It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Contraception Debate. Where did this come from?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
As you may have heard over and over again, there is now a debate about contraception. The two sides, those that want to save women's lives and those that want to control them, are of course polar opposites fighting for their way of life. Very dramatic. This goes further than economics, and politics, it is a fight for your very right to use it, or claim that it is a mortal sin, saving the souls of pill taking condom wearers... If you cant tell I am describing the situation with some disdain and sarcasm. Why?

THIS IS ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO TAKE YOU ATTENTION AWAY! THEY ARE CREATING AN ISSUE SO THAT YOU FORGET THE MAIN ISSUE. THE COUNTRY, THE WORLD IS GOING TO SHI?.

Really, isn't there more important things to talk about? Economy anyone? Here is where it started.

New Hampshire Republican Debate:


As you can see Romney and the rest of the candidates look really puzzled where this came from. Structures as a states rights question, this is really a let's get the conservative on record as against contraception. It was later said by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that the goal of this question was to win a bet to get Romney to say that contraception works just fine. Is this what the debate process is for?

A little piece of truth. What this is about is to add another shade to the Roe vs. Wade debate. A debate that has not gone well for the democrats in the last few years and has always been a political thorn in the side of conservatives. The independent vote, which has become more and more important, sees this issue as divisive and more a states issue than a federal one. The word Abortion has been replaced with contraception. Meantime your money has been replaced with an IOU.

Whatever side you are on, pay attention, don't lose focus. It isn't each other who are the enemy. It is those that draw these artificial lines to separate us, confuse us, so that we are ruled not governed. And I guess, that if this is a huge issue for you, do what you want. Remember taking personal responsibility? It is the opposite of what the government tells you to do. END OF RANT.




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Limbaugh's theory is that Potus put Stephanolpls up to the question so the dems can use this as a wedge issue. Patty Murray sent out a fund-raising letter today insisting the repubs want to outlaw contraception (they don't). according to Dick Morris the dems realize that abortion is a no-win for the dems so they go to plan B.

link to Patty Murray fundraiser story
livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com...
edit on 14-2-2012 by works4dhs because: add link



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by axiomuser
 
It is a constitutional issue.
The catholic church has, as a tenent to it's religion, NOT to use contraceptives and not to get abortions.

The government is mandating that the catholic church provide contraceptives and abortions in it's services to it's employees and patients.

The catholic church says no. It is against our religion.

Obama is saying, tough. Government trumps religion.

The 1st Ammendment says the government can't tell religion what to do.

Obama is ignoring the Constitution. Obama, the constitutional scholar, is openly violating the Constitution.

I can't make it any simpler than that.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by works4dhs
Limbaugh's theory ...


Oh, I'm going to put a lot of weight in that theory...


This manufactured conflict came about when the GOP saw a possibility to turn more people against Obama, however slight. It's too bad so many people don't see it for what it really is.

It's 2012. Women use contraception. We're comfortable with it. It's time the government just back away and let women make their reproductive choices without the control of the government or religion. Contraception is a non-issue. You don't like it? Don't use it.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by works4dhs
Limbaugh's theory ...


Oh, I'm going to put a lot of weight in that theory...


This manufactured conflict came about when the GOP saw a possibility to turn more people against Obama, however slight. It's too bad so many people don't see it for what it really is.

It's 2012. Women use contraception. We're comfortable with it. It's time the government just back away and let women make their reproductive choices without the control of the government or religion. Contraception is a non-issue. You don't like it? Don't use it.

If you are a catholic woman and wantto use contraceptives or get an abortion, you are free to stop being catholic and do so.

Just stop telling the church what to believe!



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I've seen this argument on tv, disintegrate into a bunch of men (and only men), talking about how evil contraception (of any kind) is.

A bunch of men, talking about women's choices. Even the regular birth control pill has become "wrong", depending on the panel talking about this. Anything that prevents a pregnancy is "wrong".

Sometimes they even seem to forget, that this started out as an argument against the government telling the church what they must do, and they turn it into a discussion about the evils of contraception instead.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Just stop telling the church what to believe!


Excuse me, beezer? Where do you get the idea I give a good crap about what the church believes? No one is telling the church what to believe. I know the whole story inside and out. This is a political wedge issue and you've apparently fallen completely for it.

Sorry about that.


Originally posted by beezzer
The government is mandating that the catholic church provide contraceptives and abortions in it's services to it's employees and patients.


This is 100% false.


edit on 2/14/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Just stop telling the church what to believe!


To quote Carlin, "If the Church wants in on the political game let them pay their admission like everyone else." Ie: taxes. Separation of church and state only works when it is in favor of the church?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by beezzer
Just stop telling the church what to believe!


Excuse me, beezer? Where do you get the idea I give a good crap about what the church believes? No one is telling the church what to believe. I know the whole story inside and out. This is a political wedge issue and you've apparently fallen completely for it.

Sorry about that.

Then you see nothing wrong with making muslims eat pork products, correct?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by beezzer
Just stop telling the church what to believe!


To quote Carlin, "If the Church wants in on the political game let them pay their admission like everyone else." Ie: taxes. Separation of church and state only works when it is in favor of the church?


Where is the church making policy???????

*EEEEEEEEEEIIIIIRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHH!

All the church wants to do is follow it's little ol' religion and mind it's own business.

It's the government saying, HEY! DO THIS NOW!



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
All the church wants to do is follow it's little ol' religion and mind it's own business.




I'm sorry man but that is damn funny. The RCC has been playing politics for over a millenia. Closer to 2. They don't mind their own business. They don't like it though when challenged by something stronger than them. Like say the Constitution. And hey, where is that tax money?

ETA: I can't link the video because of T&C violations but if you want the truth on this go to Youtube and search: Carlin- religion is BS. He was a Catholic btw.
edit on 14-2-2012 by intrepid because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by beezzer
All the church wants to do is follow it's little ol' religion and mind it's own business.




I'm sorry man but that is damn funny. The RCC has been playing politics for over a millenia. Closer to 2. They don't mind their own business. They don't like it though when challenged by something stronger than them. Like say the Constitution. And hey, where is that tax money?


The Constitution is what is protecting them!!!!!!!!!

Why not just let the catholics believe what they want.
Practice their faith the way that they want.

Why is this so difficult??????

You don't have to agree with them.
You are not being forced to believe as thy do.

Why make the believe the way YOU do?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Why not just let the catholics believe what they want.
Practice their faith the way that they want.


I've got no problem with that BUT when it comes to tax exempt entities they should have to conform to what society and the Supreme Court lay down.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by beezzer
Why not just let the catholics believe what they want.
Practice their faith the way that they want.


I've got no problem with that BUT when it comes to tax exempt entities they should have to conform to what society and the Supreme Court lay down.


So you would disregard the 1st Ammendment?


The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

en.wikipedia.org...

impeding the free exercise of religion

Really.




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Got no problem with that.... IF they pay their fair share of taxes. Then they can do as they wish with their facilities. If they don't it is merely religious welfare imo and have to abide by what society and the SCOTUS state. You can't have it both ways. The RCC is getting a lesson on the 21st century.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by beezzer
 


Got no problem with that.... IF they pay their fair share of taxes. Then they can do as they wish with their facilities. If they don't it is merely religious welfare imo and have to abide by what society and the SCOTUS state. You can't have it both ways. The RCC is getting a lesson on the 21st century.



Okay, *sigh* say this is allowed to happen.

Disregard the 1st Ammendment. Get rid of it, right?

Forget free speech.
Make muslims, jews eat pork.
Screw the Sabbath.
No more religious expression.
-Just do what the government dictates.

Am I reading you right?

If I am, I might want to change my user ID to Winston Smith!



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Disregard the 1st Ammendment. Get rid of it, right?


I didn't say that.


Forget free speech.


Wrong part of the 1st that you are referencing.


Make muslims, jews eat pork.


What? They aren't eating at McDonald's already?


Screw the Sabbath.


You'll have to be clearer on what the "sabbath" is. It's different for different religions. To start with Saturday is the Jewish sabbath.


No more religious expression.
-Just do what the government dictates.


I didn't say that. I said if they want a voice in politics pay your way in. If you don't you have no voice in politics. Welcome to the 21st century.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 
A voice in politics?

They want politics out of their religion!!!!!!!!!!!!

They don't want a secular voice dictating to them! They think, they interpret Gods word as saying, no contriceptives, no abortion. That's how they interpret it.

Their belief is protected under law.

The first ammendment provides that protection.

To try and justify this current mess is negating their belief! Whether what they believe is true or not, they believe it. And that fundamental truth is protected.

Or at least, it was, until Obama entered the scene.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 
I have similar arguments on abortion threads.

But in the end?

It's the law and I just have to deal with it.

Religion, the right, the freedom to practice religion is the law.

You opponents are just going to have to deal with it.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by intrepid
 
A voice in politics?

They want politics out of their religion!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ahhh, convenient. Politics doesn't align themselves anymore with religion. That's a good thing.


They don't want a secular voice dictating to them! They think, they interpret Gods word as saying, no contriceptives, no abortion. That's how they interpret it.


And they would be right, even 30 years ago. This is the 21st century.


Their belief is protected under law.


Others rights are also protected under the Constitution. That's what the SCOTUS is for. And the RCC isn't happy about that.


The first ammendment provides that protection.


Not in the 21st century. They call them "amendments" for a reason. Things need to be changed as society changes. If the Holy See has a problem with that, send a message to the SCOTUS. Along with a FAT cheque. I could go into slavery but that would be redundant.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join