Romney: Contraception is between a man and a woman... it's none of my business.

[xebec 195]

I can't wait to become a naturalized American citizen so that I can vote Democratic. It's hilarious that Republicans are always on about how they are against "big government" but they don't seem to have an issue poking their noses into how a woman chooses to live her reproductive life.

That is because they understand that there is another person involved, whose life will be terminated as a result of someone living their "reproductive life." You clearly disagree.....fine. One of government's actual roles, according to basic American political philosophy, is to protect the unalienable rights of it's citizens-including their right to life. Expecting government to uphold its fundamental duties is not equivalent to pro big government.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Dear "Screw You Hippie" or whatever your name is, I would respond to your comment, but with a slogan like that as your public persona on "Visa Journey", I don't see much point. I'm guessing that nuanced arguments are probably not your forté.

As for Libertarianism, um, no, I'm not socially liberal and fiscally conservative, as most Libertarians seem to be. I come from a country that has a long and proud history of Socialism, and I will be a Socialist until my dying day.

perhaps you should go back to that country instead of trying to change ours.

[mari&Ryan 93]

I can't wait to become a naturalized American citizen so that I can vote Democratic. It's hilarious that Republicans are always on about how they are against "big government" but they don't seem to have an issue poking their noses into how a woman chooses to live her reproductive life.

Ooops to bad I just become a U.S. citizen and I'll be voting Republican. As for the socialism thing. yikes. I came from a pretend socialism country and I hope never have to back until that changes.

Edited March 2, 2012 by mari&Ryan

[xebec 195]

I can't wait to become a naturalized American citizen so that I can vote Democratic.

I'm glad that you are here in Texas. Welcome.

I can't wait until my wife becomes a naturalized American citizen to negate your vote.....

Ooops to bad I just become a U.S. citizen and I'll be voting Republican. As for the socialism thing. yikes. I came from a pretend socialism country and I hope never have to back until that changes.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

That is because they understand that there is another person involved, whose life will be terminated as a result of someone living their "reproductive life."

Because, as you know, every sperm is sacred.

Dirty, dirty sluts, wanting their pills and IUDs so they can schtup hither, thither and yon. Filthy.

[xebec 195]

Because, as you know, every sperm is sacred.

Dirty, dirty sluts, wanting their pills and IUDs so they can schtup hither, thither and yon. Filthy.

WOW! My hat is off to you Madam! A true English wit....

The whole scarlet pimpernel at the mad hatter's tea party thing really works for you. And I LOVE how you throw worn out old conventions like rational thought and comprehensibility to the wind......very avant-garde. Oh- and the non-sequitur thing about sperm and contraception......absolutely brilliant. Those junior college acting classes are really paying off.

I bet you wear silly hats and wigs when you post here.......mmmmmmm fun.

Edited March 2, 2012 by xebec

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

WOW! My hat is off to you Madam! A true English wit....

The whole scarlet pimpernel at the mad hatter's tea party thing really works for you. And I LOVE how you throw worn out old conventions like rational thought and comprehensibility to the wind......very avant-garde. Oh- and the non-sequitur thing about sperm and contraception......absolutely brilliant. Those junior college acting classes are really paying off.

I bet you wear silly hats and wigs when you post here.......mmmmmmm fun.

How unbelievably droll.

It's disingenuous to state that this is not about contraception. The discussion is about whether or not insurance provided through employers should include coverage of contraceptive services. You seemed to state that taking control of one's reproductive life resulted in taking lives. Since the vast majority of reproductive health services involve preventative measures which would avoid situations in which people might consider abortion, I drew the conclusion that you saw all contraception as abortifacient. I hope that I was wrong in that conclusion.

The current tenor of some of the discussion about this matter in the greater public sphere has turned quite shrill and has included dismissal of women who want to take control of their reproductive lives, calling them sluts and hookers. Although this has not been brought up here on VJ, it is now in the public arena and I tend to think most of us on here would condemn such slurs. Being responsible in taking control of all aspects of one's health should be commended, not condemned.

By the way, I'm American, not British. And I own not one single wig nor silly hat, unless you count the Nyan Cat hats I've knitted for a few VJers. They're super cute and definitely silly, though I don't have any in stock at the moment as they're made to order.

[xebec 195]

How unbelievably droll.

It's disingenuous to state that this is not about contraception. The discussion is about whether or not insurance provided through employers should include coverage of contraceptive services. You seemed to state that taking control of one's reproductive life resulted in taking lives. Since the vast majority of reproductive health services involve preventative measures which would avoid situations in which people might consider abortion, I drew the conclusion that you saw all contraception as abortifacient. I hope that I was wrong in that conclusion.

The current tenor of some of the discussion about this matter in the greater public sphere has turned quite shrill and has included dismissal of women who want to take control of their reproductive lives, calling them sluts and hookers. Although this has not been brought up here on VJ, it is now in the public arena and I tend to think most of us on here would condemn such slurs. Being responsible in taking control of all aspects of one's health should be commended, not condemned.

By the way, I'm American, not British. And I own not one single wig nor silly hat, unless you count the Nyan Cat hats I've knitted for a few VJers. They're super cute and definitely silly, though I don't have any in stock at the moment as they're made to order.

I would think that most people draw a distinction between contraception and abortion. Taking control of one's "reproductive life" was the euphemism for abortion used by the poster to whom I was responding. I completely agree that use of contraception is the responsible choice, and helps to prevent a situation in which someone is forced to make a much more, er.....morally precarious choice later.

Regards

[james&olya 1,121]

That is because they understand that there is another person involved, whose life will be terminated as a result of someone living their "reproductive life." You clearly disagree.....fine. One of government's actual roles, according to basic American political philosophy, is to protect the unalienable rights of it's citizens-including their right to life. Expecting government to uphold its fundamental duties is not equivalent to pro big government.

A zygote, an embryo, even a fetus is NOT a citizen! So how is it that the role of government is to protect it? And why stop there? Why not get even more ridiculous and protect sperm from being 'wasted'? And don't even try to use the bible to make the distinction, just look up the text that provides the basis for the sin of 'onanism'! (sometimes now referred to as 'pull and pray')

[xebec 195]

A zygote, an embryo, even a fetus is NOT a citizen! So how is it that the role of government is to protect it? And why stop there? Why not get even more ridiculous and protect sperm from being 'wasted'? And don't even try to use the bible to make the distinction, just look up the text that provides the basis for the sin of 'onanism'! (sometimes now referred to as 'pull and pray')

Two problems with your opinion (And that, of course, is what your above statement represents):

1) You are uninformed about the basic enlightenment underpinnings of our social contract. By definition, citizenship is not a prerequisite to the possession of unalienable human rights, since citizenship is is something granted by government. A few examples of this, stated by some of the most important philosophers on the issue:

we must consider what state all men [human beings] are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man

(John Locke in "Second Treatise on Government")

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [human beings] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

(Thomas Jefferson in the "Declaration of Independence")

[Life is] a right inherent by nature in every individual

(William Blackstone in “Commentaries on the Laws of England” )

There is a benefit to staying awake during history classes.

2) You are uninformed about basic biology. No need to reference the Bible. Here are a couple of resources for your perusal:

The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote .

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html#b

A life cycle is a description of an organism as it passes from conception to production of progeny (offspring)

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl13.htm

Biology 101 my friend. Life plus unique human DNA equals.....guess what. Human life.

What is ridiculous is equating a human cell (sperm) to a living organism. There is a benefit to staying awake during biology classes.

[james&olya 1,121]

Two problems with your opinion (And that, of course, is what your above statement represents):

1) You are uninformed about the basic enlightenment underpinnings of our social contract. By definition, citizenship is not a prerequisite to the possession of unalienable human rights, since citizenship is is something granted by government. A few examples of this, stated by some of the most important philosophers on the issue:

(John Locke in "Second Treatise on Government")

(Thomas Jefferson in the "Declaration of Independence")

(William Blackstone in “Commentaries on the Laws of England” )

There is a benefit to staying awake during history classes.

2) You are uninformed about basic biology. No need to reference the Bible. Here are a couple of resources for your perusal:

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html#b

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl13.htm

Biology 101 my friend. Life plus unique human DNA equals.....guess what. Human life.

What is ridiculous is equating a human cell (sperm) to a living organism. There is a benefit to staying awake during biology classes.

I was responding to YOUR statement about a government having a duty to its CITIZENS! Maybe you need to read and understand your own posts!

As to the definition of person-hood, there is a great range of opinions on that! I do not cede to you or your church the right to decide for me or any other citizen or person the right to impose your own definition and moral code of conduct! Unique human DNA? So do you believe that identical twins are really only one person? Being alive and being a person are not the same! It is a moral distinction that you are trying to make here and as such, you and the other religious types here have no right to impose these religiously based views on the rest of us!

[xebec 195]

I was responding to YOUR statement about a government having a duty to its CITIZENS! Maybe you need to read and understand your own posts!

As to the definition of person-hood, there is a great range of opinions on that! I do not cede to you or your church the right to decide for me or any other citizen or person the right to impose your own definition and moral code of conduct! Unique human DNA? So do you believe that identical twins are really only one person? Being alive and being a person are not the same! It is a moral distinction that you are trying to make here and as such, you and the other religious types here have no right to impose these religiously based views on the rest of us!

The government has a duty to protect the natural rights of all human beings under it's purview. You truly think some form of "legal" citizenship is required for a person to expect this? You believe that a human being loses their basic human rights the moment they set foot on American soil, unless they have citizenship? Regardless, I would certainly argue that the child of two American parents is a citizen, no matter what your predilection for bureaucratic legitimacy. Your 3rd grade "gotcha" attempt falls flat...

Unique human DNA? So do you believe that identical twins are really only one person?

You realize that you are falling back on intentional obtuseness, no? Twins, triplets, whatever.....all have DNA that is a unique combination that results from their parent's union. What difference does it make to this issue whether two humans, conceived together, share this? What is the point?

Being alive and being a person are not the same!

That is true. A living redwood is not a person. A living wombat is not a person. Again what is the point? You say that it is a "moral distinction" that I am trying to make. I cited simple biology references. Read and understand. You are the one trying to draw some mystical distinction between the biological fact of a living human (again, a basic biological definition) and a "person." What is the difference, if not some arbitrary "moral" difference you have chosen to accept?

Please point out in my post where I mobilized

religiously based views

. What is "my church?"

[mari&Ryan 93]

A zygote, an embryo, even a fetus is NOT a citizen! So how is it that the role of government is to protect it? And why stop there? Why not get even more ridiculous and protect sperm from being 'wasted'? And don't even try to use the bible to make the distinction, just look up the text that provides the basis for the sin of 'onanism'! (sometimes now referred to as 'pull and pray')

Ahhhh remember those days back in time when you were a "fetus" an "embryo" and your parents decided to complete your mom pregnancy? Ohh Thanks God they did because then you wouldn't be here many years later saying whatever you want... Yes everything and everyone have a beginning and being a "fetus/embryo" was your and mine. Great uh?

[james&olya 1,121]

The government has a duty to protect the natural rights of all human beings under it's purview. You truly think some form of "legal" citizenship is required for a person to expect this? You believe that a human being loses their basic human rights the moment they set foot on American soil, unless they have citizenship? Regardless, I would certainly argue that the child of two American parents is a citizen, no matter what your predilection for bureaucratic legitimacy. Your 3rd grade "gotcha" attempt falls flat...

You realize that you are falling back on intentional obtuseness, no? Twins, triplets, whatever.....all have DNA that is a unique combination that results from their parent's union. What difference does it make to this issue whether two humans, conceived together, share this? What is the point?

That is true. A living redwood is not a person. A living wombat is not a person. Again what is the point? You say that it is a "moral distinction" that I am trying to make. I cited simple biology references. Read and understand. You are the one trying to draw some mystical distinction between the biological fact of a living human (again, a basic biological definition) and a "person." What is the difference, if not some arbitrary "moral" difference you have chosen to accept?

Please point out in my post where I mobilized . What is "my church?"

YOU are the one that was using the 'citizen' rationale for government protection! I only pointed out that you are not a citizen till birth!

'Personhood' is the right question, but many different definitions exist there as to when does that begin and end. These distinctions are morally and religiously based, for the most part. I know that many of you RWNJ's don't like to acknowledge it, but we have a secular government. As such, government shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion! You and whatever church or cult you belong to, has NO right to seek to compel me or anyone else to live by your moral code. In a free country morality is still the purview of the individual! There is a considerable overlap of secular law and many religious moral codes but they are never the same in a secular, pluralistic nation such as ours.

Identical twins, triplets, and quadruplets (yes, they exist!) do share the same DNA, as they began from a single Zygote and divided after that. So if you believe that a soul is issued at fertilization, then do the twins share a soul? Is there some special mechanism to issue 2nd's if necessary? And if cloning ever does happen for humans, will those clones be eligible to receive souls? (I use the word soul in its religious context to distinguish it from my secular definition of 'personhood').

[xebec 195]

YOU are the one that was using the 'citizen' rationale for government protection! I only pointed out that you are not a citizen till birth!

'Personhood' is the right question, but many different definitions exist there as to when does that begin and end. These distinctions are morally and religiously based, for the most part. I know that many of you RWNJ's don't like to acknowledge it, but we have a secular government. As such, government shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion! You and whatever church or cult you belong to, has NO right to seek to compel me or anyone else to live by your moral code. In a free country morality is still the purview of the individual! There is a considerable overlap of secular law and many religious moral codes but they are never the same in a secular, pluralistic nation such as ours.

Identical twins, triplets, and quadruplets (yes, they exist!) do share the same DNA, as they began from a single Zygote and divided after that. So if you believe that a soul is issued at fertilization, then do the twins share a soul? Is there some special mechanism to issue 2nd's if necessary? And if cloning ever does happen for humans, will those clones be eligible to receive souls? (I use the word soul in its religious context to distinguish it from my secular definition of 'personhood').

LOL. That sounds like the progressive version of Mel Gibson Gibson: "...But you'll never take my freedom!"

Drop the immature attempts to play gotcha, and the kindergarten name calling, and we can talk (if that's truly what you are interested in). Twisting and turning about twins and citizenship, or making dramatic buffoonish claims about what you assume to be my religious views, are lame attempts to avoid the core issues. Engage my my arguments directly, if you think you have the ammunition. Hint.....I'll point out again that i posted no religious support for my arguments. Try again.