Religious and Reproductive Rights

[Veldan Rath]

Uh huh...Loki just pointed out that the more power you give to the Federal Government will wind up in the very same hands you despise later on...

This is what small government types like Enoch and me keep trying to point out while most others keep putting their fingers in their ears.

[CitizenCain]

I'd expect our laws (government) to protect the rights I was born with.

And how's that working out for you? For all the complaining you do about the evil j00s and Republikans and the like, you're exhibiting an astonishing amount of cognitive dissonance, even for you. You expect the government to protect your [natural] rights, and spend thousands of posts whining about the government violating them.

Awesome. Like Veldan said, the more power you give the government, the more power the evil j00 Republikans will have when they're in power.

GGT how often do we have to say it, Loki and sadly CC as well are just forum trolls not remotely interested in discussion, and solely dedicated to being "right/correct" in whatever situation they're in. They use red herrings, nitpick useless points that have no affect on the larger part of the discussion.

And fuck you too. But also, thanks for reminding me why I had you on ignore.

[Loki]

I thought it was because his picture is under the "verbal diarrhea" entry in the dictionary?

[GGT]

Uh huh...Loki just pointed out that the more power you give to the Federal Government will wind up in the very same hands you despise later on...

This is what small government types like Enoch and me keep trying to point out while most others keep putting their fingers in their ears.

There's a difference between a government interfering with our rights, and protecting our rights. That has nothing to do with the SIZE of a government, but their legal scope and ideology.

Much of that is written into our Constitution, and SCOTUS powers. It's political because POTUS nominates SCOTUS positions (with a lifetime tenure), as approved by elected legislators. We're a nation of laws, and even a "small" government can create over-reaching laws that aren't based on individual freeedom or liberty.

We're also a republic and union of states, where "small government" proponents can try to override equal civil rights by invoking crazy shit like religious doctrine, or putting civil rights up for a ballot initiative. Civil rights aren't some 'thing' to be put up for a majority vote. Slavery and women voting would never have passed using that old white male property owner ideology metric. Rights aren't decided by a majority vote, but on the premise that All People Are Equal.

[Enoch the Red]

Ah, the old "whining" thing.

I'd expect our laws (government) to protect the rights I was born with. That includes medical care and self-control of my gonads. That includes my freeedom to be a sexual being, while choosing whether or not I want to procreate.

You weren't born with a right to medical care or insurance, and the government has no control over what you do with your gonads.

Veldan has it right. The second you allow, or expect the government to fund and regulate these things is the second you give up your rights to not be subject to the diktats of tyrants. There's an old quote from a man who is currently generating enough centrifugal energy, (given a connection to a proper stator) to power the east coast that still rings true: "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

If you want the government to protect your rights, don't involve them in your personal health choices. If you invite them in, you lose the right to complain when there is mission creep, or the current regime's ideology does not match your own.

We already have pro-life religious-based interference in contraceptive and abortion legislation. The Hyde Amendment wasn't enough for their agenda, so attempts to de-fund Planned Parenthood (on federal and state levels) became their way to subvert Title X, Griswold v Conn, and Roe v Wade.

Somehow removing public funding from a private organization is about the least offensive interference by the government that I can imagine. I struggle with how you see this as a significant infringement on your rights. I must have missed the right to Planned Parenthood in my civics courses.

[CitizenCain]

I thought it was because his picture is under the "verbal diarrhea" entry in the dictionary?

I can have more than one reason.

Somehow removing public funding from a private organization is about the least offensive interference by the government that I can imagine. I struggle with how you see this as a significant infringement on your rights. I must have missed the right to Planned Parenthood in my civics courses.

The right to force her opinions on others and the right to get a cut of everyone else's money.

Understandable that you missed those in your civics courses. They generally gloss over the reality of the world in favor of all the attention paid to the constitution and the founding fathers and everything else our modern form of government shits all over.

[GGT]

I was born a woman, with specific medical needs that shouldn't be denied by church, state, employer or insurer. These medical needs have been proven by medical science, and supported by social science. These needs evolve and expand with time and scientific discoveries, often from tax payer funded NIH and CDC research.

Recognition of medical needs and new science comes from an educated public, often educated in public schools and public arenas. That's the definition of Public Health working with the public, and meeting public health needs.

If you want the government to protect your rights, don't involve them in your personal health choices. If you invite them in, you lose the right to complain when there is mission creep, or the current regime's ideology does not match your own.

Paying taxes that fund government medical R & D doesn't mean I've invited them into my uterus, any more than funding NASA mean's I've invited satellite surveillance into my home. Mission creep and regime ideology is a strange way to describe or categorize "rights". It's even stranger to see a libertarian like you say we can lose the right to complain when our rights are challenged or removed.

[Lebanese Dragon]

And fuck you too. But also, thanks for reminding me why I had you on ignore.

Stop trying to wound me. You know as I do that you intentionally make hateful remarks, and there are times when you have every intention of making your point and not listening to the response. You could easily respectfully disagree with someone, say GG, and not be rude, or nitpick literally the most inane and miniscule part of their post. Maybe you can charge me with being over sensitve, but it's easy to see that that is not constuctive dialogue.

[GGT]

No reason the forum should imitate our dysfunctional legislators or presidential candidates, by stooping to such lows.

[Enoch the Red]

I was born a woman, with specific medical needs that shouldn't be denied by church, state, employer or insurer. These medical needs have been proven by medical science, and supported by social science. These needs evolve and expand with time and scientific discoveries, often from tax payer funded NIH and CDC research.

Okay. Great. None of that has to do with rights.

Recognition of medical needs and new science comes from an educated public, often educated in public schools and public arenas. That's the definition of Public Health working with the public, and meeting public health needs.

Paying taxes that fund government medical R & D doesn't mean I've invited them into my uterus, any more than funding NASA mean's I've invited satellite surveillance into my home.

I'm sure this seems like a brilliant point, but I'm a little slow. Explain to me exactly what this has to do with anything? Healthcare is not an abstract case, it's the specific case.

Mission creep and regime ideology is a strange way to describe or categorize "rights".

Could be because healthcare isn't a right. You have a right to self-determination, not healthcare.

It's even stranger to see a libertarian like you say we can lose the right to complain when our rights are challenged or removed.

I'm arguing that you shouldn't give the rights up in the first place. You're arguing that we should give them up, but rely on the government to define exactly what that means. I absolutely think it's ridiculous to willingly hand over your rights to a intrinsically fluid organization, and then complain about it being fluid.

[LittleFuzzy]

GGT how often do we have to say it, Loki and sadly CC as well are just forum trolls not remotely interested in discussion, and solely dedicated to being "right/correct" in whatever situation they're in. They use red herrings, nitpick useless points that have no affect on the larger part of the discussion.

I agree that your statement was understandable, and I agree if CC and Loki are US citizens then they ought be familiar if they have any sort of political discussion with others in real life that loose terminiology often used, but stil understood which is the main point. Anything else is being nitpicky or petty fogging.

Is all that why Minx also objected?

[Lebanese Dragon]

Is all that why Minx also objected?

My main point is can we address the heart of the issue and not whether she said state legislators or congress. It's not a healthy way to discuss the topic, and that's all I'm saying.

[Aimless]

The second you allow, or expect the government to fund and regulate these things is the second you give up your rights to not be subject to the diktats of tyrants.

Hello justification of police brutality and child abuse and being beaten up on your way home from the pub

[Aimless]

Is all that why Minx also objected?

Minx actually understood what she meant and was of the opinion that the whole tangent was an embarrassing display of the sort of irrelevant nonsense that plagues discussions between dummies. I just wanted to offer her a chance to say "sorry, my mistake" in the vain hope that she'd take it and Loki would go on to just drop it. But you know how it is here: you give a finger and they'll try to take the arm, so no-one ever does. My opinion on the vocabulary tangent isn't far from LD's.

[GGT]

Okay. Great. None of that has to do with rights.
I'm sure this seems like a brilliant point, but I'm a little slow. Explain to me exactly what this has to do with anything? Healthcare is not an abstract case, it's the specific case.
Could be because healthcare isn't a right. You have a right to self-determination, not healthcare.
I'm arguing that you shouldn't give the rights up in the first place. You're arguing that we should give them up, but rely on the government to define exactly what that means. I absolutely think it's ridiculous to willingly hand over your rights to a intrinsically fluid organization, and then complain about it being fluid.

It has to do with equal treatment. We have anti-discrimination laws for a reason, and it's not to 'expand the powers of the government' but to protect our right to equality. That's the basic idea behind "All Men Are Created Equal". Part of 21st century self-determination includes access to healthcare, and that shouldn't be denied based on age/gender/sexual orientation/ethnicity/race or religion.

Whether or not we see healthcare as a civil right is a whole other discussion. By modern day default, the providers of healthcare aren't just physicians, but include payers --- employers and insurers, private and public sector subsidies, and tax payers. When those things get co-mingled, it's hard to untangle the necklace....but IMO that means explaining to church leaders and pro-life conservatives that hormonal treatment isn't always used as birth control. It's a slippery slope for Catholic universities or hospitals to claim a religious exemption to insurance covering birth control for women, unless they're going to ask for a doctor's note when it's used for endometriosis or ovarian cancer, or other reasons. That's none of their business.

Do we still have a legal right to privacy in our doctor-patient relationships, or is that something only meant for attorney-client privilege?

[GGT]

Minx actually understood what she meant and was of the opinion that the whole tangent was an embarrassing display of the sort of irrelevant nonsense that plagues discussions between dummies. I just wanted to offer her a chance to say "sorry, my mistake" in the vain hope that she'd take it and Loki would go on to just drop it. But you know how it is here: you give a finger and they'll try to take the arm, so no-one ever does. My opinion on the vocabulary tangent isn't far from LD's.

My bad, sorry. Since you brought it up, I'll be sure to type LEGISLATORS instead of congress from now on.

[CitizenCain]

Yes, the onerous burden to use the correct word in the proper context.

[Nessus]

Burden much relieved by your roll of eyes, no doubt.

I know it is thing of cliche to "white knight" around the Internet, let alone within this cess-pool of hatred and misery, but is it truly so much to ask no warrantless sniping occur? Or is it just that this low-effort bullying has been found to produce most pleasure for least effort?

[CitizenCain]

Really?

Look, if she's going to keep drawing attention to it, sure, I'm going to keep throwing little digs out. Alternately, she could stop acting like she's right, and we all need to read her "mind" wrt what the hell she means with any given word, because she can't even be bothered to use the words to mean the same thing the rest of the world means with them. Or, better yet, she could start using the English language properly, but obviously, that ship sailed a while back, and she wasn't on it.

[Nessus]

If the failings are well known, as they are in community of less than 50 people, what purpose served by mocking each instance? By coincidence, at this moment in time I am listening to Leonard Cohen saying everybody knows, if we all do, pointing out is petty. Is my point. If you prefer being petty, more power to you.

[CitizenCain]

If the failings are well known, as they are in community of less than 50 people, what purpose served by mocking each instance?

What purpose is served by tolerating repeated occurrences of "I don't know/care what words mean?" I mean, it's allegedly a discussion community, and having people just invent new, crazier meanings for pivotal words is kind of a barrier to communication or discussion.

And of course, no one's forcing you to do anything, here. If you want to have a discussion with GGT about how politicians are a refreshing tropical treat, and how pineapples need to stop selling out to the j00s and 0pressing the k0mm0n man, go nuts. I don't, and I'm not about to indulge that or suffer its existence without at least throwing out a snide remark or two about it.

[GGT]

Oh, FFS, Cain. Really?

Historic low approval rates for congress

That means a different thing to a Swede than an American. oops, my mistake---American might technically include Canadians, so I should say US citizens instead. Uh oh, that's not completely correct either, so I should say 'people living in US states". OMG, that doesn't include Washington, DC or US territories!

[CitizenCain]

No, really, it's time for you to consult your primary care physician about adjusting the dosage on whatever substance or substances that have your perception of reality further off that the average's schizophrenic's.

[LittleFuzzy]

If the failings are well known, as they are in community of less than 50 people, what purpose served by mocking each instance? By coincidence, at this moment in time I am listening to Leonard Cohen saying everybody knows, if we all do, pointing out is petty. Is my point. If you prefer being petty, more power to you.

You mean like with Lewk's spelling? Or really, just about any of a poster's particular hobby-horses when it comes to Lewk?

[Being]

You mean like with Lewk's spelling?

I gave up trying to help educate him a while back when Wraith warned me that it wasn't in the best interest of the community.

[Aimless]

You mean like with Lewk's spelling? Or really, just about any of a poster's particular hobby-horses when it comes to Lewk?

I don't think it's good to harp on about Lewk's difficulties with apostrophes etc tbh. His worldview however is a reasonable topic of discussion; even if it never changes, addressing it helps us develop our own views. I reckon Lewk is the way he is for reasons we can't really influence, even though I hope he one day relearns his life lessons properly rather than perpetuating them and borking his own kids. What else can we do? He's not open to reexamining his upbringing, the madness he inherited from his elders, his school experiences, etc. It's frustrating but yeah





Nessie, I reckon you can't get results from asking those questions. In some contexts, and by some people, it will be taken as an invitation (aka. challenge) to defend/justify whatever behaviour it is you find objectionable, in any way possible. Some people will react with understanding or remorse or at least with recognition. Others can't except the slightest degree of [implied] shame and will fight to make sure it doesn't stick. It's not bullying!* Cain can't be a bully; he certainly can't bully GGT for [real or imagined] mental health issues. After all someone tried to bully him once and he didn't like it, he struggles with PTSD and god knows what else, he has a poor ol' mum who has strange ideas but he loves her even so, etc etc. We'll all go to ridiculous lengths to justify our antics, you and me included perhaps the best solution is to just not rise to the bait, with the help of the ignore button if necessary.

But I was glad to read your posts even so




* OR IS IT

[Nessus]

You mean like with Lewk's spelling? Or really, just about any of a poster's particular hobby-horses when it comes to Lewk?

But fair paladin, Lewk is a dark elf, we must butcher him without mercy!

[CitizenCain]

Cain can't be a bully; he certainly can't bully GGT for [real or imagined] mental health issues. After all someone tried to bully him once and he didn't like it, he struggles with PTSD and god knows what else, he has a poor ol' mum who has strange ideas but he loves her even so, etc etc.

Great that you're willing to include me in your little whatever you thought that was, but do try to be more accurate if you insist on talking about me, thanks.

[Aimless]

but do try to be more accurate if you insist on talking about me, thanks.

Whatever for??

[CitizenCain]

...I just assumed you weren't looking to add lying jackassery to your bag of tricks. My apologies if I was mistaken in that assumption.