https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png 0 0 Kelsey Hazzard https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png Kelsey Hazzard2014-12-01 12:24:002021-11-08 12:26:44Make an impact this World AIDS Day
Get tested. If you’re sexually active and/or have had contact with another person’s blood, get tested. Get tested even if your sexual partner(s) believe that they are HIV-negative. According to the CDC, one-sixth of HIV-positive Americans are unaware that they carry the virus.
Definitely steer clear of Planned Parenthood, though, and advise your friends to do the same. Not just because they’re an abortion business: they’ve also demonstrated some serious skeeviness when it comes to HIV prevention. They were caught on tape advising someone who wanted an STD test to donate blood instead—horrible advice, for reasons that should be obvious. And a few years ago, Planned Parenthood put out an “educational” pamphlet for HIV-positive people that suggested that it’s totally fine to have sex with someone without disclosing your HIV-positive status. Thankfully, Planned Parenthood is not your only option for HIV testing. HIVtest.org is a good place to start, or try your local health department or regular physician.
Donate to an HIV/AIDS charity. Having lived in the D.C. area, which has one of the worst HIV/AIDS rates in the nation, I’m partial to Whitman-Walker Health; they do great work. But there are many, many other great non-profits for you to choose from.
Make an impact this World AIDS Day
Although treatment options have progressed substantially, so that HIV-positive people are now able to live long and healthy lives, it’s still important to be knowledgeable about HIV/AIDS. Here are some things you can do as a pro-life advocate to commemorate World AIDS Day.
- Educate your social media network about HIV/AIDS prevention. You’re probably used to sharing memes and articles about pregnancy and prenatal development. Take this opportunity to expand beyond that and become a peer educator about sexual health in general. Two links you can share to get you started:
- HIV Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)
- Top 10 Myths and Misconceptions about HIV and AIDS (WebMD)
Just to correct this:
No, you need not disclose your HIV status to everyone you have sex with, providing you only have safe sex.
If there's no risk of transmission – if you're not engaging in penetrative sex / no bodily fluids exchanged – you don't have to tell your contacts your HIV status.
More to the point: unless you and your partner have both been tested and you're in a mutually-monogamous relationship with an agreement you can trust to tell each other of any exposure, you should always assume your sexual contacts could be HIV+ and take care of yourself accordingly – and you should take care that your contacts assume the same of you.
That's responsible behaviour. Advising people to steer clear of Planned Parenthood because they're "skeevy" is grossly irresponsible, just what I'd expect from a prolife site.
They hate PP here. A few commenters have repeated thr lie that PP sells inferior BCP so that women will get pregnant and therefore have to seek abortions at PP.
And the nonreligious here claim to be *skeptics*, no less. Yet they buy the woo that is peddled by the RCC, when it comes to birth control.
Safe sex (condom) doesn't protect 100% from Guttmacher institute it may be as low as 60% or high as 96% through condoms. That is a decent chance to give someone HIV/AIDS who wouldn't know it.
Most will call your example foreplay, or possible oral sex(not saying one cannot have sex without bodily fluids exchange but the average person thinks it.). There is risk in oral sex of getting HIV, It is one that hasn't been able to statistically given yet because one doesn't know how many, just that people have become infected this way.
Read the actual booklet, EdinburghEye. It doesn't contain the caveats you've added. If you want to "correct" someone, correct PP. http://www.ippf.org/resource/Healthy-Happy-and-Hot-young-peoples-guide-rights
Goodness me, did I specify 'condom'? I did not.
Safe sex includes a huge range of mutually pleasurable activities, with no risk of seroconversion if there's no risk of exchange of bodily fluids.
I have more confidence in Planned Parenthood to deliver legally and ethically correct information than I do in prolife site with a kneejerk hatred of PP.
Indeed, given the prevalence of 'sting' operations carried out by prolife fraudsters, which prolife sites love to quote and hate to factcheck, I have no confidence in any criticism of PP by a prolife site.
If prolifers genuinely wanted to help women they'd love PP. The fact that the US prolife movement loathes PP is a major clue that prolifery is fundamentally misogynist.
Ah, that's how it always is, isn't it? When the facts aren't going your way, throw out an accusation of misogyny. Quite the conversation-stopper. The booklet speaks for itself no matter how you try to change the subject. I'm not going to waste any more time debating you.
Well it seems to me that HIV stigma prevents people from seeking treatment and/or even using protection as it might give the wrong "impression" and IPPF is trying to combat that
wow. Really? As you pro-choicers are always fond of reminding (and justifiably so), no method of safe sex is foolproof. There is always a chance that the condom/dental dam will break, that bodily fluids will go where unintended. You have a responsibility to disclose with anyone you are getting physical with, if you are HIV+, or if you have any STD for that matter. Legal or not, doing otherwise invites direct harm to other people, which is immoral. Should someone always be prepared to ask their partner about their status? Of course. But to put the onus of the responsibility on the potential victim is along the same line as putting the onus of the responsibility to a potential rape victim who gets drunk at a frat house, telling them they should have taken other precautions.
Planned Parenthood never does anything wrong. Recall that it's the most important organization in the world.
Consenting to sex isn't the same as consenting to pregnancy. But it is consent to getting AIDS.
If there's no risk of transmission – if you're not engaging in penetrative sex / no bodily fluids exchanged – you don't have to tell your contacts your HIV status."
The kneejerk loathing of Planned Parenthood is misogynistic, Kelsey, and since it's indefensible, I'm unsurprised you won't debate it.
I did mention more than just 'condoms' but hey you are fixated on that apparently. I mentioned Oral sex which some will say isn't exchanging fluids and most consider it very safe, some are don't even realize that it can give the virus that way.
Other forms of foreplay or outersex can still be dangerous depending on how close one gets or keeping track of where their fluids go. It is a risk and pretending it isn't there is just well, naive. It is a decent risk when your sex partner isn't aware of the danger and may not be cautious of keeping bodily fluids away from sex organ, mouth, or other points of entry such as wounds.
Sex is a two way thing, and need both sides to understand and communicate for it to work out nicely. Communicating and understanding the way HIV works and spread is important to having sex and relationship with one another.
So does Oral sex count as an exchange? Or the numerous sexual activities that bodily fluid that can accidentally hits the other's sex, or share toys, or many other ways to have their fluids touch the right spots to come in contact with it. The risk is especially higher when your partner doesn't know to be careful.
NO-RISK SEXUAL ACTIVITIES
These activities carry no risk of HIV transmission:
Casual or dry kissing
Phone sex, cyber sex, sexy talk
Masturbation (without your partner's body fluids)
Frottage—also known as "dry humping" or body-to-body rubbing
Not to mention well funded.
I don't know about misogynistc. Personally I feel like taking a shower after reading anything that is published by PP
Hey, not gonna read that article on the development of the egg? The one I linked to twice? You keep referencing science, then pretend it doesn't exist when actually confronted with it.
A non-profit focussed on providing reproductive healthcare for women. How unclean that must make you feel: prolifers loathe reproductive health for women.
Liar liar pants on fire.
The PP in my city does not do abortions. Many PPs do not. Abortion is 3% of PP activity.
PP is a fine organization. I used them for low cost gynecologic care and contraception for years when I was a young Mother and Student. Now my daughters use them.
If any young people stumble on this board and need advice about sex, contraception, STDs and pregnancy that is confidential, the place to go is PPs TeenWire. And if you need financial help to get an abortion, they may direct you to local charities that help women. PP can also help you with prenatal care if you decide to give birth.
I read the booklet. You are a liar.
You are a liar.
No, only the sexually explicit stuff they peddle to kids
A non profit focusing on lowering the age of first sexual activity in young people, you mean
… I fail to see how it is okay to fuck someone up by giving him/her HIV without tell someone the disclose.
Pearl clutcher. Filthy minded Strega.
Age of first intercourse for young women in America is 15 on average. In the old days, they solved teenage sex problem by getting married like my Grands at ages 16 and 19. You want to go back to that?
My youngest daughter had sex the first time at age 12, in spite of all Mom could do to educate and proselytize and be open and be serious etc.
Yes, my daughter who does not make more than 20K a year has a small sum sent to them automatically every month because she values the contribution they have made to her health.
That's because it's *not* ok to do that.
HIV infection requires two things. First, bodily fluid containing the virus. Second, broken skin or mucous membranes. I have no idea what you mean by bodily fluids hitting the other person's sex. I believe HIV by oral sex is transmissible to the receiver. HIV is not transmitted in saliva. It is present in seminal fluid. Lesbians have a non-existent rate of transmission. HIV is a fragile virus and doesn't survive long outside the human body. I've never heard of transmission by contact with any surface, including toys, eating utensils, plates, sharing cups, etc. Never, ever.
The Planned Parenthood clinic here doesn't do abortions either, and they never have. Everything they do there would be considered health care by anyone sane, including contraception.
No, Guest. Consenting to sex is not consenting to gestation. Pregnancy is a risk to anyone who has a functioning uterus. Pregnancy is a risk, as is HIV infection. Pregnancy is curable.
What ARE you talking about? Because Planned Parenthood exists, teens have sex? What about all the teens who had sex before there was such a thing as PP or modern contraception? Teens have sex. They always have. Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with that. That's nature. I have never seen such a group of people laser-focused on what strangers do with their genitals. It's not too bad here, but other blogs like lifesitenews are infested with those types. It always comes down to punitive attitudes about sex and particularly sex for women with you people. It's disgusting.
Facts do not matter to zealots. Scary folk.
Because kids have no need of information about their bodies, sexual health and proper boundaries, right? If we could just ignore it hard enough, it would all go away. I suppose you would think my mother was just *horrible* for buying me a book about sex when I was 12 and full of questions she didn't have answers for. I'm thankful every day that I didn't grow up in the kind of ignorance my mother and grandmother did. You look at your sweet daughter, and you think tomorrow will always be there. You can do it later. That's the girl who will be pregnant in high school, or molested by a pedophile. The one who doesn't know any better.
HIV is notoriously DIFFICULT to transmit. You are a scare-monger.
You are an idiot.
I am not the one lying on a public message board when my assertions are so easily checked out.
Hmm. So I guess the women accusing Bill Cosby of raping them are just bloviating. And Darren Wilson put Michael Brown in his proper place because he was never convicted of homicide.
Providing evidence would be a waste of time anyway. If I linked you to a Planned Parenthood document that clearly stated deliberate HIV transmission should not be criminal behaviour, you would just call me a liar.
You know, you were doing so well with this article … right until the point when you tried to cite the frequently discredited Liar Rose as a reliable source for why one should not have an HIV test at Planned Parenthood.
It really is amazing how little creativity the anti-choice have where sexual activity is concerned. I mean, seriously. Who hasn't heard of the things you mention … except them, of course.
Liar Rose and her flying monkeys haven't presented any facts, though; just badly edited videos. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/planned-parenthood-lila-rose-mammograms
Why? Do facts squick you out?
A non profit focusing on lowering the age of first sexual activity in young people, you mean
Yeah, and they all picked on EE and insinuated that she was arguing that it is morally permissible to go around infecting people with HIV without disclosing that one is HIV positive.
Oh, look! Rosie here is a fan of the now-defunct Comstock Act, which stated that any discussion of contraception was pornography. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/130734/Comstock-Act
Faith-based organizations? Oh, you mean shaming, religious groups with no medical training, etc.? Yeah, that's a big freakin' help.
Well, the U.N. disagrees with you
not sure why you would think contraception is pornography. I am against pornography in itself though, if that's any consolation.
No, planned parenthood and Margaret Sanger squick me out, though.
Well, you may be ok with encouraging your teens to have sex, I prefer to tell my children, not just daughters what sex is. According to PP sex is something you need to protect yourself from. It needs to be safe, or it will be risky. That is a lie. Sex is not dangerous or risky, LIFESTYLE CHOICES can be very risky.
Well we all need our heroes
Wow I'm sorry all you talk about chastity fell on deaf ears.
Yes, you are definitely sorry.
My daughter's heros are the Evil Queen Maleficent and Maya Angelou.
You really are a flamer.
I give my children ongoing, reality based introduction into adult living. Giving real information like, oh I don't know, sex makes babies. The pharmaceutical companies know this very well for example. In our family we teach our children about their sexuality since they are very young by responding in age appropriate ways to their enquiries. We use matter of fact correct anatonical terms. They also see my husbans an I interact, kiss, embrace and they get a feeling of what a solid loving relationship is. We answer all and any questions. I would NOT trust anyone else with this awesome responsibility. We teach them since first grade how to stay safe with strangers. I do not think your mother is horrible at all. She took it upon herself to find a book that she knew would be the best way for you find answers she may have felt uncomfortable answering. My mother relied on the school sex Ed class and she NEVER talked about sex or private parts, EVER. Each parent does what they know is best for their own children. And I am sure we agree that we would like our children to be safe from abusers, chose a lifestyle which will safeguard their physical and emotional health. Honestly I don't see PP doing that.
You would do far better by letting your kids know that boundaries apply to EVERYONE, and it's not usually strangers you need to worry about. There are plenty of "funny uncles" and grandfathers out there, perhaps even parents and siblings. Not to mention preachers, and sports coaches. Jerry Sandusky. Need I say more? Bless my mother, she tried to answer all my questions. I didn't get the sense that she was uncomfortable, but you can't teach what you don't know yourself. There are plenty of mothers around even today that don't know the facts themselves. Sex education should be taught in school, starting from early on, and by health professionals or teachers with degrees in biology or health sciences. Planned Parenthood is an excellent source of information.
Well, being a health professional, I encouraged my kids to abstain. I also informed them about their bodies and how they work, boundary issues, and how to protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs. This is not about "lifestyle choices." Sooner or later, most people *are* going to be sexually active. They need correct information, not shaming.
Correct. And if their parents cannot be trusted, Planned Parenthood and books like Our Bodies, Ourselves can do the job.
What is pornography?
I completely agree. Children and teens don't need shaming, and I agree that abstaining is best whe you are a teen.
You are one lucky lady of you have never come across it or have not have to deal with the devastating effects of its addiction
Wow. Go tell that to someone in Botswana or Malawi, or Lesotho, or South Africa, or any of the African countries suffering from this epidemic. Wow.
well then I guess PP should stay out of the business of telling strangers how they should be having sex.
**. I am against pornography in itself though, if that's any consolation.**
I'd suggest you move out of the USA and to a theocracy. We have this little thing here called 'Freedom of the Press'.
**Giving real information like, oh I don't know, sex makes babies. **
Umm. No. Most of the time, sex does NOT make babies, and there are a lot of 'babies' nowadays that did not come from sex.
**Each parent does what they know is best for their own children.**
Not really. And I'm curious as to your claim regarding this, because it would actually seem to be in favor of abortion.
**And I am sure we agree that we would like our children to be safe from abusers, chose a lifestyle which will safeguard their physical and emotional health**
Unless this involves giving your children guns and taking them out of public schools, you're pretty much fooling yourself.
so? I am also against racism, are you ok with magazines using the "n" word and many other racial slurs and insults nonchalantly just because of freedom of press?
No they should not. They have a role in sexual health education. You imply that they order people to have sex a certain way. That's absurd. They do answer questions honestly and give advice without judgment. And that's ok. Young people especially, have a need to realize they are normal, and sex is normal. You are a liar.
Where your precious Catholic "faith-based organizations" are refusing to give the people condoms. HIV is at epidemic levels because of ignorance on sexual matters. How dare you. That's the fault of Catholic anti-condom teaching. The blood is on their hands.
Answer the fucking question. I want to know what *you* believe pornography is.
It might be best. But they aren't all going to do that. Simply telling them not to have sex is not sex education. Even if they abstain as teens, eventually they will become sexually active. If that's all you've told them, you are not helping them.
**are you ok with magazines using the "n" word and many other racial slurs and insults nonchalantly just because of freedom of press?**
First of all, I'm also against racism. But that's irrelevent. Magazines have the right to print the word 'nigger', or any other word they want to print, regardless of how many sad feelies people have about it. Don't like it? Don't buy that magazine. If enough people don't buy a magazine, it will go out of business.
And, btw, racism qua racism really doesn't constitute a violation of anyone's rights, provided you do not commit an actual crime. A person has the right to not associate with, employ, buy from, or sell to, anyone they want to, for any reason, or for no reason. If I don't want to sell to people with black skin, white skine or who wear funny hats, or watch public TV, and you force me to do so, basically you are enslaving me.
Why? Because they talk about facts?
The Comstock Act stated that discussion of, or distribution of materials about, contraception constituted distribution of pornography. That's basically your claim here: that fact-based information about contraception, sexual activity, etc., should not be given to "children" (by which I presume you mean teens) because you think it's icky.
I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that you didn't bother to look at the link, which demonstrates the clear connection between the things you've said here and the Comstock Act.
Yes, heaven forfend that anyone get accurate, fact-based information about contraception, pregnancy, STDs, etc. /sarc
LIFESTYLE CHOICES can be very risky.
By which you mean what, exactly?
I agree that abstaining is best whe you are a teen.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. What teens need is fact-based education about contraception, how their bodies work, etc. Do you know what *doesn't* help them? Abstinence-only "education."
You can talk all you want, but that still doesn't force another individual's hand.
Prior restraint against journalists is against the law, actually. Just so you know.
/former newspaper editor nitpick
Wow. Talk about non-responsive? The question is quite obvious: what do YOU think constitutes pornography? After all, you've already made it plain that you think fact-based information about contraception is "sexually explicit," so I'm keen to know your definition as well.
And I am sure we agree that we would like our children to be safe from
abusers, chose a lifestyle which will safeguard their physical and
emotional health. Honestly I don't see PP doing that.
Then you aren't paying attention.
Giving real information like, oh I don't know, sex makes babies.
Actually, most of the time it doesn't.
You have no idea how or why these epidemics are happening, do you? It's because of ignorant ideas about how "sex with a virgin will cure your HIV" and so on. Because actual NGOs (not churchy ones, with misinforation) were restrained from talking about condoms under Dubya because it was contraception (oh no!).
You need to read a book called "Our Kind of People: A Continent's Challenge, A Country's Hope." http://www.amazon.com/Our-Kind-People-Continents-Challenge/dp/B00BQ9KFHM Your lack of comprehension about the cultural issues that allow for ongoing transmission is shocking. Once you read that book, come back and we can talk some more. Until you understand how to deal with the cultural barriers, you *cannot* make headway.
No love, an anthropologist
"A person has the right to employ, buy from, or sell to, anyone they want to…" Ever heard of the cake baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple for their wedding. Nice to know you stand with the baker.
It's linked in the previous comment
Really? So you agree HIV is notoriously difficult yo spread. Again, go tell it to the 9 or 10 nations deeply affected. And indeed yes, cultural differences are precisely why one prevention model does not fit all. And yes FBOs are giving greater accessibility to antiretroviral drugs because of their capability to access people who would otherwise not be reached.
Like I said before, take it up with the U.N. if you disagree with the work FBOs are doing with them
Lazy! This site has a pdf of actual document, but you can go on the UNAIDS site and look there, sorry not used to dealing with lazy people.
She never looks at links.
She is profoundly dishonest.
She is also an anti-gay bigot.
Notice how progressive pro lifers are few and far between, even here?
So, what you have is a Catholic organization stating that Catholic organizations are doing something. This is NOT the UN saying that FBOs are better at doing it than NGOs. In fact, it is just the same organization tooting its own horn.
I've determined from your posts that you are a dishonest interlocutor. Where is the statement *from the UN,* not from Caritas, that says that FBOs are better at this than NGOs?
Oh, yeah. That would be *nowhere,* because it doesn't exist. Here's the *actual* resolution, not the nonsense that you're touting: http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/sub_landing/files/20110610_UN_A-RES-65-277_en.pdf
You're the one that made the assertion; it's incumbent upon you to provide the documentation, not to demand that other people do your homework for you.
And the PDF? Is NOT from the UN, but is in fact from the Catholic organization. The actual UN resolution has been provided to you.
Actually, she's wrong. If one opens a public accommodation in any state except Arizona (which has no public accommodation anti-discrimination law of which I am aware), one cannot discriminate against the public when it comes to service.
Nice to know you stand with the baker.
Nice to know that you're an anti-gay bigot.
So-called "FBOs" aren't dong anything except shaming. Shall we talk about Mother Teresa and her disturbing remarks about AIDS patients under her "care"?
Oh, okay. Let's do that. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/05/mother-teresa/
Do the words :"just retribution for improper sexual conduct" sound like compassionate care to you?
This is why churches need to leave actual medical care to medical professionals and not Jesus at people in need.
Ah, you're one of those prolifers who thinks it's so much better for kids to be kept ignorant of how to have safe sex and that sex is fun and enjoyable. Prolifery is essentially anti-sex and anti-women: a conservative Christian movement.
Sounds like you're working to ensure that when your children start having sex, and need to use contraception, they'll lie to you.
Yes, I'm ok with that. I don't agree with the sentiments. But I'm even more opposed to censorship. There is freedom of speech, and of the press, and I treasure that. Unpopular sentiments are those most in need of protection. The remedy to repugnant speech is not censorship. The remedy is more speech. We have a right to disagree, and express our disagreement. Deal with it.
I disagree with Ann Morgan on that point. Slavery is enforced labor without remuneration. If you run a business that serves the public, then you actually have to serve the public. Ann is wrong. If you want to pick and choose, start a private Christian Heterosexual wedding cake club or something. If you run a bakery, you bake what you are being paid to bake. PERIOD. Don't mind Ann, she's a libertarian. And libertarians have a few good ideas, and a lot of bad ones.
Yeah, still no explanation of what pornography is from you. Get this straight. Freedom of expression. Freedom of speech. Even if you don't like it. That's tough. It's none of your business what anyone else reads, views or discusses.
You got that right.
No, it's not. That link doesn't lead to any UN document.
Another fail. Caring for those living with HIV is admirable. More admirable is helping them not to contract HIV in the first place. And if they aren't teaching safer sex, they aren't doing diddley! That amounts to locking the barn door after the cow gets out. Not too bright. And it doesn't even say what you claim it says.
I am sure you mean SOME freedom of expression. If someone is viewing, say child pornography, it is my business as well as yours. According to your statement an old man fingering the anus of a 10 month old is ok, then. Thanks for freedom of expression. My question to you is: Is there anything that is perverse in your eyes? Per your statement above, even if there were, you wouldn't do anything about it because it is not your business what other people read or do. Good for you.
Pedophilia is an unpopular sentiment. Does that need protection?
No, like I said, my husband and I have been teaching our children about their own sexuality since they were quite small. How is that keeping them in ignorance exactly? My middle schooler, for example, knows exactly what sexual intercourse is because we answered very candidly. And our nine year old (a girl this time…. I noticed girls ask questions earlier) too (although for her it was appropriate for her age). I don't think they are ignorant at all. They are learning to respect themselves and others. You might wish to impart different values to your children, and that is your prerogative as a parent.
Why would they lie, and why do you ASSUME kids will necessarily have sex. Yes some do, but some don't especially those who do not feel it is expected of them. Many who precociously have sex, for example, do not have a father figure to guide them. My senior in high school obviously knows about contraception (granted the others do not yet, but they are quite younger) because we have talked to him candidly about it. Of course teens are teens and hormones are raging in that period of life, but I think it is wrong to give them the impression that they are expected to have sex. We expect him NOT to have sex until much later, but if he does he knows all the physical and emotional implications of being intimate with a girl and he knows about contraception. When we ask him more specific questions about his relationship with his girlfriend, for example, we do not demand an answer if he is not ready to give it. If he will lie, then he will lie, but that does not mean that parents whose kids are fed the PP sex ed, will not lie.
have you even read the article and have you even looked on the UN AIDS website? That is PRECISELY what they are doing. In countries where any headway has been made in slowing down the pandemic, the predominant factor was behaviour modification. Delayed first sexual encounter, faithful and monogamous relationships and THEN condoms.
anti-gay how exactly?
please don't be sore because you think I did not read your link. Exactly why am I anti-gay? because I told Ann Morgan she supported the baker who would not bake the wedding cake for the ss couple?
1. UN is committed to eliminating the pandemic and they use organizations such as FBOs to reach places in a more grassroot way.
2. I posted a link to a PDF of the UNAIDS/CARITAS consultation towards a joint response to AIDS.
3.You have no idea what you linked. That is an AGENDA (if you have ever worked in an office you know them as the boring meetings to set up the goals for the upcoming week/ month/ quarter etc.
4. "…Welcome the leadership and commitment shown in every aspect of the HIV and AIDS response by Governments, people living with HIV, political and community leaders, parliaments, regional and subregional organizations, communities, families, FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS (emphasis added), scientists, health professionals, donors, the philanthropic community, the workforce, the business sector, civil society and the media." Straight from the document you linked
That's because it was a CONSULTATION. do you know what that is? it is like a meeting. What I posted was the hand out. If you want a link that says they actually HAD the consultation here it is. SHeesh!
Yes, I've heard of it. Assuming for the sake of argument that he owned his own bakery, and was not an employee of someone else or part of a franchise that sets policies that he would be obligated to obey (in which case his employers could fire him), the baker should not have to bake a cake for anyone he does not want to bake a cake for. This may or may not make him an asshole, but claiming that he should have to bake a cake if he doesn't want to is to claim he should be a slave.
**Pedophilia is an unpopular sentiment. Does that need protection?**
You're going to have to be more specific. Actual pedophilia is a crime, like murder, and should not be protected. And this, btw, is why child porn of a photographic or movie nature is illegal, it's for the same reason snuff films are illegal, because you have to actually commit a crime (either pedophilia or murder) to create such photographs or movies.
If you are talking about whether writing or discussing pedophilia should be protected, then yes, it should.
Exactly my point. Not all freedom is allowed and it is other people's business.
Yes of course. I was responding to LB who mentioned that although she may not agree with unpopular sentiments, they need protection. I think I will go and edit the graphic description now. Admittedly I have had a hard day and being tired and sleep deprived I may have a little overreacted. I just really wanted to make a strong point, but perhaps it was a bit much.
You're trying to conflate actual freedom and rights with violating other people's rights. Talking about pedophilia or 'niggers' or any other subject is a right. Actually committing pedophilia or lynching people is a crime, not a right. I'm not going to fall for that game. You've been told this before. There are no special rights for special people. Unless you're willing to put a kidney up for grabs by any dialyisis patient who needs it, then there is no 'right' to someone else's organs, and if there is no such right, that means embyroes don't have such a right, either.
There is a vast difference between 'unpopular sentiments' in verbal, written, or drawn expression, and actual crimes, or photographs of such crimes sold as perverted entertainment.
Regarding your contention that some sorts of freedom are limited, and it is other people's business, this is a ludicrous argument. To claim that the fact that some sorts of freedom are limited, therefore other sorts can justifiably be limited, is like claiming that since someone forcibly cut the fingers off my right hand, this somehow justifies forcibly cutting the fingers off my left hand. It does not, since the fingers should not have been cut off my right hand at all.
Yeah, you don't read links because you aren't actually interested in science, or in anything that prices you wrong
Yes, if I do recall, you are an anti gay bigot, based on your conversations with purple slurpy.
Hmmm, you might be confusing me with someone else. I used to have the screen name CristinaVenturi before my emailed was hacked. I think purpleSlurpy referred to me in the comments as CV. I remember having a conversation about how right wingers who are pro life also seem to be "anti-science" and against same sex unions being called marriage. But you know what? I realize I have loved a sheltered life with very open minded pro lifers, I think PS is right after all, that elected officials who are pro life also tend to (not all, but most) be pro traditional marriage to the exclusion of gays from this institution. I am not sure that's the population at large thinks this way, though. I, for one, sometimes reluctantly vote for pro life candidates, even there are only a few points on which I actually agree. Abortion is one of my non negotiables, and it is frustrating sometimes to know who my vote is going to, but it is the lesser of two evils. Ideally I would like to support a candidate who is pro life but who also supports strong legislation for a strong social safety net, education, I fact and pregnancy resources. Accommodations for pregnant workers on the job, economic policies that close the dreadful wealth gap. PS is right, such candidates are very hard to find.
Face it, sweetie; you've got *nothing.* The UN has *never* said what you claimed it did, i.e., that FBOs were better at taking care of HIV/AIDS than medical NGOs. They had a meeting with a Catholic group; so what? That doesn't mean they claimed what you said they did. You've been proven wrong already … in no small part by your own "sources."
You made the extraordinary claim that the UN said FBOs were better at dealing with HIV/AIDS than medical NGOS. No such assertion was made by the UN.
And I'm sorry you cannot tell the difference between a resolution and an agenda. Maybe some remedial reading lessons to help with that. The fact that FBOS were listed as among the various organizations does NOT lend credence to your claim. ItIn fact, they're pretty far down on the list.
Well, let's see. You support people being able to discriminate against gay people. And your constant use of "lifestyle choices" is an obvious anti-gay dogwhistle term that implies that gay people choose their sexual orientation.
But hey, being a bigot isn't against the law. Rock on.
Should gays be permitted to marry?
**I think PS is right after all, that elected officials who are pro life also tend to (not all, but most) be pro traditional marriage**
I'd be a bit careful with that. What you call 'traditional marriage' is actually relatively recent, and up until a century or two ago, 'marriage' would consist of a woman 'marrying' the man she was TOLD to marry by her father. Regardless of whether she wanted to or loved him.
Have you taken lessons in evasion from myintx?
I guess you are one of those people who feel better about themselves by making stuff up bout others. That is fine. Just so you know, I was referring to early age of sexual encounter, having multiple partners, using drugs or drinking which can offuscate one's judgement. Was not referring to gays, who by the way I think do not choose to be attracted by their same sex. However these risky lifestyle choices apply to gays too I would imagine.
YOU made that claim. I just posted a comment that the UN is asking FBOs for help in reaching all segments of the population. Just because you have nothing else to say, you really ought not to start grappling at straws.
Where in any of my comments did I say that FBOs are better than NGOs? YOu are the one who said that (or assumed that's what the article is about). They had a meeting with a Caritas, which happens to be a catholic group, to seek help in reaching populations where Caritas Internationalis has operations, since it is one of the charities that is most widespread and their work at grassroot level is well known.
In most states, NO. Unless you operate a club that serves members only, it's assumed that any business exists to serve the public. There ARE laws, you know. No more 'whites only' hospitals are permitted. Or lunch counters, taverns, hotels, etc.
If everyone waited until marriage for sex, there wouldn't be transmission of HIV. Condoms. First time, every time. And the Catholic church had to be forced into doing that.
You mean speech about pedophilia? Yes, the first amendment applies to that. There is no 'thought crime.' Only actions are criminal.
Well first of all, that isn't what I said. Sex with a child under the age of consent is a crime. Reading fantasy literature about sex with a child under the age of consent is not a crime. That wouldn't be my cup of tea, but that's different from saying it should be illegal. Obviously, for such things to be viewed, a crime must be committed. That is the problem, the act. Not the thought. It doesn't matter what *you* believe is *perverse.* Don't view it. Don't read it. If it's adults acting out sexual acts, there's nothing you can do about it.
You said that the FBOs were 'better at' getting HIV/AIDS treatment out and that's why the UN was "relying on them." Please, don't bother backpedaling. Meeting with a group is not "relying on them."
You also said that the UN "disagrees with" my assertion that FBOs are primarily about shaming and denial of condoms, etc. I proved you wrong. You claimed that your citation backed up your assertion; it does not. So, yeah. You're just backpedaling at this point.
No, dumbfuck, I did NOT make the claim that the UN said FBOs were better at dealing with *anything.* In fact, I made quite the opposite claim.
People can read your words, you know.
The sad thing is that if you voted for the person who supports the strong safety net, and the strong job protections, you would be doing more to prevent abortion than voting for the "pro-life" candidate. But you're too dim to see it.
She votes on feelies, not actual real world outcomes, because it's all about moral purity with these people
Glad you see that. I also believe in a strong social safety net, and my impression is that the Catholicism tries to be this safety, and no doubt has done good things, though I think they'd do better if they dropped their dogma and focused strictly on policies that are empirical and based on science.
I agree with lady_black and night porter that voting for far-right candidates just because they are pro-life, may actually be doing more to make a society where women feel abortion is unavoidable. Far-right politicians are often against wage equality for women, against minimum wage, and against universal health insurance. Also, going against gay marriage and gay adoption disqualifies a sizable population of people willing to adopt – and some studies show gay people will adopt hard-to-place children. This is also a societal factor that, while won't reduce abortions, makes sure that those children born and put up for adoption, will be put into a stable home, and I've seen more than a few gay couples who are good parents.
Your mom sounded like a humanist. I think you should think carefully about whether your vote is really going to the lesser of two evils…
As a sidenote, here is a case study of Japan, one of the earliest industrial nations to legalize abortion.
— Currently in Japan, 95% of abortions take place before 11wks
— # of abortions steady decline since the 1950s, about a 5-fold decline from 40~50/1000 to 9.3/1000. Improved economy and availability of the pill largely responsible.
— One of the earliest industrialized countries to "legalize" abortion, was criticized for attracting rich foreigners to have a safe and legal abortion.
So consider if you voted for the pro-life US politicians, and miraculously overturned Roe v. Wade. Because the pro-life politicians largely do not care about social safety nets, the poor women will either be forced to get illegal abortions in the US under unsafe conditions. The rich women might jet off to Japan, or an EU country to get a safe one. As it stands, the government doesn't track who's pregnant and who's not. The poor women might get poor follow-up health care and may develop complications. They also may not have health insurance. They're fucked. The rich women, if they jet off early enough, for all intents and purposes, they will look like they just went off on a vacation. No one will be the wiser. If there are criminal penalties, the poor women might now be charged with a crime. The rich ones, they will just do it outside US jurisdiction. Their abortions will just go unpunished.
If you actually cared about the well-being of society, I think its better to support candidates who may be pro-choice, but also are addressing the root of the problem in which women feel despair when they are unexpectedly pregnant. The pro-life politicians just make it illegal to get an abortion, screwing the poor women, while the rich ones will just go overseas to obtain one. You most likely won't reduce the actual number of abortions, just screwing the poor women who will now slip through the cracks.
Well it doesn't look like it now that the most abortion happy president is in power, so I really don't think you are right.
Infant mortality rates are rising in red states because the ACA has been rejected by pro life politicians.
Does it bother you that babies are dying?
Ladyblack, I'm aware that that is the law. I disagree with the law, as it presumes to determine what people have 'consented' to in some arbitrary package. The way I see it, consent to sell to person A, B, and C does not mean consent to sell to person D, any more than consent to sex means consent to pregnancy, and your insistence that the government has a right to determine consent in such arbitrary packages, against the will of the individual, undermines a lot of the arguments against freedome of choice.
The government has every right to regulate business.
Teens need all the facts, even if they make you uncomfortable. You're not preserving 'innocence' by withholding it, but ignorance.
Well, see the thing is here, you're still undermining your own arguments. I notice you have a tendency to do that, for instance when you want to give women an 'out' after letting a penis ejaculate in their vagina, but not men.
Here's why you are undermining your argument. Let's take a very simple business model, say I am selling shiny pebbles. I am able to run this business by having a smart enough brain to know where to dig in my backyard to get shiny pebbles, and by using my hands to dig them up with a shovel. Then I put up a stand in my front yard, and I sell a pebble to Purple Slurpy for $1, and I sell another pebble to Fiona for $1, but I decide I don't like your practice of breeding munchkin cats, so I refuse to sell one to you.
If you claim, that by having a 'business', the government has a right to 'regulate it' and arbirarily decide on various package deals for my 'consent', such that selling pebbles to Fiona and Purple Slurpy thereby constitutes consent to sell to YOU as well, what you are saying is that the government has the right to determine what I do and do not consent to do with my brain and my hands.
That being the case, then by what logic would the government then not have the right to determine the same sort of package consent deals with other body parts, such as your vagina and uterus, and decide that consent to sex means consent to gestation, regardless of your own opinion on the matter?
What's the matter, plump dumbling? Don't you like anyone having the audacity to question your precious, eugenics-based Planned Parenthood?
Plump dumbling is at it again!
Plump dumbling calls others 'scary'. lmao
If plump dumbling's alleged daughter had sex for the first time at age 12, I hope the child protection authorities were called on plump dumbling!
The 'gay' lifestyle may be a matter of choice. If you're going to show us that it is not, then provide the proof. IOW, put up or shut up.
Oh, lady_black, you seem so intimidating when you use such a profane modifier. Not!
And let's not forget about all of the women who commit sexual child abuse!
Does calling her a 'dumbfuck' make you feel better?
More tone-trolling. Look, I asked nicely once and got what I usually get from this disingenuous poster. A non-answer. I don't deal with other people's direct questions that way, and I really, REALLY hate being condescended to. That's what she was doing . How about you put that remark in the context of what occurred, instead of tone-trolling. Because that's a really dickish move.
A 'dickish' move, huh? An attempt at an insult using a term for male genitalia. Commit misandry much?
Invalid comparison. Comparing commercial transactions to bodily autonomy. And yes, if you own a business that offers shiny pebbles for a dollar, you have to sell one to me if I come in with a dollar and you are offering shiny pebbles for a dollar. This may come as a surprise to you, but what I do for a hobby, my religion (or lack thereof), my sexual orientation, my politics, the color of my skin, disabilities I may have, my gender, etc. are *not* elements that are involved in a commercial transaction. If you offer the product for sale, and I walk in with the money to buy what you're selling, you must sell it to me. That's pretty simple. Imagine that what you offer for sale are essential items, and apply your ridiculous theory to items everyone needs at one time or another such as health care, food, utilities, lodging, fuel, medication and other such necessities. Also, imagine that you're the only game in town, because in many rural areas you may well be. Are you allowed to refuse to sell me groceries because there's something/anything you don't like about me, and you've decided I don't deserve to eat? No you are not allowed to do that. Laws like that protect everyone, including you. Don't act so flippantly about them and whine that your liberties are being infringed upon. They are not. The issuing of a business license includes the responsibility to operate your business in a non-discriminatory manner. If you want to discriminate, open a private club that serves members only. That's perfectly legal to do. It will, of necessity, reduce your customer base. But that's what you do if you want to discriminate.
Why? Are you one of those people who think kids don't regularly do things their parents have no idea about? Even good kids, with good parents.
Prove that there is any such thing as "the gay lifestyle." Do you describe yourself in terms of who you have sex with? That may or may not be a part of who you are (as some people are asexual). But it certainly doesn't define you. This, like the alleged "gay agenda" simply doesn't exist. GLBT people have the same agenda you have. To live their lives in peace, and be treated with the same human dignity you demand for yourself. That's not asking a lot. I seriously doubt you made a conscious decision to be straight. It's just what you are. The same thing goes for gay people. My nephew and niece are gay. It wasn't a choice, as they knew from an early age that they were different. Before they even had a working knowledge of what sex means, they knew that they were attracted to members of their own gender, while other kids have crushes on those of the opposite gender. GLBT people are wired differently than straight people. It may be genetic, it may be epigenetic, but it's biologically based, not "a lifestyle choice."
First, Fiona didn't omit women. Second, most pedophiles are male and identify as straight. When it comes to prepubescent children, there's little difference between boys and girls. Most pedophiles take whatever they can get. It's just harder for adult males to have access to young girls, and much easier for them to have access to young boys. As Fiona said (and it's true) pedophiles tend to gravitate toward activities that allow them unsupervised access to children, like children's sports coaches and scouting leaders. Jerry Sandusky got away with all his crimes because 1) he was a prominent "pillar of the community" who ran a program for disadvantaged boys, therefore 2) parents thought of him as a good person, selfless and charitable with his time and money, and therefore they trusted him. It took decades to bring him to justice because his victims were shamed into silence, and at the same time in awe of his celebrity status.
I wish you what you wish me.
I frighten you? Good. You have the right feeling.
Pedophilia is not a sentiment. It is a sexual orientation. Boy are you stupid.
Okay – it is a cunty move. That seems more apt anyway. If it talks like a cunt and it walks like a cunt … well you know.
I know you dream about them at night while choking your chicken. Give it up. You are probably too old to have your dreams come true. I doubt you can even find a normal woman to do you.
You think having sex is a crime? No wonder you do not know anything at all about it and you hate women.
If one does not wish to be called out as a dumbfuck, one should not behave like one.
The majority of child sexual abuse is committed by men.
What is the "gay lifestyle"? I'm keen to know, and so are my gay friends … because this comes up a lot. My gay friends' lifestyles look no different from mine, in which they go to the store, go to work, walk the dog, help the kids with homework, etc. So, in order for me to provide the proof you desire, you must first define "gay lifestyle." IOW, put up or shut up.
He seems to hate successful women and uses the line "put up or shut up". Both telltale signs of helpless rage. A d-bag for sure, but also could be cries for help.
I would be happy to talk to him. Problem is that he is so full of insults and anger there is no way to contact him.
Are you 12 years old?
OK, that made me laugh out loud.
You can let loose good zingers when you want to :p
Who said anything about two grooms? Those plastic tacky cake toppers are out of vogue, and no self respecting gay person would be caught dead with one of them. The couple asked to have a wedding cake baked. The business makes wedding cakes. The couple had the money to buy. PERIOD.
Well, you may be ok with encouraging your teens to have sex
That's not what Planned Parenthood does.
Dead pals are a sad fact of life. That would be really cool if you ended up befriending ordinaryguy1. PD, you strike me as a wise grandma who can befriend all kinds of people.
It would be kool.
His anger is not youthful anger, but anger of a more defeated sort. In life, we win some battles and we lose some, but ordinaryguy1 seems to not have learned to appreciate the battles he has won, and instead seems to focus on the battles he has lost, and feels anger towards the winners of those battles, because he perceives them as having cheated. Hence his anger towards successful women, towards grandmothers, towards the LGBT finally beginning to be treated equally.
It's a fair question, Rose. How do you define porn?
sometimes I wish I could reply to you the same way you write to people, but then I remember you are a my senior by many years, and for as much I would like to answer rudely, I cannot!! Darn polite upbringing!!
I'm not uncomfortable with facts. like I said in another comment, our children are told facts since they are quite young.
I have never voted for a "far-right" candidate. Indeed I voted Obama the first time around but voted someone else entirely last election (neither Obama, nor Romney). I cannot vote for someone who actively promotes abortion. If, as Lady_Black said, their goal is to reduce abortions in the long run, then why not come out and say it? Why are there no democrats (except for my favourite group Democrats for Life of America) who come out and say, "we are proposing these social and welfare policies because our goal is to eventually make abortion unnecessary" I trusted Obama first time around and his promises to the Bishops, but on many grounds we have seen Obama's promises shatter spectacularly. I do not like to vote republican, but will (so far I have found candidate who are pretty much in the center: eg they oppose abortion and euthanasia, but support LGBT, and embryonic stem cell etc.) if there are no other alternatives. Until I see democrats committing to limiting abortion for non medical reasons (sex selective, or "ooops the condom broke", or "actually I changed my mind about this whole baby thing") I will not support them.
If you looked beyond your bipartisan spectacles you would see that there ARE candidates who support social safety nets AND oppose abortion. It looks like you are being deliberately myopic.
How many people in the US have sex-selective abortions? I'd gather the US data is similar to Japan, 95% before wk 11, way before you could tell the sex of the fetus. Also, what do you think about statistics for Japan, 5-fold reduction in abortion over the last 50 years without a pro-life movement to speak of? Just society working correctly. And what do you think will happen when abortion is actually made illegal? Do you agree with my scenario that the rich will just go off to a foreign country where abortion is safe and legal, while the poor will have to find an illegal one here?
Also, isn't it interesting that your moderate Republican candidates, the ones that supported LGBT rights, didn't even exist a few years ago? It took all those progressives changing their minds.
Yes, I was just making an example of a type of abortion that is not due to a medical condition. You are probably right that sex selective abortions are a rarer in the US than in some other countries. Of course there are some restrictions in this country but all in all Roe vs Wade has made the US on of the most permissive when it comes to abortion.
Also, I never said I DID vote republican. I said I do not like to vote republican but WILL if I can no longer find center/moderate candidates
yes, just go on Democrats for Life of America
to find a candidate who opposes abortion AND supports LGBT AND opposes guns AND supports environment, might be hard. Is there a candidate that supports ALL of your ideals? If you do, then you might be far to one or other side of the political spectrum, but for all of us moderates out there it will be harder. However I am sure you are not coercing anyone to move their ideals so they can vote for one of the bipartisan candidates, right?
This, after you yourself claimed you can't find them. Such candidates may exist. They aren't running, and aren't being elected in high enough numbers. Also, opposing abortion doesn't mean making it illegal.
Like you, there are two non-negotiable issues for me: LGBT rights and environment. Denying these two issues is not merely about opinion, but to me demonstrates a willful ignorance of science and empiricism, which is dangerous and delusional.
I know too many LGBT people, and there is no way its a chosen lifestyle. I've seen them physically assaulted and struggling to come to grips with who they are, it makes no sense for them to choose this path. Plus, the ones who I asked told me they knew they were different even before puberty. Plus, there is some new scientific evidence that genetic factors are at play.
Environment. As a scientist who knows some stuff and has worked a bit with dynamical systems, chaos and fluid dynamics, I find climate change to be fully plausible, and I understand the universal mechanism of things like global bifurcations and phase changes – and how dangerous they can be, because they will induce snap changes in the character of a system. Weather systems share many similarities with other known dynamical systems that undergo bifurcations and phase changes, and if things like this happen on an earth-wide scale, we might be in for real trouble. There is a mountain of independent evidence that human activity causes climate change, and dynamical systems theory tells us that the character of the earth's climate could go through an irreversible change like a hysteresis – a tipping point that would be hard to undo once we pass it.
Gun control – don't want to outlaw guns, so I'm not AGAINST guns, but would like to see more regulation.
If a candidate supported these AND was pro-life, I would be willing to vote for them.
Thanks, will look into them to see what they stand for. I can respect the pro-life stance if it is based on something more than a religious book and emotions. I won't adopt such a stance, but if a candidate is pro-life, yet also doesn't seem to be delusional about science and reality, I might vote for them depending on who else is running.
Polite? You are a creepy freak and the things you type here are a pukefest. You are under the impression you are good? LOL.
Countries with a strong social safety net and widely available contraception covered by insurance tend to have lower abortion rates.
Then what do you mean 'sexually explicit stuff' that you think they supposedly peddle to kids?
I could try being friendly rather than kick him. The kicking certainly is not working if the goal is communication. What is his goal in coming here? Maybe he likes to get kicked.
You do not like me. Why would ask me what is the matter?
I dislike liars. They try to steal reality for their own reasons.
There are 3 pro-ife democratic senators and 4 democratic house members. So they comprise about 6% and 2%, respectively of the democrats in the senate and house.
I wonder how many moderate pro-life republicans there are in the house and the senate.
ladyblack: here's the thing. You write down that it is 'assumed' that any business is there to sell to anyone from the public. Assumed by whom? I don't see that one person has the right to make that assumption on the behalf of another person.
Here's a question for you: Who owns the bakery?
1. The baker
2. Random customers
3. The state
eugenics-based Planned Parenthood?
Citation needed. From a peer-reviewed source. Thanks in advance.
Someone over on another site accurately pegged Rosie's idea of "sexually explicit stuff." I'm paraphrasing here, but it went something like "If Planned Parenthood's material on contraception is 'sexually explicit,' then books on first aid are clearly horror stories and far too explicit about injuries."
Rosie is just spouting off her version of the Comstock Act.
I cannot vote for someone who actively promotes abortion.
Please name one candidate, ever, who as "actively promoted abortion," as opposed to promoting a woman's right to make her own medical decisions. I'll wait.
If you looked beyond your bipartisan spectacles you would see that there
ARE candidates who support social safety nets AND oppose abortion.
Libertarians are all about "eff you, I got mine." So, if that's okay with you, rock on.
most abortion happy president is in power
What an asinine statement. Supporting a woman's right to make her own medical decisions does not make someone "abortion-happy."
Of course, if you were really "pro-life" and not just "pro-embryonic life," you would be raising Cain about how the GOTeabirchers are trying to make it harder for women to access medical care in general … but hey, women are complicated and you can't just project your emotions onto them the way you can an embyro.
If one opens a public accommodation (like a bakery, hotel, etc.), one is not permitted to discriminate about who one serves.
Why would they lie, and why do you ASSUME kids will necessarily have sex
Do you anticipate that your children will spend their lives as virgins?
I am aware that one is not 'permitted' to do this. I disagree that it should not be 'permitted', assuming that the business is owned by a particular private individual, which would make it that person's property. It is a violation of someone's right to tell them what to do with their private property, whether it is their uterus, their house, or their business.
You're also making the assumption that a 'business' must necessarily take the form you want it to take (or the most usual form), which is pretty much the same reasoning as those opposed to gay marriage, who hold that 'marriage' must take the particular form they want it to take.
The thing is – there is no 'right' to a cake, a grocery store, or any other goodies against the willing consent of the owner. Crying that 'what if it's the only grocery store in town' doesn't change that fact. What if there are NO grocery stores in town? What if I have to travel 50 miles to the nearest grocery store, or grow my own food? Are my rights being violated? When the pilgrims came to the US from Europe, there were no grocery stores or bakeries here. Were their rights being violated?
Quite the opposite. I do not think I am good at all, that's why I said I WISH I could answer rudely, but unfortunately I cannot due to the way I was raised.
You mean there are more like you at home? God help us.
I am pro life so naturally I am pro choice.
If you wish to criminalize abortion, you are pro death.
I do not vote for antichoice candidates whatever their party.
I am a one issue voter = contraception and abortion are human rights.
When the Repub party takes the rape and breeder slavery of American women out of their platform, it may become possible for me to vote Repub.
It is an absolute deal breaker for me. I will not vote for a Repub as long as rape and slavery of women is in their platform.
Don't be scared, compared to the likes of you we are definitely a minority, so do not worry; your potty mouth will remain unchallenged.
You are not aware you are challenging my 'potty mouth?' Dumb and unconscious is a terrible way to go through life. Poor thing.
Clutch your pearls some more. Always entertaining.
Oh, you call this challenge? You have led a very tranquil life so far. This is a mere tickle, not a challenge.
uh, YES! I expect CHILDREN to remain virgins
You pro life? Yes, just keep telling it to yourself three times whilst clicking your heels…
I feel nothing. You are a whackjob pervert on the net. Nickel a dozen. Tell us some more about PP teaching explicit sex to children. That was queer enough to be interesting.
Read all about it.
Interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health
In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health considers
the interaction between criminal laws and other legal restrictions relating to sexual
and reproductive health and the right to health. The right to sexual and reproductive
health is a fundamental part of the right to health. States must therefore ensure that
this aspect of the right to health is fully realized.
The Special Rapporteur considers the impact of criminal and other legal
restrictions on abortion; conduct during pregnancy; contraception and family
planning; and the provision of sexual and reproductive education and information.
Some criminal and other legal restrictions in each of those areas, which are often
discriminatory in nature, violate the right to health by restricting access to quality
goods, services and information. They infringe human dignity by restricting the
freedoms to which individuals are entitled under the right to health, particularly in
respect of decision-making and bodily integrity. Moreover, the application of such
laws as a means to achieving certain public health outcomes is often ineffective and
Realization of the right to health requires the removal of barriers that interfere
with individual decision-making on health-related issues and with access to health
services, education and information, in particular on health conditions that only
affect women and girls. In cases where a barrier is created by a criminal law or other
legal restriction, it is the obligation of the State to remove it. The removal of such
laws and legal restrictions is not subject to resource constraints and can thus not be
seen as requiring only progressive realization. Barriers arising from criminal laws
and other laws and policies affecting sexual and reproductive health must therefore
be immediately removed in order to ensure full enjoyment of the right to health.
They most likely wouldn't be my first choice, but I'm not a single-issue voter. But so far, the candidates who support things that are the most important to me have been pro-choice without exception. But I also view this issue as a conflict of interest of several parties, the woman, family and the fetus. While I would put the priority of the fetus the lowest because I think it has the least to lose, this is a fairly subjective prioritization, and if someone really truly believes otherwise but they also support exceptions for rape and medical reasons and are also progressive in every single other area, I also don't think he/she would be a totally irrational person. So that is why I say being a (reasonable) pro-life candidate is not a total deal breaker for me.
I understand. I am female whose bodily audtonomy is at stake. I hear a whisper of ANTI CHOICE and all bets are off, no matter how good the candidate is otherwise.
Um, sweetie? Your children will not remain virgins forever. At some point, they are likely to have sex. At that point, they need accurate information … unlike the kind that you allege to have given them.
And this, madame, is a delightful demonstration of why I detest Libertarianism. Like so many things, it looks great on paper … but fails to work in the real world.
If one does not wish to bake cakes for the public, one need not open a public accommodation. It really is very simple. That way, one can discriminate to one's heart's content.
Am I supposed to be scandalized by all the perversions YOU write? You are not the first letcherous old woman I've come across. I understand your need to be less than polite if your arguments have no basis, though.
Yeah, that's fresh news alright…..from years ago. I think you are the only one here who thinks that the U.N. being pro abortion is NEWS. It has been known for a while now
I really hate repeating myself, so maybe you'll stop your nonsense after this. If you open a properly licensed business, you are agreeing to sell to the public. You are offering items (whatever they are) for sale, for a price. If one of the items you offer is wedding cakes, then you bake a wedding cake for anyone who asks for one, and can pay. PERIOD. ONCE AGAIN… if you only wish to bake wedding cakes for heterosexual Christians, then you run a club that serves members only. You can do both. If you do not wish to sell wedding cakes, then you don't offer them. To ANYONE.
Then why did you ask me a question you already knew the answer to?
It is obvious from this report and others that being pro choice is pro life. And being anti choice is pro death.
I mean, I have lots more sociological scientific proof that pro choice is pro life. Your position has nothing to do with facts or science. Zealots do not do facts.
You did not answer my question. Tell us more about the perversions PP teaches to children.
Can you refute the information provided?
Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemorrhage in child birth are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide.
The USA is 55th in maternal/infant outcomes among the nations. I certainly hope the ACA is changing that awful statistic.
A full range of gynecologic/obstetric care is a human right.
**If one does not wish to bake cakes for the public, one need not open a public accommodation.**
I disagree with your logic, that a baker cannot (according to you) open a store, for purposes of his own determination, to sell to those specific people he wishes to, whether it be 100% of everyone, or 1% of everyone, or any ratio in between, for his own reasons. You are claiming regarding business, what the forced gestationers claim regarding sex, namely that once someone engages in it, they are thereafter subject to a whole package deal of 'consent' determined by others, that they themselves may not wish to consent to.
In your case, you claim opening a business means 'consent' to selling to EVERYONE, in the case of forced gestationers, they claim having sex means 'consent' to being pregnant.
**If one does not wish to bake cakes for the public, one need not open a public accommodation. It really is very simple.**
If one does not wish to be pregnant, one need not have sex. It is really very simple.
In your case, you claim opening a business means 'consent' to selling to
EVERYONE, in the case of forced gestationers, they claim having sex
means 'consent' to being pregnant.
I refer you to public accommodation laws, which every state except Arizona has. http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html
There is even one Federal public accommodation law: the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Fiona, I am aware of the laws. I disagree with them. The laws violate the rights of business owners.
I don't know if you're familiar with Johnny Cash, but he used to have a saying: "If you buy the premise, you buy the bit (or conclusion)."
He said this in reference to comedy, but the principle applies to philosophy and legality as well.
I think you and Ladyblack, for whatever reason, want to buy certain 'premises' that I find to be dangerous. Ladyblack buys the premise that it should be acceptable to enslave SOME PEOPLE, specifically men, and not give him an 'out' after ejaculating in a vagina. The problem is, once you accept the premise that SOME people should not have an out AFTER sex, there's little to stand between the conclusion of enslaving women after sex, as well.
Now in your case, you are accepting the premise that once a person engages in action A, it's fine for the law to expect and demand their 'consent' to various subsequent results of your choosing, whether they personally wish those results or not. And if you buy this premise in regards to opening a business, then there's very little afterwards to prevent applying this premise to sexuality as well. If you buy the premise, you have to buy the bit. If you don't, someone else undoubtedly will.
I suggest that you never open a public accommodation.
If your suggestion that I not open a public accomodation unless I am willing to 'consent' to things that you have decided for me is valid, why isn't the pro-lifer's suggestion that you not have sex, unless you are willing to consent to gestation, or other things that they have decided for you also not valid?
You are now being deliberately obtuse, and I am done with this discussion.
"Second, most pedophiles are male and identify as straight."
Do you have a source for this, please? Also, I curious as to what percentage of pedophiles are ever actually caught raping children.
I *certainly* agree with you that one's sexuality is *not* a choice (though sexuality might be somewhat fluid for some people; for instance, I myself previously thought that I was 100% heterosexual while I now think that I am probably 99% heterosexual and 1% homosexual). Of course, if (hypothetically) we will ever develop the technology to change people's sexuality, then I would still certainly support gay marriage, oppose discrimination against LGBT people, et cetera.
Yes–you might be telling the truth here.
"Slavery is enforced labor without remuneration."
So if one is forced to work but is paid for doing it, then it wouldn't be considered slavery?
Also, serious question: Would you say that laws which ban elective abortions after 12 or 14 weeks (as is the case in some/many European countries) are pro-slavery laws? After all, fetuses aren't viable yet at 12 or 14 weeks.
Ok, let's address all the things wrong with your comment. First of all, no that doesn't make you a slave, that makes you an employee when you are expected to work for the benefit of another and are being paid for it. Secondly, let's clear up the nonsense about European "abortion bans." They aren't bans. There are holes in them large enough for anyone to drive a truck through them. All you have to do is claim suicidal depression to get one. Also they are done for the usual maternal and fetal indications. The only exception is Ireland. Those women just leave. STILL abortion rates are much lower because of universal health care, paid maternity leave, etc. Women there can get any contraception they wish, free of charge. Nobody loses her job or becomes bankrupt due to a complicated pregnancy. Do the same thing here, and you will have the same results. Much lower abortion rates.
I know for a fact that I'm right. Countries that do this enjoy very low abortion rates.
"Ok, let's address all the things wrong with your comment."
"First of all, no that doesn't make you a slave, that makes you an employee when you are expected to work for the benefit of another and are being paid for it. "
Even when you don't want to do this job and are prevented from leaving this job?
"Secondly, let's clear up the nonsense about European "abortion bans." They aren't bans. There are holes in them large enough for anyone to drive a truck through them. All you have to do is claim suicidal depression to get one."
And what if these "bans" didn't have exceptions for people who claim suicidal depression, et cetera?
"Also they are done for the usual maternal and fetal indications. The only exception is Ireland. Those women just leave. STILL abortion rates are much lower because of universal health care, paid maternity leave, etc. Women there can get any contraception they wish, free of charge. Nobody loses her job or becomes bankrupt due to a complicated pregnancy. Do the same thing here, and you will have the same results. Much lower abortion rates."
Thanks for this info, and Yes, I agree with you that we should be more like Europe in regards to paid maternity leave, free contraception, et cetera.
I don't like playing "what if" games. Suicidal ideations are an acceptable reason for abortion, as are any other life-threatening conditions. So are fetal defects acceptable reasons for abortion.
You appear to be trying to evade answering this question.
Also, this raises an interesting question: Is a suicidal person qualified to make medical decisions for himself or herself? Wouldn't it be better to try treating this person first before allowing him or her to make medical decisions?
This is a serious question, for the record.
Yes, as a matter of fact, a suicidal patient IS qualified to make medical decisions for themselves. So long as they are adult, and have not been adjudicated an incompetent person. That's a very high legal bar, kiddo. I was subpoenaed as a caregiver by a mother who was attempting to have her adult son adjudicated incompetent. This man had global brain damage, resulting in massive neurological issues. He was legally blind, with expressive aphasia. He didn't know his own address and phone number. And he was unable to handle money or budgeting. In other words, he required help with almost all activities of daily living, and 24/7 supervision. I told the woman not to subpoena me because nothing I could say would help her. All her witnesses ended up sounding like witnesses for the defense, including the psychologist. She lost the case. Bottom line, the inability to consistently make wise decisions, or the tendency to make unwise decisions does not mean a person is incompetent. You would practically need to be in a coma or PVS to be adjudicated incompetent. Judges are loathe to strip people of their rights to determine for themselves.