Women: A Parting Gift from Bush to You

[Pure]

it IS a nightmarish piece of legislation and argument, since it turns 'civil rights' and 'conscience rights' on their head.

it begins with the supposition that birth control pills sometimes act upon a fertilzed egg. hence using the pills is like having an abortion.

this wacky theory is then protected, NOT just in catholic agencies or baptist clinincs. the idea is that a nurse with this belief can apply to Planned Parenthood, be hired and work there. FURTHER, when a client asks about birth control pills, the nurse can steer the conversation elsewhere. if asked "why didn't you give info on the pill, as requested?" she can say, "it offends my conscience, since i believe pills cause abortions." and she can't be disciplined. (if she were not hired in the first place, over this issue, she could sue for having suffered discrimination!)

the is NOT civil rights because it's asymmetric: the same folks that want to "protect" the wacky puritan's working at Planned Parenthood, do NOT want those who FAVOR [don't object to] the pill to have a right to work at Catholica and Baptist hospitals. that would be government infringement. [notice Rox has this position]. if such persons are turned down at hiring, they do NOT have a basis for a discrimination suit. [Rox is apparently not much concerned with violation of this applicant's rights.]

as with the pharamaciest and Plan B, this is bogus basis for advancing a religious agenda as a 'civil right', needless to say it violates both the 'right' of the hiring agency [e.g. Planned Parenthood] AND the rights of its clients to good information and presecriptions.

these topsy turvy arguements are now favored on the religious right. a recent example is suing over a public school teachers's "right" to have a picture of Jesus on his desk. and presumably his "right" to kneel beside it, in prayer, at the start of each class, along with students who wish to join in, "voluntarily."
===

rox said //How's this different from the government prohibiting Catholic organizations or Boy Scouts from not hiring those who dissent from their precepts, or prohibiting such entitites from using public facilities?//

in the cases at hand, there ARE no such prohibitions as Rox conjures up. Catholic hospitals need not hire dr's with no probs about abortion who are willing to discuss aboriion as a viable alternative. hence rox, is de facto, in the position i suggest above: she defends the wacky proposal as ensuring a 'right.'

 

[rgraham666]

Rights are only for the good guys. Bad guys have no rights.

 

[Iamcanadian28]

It makes me wonder which decade we're living in. That is a disgusting abuse of government power.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It makes me wonder which decade we're living in. That is a disgusting abuse of government power.

Undoubtedly. But all governments will abuse their power, given the opportunity.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Undoubtedly. But all governments will abuse their power, given the opportunity.

Hence the need for term limits and a strong dose of the idea that most of human life is none of any government's damned business. Do not save me from myself. Anyone who feels a need to do so is my enemy.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Sophistry. I'm talking about a woman's right to decide to do with her body what she will.

Bullshit, sophistry. You've changed the subject. The issue is employer's rights to employ or not employ who they choose, and the government using it's provision of various forms of subsidy and welfare to bully them around on that. You just don't want to admit that your desire to bully on your terms is no different from the other side's desire to bully on their terrms. I'm saying fie! on all the bullying by all sides, and on all your welfare and subsidy programs used to justifty it, too.

 

[Katyusha]

Hence the need for term limits and a strong dose of the idea that most of human life is none of any government's damned business. Do not save me from myself. Anyone who feels a need to do so is my enemy.

I agree...term limits in Congress is a necessity and so is a strong dose of It's None of Their Damn Business, and I would add a strong dose of correct information. The Pill prevents ovulation; there is no egg in the uterus to be fertilized no matter how many sperm get in there, so how is taking it a way of terminating a human life?

The religious right needs to leave well enough alone. Pharmacists, doctors, nurses, all have a job to do. The rest of us have to fulfill all required duties of our jobs regardless of how we feel about it. I echo Liar's post regarding being turned down for other jobs because something about you/personal to you will prevent you from fulfilling all required duties; this is no different. If I worked at a clinic that provided abortions, birth control, counseling, etc., and I was interviewing someone who said that they thought these things should be outlawed, it should be within my rights to reject them for the position because their beliefs would be in direct conflict with our mission statement.

 

[rgraham666]

Undoubtedly. But all governments will abuse their power, given the opportunity.

That isn't a phenomena limited to government. Almost any human will abuse their power when they obtain it.

 

[Just-Legal]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, where does this crap leave women like me, who are unable to conceive, too young to be considered for a hysterectomym and NEED birth control pills to control a horrificly painful and debilitating (no, I'm NOT exagerating) condition?

Fucking hell, the NHS may be screwed up but at least I can get what I need. Yeesh.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Hence the need for term limits and a strong dose of the idea that most of human life is none of any government's damned business. Do not save me from myself. Anyone who feels a need to do so is my enemy.

You may want to give some more thought to that. Those who believe that abortion is murder naturally believe that it's as much the government's business as the murder of an already-born person. I don't agree with them that abortion in murder, but I recognize that they have a legitimate point of view. To claim that abortion is "none of the government's business" is to deny the legitimacy of that point of view, and I don't think that's right, either. It's a moral issue, but it will be played out in the realm of politics, which is how we peacefully resolve these kinds of disagreements, and both sides have a right to their positions and their arguments. We're not enemies because ultimately we share the same values.

 

[shereads]

.


Stealth Assault on Reproductive Rights


.

My capacity for loathing continues to appall me.

 

[shereads]

ultimately we share the same values.

Not really.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Not really.

No, really. That becomes clear when you compare us to other peoples who really don't share those values. I'll agree that a tiny margin of "medievalist" Christians are more akin to those others, but the vast majority of pro-lifers share the same humanist, Enlightenment, liberal values as all of us on this website. They just believe that fetuses are human beings and so deserve the same legal protections and already born people. (Heck, a lot of them are people on this website.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

it IS a nightmarish piece of legislation and argument, since it turns 'civil rights' and 'conscience rights' on their head.

it begins with the supposition that birth control pills sometimes act upon a fertilzed egg. hence using the pills is like having an abortion.

this wacky theory is then protected, NOT just in catholic agencies or baptist clinincs. the idea is that a nurse with this belief can apply to Planned Parenthood, be hired and work there. FURTHER, when a client asks about birth control pills, the nurse can steer the conversation elsewhere. if asked "why didn't you give info on the pill, as requested?" she can say, "it offends my conscience, since i believe pills cause abortions." and she can't be disciplined. (if she were not hired in the first place, over this issue, she could sue for having suffered discrimination!)

the is NOT civil rights because it's asymmetric: the same folks that want to "protect" the wacky puritan's working at Planned Parenthood, do NOT want those who FAVOR [don't object to] the pill to have a right to work at Catholica and Baptist hospitals. that would be government infringement. [notice Rox has this position]. if such persons are turned down at hiring, they do NOT have a basis for a discrimination suit. [Rox is apparently not much concerned with violation of this applicant's rights.]

as with the pharamaciest and Plan B, this is bogus basis for advancing a religious agenda as a 'civil right', needless to say it violates both the 'right' of the hiring agency [e.g. Planned Parenthood] AND the rights of its clients to good information and presecriptions.

these topsy turvy arguements are now favored on the religious right. a recent example is suing over a public school teachers's "right" to have a picture of Jesus on his desk. and presumably his "right" to kneel beside it, in prayer, at the start of each class, along with students who wish to join in, "voluntarily."
===

rox said //How's this different from the government prohibiting Catholic organizations or Boy Scouts from not hiring those who dissent from their precepts, or prohibiting such entitites from using public facilities?//

in the cases at hand, there ARE no such prohibitions as Rox conjures up. Catholic hospitals need not hire dr's with no probs about abortion who are willing to discuss aboriion as a viable alternative. hence rox, is de facto, in the position i suggest above: she defends the wacky proposal as ensuring a 'right.'

Actually, it's not even legislation. It's unelected bureaucrats making rules that suit their own personal agendas. As far as I can see, these proposed rules would be in contradiction with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That act made it basically illegal to discriminater on the basis of religion, etc., unles that religion would make it impossible for a person to do the job.

Certainly if a person who opposes abortion on religious grounds wants to work at a medical facility that provides abortions, that person is looking to do something more than just make a living. The management of the faclity would be able to see that, and should be able to refuse to hire the applicant.

If this rule is implemented, I hope it get violated immediately, and the person refusing to hire fights it as far as necessary.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

You may want to give some more thought to that. Those who believe that abortion is murder naturally believe that it's as much the government's business as the murder of an already-born person. I don't agree with them that abortion in murder, but I recognize that they have a legitimate point of view. To claim that abortion is "none of the government's business" is to deny the legitimacy of that point of view, and I don't think that's right, either. It's a moral issue, but it will be played out in the realm of politics, which is how we peacefully resolve these kinds of disagreements, and both sides have a right to their positions and their arguments. We're not enemies because ultimately we share the same values.

I have given this much thought. Those who believe that abortion is never legitimate have no moral right to tell me what is moral. I, along with the vast majority of the American voters (as poll after poll will tell you) believe that abortion is justified in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. It is not a legitimate method of birth control but that does not make it murder.

When I say that this is none of the government's damned business, I mean that the governement has no damned business regulating morality. That is for churches and other NGO's to debate, not legislatures. Governments sole business it to maintain the greatest amount of individual freedom possible, not somehow vote on what is "right" and then force it down everyone's throat!

 

[cantdog]

You may want to give some more thought to that. Those who believe that abortion is murder naturally believe that it's as much the government's business as the murder of an already-born person. I don't agree with them that abortion in murder, but I recognize that they have a legitimate point of view. To claim that abortion is "none of the government's business" is to deny the legitimacy of that point of view, and I don't think that's right, either. It's a moral issue, but it will be played out in the realm of politics, which is how we peacefully resolve these kinds of disagreements, and both sides have a right to their positions and their arguments. We're not enemies because ultimately we share the same values.

So? I deny the legitimacy of that point of view.

It's nothing like a moral issue. It's a religious issue. Religion has nothing very much to do with morality. Peacefully enough, I defend the separation of religion from the actions of the state.

 

[cantdog]

We're not enemies because ultimately we share the same values.

Nope. I don't share those values at all. I have no desire, myself, to weasel a pack of religious ideas into public policy under a sophistic argument. Those values are alien to me entirely.

 

[Pure]

'pro life' and 'liberal values'

the vast majority of pro-lifers share the same humanist, Enlightenment, liberal values as all of us on this website. They just believe that fetuses are human beings and so deserve the same legal protections and already born people. (Heck, a lot of them are people on this website.)

not reallly.

that the majority of them oppose reasonable birth control methods, both condoms and pills, give the lie to their sincerity.

fervor for capital punishment; advocacy of torture, and a practice of failing to help secure infant health (doing nothing about malnutrition and ill health), might also be mentioned as contra indications to any kind of liberalism.

 

[cantdog]

I have given this much thought. Those who believe that abortion is never legitimate have no moral right to tell me what is moral. I, along with the vast majority of the American voters (as poll after poll will tell you) believe that abortion is justified in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. It is not a legitimate method of birth control but that does not make it murder.

When I say that this is none of the government's damned business, I mean that the governement has no damned business regulating morality. That is for churches and other NGO's to debate, not legislatures. Governments sole business it to maintain the greatest amount of individual freedom possible, not somehow vote on what is "right" and then force it down everyone's throat!

Almost good enough. I agree.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I have given this much thought. Those who believe that abortion is never legitimate have no moral right to tell me what is moral. I, along with the vast majority of the American voters (as poll after poll will tell you) believe that abortion is justified in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. It is not a legitimate method of birth control but that does not make it murder.

When I say that this is none of the government's damned business, I mean that the governement has no damned business regulating morality. That is for churches and other NGO's to debate, not legislatures. Governments sole business it to maintain the greatest amount of individual freedom possible, not somehow vote on what is "right" and then force it down everyone's throat!

Yeah, but Bear, government can't help but "regulate morality." Legal anctions against murder, rape and robbery are issues of morality. Sure, those are much less ambiguous than abortion, but it's no good to just say that government can't "regulate morality." Isn't racial discrimination a matter of morality? Child labor laws? No cruel and unusual punishments? Where do you draw the line? You say "here," the anti-aborts say "there," both sides have legitimate views (because they are based on values we share - the right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), and politics will decide where the law ends up. That's just the nature of the beast when we're talking government.

 

[cantdog]

the vast majority of pro-lifers share the same humanist, Enlightenment, liberal values as all of us on this website. They just believe that fetuses are human beings and so deserve the same legal protections and already born people. (Heck, a lot of them are people on this website.)

not reallly.

that the majority of them oppose reasonable birth control methods, both condoms and pills, give the lie to their sincerity.

fervor for capital punishment; advocacy of torture, and a practice of failing to help secure infant health (doing nothing about malnutrition and ill health), might also be mentioned as contra indications to any kind of liberalism.

I disagree. They no more believe that than the man in the moon. Shang may believe it, but he is not out there pushing legislation, even less promulgating rules from the executive branch.

They have no such real belief. Their churches do not hold a funeral every time a parishioner miscarries a pregnancy. Their own Bible contains no such idea, that ensoulment takes place upon conception. It's a fringe idea, being exploited for political power and profit.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Yeah, but Bear, government can't help but "regulate morality." Legal anctions against murder, rape and robbery are issues of morality. Sure, those are much less ambiguous than abortion, but it's no good to just say that government can't "regulate morality." Isn't racial discrimination a matter of morality? Child labor laws? No cruel and unusual punishments? Where do you draw the line? You say "here," the anti-aborts say "there," both sides have legitimate views (because they are based on values we share - the right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), and politics will decide where the law ends up. That's just the nature of the beast when we're talking government.

Legal sanctions against murder, rape and robbery are not issues of morality from a governmental point of view. They are issues of social order, a legitimate concern of government. Abortion is not an issue of social order and therefore of no concern to the government. When some action of some person deprives another person of the maximum possible freedom, it is an issue of social order. It may have some moral component but that is irrelevant. All that counts towards justice is the balance of social order and individual freedom. Morality is none of the government's damned business.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

the vast majority of pro-lifers share the same humanist, Enlightenment, liberal values as all of us on this website. They just believe that fetuses are human beings and so deserve the same legal protections and already born people. (Heck, a lot of them are people on this website.)

not reallly.

that the majority of them oppose reasonable birth control methods, both condoms and pills, give the lie to their sincerity.

fervor for capital punishment; advocacy of torture, and a practice of failing to help secure infant health (doing nothing about malnutrition and ill health), might also be mentioned as contra indications to any kind of liberalism.

Oh bullshit, Pure. Even most U.S. Catholics don't agree with the church's prohibition on birth control, and I don't know of any who want to ban it (I'm sure there's some tiny minority of nutcases out there who do, though). The issue here is not any kind of ban, but the right of employers who participate in government welfare/subsidy programs to hire or fire individuals who consider themselves "conscientious objectors" in their personal actions.

Lots of liberals (traditional sense) both pro- and anti-abort believe that capitol punishment is legit. No liberals (old sense) either conservative or liberal (new sense) believe that torture is legit (except perhaps in the cliche' emergency where the cops are seeking the location of the suitcase nuke, which is a classic "hard cases make bad law" scenario), although there is some disagreement about the definition of torture. (BTW, did you know that the US military has used waterboarding in its "what to do if you're captured" classes for soldiers?)

Finally, you give away your purely political agenda (as opposed to a moral/ethical/good government one) when you introduce the issue of welfare programs into this discussion. You know what? I think the moral hazard they create generates more "malnutrition and ill health" than otherwise, so to my mind you are the anti-liberal. (Except I know that you're not, but are just misguided on this issue.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxanne Appleby
Yeah, but Bear, government can't help but "regulate morality." Legal anctions against murder, rape and robbery are issues of morality. Sure, those are much less ambiguous than abortion, but it's no good to just say that government can't "regulate morality." Isn't racial discrimination a matter of morality? Child labor laws? No cruel and unusual punishments? Where do you draw the line? You say "here," the anti-aborts say "there," both sides have legitimate views (because they are based on values we share - the right of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), and politics will decide where the law ends up. That's just the nature of the beast when we're talking government.

Legal sanctions against murder, rape and robbery are not issues of morality from a governmental point of view. They are issues of social order, a legitimate concern of government. Abortion is not an issue of social order and therefore of no concern to the government. When some action of some person deprives another person of the maximum possible freedom, it is an issue of social order. It may have some moral component but that is irrelevant. All that counts towards justice is the balance of social order and individual freedom. Morality is none of the government's damned business.

Oddly enough, I am inclined to agree with both of you. I strongly oppose government imposition of morality. At the same time, I see nothing wrong with government protecting citizens from criminals, and see it as a duty.

If a woman decides to kill her children, and does so, she will be punished, unless she is Andrea Yates. Rightly so. However, if she aborts a two month old fetus, she will not be punished. This is not illegal.

There are those who say that killing a living child and killing a fetus is the same thing. I disagree with them, but that is what they say. They are entitled to their opinion, but as long as it is not the law, they should not be allowed to impose that opinion on others.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Legal sanctions against murder, rape and robbery are not issues of morality from a governmental point of view. They are issues of social order, a legitimate concern of government. Abortion is not an issue of social order and therefore of no concern to the government. When some action of some person deprives another person of the maximum possible freedom, it is an issue of social order. It may have some moral component but that is irrelevant. All that counts towards justice is the balance of social order and individual freedom. Morality is none of the government's damned business.

Sorry, Bear, but it just won't wash. I certainly agree that murder, robbery and rape are highly unambiguous, but the other items I cited - anti-discrimination laws, child labor laws, cruel and unusual punishment bans - are less so, and all are moral issues. Slapping on a label like "social order" doesn't change that.

Let's back up a step here. Those who seek to short-circuit the abortion debate with "none of the government's business" are trying to win by establishing that the viewpoint of pro-lifers is not legitimate, meaning it's not motivated by goodwill toward all humans, and so is in the same category as other illegitmate viewpoints like those of the Klan or Nazis. Sorry, but that's not a correct or valid argument. Both sides in this dispute are free to make their case in the court of public opinion, calling upon our shared respect for the rights of individuals to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and democratic processes will determine who wins.

I happen to share your view, and believe that our side will ultimately prevail in this country. But I also can imagine much worse fates than if Roe were repealed and a third of the states allowed abortion with virtually no restrictions, a third banned it outright, and a third fell somewhere in the middle. Planned Parenthood would go back to it's pre-Roe role as travel agent, and the Republic would survive.