Tweety Gets To The Heart of the Abortion Matter With Bishop Tobin
By Susie Madrak Tuesday Nov 24, 2009 6:00amIn a breathtakingly tight argument, Chris Matthews corners Rhode Island Bishop Thomas Tobin, who has banned Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., from receiving Holy Communion due to his views on abortion.
Because here's the moral hypocrisy at the heart of the Church's abortion position: If it's really and truly murder, you're talking about prosecuting mothers, sisters, lovers and friends for having them. Tweety is quite aggressive with the bishop, demanding to know exactly what legal penalties he thinks should be legislated.
I mean, we won't even touch the concept of one religion imposing its moral position on everyone else. We don't have to. Because if you're saying abortion is murder, you may not create a separate class of penalties under the law. You can't argue that women "didn't know what they were doing." You can't say they were "confused" or "coerced" if there's no evidence they were, anymore than you can say that about any other murder for hire. Either she paid someone to murder her child - or she didn't.
So she has to be tried for murder. The churches can't have it both ways. They can't advise forgiveness and legal exemption for one specific class of murders.
And there's no way the majority of Americans would ever support sending their relatives, neighbors and friends to prison for it.
This is really what Tweety was getting at, and it was damned brilliant. Go, Tweety!
Login or Register to post comments.
Why are these cult hucksters exempt from taxes?
They have a cross and funny hats so . . .
and they are not tax exempt.
Do you see the gold chain he wears? Poverty? Hah!
They are tax exempt in most of their business.
under these irrational guidelines,
wouldn't it be murder everytime the catholic
clergy masturbate or bring to orgasim a
child?
How astute of you to notice this inconsistency. However, if Catholics did not honor irrationality, there wouldn't be a Catholic religion at all.
no religious exemption should exist any longer for any of these goddamned n azi shills. It looks like the N azi pope has his minions in full activist mode and of course, they target Democrats.
Matthews showing and reading the JFK quote.
The Bishop seems sincere, and since he's a Steelers fan, i will cut him some slack, but he really had no answer for JFK's (correct) statement.
called JFK the EX President
too?
to every questionable statement by "leaders". Especially the real outlandish outliers, er, lairs.
His ratings would go up. His guest list would go down, except for those who really know their stuff and can validate their statements. Then we may have a chance at real news again.
"since he's a Steelers fan"
See John! See!
last night and was dumbfounded that Tweety would dare take on this hypocrite in the style that he did.
Although I usually cannot stand Matthews and his non-stop,talkover to his guests, "his excellency" deservced what he got!
Tweety is usually insufferable, but this was a logical beatdown that was truly deserved, bought, and paid for.
If you're pro-life, then let's talk about REAL ways to reduce the number of abortions and stop asking our politicians to enact laws we can't even conceive.
Catholic, those people are not "Pro Life" - they are "Pro Birth"
Most do not give a shit about what happens to the individual AFTER the birth.
...if the Bishop would recommend the death penalty for 'abortionists?' Oh wait, he's not concerned about the death penalty and which politicians support it--that's totally irrelevant.
you have to be a "Recovering" Catholic.
It's just that simple. They are the original "He Man Woman Haters Club," and the originators of the "barefoot and pregnant" saying. Some of their members rape male and female children, and the majority of the rest of them cover those crimes up. Talk about evil. They are worthy of all of your scorn.
kids , they will find a way , didnt we all .
I do not support Bishops, or any other Christian, making judgements to deprive individuals of forgiveness. We must forgive to be forgiven.
"Turn the other cheek."
Can just imagine where that was going.
Good form.
to go to confession for that post.
For those who missed it I made a reference to what Rush Limbaugh said he was not going to do for President Obama just because Obama's daddy was black.
What does that have to do with my post?
Forgive me.
Go say 3 Hail Marys and 1 Our Father and everything's forgiven.
"O feeli mi boni belli....dominus vubiscom......hummina hummina"
Yes, just keep your grubby hands off my UTERUS! If you're against abortion that's your right. Just don't try to tell me what I should or shouldn't do. It's not of your business! Concern yourself with those priests and little boys because that's AGAINST THE LAW!
1) How dare anyone question the authority of the church.
2) No communion for you twetty.
3) Now submitting to existing law about little boys see one.
"Nobody expected the
SpanishAmerican/Catholic inquisition"And a little Palin fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_h28PAIinU
Yeah, he looks like he's well-equipped to provide those kids with the best that society has to offer. When can we start TAXING THE SHIT out of these fucks who drain the country's resources by bringing so many little shits into this world??
Religion doesn't dictate morality. That was over many years ago.
The current crop of crazy is another step to expose to the laypersons just how nutso some "well intentioned" dogma can get.
No one wants an abortion. It should be an option of last resort. It could be considered the last resort if the mother and fetus had full healthcare covered.
Even better if an expectant mother didn't have to worry about how to feed and clothe a newborn.
If anybody wants to stop or reduce abortions the best thing to do is provide a world where an expectant mother actually has choices not one where she has to consider the basic necessities.
Like a tooth extraction...
Not to mention have access to birth control. If they really cared about "human life" they'd realize that easy access to birth control will reduce the number of abortions.
Yes:
(1) Age-appropriate sex education for children K-12
and
(2) Access to birth control for everyone including kids.
No one wants an abortion.
Excuse me? Have you spoken with every single woman who finds herself pregnant? If you haven't, then STFU.
GodDAMN, but I am sick of this kowtowing to right-wing attitudes about abortion. Three decades of their caterwauling and shrieking and even liberals have ended up beating their breasts and hanging their heads over the reality that SOME WOMEN WANT ABORTIONS. This idea that it's oh so horrible and something that fate forces on us is BULLSHIT, dictated to the public by the preachers and hateful fundies.
Abortion is a MEDICAL PROCEDURE. Whether it's anathema or not is UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL. It is nobody's place, certainly not yours, to dictate whether or not it is moral. That's for the woman to decide. Some women don't like the idea. SOME OF US ARE FINE WITH IT. That is the reality, so suck it up and stop talking for others.
If we're going to defend women's right to choose which path their lives will take, we have to STOP WHINING. Stand up for the reality and stop pretending that the right-wing mindset on this issue is the default moral setting. STOP BEING PUSSIES AND SHOW SOME CONVICTION ALREADY.
Or else they've already won the battle; it's just a matter of time before the body's finally dead.
When some one says no one wants an abortion I suppose it's possible there is some one jumping up and down saying pick me, pick me, but really' I don't see anyone wanting a medical procedure that could have been avoided. While one may want an abortion for a specific case it's generally not a goal.
I stopped taking Twitty seriously years ago for his many betrayals to common decency and support for immoral wars. His bipolar swings from left to right are enough to not take anything he says seriously. I do not have any affection for him so I refuse to call him by a cute name.
i don't think it's affection behind the nickname (think g.w. and "shrub", "chimperor", et al)
If I remember correctly, "Tweety" was coined by his staff, in reference to the particular shade of yellow-blond he dyes his hair, and the bulbous head it grows on. ;p
I get my bloomers in a twist any time I hear men talking about abortion. They will never have to make that decision so why are they taking the lead on the subject and who died and made them the sheriff of a woman's body?
I agree.
As a male person - I'll never be able to even imagine the feelings a woman goes through any more than I can imagine the feeling of giving birth.
Men should get their collective noses out of a womans reproductive process (unless invited to do so)
Abortion on demand, no questions asked...
Like a tooth extraction...
Having a tooth pulled is exactly the same thing - to a man. (you betcha!)
Another good reason why men have no reason to even offer their opinion.
yeah or nay will suffice...
According to this reasoning, whites should have nothing to say regard blacks, blacks should have nothing to say regarding whites, women should have nothing to say regarding men, etc., because none of these groups could "[]ever be able to even imagine the feelings [the other] goes through. . . ."
Among other reasons, I'm for choice because I know it's going to happen anyway. But arguing that men cannot contribute to the discussion because they're men simply begs the question of where to draw the line concerning political questions. On gender? On race? On income? On religion?
Men, lacking the physical ability to give birth, are incapable of imagining the emotional and physical changes that accompany childbirth.
On the other hand, while I can never BE black, I can imagine and experience poverty, hunger, inequality, prejudice.
And the proper time for men to 'participate' in the discussion is before they unzip and let Mr. Happy out to play.
The Last Word sez, "But arguing that men cannot contribute to the discussion..."
Men have not only contributed to the discussion for centuries, they have not allowed women or girls to contribute to the discussion at all. Men have made the laws of both Church and State, men have been judges and juries and doctors and police officers and husbands, fathers, and brothers who enforced those laws. Until 1921 American women were not even been allowed to vote (except in one state) for representatives who just might consider that women should have any voice in this matter.
Women were forced to rely on the kindness of all these men who had control of every aspect of their lives. In many places and times, a woman would lose all control over her money and property when she married, had no right to custody of her children, could not even refuse to have sex with her husband, could not vote or run for office or sign a contract. A husband could legally beat and rape his own wife, could forbid her from having a job (not that any really good jobs were available for women or girls).
My own grandmother had to rely on one of her grown sons to deal with the paperwork of keeping her own home after her husband died. She couldn't do it herself because according to the law she wasn't competent. In the eyes of the law, she was a minor.
So, guys, there's all this background of thousands of years that you should consider in order to fully understand why we women think it so important to have control over own bodies. Most of you who comment here, and I'd say most American men, are good humans who love and respect their female relatives and friends. You are (mostly) secure in your own humanity and your masculinity.
But others, like that bishop and like almost all right-wing males, are not secure; they're deathly afraid of women and of their own sexuality, and that makes them very dangerous.
. . . that men cannot contribute, or vote, etc.
Last time I looked, Roe v. Wade was written by a man. Do you want to start there?
Let me use an example:
Women, "lacking the [manifold amounts of testosterone in their bodies that men do], are incapable of imagining the emotional and physical changes" that men experience during arguments. Accordingly, women should not be able to contribute to discussions concerning battery. How can women expect to understand the kind of rage testosterone causes when they have no idea of what it feels like?
A woman cannot possibly know what it's like to be a man, anymore than a man can know what it's like to be a woman, but that doesn't -- or at least it shouldn't -- justify unilateral prohibitions concerning policy. Indeed, your claim that you can "imagine and experience poverty, hunger, inequality, [and] prejudice" demonstrates a profound ignorance concerning blackness, as you casually assume and reduce blackness to poverty, hunger, inequality and prejudice in a vain attempt to elevate pregnancy to some untouchable and invoilate circumstance. You can't argue "pregnancy is different so you men shut up," and not expect every other subgroup to make the same argument concerning its experience.
Finally, your last argument is silly -- if I posited that the proper time for women to object to men's arguments concerning arbortion is before women decide to drop 'em, I'd be accused of being sexist.
Many times, though it may not be the majority, men are not even give a choice whether they will get to see their newborn son or daughter because the mother made a unilateral decision to abort. This is wrong, as it takes two people to conceive. In a perfect world decisions would be made together. However, in our world, it seems to be ok.
Okay, here's where I'm going to get in trouble. A woman may choose to have the child on her own but the father will be stuck with child support for a long time whether he wanted the child or not.
Whether you're pro-life, or pro-choice, you have to practice safe sex. Be responsible so you don't have to make this choice. This excludes when a woman is raped, or is facing death because of the pregnancy.
Of Contraception, perhaps this topic wouldn't be such a huge issue. They can't have it both ways. If they want less abortions, they need to be more tolerant of contraception in all forms.
My church does not subscribe to the abortion debate at all. The church is to preach the gospel and to be a place to testify of God's love. I throw in my two cents on this site as my interest in politics still exists, though it has been marginalized. As for other churches, I can't say anything for them. Each congregation approaches scriptures differently. I only agree with their message if it lines up, in context, with the bible.
isn't about reason or tolerance or human values. It's about dogma and power held by wizened old men who have no clue how real people live.
I know the churches that get frontlines have destroyed reputations for churches worldwide, not to mention many actions taken by the vatican. However, to box them all together is just a blatant insult towards those that are trying to do good. You have a choice what you want to do with your body, as a christian it is not my place to stop you once you have made that decision. I won't judge you either, as that also is not my position.
I support a process where a man may choose to 'abort' his parental responsibility to a child, forever severing any financial or parental responsibilities or rights to the child, but the decision must be on record, communicated to the mother and made before the deadline where abortion is no longer an option.
As a taxpayer, I do not want to pay for your mistakes. Perhaps if more men know what child support laws are, they would be more careful who and how many they made pregnant. If you're not willing to feed it, don't breed it.
By that argument, no one who doesn't want to have kids, shouldn't have sex. And anyone who does get pregnant but can't show they'd be a fiscally viable parent?
if one cannot afford to have a child, then they should not have sex? I don't want to assume that I understand your second question when I don't. In answer to your first question, if one doesn't want to have children, then use birth control. Discuss the issue with the other person. Is that too much to ask?
Thats what I understood you to be saying when you claimed "As a taxpayer, I do not want to pay for your mistakes." Referring to why men shouldn't be able to opt out of parental rights.
As to birth control:
A. its not 100%
B. people aren't perfect.
Therefore the hypothetical use or non-use of birth control has no bearing on the conversation.
many people. The Catholic Church does not want birth control taught, much less available for people. This disadvantages poor children and their families. Sex is a natural part of growing up, and to have a group of old men pretending that it isn't is not healthy for anyone. That is why I want all forms of birth control available and made known to all people above a certain age. It is not encouraging children, it is dealing with reality.
It's a one-sided argument, men don't have sex if you can't support it. Others say men have no say so. Women if you want a baby, you will need a man. Even if you use a sperm bank. Additionally, would you abort a baby you paid money to be inseminated with?
savannah I dont want to pay for illegal wars, churches, your clean water etc..
Get it?
It is patently ridiculous to pick and choose what you want to pay for in our society. We are in this together.
And your faith in a pretend friend is of no concern to me. SO KEEP YOUR HANDS OUT OF MY UTERUS. It is between me and my dr.
I will NOT pay child support because someone's father doesn't want to support his own child. The law requires that you support your own if you are physically capable. I don't make the laws, I just know what they are. If you want to voluntarily pay for someone's illegitimate child, feel free to volunteer. All parents, regardless of their marital status, have to support their own children. There is no "opting out" function for certain fathers. No way. I have no idea what "pretend friend" you are talking about. And I would not touch your uterus with a stick. You have obviously confused me and what I am saying with someone else.
Her clean water is your clean water. It's a PUBLIC SYSTEM. Or are you going to shut off the water main to your house because you don't want your taxes to pay for someone else's water?
system." WTF are you talking about?
IF the woman wants the support. Not every woman wants it. I certainly wouldn't. Why? Because it would keep the man involved in my life, and if I don't want him around as a father, why the FUCK would I want him involved in any other way?
So how about not speaking for every woman on this issue? KTHXBI.
belongs to the CHILD, not the mother. Each child has the right to be supported by both parents. That is the law. Do you actually think that you have the right to bring a child into the world, and then deny the father of the child his right to help raise the child? Or that you can count on the tax payers to support your kid because you don't want the father to have any right to be in the kid's life? This is why I think that all people thinking of doing this should become familiar with the actual laws governing this situation. Then there will not be so many ignorant assholes on the Maury show seeking DNA tests.
Deny the father his right to support the child?
Funny, that's not how just about every man I've ever spoken to thinks of it. Child support, as in the money paid by divorced fathers, is almost universally seen as a burden, not a right. A punishment imposed by the courts, not a voluntary participation. So about you start your little argument there?
And last I heard, if a woman does not CHOOSE to pursue child support, the man is under no obligation to provide it. If the court orders it and the woman doesn't want it, she is free to return it. And there's the ultimate rejection of child support - simply not telling the man the child is his. That is, of course, the easiest way to avoid any involvement at all.
You make the assumption that every woman wants to be supported by a man, or wants her child to be so supported. That is an erroneous assumption, as I said.
Again, SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.
P.S. Oh, and "rely on the taxpayers"? WTF? Are you saying that the only way a woman can support a child is via payments from some man or government assistance? What country do you think this is? Last I checked, women have both the right and the ability to make their own living in this country, so what is this about leaning on others to support one's kids? You have some very twisted views about the relations between the sexes there, Sparky.
The right to child support belongs to the CHILD. Not the mother's or father's to WAIVE. Research that fact. Also, organize your argument--the father has the same right to custody and visitation as the mother. Child support is a responsibility, and not a right. The courts will determine what is in the best interests of the child, not what the parents want, unless they can agree on an arrangement that benefits the child that the court, and usually the child's lawyer, think is appropriate. BTW, the child support is for the child, not the mother. You just refuse delivery on this point. I am telling you what the law is, not what my opinion is. Look it up. You are arguing from an emotional place, not from law or logic.
class of men. Yes, rely on tax payers. I have no argument with people who can afford to and do support their own children. If the welfare seekers I don't like. Don't you think children have the right to something besides their mothers using them as monthly paychecks? Those women who pretend they do not know who the fathers of their children are so he doesn't have to pay child support? Because she LOVES him? I don't want to pay for those women or their children.
wise to find this out before you had unprotected sex with him?
So the only way a woman can get pregnant is through unprotected sex? Never had a rubber break on you, have you? Or been taking the pill and gotten pregnant anyway?
And what makes you think that every woman who gets pregnant WANTS the man around? I hate to break this to you, but there was this little movement called "women's liberation" back about fourty years ago. (Damn, was it that long?) It clued women in to the fact that in this country, we can make our own living, have our own homes, our own kids, our own lives, without needing some guy around to support us.
So your 1950's view of women's reproduction is a little outdated.
complaining about independent women, and if you weren't on such a tear thinking it's your way or the highway, you would realize that. It is the users in society that I disdain. And I feel sorry for the babies brought up by parents with this entitlement attitude, and the idea that someone else will pay for the care of their children. Like I said, if you can't feed them, don't breed them. I believe in personal responsibility. Especially when it comes to inflicting one's shitty life style on others, especially defenseless children.
BTW, if you want NO involvement of the father, get artificially inseminated. That assures your autonomy.
Since women are still making use of the male rib, all questions of sex should be up to the man, particularly if it involves used of ribbed devices.
http://www.condomjungle.com
you will never be pregnant.
Get knocked up without a males sperm.
Kinda ludicrous, ain't it?
... and the sad truth is, it's treating the unborn child as PROPERTY, a token in a religious/political game to establish dominance over women as inferiors.
It's the continuing Christian hypocrisy of 'God wants you to have free will' but you have free will only so you can listen to penny-ante tyrants and teabaggers as to how to live your life.
I think you will find the born female child is property and may be sold.
only if asked should men have anything to say about this , otherwise shut up
Men have no say in this decision.
Women can get knocked up by themselves.
stupid remark. Like we don't have the right to weigh in on this subject.
You're doing the exact same thing as the church. Telling people how it's gonna be.
... all women who get abortions are defying a male partner (who seems to want to have the baby without fail)?
It takes two to tango.
As a generalized statement, men should contribute to this topic. Why not?
Of course the decision ultimately ends up with the woman.
To say anything else would be foolish. But, in a relationship, I would think that the two partners discuss this openly. Where there is no partner, of course it's the woman's decision.
To say men should just shut up and not be heard hurts the pro choice perspective.
That this would create such a discussion.
The whole point got lost.
Great point Mudshark!
pawn, mudshark. You are not germaine to the subject. It's a woman's body and hers alone. Period.
you are the gender using a borrowed rib and prone to talking to snakes. So sayeth the Good Book in Chapter 1.
Yes its the woman's body, and I generally agree she should be the one to make the final choice because she's the one who has to birth it, and I don't buy all this 'ain't human life sacred' crap anyway, but realistically, the object of the discussion, the fetus, is not hers alone.
The fetus IS hers alone. The inseminator has no rights to a part of another's body anymore than he has a right to demand she donate part of her liver.
And as arrogant as a man laying sole right to decide what a woman should do.
Clearly the fetus doesn't belong in the same category as an individual's organ. Its a separate thing growing inside the woman.
I don't think you're too clear on this issue.
The fetus is part of the body until it exits. It's nobody's business but the owner of the body.
Go to a fertility clinic.
But this is stupid.
My point was that men should weigh in on this topic. To remove men from this discussion only hurts the pro choice perspective.
I thought I made that perfectly clear in my comment above.
But I do take issue with someone saying that the fetus is the womans alone.
I respectfully say, if that's how you feel about it, go to a fertility clinic.
"the fetus is hers alone", then does she have any right to demand support from the "inseminator", for the child she alone chose to give birth to?
Can't have it both ways, you know....
My position is that abortion should be readily available, along with birth control for men and women. But, if the woman chooses to have a child against the objections of the man, then she forfeits the right to get financial support.
Why is birth control just the woman's responsibility? Huh?
Birth control isn't 100%. Say a man does take birth control and somehow the woman gets pregnant anyway. She wants to keep it, he does not. Why shouldn't he have an option to opt out of parental rights and responsibilities as long as the mother is informed and the decision is made before the cut off date for having an abortion?
Me? No, the two who made it. Not my responsibility. No opting out allowed. Be careful who you have sex with.
So only the financially fit get to have reproductive freedom?
Besides, why can't the mother take care of it?
of child support, which is what we are attempting to discuss? And the answer to your first question is , a resounding, YES!
by having an abortion.
Also the idea that the poor shouldn't be allowed to have children is disgusting.
children. I am saying the poor should pay for their children, like everyone else does. If a woman has an abortion, then there is no question of child support, is there? I am telling you, one must consider carefully who one sleeps with. Always remember that you may be stuck with them, through a child, for a very long time.
Your convictions regarding the sexual decisions of people and the effectiveness of birth control are unrealistic.
Not to mention, a woman who has a child but no partner to help pay for it, doesn't automatically require your tax dollars to help.
Taken to the logical extreme your position seems to be that anyone who makes a mistake that results in them needing govt, tax-payer funded help should be killed, cause you don't want to pay for it.
I do not care one whit how many children a person has if they pay their own way. I was talking about women who use children for monthly pay checks, like I already said. Take your holier-than-thou-attitude and adopt some of those people, why don't you? It's really easy to spout off about it on a blog and hypothetically, isn't it? Put your money where your mouth is. I can tell you've never worked anywhere near this situation, because your ignorance about it is glaring. And you are not alone.
with responsibilities. I am fed up with young women ruining their lives popping out babies as if this was something special. What is special is raising children properly by providing them with food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, love, morals, traditions, and so on. They are not meant to be a means to your own apartment and an excuse to drop out of school. How soon they regret that, and the babies suffer. There is a vicious side and much misery to all this that could be prevented with proper sex education. Abortion should be a part of that. Shove your ridiculous arguments about who's "property" the fetus is.
AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
TWO people NOT to use birth control, which is usually the case, then they're both responsible for the outcome. There is always adoption. However, the ultimate decision belongs to the woman.
I do not agree with the previous statement that the fetus belongs to her and her alone.
was less pseudo emotion involved and more research, you would see the errors in your thinking. So the next time you knock up some woman who wants to keep the baby and you don't want to pay child support, let me know how you make out with that. Or the next time you knock up a woman who wants to abort the child and you want to keep it, let me know how you make out with that one.
is somebody else's right to the fetus execised? Are you going to suggest that some legal provision be made for the father? Then we're back to having somebody other than the woman have rights over her body.
Get over it. It's hers and hers alone.
When she allows the man to be part of her body (disclaimer: except when raped or facing death). Because the two have merged sexually, the end result is property of the two that performed the act.
a baby. A man does not become "part" of a woman's body. He just uses part of hers for a short time. Children are not "property." That is a very wrong-headed idea.
Having intercourse is a physical act. "Merging sexually" is a phrase you just made up to try to wrangle rights over another persons body.
I did make up the term. I think it works well in this argument as well. As a woman you made a concious choice to allow a man to be in your body. At that point if there is conception, the fetus does not solely belong to you. You did not make it by yourself.
I think prior to having sex for the first time a woman knows that they could become pregnant. It may not be fair, but it's what the human anatomy provides you with. The brunt of responsibility prior to having sex falls on a woman because she has control over her own body. Once the decision is made to go through and have sex, the man should be included on any decision to abort. I think it's quite egotistical and chavinstic for a woman to say that a man has no right.
Why not make the right choice up front if you don't want a baby, practice safe sex.
. . . now you're elevating your rights beyond those of the fetus, without restriction. Suppose someone posited:
"The impregnated has no right to a part of the fetus' body anymore than she has a right to demand the fetus donate its life."
I'm pro-choice, but your argument is pretty bad.
does go above and beyone that of the fetus.
Because THE FETUS HAS NO RIGHTS.
Men can and should participate in this discussion, but they shouldn't have the final word, independent of women.
As an analogy: imagine if prostate cancer treatments were up for debate and many evangelical women argued that God's will should not be interrupted; therefore, treatments for prostate cancer should be criminalized. Honestly, would you be comfortable with that debate happening in a legislative body comprised of very few men???
... a discussion is presumed to take place where the man and woman are equally invested in the welfare of the child and their ability to raise/provide for a family.
The abortion question as depicted by the church deprives a woman of personhood. And it's not just abortion - we're doubtless looking at the whole sex-is-only-for-procreation crowd, in which case Mr. Happy and the Spermatozoas cannot be refused.
nurturers. They would save a man so afflicted. But let's face this fact: White men have been in power for so long that they believe they have the God given right to stay there. I freely and gladly acknowledge that many men do not feel or act that way. Thank you. But to you others, you should never have let us go to school. Too late, fellows.
. . . really, really like Red Lobster, I concur. ;-)
You really are living in a dream world. "Woman are by nature, nurturers"?? Where did you get that, Mother Teresa?
There are all kinds of women, Miss Thing, and a hell of a lot of us are NOT, by nature, "nurturers". Just like a hell of a lot of men are not, by nature, gun-loving roughnecks. It takes all kinds to make a world, kiddo.
Take a look around sometime. You'll be amazed at how many people DON'T fit your neat little boxes.
You just want to argue, and I find you boring. Pointless disagreement--yawn.
But that was a blanket presumption not upheld by facts. You know a certain number of women who shouldn't be let near ANY nurturing situation--like we all do.
We are all past statements like "all women are nurturers.
stand by it. What are the differences between men and women? Are there none? I respect your right to disagree, but respect mine as well. We are not all past statements that women are nurturers. Some of us still believe in that concept.
that is based on patriarchal self -interest and deliberate misinformation.
Just because you want to use it as a concept doesn't make it factual. You sound like any male chauvinist who wants the right to define women as he sees fit!
Independent. No decision with children should be unilateral.
We are talking about the rights of women. You know, the people who are already here with lives, families, and so forth.
in my opinion begins with conception. You can yell and kick and scream otherwise but it won't change my opinion. I'm enjoying how you have created subcategories to support your arguments. I see you are quite passionate about it. Because of this passion, and lack of wanting a man to tell you what to do in regards to abortion, you are telling a man that he has no choice in the matter. I don't know, it seems to me that you are the polar opposite of the Bishop. In my opinion, based on the way you present your arguments, you two are the same.
Wrong Mudshark.
The American Taliban wants it to be law.
They want to decide for you what to do with your body and what is in it.
The rest of us (the rational people) have opinions but we dont want to make law to control what you do with what is in your body.
Keep your religion out of my life..
On how you deduced I was religious?
This I gotta hear.
You can choose to wear a condom. End of say.
I can understand the frustration.
Only if asked by the pregnant woman should
menanyone have anything to say about this.Given a history of men treating women like property I can understand how galling it can sound when men make pronouncements on this topic, but is it really any better when some self-righteous woman wants to tell other women what to do?
That's why abortion should be fully legal, across the board. The decision to have one or not have one should rest solely with the woman involved, with the advice of her doctor and any family or friends that SHE chooses to consult.
This is the thing that drives me nuts.
He's going to inflict his views on Everyone.
No matter what their religion or non religious.
This kind of arrogance pisses me off.
They have the audacity to think that their right and that everyone else is wrong. Who says? Them?
What is even better is the presumption that moral pluralism isn't correct and that they alone are the keepers of the one correct moral code. Of course they are, they wear funny outfits!
It would be nice if they at least had reasoned arguments for their policy other than the Invisible guy in the sky ordained that you should listen to me. This may have worked to the uneducated masses in Europe during the Dark Ages, but not now.
It is about time to get rid of the tax exempt status of religions. The are so intent on running the country and being part of the governing body - let's let them pay some taxes and see how they like it. Presently, without this, we are just letting them have more 'free speech' in Supreme Court terms (since money seems to equal free speech now)
... I don't care if they pay taxes or not, I don't want them imposing their doctrinal values on us through government policy or actual law.
IMHO, tax exemption exists so that the church can observe the 'render unto God what is God's, and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.' Thus, what parishoners contribute to their church sustains their church, and does not get taken up by the government.
My God spoke to me today.
She said that their should be no buildings of worship.
She said that your faith belongs in your heart not in the street.
the clergy profit by it. Have you seen the house this guy lives in? It ain't no one-bedroom bungalow, believe me.
The idea of "render unto Caesar" is a CHRISTIAN idea. So your argument falls apart, as giving religions tax-exempt status is based in a secatarian belief, and the Bill of Rights states that no religion can have sway over the government. Thus, religion's tax-exempt status is unconstitutional; the argument cannot support itself.
Do away with the tax-exempt status. Let religious institutions pull their weight just like everyone else in this country has to.
Most religious leaders are arrogant and try to enforce their views on others. It's not just Catholics.
The bishop referenced this tangentially, when he pointed out that murder itself is against the law. Many christians like to point to the 10 commandments as the basis for all our laws as well as the basis for morality.
The argument is laughable and disprovable quite easily on several grounds, of course, but that's what they believe and that's why they don't feel like making abortion illegal equates to inflicting their religious views on others.
Exactly, laughable. The basis for our laws are the constitution and our human rights.
He's going to inflict his views on Everyone.
No matter what their religion or non religious.
Best point made so far!
and C&L!
I just scoured the internets for this video.He gave Tobin a near death experience and I want to push this video everywhere I can.
...right as this interview was starting. I rarely watch Tweety anymore, but this was an impressive interview. Thanks to DVR, I watched it 3 more times - priceless!
Tweety should have asked the bishop why the church doesn't withhold communion from Repubs who support the death penalty.
I heard the bishop try to qualify his opposition by saying its 'innocent' life being taken, but:
A. The vatican is against the death penalty.
B. Not everyone executed is guilty.
C. The commandmant "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't specify 'only the innocent'.
Ask him which congressmen who supported the past 2 wars should not be allowed communion.
Login or Register to post comments.