline had read: "Some of the Religious Right Object to HCR's Potential for Expanding Access to Birth Control"?

I actually wasn't...if you'll note my first comment it suggested that the title misprepresented the truth...followed by my suggestion it was not an unusual occurance.

Here's your actual quote:

I'm trying to figure out how the title is anything other then the normal liberal bs. The rest of us are getting just a little tired of wading through the propaganda with which we are being constantly inundated. Have liberals no sense of shame?

So if I came to one of your threads and said, "This article is bull@!$%# (only children say 'bs' when they mean 'bull@!$%#'), but I should expect that from conservatives," I should expect that my contribution will be taken seriously? Frankly, I wouldn't even give myself much credit if that was the best I could muster.

Regardless of any other "proof" . . .

My memory must be worse than I thought; I don't recall saying anything about "proof."

. . . or "opinion" from myself, or any other source, the article itself is speaking to the question of whether birth control should be free and/or covered, thus the real subject is under what conditions birth control should be available, not whether it should be available.

So perhaps you might have done better to explain why that strikes you as something different from what is implied, to you, by the title.

See how that works? You give a little, you get a little.

Well...let's take a look.

Now that the reform bill is law, HHS has to interpret the rules—and the Obama administration officials at HHS can’t be swayed as easily as elected officials.

Oh goody...we can circumvent the will of the people by using the bureacuracy....interesting concept. Before you say most people agree with the intent....then why the worry about swaying elected officials?

Below, I would suggest, are quotes which reflect the actual subject of the article and the actual area of opposition

Does health care reform’s promise of preventive care extend to free birth control?

Approving free birth control would go a long way towards restoring the trust between the Obama administration and its pro-choice base, at low political cost.

So, how about something along the lines of......."Debate Continues over the Provision of Free Birth Control Supplies". "Should the Government be in the business of providing Free Birth Control?" or even..."Some Conservative Groups Question The Propriety of Free Birth Control".....

Is the Heritage Foundation a member of the "Religious Right"?

Is the Heritage Foundation a member of the "Religious Right"?

It's certainly a member of the right, and the members thereof with whom I have spoken have been of religious persuasion, but in my experience, their focus is economic.

So, how about something along the lines of......."Debate Continues over the Provision of Free Birth Control Supplies". "Should the Government be in the business of providing Free Birth Control?" or even..."Some Conservative Groups Question The Propriety of Free Birth Control".....

All good choices. Then again, as we aren't writing term papers, I don't object to propaganda, either, provided it's essentially civil. I certainly don't find this any more objectionable than, say, "Why People Hate Religion--and God" or "What Do You Call a Liberal?"

Interjecting a note about titles of article seeds:

We aren't allowed to change them. Whether someone changes a seed title to be more positive or one does it to be more negative...it would still be against the CoH to change the title of the seed away from the title of the source being linked via the green "read article" button.

This leaves us with:

1) People seeding on the vine are stuck with the spin (good or bad) the media uses on their article titles

but....

2) People on the vine obviously will tend to seed those articles whose titles will get them noticed to drive traffic to the seed and it's a sad but true fact that people seem to flock towards negative titles more so than positive ones. So if a seeder wants to get the hits and raise the revenue, they will seed articles that will get people's blood boiling.

((I daresay Soph is rather good at this, lol. The proof of that is seen simply by taking a look at the leaderboard.))

-and/or-

3) which lean in the general direction of their own political views

Bottom line is that seeders -still- choose the seeds they put on the vine and the sources from which they take them . And those choices -do- reflect upon them as individuals be it positively or negatively.

Thel...Sorry, I'd have to disagree.

1. As we agree, the article doesn't support the title...

2. Propaganda is one thing, completely misrepresenting the truth is another.

3. I do. "People" would be a general term speaking to those who "people" who hate religion, as opposed to dogs, cats, and gremlins. To the "What do you call a Liberal"..if I remember correctly it directly corresponded to the artice and thus misrepresented nothing.

Thanks anyway.

mrsr...I agree, but suggest that addressing such titles is also "on topic".

Soph, I sure won't call you a liar on this. I stand corrected and apologies.

I think it's great what you do with the proceeds as well. That speaks volumes in and of itself!

If birth control has to be handed out (free to those who cannot afford it) to all women over the age of 18 then go for it.

I don't agree with doing this unless the gal's family Doctor is consulted first and it is determined whether or not there are other medical conditions. There are a number of medications taken for other illnesses that aren't compatible with or reduce the effectiveness of the pill. A Doctor that knows the woman's medical history needs to be included on this decision to determine what the best method of birth control is.

If we're just talking handing out condoms...fine. But anything else needs a thorough physical by a competent Dr that knows the medical history of the patient.

Of course a family doctor should be involved. Or a doctor of legal medicine.

How many baseless claims can one person place on a single thread??

Stay tuned.......

How many baseless claims can one person place on a single thread??

Actually...there is indeed a link between depression and the pill.

http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/hormones_depression.shtml

Results showed women using the Pill had an average depression rating scale score of 17.6, compared to 9.8 in the non-user group. The women involved in the study were aged over 18, not pregnant or lactating, had no clinical history of depression and had not been on anti-depressant medication in the previous 12 months

Ah, Pat, but what is a sexually active woman to do? Rhythm is a sure sign that you will get pregnant, and at the most inopportune time. I do not doubt that the Pill messes with the brain, given the amount of hormones involved. An unwanted pregnancy does the same thing, though. So, perhaps OB/GYNs need to do some counselling throughout the use of birth control.

Offering anti-depressants will do one thing, however: they mess with the sex drive; so no sex, no babies. Personally, I was blessed by taking the first bc pills offered as they sealed my Fallopian tubes up with fibers and I never ever got preggers again, which, considering that my mom gene only developed when I was about 45, is a very good thing.

Ah, Pat, but what is a sexually active woman to do?

The concept behind Norplant was a great one. Seems like they've relegated it to the scrap pile though, rather than trying to perfect it.

I had an implant back in the 70s and always got infections. I think that's why it went away - too many STDs reported. If only they could do reversible tubal ligations. If only we could get men to take a Pill. If only we could get men pregnant and have them go through barfing for 9 months and watching their bodies do impossible things (if you are good at physics, you know "miracle" is not just a nice term for birth).

But, as Dorothy Parker once said, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a right." (She was a very smart lady in the 40s.)

The rhythm method is a "sure sign" that one will get pregnant...wow maybe infertile couples should try it. Anything with a 100% success rate has to be worth trying.

Pat N
My baseless claim assertion was more to the 'dumbing down of women'. I am one who will never try to brush off scientific study results. I understand that putting artificial hormones in the body has consequences, intended or not.

But to assert that 'the higher ups' are trying to dumb our women down is just too much for me.

But to assert that 'the higher ups' are trying to dumb our women down is just too much for me.

I am sure that since you put so much faith in science and it's benevolence it would be blasphony to you. Science is pure but not the people with the money controling the results.

But to assert that 'the higher ups' are trying to dumb our women down is just too much for me.

You've stated that it's "too much for you", but haven't given any logical explanation as to why it's "too much for you". Do you have one? Or is it just a thought your mind doesn't want to comprehend?

It's always blown my mind that the same people who criticize big pharma are the same people who rush to their defense when it comes to erroneous information they may be feeding the public in order to push their product.

So Big Pharma has an active campaign to make our women illiterate to their own cycles??

Please spare me. My wife has an app on her phone that keeps track of that.

On top of the fact I didn't make the assertion. It's not my job to disprove her assertion, it's her's to prove it, and she failed.

My wife has an app on her phone that keeps track of that.

LOL! I use Outlook myself.

On top of the fact I didn't make the assertion. It's not my job to disprove her assertion, it's her's to prove it, and she failed.

Sigh....

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2010/11/sexual-problems-women-hypoactive-sexual-desire-disorder-sex-lies-and-drugs-how-big-pharma-overhyped-womens-sexual-problems.html

I'm really happy your wife has an "app for that". Too bad you don't give a crap about the women who don't own a smart phone or rely on pharma companies to be straight up with them. Fact is...they are being "dumbed down" for profit.

But as long as everything in cozy and A-OK in your little world, right?

and she failed.

Failed what? To prove that higher ups wish to dumb down women? If it were not true then women would look at the potiental side effects of most pharmacologic birth control and opt out of using it. People ar taught to have undying trust in doctors and pharmacology as though they could never be wrong.

But they are assured that the side effect only happen to some people not all. When I read about the side effects I knew I was going to find something more natural.

American Illumanati-

I think you must believe that women are not smart enough to learn how to pay attention to their bodies and prevent unwanted pregnacies naturally.

Geez, when I was a young happy hippie (versus an old happy crone), we actually had books called "our body our selves" and women going to "parties" where sex education happened, including taking a mirror and looking at one's nether regions. You see, when I went to school, we had no real sex education. All education in that department was empirical experiment - and it works, you know. I kept experimenting until I found out precisely what made one pregnant.

we actually had books called "our body our selves"

Yup, and my mom gave me a copy when I was in gradeschool. I'm thinking it's about time for my daughter to get the newest edition. ;-)

I remember those!! I even had one! I may even have it tucked away in my old memoentos box.

Wow, blast from the past!

I may even have it tucked away in my old memoentos box.

I wish there was a corresponding version for boys. My own son is 14 now and I wish I had something he could read on his own time and on his own terms that wasn't the teen version of "OMG, Mom, shut UP I don't want to HEAR this from you!"

In fact....I have my mom's as well as my own!!! The picture on hers has the girl in a dress with a cotton petticoat beneath it. Wow....

But it's not the our body ourselves book like I thought. It's a little booklet called "growing up and liking it".

I didn't get that book (growing up and liking it). We had a fifteen minute lecture in 6th year about getting periods - boys not allowed in the class. This was late for me, as I had started a year before to the dulcet tones of my dear departed mother stating "don't do anything with a boy or you'll get pregnant." Such a wonderful thing for a 10 year old to hear, especially one with a scientific bent for empirical experimentation. It took 7 years, but pregnancy did occur. I admit to this day that if I had known about abortion, I would have opted for it at that time. But to my son, if he's on line today, I am glad I didn't know because you are a treasure, albeit one I didn't understand for the first 15 years of your life.

You see, friends and foes, a teenaged girl, specifically me: I.Q. 156, already completing my first year of college, it was a blow to all I could have been. If I would have had a choice, it is not the one that was made for me: a dullard for a first husband, a career in aerospace, a 30 year plan to get a B.A. Truly, the only good thing was my child, and I couldn't raise him because I didn't know how; so I ran away, coming back into his life when he was a teenager. We live minutes away from each other now, and I'm happy to have him, but I really do miss a few degrees I had planned upon in my youth. Birth control, sex education and abortion at extreme need are the answers to keeping women free.

Lisa
Overgeneralizing isn't helping you. Not once did I state anything negative about women, but that didn't stop you from telling me what I think. I was actually advocating women are not as dumb as you think they are. Those who don't question and research on their own are ignorant and deserve the outcomes they put on themselves.

I think you must believe that women are not smart enough to learn how to pay attention to their bodies and prevent unwanted pregnacies naturally.

My wife and mother are both smarter then me in everything but 'street smarts'. God's honest truth, I believe women have an edge in intelligence due to their compassionate nature that allows them to see all sides. Men tend to find 'their truth' and be stubborn there after.

/giggle

All newborns so that the only way anybody could get pregnant is to do it DELIBERATELY. ;-)