Birth Control the same thing as Abortion?

[Reijin]

Bush believes so and is seeking a ban on both, defining using any birth control pills (and I assume this would extend to condoms) as birth control under a new definition that will include abortion as "a birth control" which will allow the gov to refuse access through public healthcare.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/...146&page=1

Watch the video.

[Raditzu]

If what Clinton was saying is even half accurate that's... amazing.

[Tobias]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8 obligatory

Theres no way this could get passed in any form though.

[Krillin]

Sounds like good ol' Bushie has gone Catholic.

[Android-18]

Thank god I live in Canada.

[Reijin]

Like, he never seems to push for laws that help the country in any way OTHER than to support his religious beliefs. Now, I'm not in any way bashing religion itself, but most of the rules he pushes for have no logical point behind them at all other than the fact that his beliefs disagree with them, such as the banning gay marraige thing (probably the absolute stupidest bullshit this country has ever done). I wouldn't care if this was an expected style of rulings, but the fact remains that we are supposed to have a seperation of church and state and to make laws based on everyone in mind and not just one religious groups feelings, which clearly doesn't happen anymore.

There was a rumor at one point that Bush was pushing to make it so that "athiests couldn't vote" or something, involving voting using the church as your method, but I never saw factual evidence and therefore can't believe that one. There is one guy however who is pushing to ban wiccans and pagans from the military and to ban them from citizenship, its supposed to be the third runner for the presidency or something. And I know I've seen multiple times where they are actively discussing the removal of the "seperation of church and state" stance as they feel it interferes with the current lawmaking process.

So I am left wondering, what was the entire point of establishing a set of rules for this country to work from and for the government to be ruled from (in order to prevent a corruption of government and to keep it in check) if we just change all of those rules to give us easy workarounds to do exactly what "America was started in order to escape"?

So stupid.

[Super Buu]

I think the controversy over the pill is that a lot of people believe there are post-fertilization mechanisms to it, though it's in no way proven. I'm assuming that condoms wouldn't be affected, since those are prevention. I don't like it either way, but if it includes condoms as well then that's pure retardation.

It won't happen, though.

Edit: Agreed, Reiman.

[Violet]

Our political system is brimming with hypocritical prudes. Bush being re-elected was the biggest clusterfuck the USA has gotten itself into, albeit inadvertently. Pretty soon, we won't be able to do shit without it going through regs or is 'illegal'.

As a female, who would be affected by this, I think its utter and complete bullshit. I don't support abortion outside of a clear necessity (such as rape/fatal medical conditions that compromise the mother's life, etc.), however, banning these contraceptives would be a really bad idea, and would impinge on our natural rights. I'm wholeheartedly with the whole "It's my body and I'll do what I want." ideal, and it irks the hell out of me that someone would have those kinds of balls to come out and prevent me from potential unwanted pregnancy.

If this bill passes, I'm heading to Canada.

[Reijin]

Honestly I don't expect it to survive much longer, given that I'm wholly against a 4 year vote system that gives any significant amount of power to one man. I don't believe it works, so far its proving that way, and I think its detrimental to the idea of long term planning. Currently, Bush has proven how easily one man can get voted in and do a complete 180 in terms of an administration pushing random laws out and canceling all that was worked for before. I could add more, but that'd be a complete tangent and no point.

[Tobias]

Well unfortunately the system was founded on the assumption that if the congress and supreme court failed to provide checks and balance the people would.

[Lucifer]

I wish people would stop trying to destroy our planet.

We're facing a massive population crisis. Either we need to start killing old people or people need to stop having so many fucking kids. The one child rule in China thrilled me, but even that's been ditched.

It angers me that these religious fanatics believe they're preserving the sanctity of life when in fact they're supporting increased starvation and a more uneven distribution of the world's wealth.

It angers me even more that this selfishness is hiding under a cloak of false morality.

Is there anything more selfish or weak than believing in doing "good" because a higher being wills it?

I'm all for spirituality. I'm not for stupidity.

Such legislation wouldn't just be a slap in the face to the separation of church and state, it would be amongst the most globally irresponsible and disgusting ever conceived, pardon the pun.

God bless America.

[Krillin]

Democracy's greatest virtue is that it is incredibly inefficient. As many of you have already said, there's no way this bill is being passed.

On the gay marriage front, David Blankenhorn has put together a compelling, non-religious reason why gay marriage would be detrimental to society; if any of you are interested in this issue, I recommend "The Future of Marriage". Fascinating read.

[Lucifer]

There is no argument against gay marriage in a secular sense. Religions can do what they like, it's their perogative. A gay man shouldn't want a church that opposes them to bless their union any more than a black man should want to join the KKK.

There is, however, a strong argument against gay parenthood. I personally oppose it. I reconciled myself long ago to the idea that raising a family would just be selfish to me, and I maintain the view, as does Blankenhorn, that the best environment for a child to be raised is within a stable heterosexual marriage. As a rule. There are of course exceptions, but I'm talking on the whole.

[Super Buu]

I don't like it when people blame the government for hypocritical policies and dumb laws. The policies of politicians aren't so much determined by their own personal opinions or rationality as they are by how much they match up to the opinions of the public. You can be as wise and truthful a leader as you want, but that won't help anyone if you don't get voted into office. Therefore, the majority public - albeit by proxy - determine the laws with their beliefs. The problem isn't corrupt politicians, it's the dumb opinions of people in general and lack of education.

There is no argument against gay marriage in a secular sense. Religions can do what they like, it's their perogative. A gay man shouldn't want a church that opposes them to bless their union any more than a black man should want to join the KKK.

I completely agree with that, but the problem is the legal and economic benefits of marriage. From that standpoint, I'd legalise gay marriage in general, but if specific churches wanted to prohibit it, then let them.

[Orion]

Anyone with any sort of faith should not be involved in politics in any country. I even know of a Christian who believes that Christians shouldn't vote.

[Pink Underoo]

Well, I'd say that females living in ghettos or other poverty-stricken areas should stop having so much sex that they're defying the odds of modern contraception (as well as stop having babies just so they can collect welfare checks, which I have known people that have done that before), but hey I'm just a God-fearing conservative and thus my vastly inferior brain meats just can't comprehend the brilliance of birth contol - which is in fact early abortion.

edit

There is no argument against gay marriage in a secular sense. Religions can do what they like, it's their perogative. A gay man shouldn't want a church that opposes them to bless their union any more than a black man should want to join the KKK.

There is, however, a strong argument against gay parenthood. I personally oppose it. I reconciled myself long ago to the idea that raising a family would just be selfish to me, and I maintain the view, as does Blankenhorn, that the best environment for a child to be raised is within a stable heterosexual marriage. As a rule. There are of course exceptions, but I'm talking on the whole.

The argument against gay marriage is that it is a religious institution. The only reason a marriage is given legal authority and a tax break is to promote natural procreation and stability of the household for the caretaking of children. Since gays can't naturally procreate within the confines of their union and you don't support gay parenthood, I'm left wondering why exactly you don't stand against homosexual unions o_O

[Super Buu]

He never mentioned gay marriage in that post, just gay partnership =o

[Waffuru]

If they take away birth control we'll just be burying newborns in the yard.

[Reijin]

That's the thing. People are not going to just stop having sex. Its not going to happen. Unless you have somehow given everyone an STD that gibs your ass the moment you touch the opposite sex, it won't happen. Period. This is WHY they teach kids in schools about abstinence but also give out contraceptives. They aren't promoting it, but the simple fact is that it WILL happen. In the same way that having a restraining order doesn't mean that if someone doesn't care what happens to themselves they'll have a reason to not just walk through it and blast your ass.

[Pink Underoo]

He never mentioned gay marriage in that post, just gay partnership =o

Fixed, I guess.

If they take away birth control we'll just be burying newborns in the yard.

Start? It's already happening. http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/k...ce784.html