you're reading...
Christianity, Politics

HR-3: Attack on Women’s Rights. Again.

Under a GOP-backed bill expected to sail through the House of Representatives, the Internal Revenue Service would be forced to police how Americans have paid for their abortions. To ensure that taxpayers complied with the law, IRS agents would have to investigate whether certain terminated pregnancies were the result of rape or incest. (LINK)

Make no mistake.  This is an end-around maneuver designed to subvert the law.  Abortions are legal in the United States.  The Supreme Courts have upheld the decision that laws obstructing women’s access to reproductive care violate their right to equal treatment under the law.  Threatening audit after a rape is an unconscionable attempt to bully women out of seeking or receiving abortions.

READ THE REST ON EXAMINER.COM

Advertisements

Discussion

10 thoughts on “HR-3: Attack on Women’s Rights. Again.

  1. I would stand up and speak out against this bill, but I have no right to speak out for sexual ethics.

    So I won’t.

    Posted by cptpineapple | May 12, 2011, 12:59 pm
  2. Good call 🙂

    This isn’t about sexual ethics, anyway. It’s about legislative ethics. Abortion is legal. These lawmakers are trying to subvert the law. That’s unethical.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 12, 2011, 1:02 pm
  3. Oh, and by the way, you have every right to speak about sexual ethics. You just have no experience with them, so your opinion is less than convincing to most people.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 12, 2011, 1:02 pm
  4. You know Hamby, after Hitchen’s little political discourse, you should have just looked him in the eye and said:

    “Mr. Hitchens, you never served in the military[?] your position on war will be less than convincing to most people.”

    Among our list of chats, I think we need to add when somebody has epistemological and when they don’t.

    Posted by cptpineapple | May 12, 2011, 1:21 pm
  5. Sorry for the snark, but I don’t think we’ll ever stop talking past each other until you actually take me seriously rather than seeing me as this socially inept emotional little girl who doesn’t know anything.

    Posted by cptpineapple | May 12, 2011, 2:23 pm
  6. Alison, you know quite a few things, and I do take you seriously when you talk about them. However, your positions on a couple of subjects — most notably sexual ethics and Christian ethics — display naivety. I’m not going to lie to you and tell you they don’t. And I don’t know how you can gain experience without gaining experience. So… yeah… there’s that.

    You know Hamby, after Hitchen’s little political discourse, you should have just looked him in the eye and said:

    “Mr. Hitchens, you never served in the military[?] your position on war will be less than convincing to most people.”

    I was hoping you’d say something like this. (I’m not a hundred percent sure Hitchens never did anything with the military, but your point is still made.) I was actually expecting you to go the route of say, a crack addict going to a psychologist and saying, “Dude… you’ve never done crack. You aren’t qualified to advise me on this matter.” That would be a better example next time. (Note my pessimistic appraisal of the likelihood of what I’m about to say working?)

    Anyway: False dichotomy: EITHER soldier OR Not qualified.
    Hitchens is qualified to talk about war strategy because he has first hand experience with war as a journalist, firsthand acquaintances with many of the people directly involved, intimidatingly vast knowledge of the region and its war history, and keen understanding of human behavior gleaned from decades of work as a persuader, debater, and journalist.

    Now… back to you. You have studied what… physics and statistics at university. To my knowledge, you haven’t been on a date. You haven’t had sex. You don’t drink. You have never done drugs. You don’t make or keep friends easily. You have been in your room more than you’ve been outside. Am I accurate in all these statements? Because I’m not trying to denigrate you. I’m trying to accurately reflect your experience with other humans in a sexual context — and alcohol, drugs, sex, and friendship are the realities on the ground for most people. And these are the things with which you have little or no experience.

    So… no. You are not a suitable analogy for Christopher Hitchens and war commentary.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 12, 2011, 3:21 pm
  7. I was actually expecting you to go the route of say, a crack addict going to a psychologist and saying, “Dude… you’ve never done crack. You aren’t qualified to advise me on this matter.” That would be a better example next time. (Note my pessimistic appraisal of the likelihood of what I’m about to say working?)

    I did bring up the RRS convo way back about you giving out parenting advice, and getting jumped on because you don`t have kids. You were upset and rightly so.

    The reason I used Hitchens is because you brought him up last time. You`re right he`s a bad example. Not because of his previous experience, but because of his complete lack of knowledge of human behaviour. [oh and btw, I can point to people who have similar experience, actually interviewed jihadis and has actual psychology education that says he`s full of shit]I bet there`s a reason Hitchen`s views are in his pop books, not peer reviewed journals.

    But anyway. You seem to rely too much on where the person`s been. In other words, that seems to be the end all for you. Not only that, but you apply it selectivly.

    For one thing they can be completey skewed emotional investment in the topic can lead to irrational thinking.

    You may take that psychologist and crack addict analogy and explain why the addict is wrong, and claim that I don`t know the difference between that and this, but there isn`t one.

    That`s just the issue I have with the atheist movement, they declare themselves the exception. I`m going to start read The God Virus today, and guess what? He has to prove his ideas just like anybody else and prove them the same way as any other scientific idea. If he wants to use memes to explain religion, he must first prove that memes are scientifically sound.

    You seem to think I have this knee jerk reaction to anti-religious thinking, but I`m considering it just like I do any other idea.

    Now… back to you. You have studied what… physics and statistics at university. To my knowledge, you haven’t been on a date. You haven’t had sex. You don’t drink. You have never done drugs. You don’t make or keep friends easily. You have been in your room more than you’ve been outside. Am I accurate in all these statements? Because I’m not trying to denigrate you. I’m trying to accurately reflect your experience with other humans in a sexual context — and alcohol, drugs, sex, and friendship are the realities on the ground for most people. And these are the things with which you have little or no experience.

    This is the internet. You can talk to somebody for 4 years and not know a lot about them. The only things you know about me are the things I told you. The only reason you know I`m a virgin is because I told you.

    Posted by cptpineapple | May 12, 2011, 4:34 pm
  8. I did bring up the RRS convo way back about you giving out parenting advice, and getting jumped on because you don`t have kids. You were upset and rightly so.

    Well yes… but if you recall, I was upset because while I don’t have children, I have plenty of practical AND scholarly knowledge on the specific subjects I was talking about. Again… the false dichotomy. My point with you is that you have neither the scholarly knowledge nor the experience. So you’re not a reliable source for accurate commentary.

    But anyway. You seem to rely too much on where the person`s been. In other words, that seems to be the end all for you. Not only that, but you apply it selectivly.

    LOL No. And by the way, I’m about to leave for dinner, so this will be my last comment on this topic. At least in this thread. So you may have the last word if you choose.

    You have an odd habit of getting snippy with people when they make broad generalizations, but also getting snippy with them when they make specific arguments which do not fit broad generalizations.

    I do think experience is important. Not the end all and be all, but really damn important. But you keep doing this false dichotomy thing. Experience comes in many forms. For the war example: One could be a soldier, a Congressmen, a history scholar, an arms dealer, a military advisor, or any number of professions — all of which would include experiences related to war. Each of these people would bring their own unique perspective — borne of experience — to the table.

    You, Alison, have next to zero experience with human sexuality. You haven’t had it, haven’t studied it academically, haven’t well… anything to do with it. That makes you — in this instance, on this subject — a very poor repository of reliable knowledge and opinion on the subject.

    To put it in a NON-False Dichotomy: To be reasonably informed on sexuality, you could be:
    1. A sex scholar
    2. A sex worker
    3. A sex researcher
    4. A sex historian
    5. A biologist with a specialty in animal sexuality
    6. An anthropologist studying human sexuality
    7. A psychologist
    8. A sociologist
    9. A well read sex columnist
    10. A well traveled veteran of many kinds of sexual relationships

    The list can go on and on and on. There are lots of things you could be that would make you reasonably informed on human sexuality. You are none of them. And you have no personal experience on which to base your opinions.

    You have every right to your opinions, and it might turn out that you’re right about some of them. But you won’t know til you have some experience.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 12, 2011, 5:56 pm
  9. Hamby, I’ll take that last word.

    The fact of the matter is I have no idea what your personal experiences with sex are.

    From what I know about you, you have a music degree and own a resturant. So you’re not a psychologist, sociologist, biologist or anthropologist. At best you’re a layperson in those.[If you don’t think you’re a layperson, you’re narcissistic, as I have a physics/math degree and read up on those subjects constantly and don’t call myself a physicist or mathematician even though I know more than the average Joe.]

    You’re not a researcher, as you don’t have any peer reviewed papers published.

    You like to read pop psychology books and the occasional study.

    The point I’m trying to make is that I have no idea what you’ve read about sexuality, what you’ve experienced regarding sexuality, how many partners you’ve had, who wore the leather mask, or anything like that.

    What really gets me when you pull stuff like this is, that you don’t know me. You don’t know what I read, what I do.

    I told you what I think about sexuality. I’m not going to tell you about what I DO in regards to sex, because I don’t want that posted on a public forum.

    Just like Christianity and morality, you just blow me off because you say I don’t get it because I’ve never experienced it. However, I DID experience it.

    But that doesn’t matter, because the majority of the time, I’m the one posting empirical studies.

    You’re mistaken that I’m not well read on psychology. I read text books, I read pop books I read papers etc…

    That’s why I don’t make positive claims about religion and society. I’m just a layperson, but what I can do is evaluate claims and see if they fit with the studies I did read. I find that they don’t. I’m sorry that I’m taking the studies over Hitchens or Harris.

    I’m sorry that I’ve never made a positive hypothesis about the role of religion and morality, or society, but a person versed in science will know that I don’t have to provide an alternative hypothesis to question the ones proposed.

    Posted by cptpineapple | May 12, 2011, 7:17 pm
  10. ill bote for pro life why because pro choice is just taking your money away and i think aborthing a babie is not good.
    the babies does not ahve the falt for the bad choices we take so i vote for pro life………

    Posted by veronica | June 16, 2011, 1:04 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: