Louisiana ready to ban birth control!

Earl said:
IUD’s are not part of the bill.
Click to expand...

1) The proposed Louisiana law says pregnancy begins at feralization.
2) It says terminating a pregnancy is illegal.
3) IUD's work by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

How would an IUD not be illegal?
 
Cypress said:
There is not a whole lot of difference between the Muslim Taliban and the Christian Jihadists.
Click to expand...

https://www.salvationnetwork.org/Sub_Sites/christiantaliban.org/index.html


images
 
Earl said:
Post evidence of politicians who favor criminalizing abortion that favor other means...
Click to expand...

Here's a good example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Majority_for_Choice

https://rollcall.com/2015/06/04/senate-minority-blocks-same-sex-marriage-veterans-benefits-updated/

If you look at the questions of (1) abortion legality and (2) whether or not to cover veterans' benefits for same-sex marriages, there's no particular reason you'd expect the political factions to be so similar between the two issues... other than if you think what's driving each position are religious taboos about sex. As you should be able to see, the factions are almost identical between the two.

Among the Republicans, only eight voted in favor of ending discrimination against same-sex marriages when it came to veterans benefits:

Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Rob Portman of Ohio. Not surprisingly, that includes all the pre-choice Republicans in the Senate. So, every single pro-choice person in the Senate, regardless of party, also voted to stop discriminating against gay veterans. It was complete over-lap.

Again, that's something that would seem like a bizarre coincidence if you thought of abortion rights in terms of the question of whether fetuses have a right to life -- why would people who thought that also think it is fine to discriminate against gay veterans? But if you recognize that what drives anti-abortion views is a desire to enforce religious taboos about sex, then suddenly that connection makes perfect sense. Non-procreative sex is the problem, from that perspective, and discriminating against gay vets and forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term both have the effect of discouraging non-procreative sex. The same is true, for example, with the opposition from most of the same people to making employers cover contraception under Affordable Care.

I find your morality to be lacking in theology. Mine is based on the Devine word of God
Click to expand...

"Divine." Anyway, that underscores my point -- that what's really going on here is an attempt by religious people to hijack our shared government to enforce their religious taboos on people who don't share their religion.
 
Mina said:
Here's a good example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Majority_for_Choice

https://rollcall.com/2015/06/04/senate-minority-blocks-same-sex-marriage-veterans-benefits-updated/

If you look at the questions of (1) abortion legality and (2) whether or not to cover veterans' benefits for same-sex marriages, there's no particular reason you'd expect the political factions to be so similar between the two issues... other than if you think what's driving each position are religious taboos about sex. As you should be able to see, the factions are almost identical between the two.

Among the Republicans, only eight voted in favor of ending discrimination against same-sex marriages when it came to veterans benefits:

Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Rob Portman of Ohio. Not surprisingly, that includes all the pre-choice Republicans in the Senate. So, every single pro-choice person in the Senate, regardless of party, also voted to stop discriminating against gay veterans. It was complete over-lap.

Again, that's something that would seem like a bizarre coincidence if you thought of abortion rights in terms of the question of whether fetuses have a right to life -- why would people who thought that also think it is fine to discriminate against gay veterans? But if you recognize that what drives anti-abortion views is a desire to enforce religious taboos about sex, then suddenly that connection makes perfect sense. Non-procreative sex is the problem, from that perspective, and discriminating against gay vets and forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term both have the effect of discouraging non-procreative sex. The same is true, for example, with the opposition from most of the same people to making employers cover contraception under Affordable Care.



"Divine." Anyway, that underscores my point -- that what's really going on here is an attempt by religious people to hijack our shared government to enforce their religious taboos on people who don't share their religion.
Click to expand...

It’s old religion, the same type that wants women in their place… subservient to men.
 
Damocles said:
However this law defines pregnancy as being "known"
Click to expand...

Where does it say that? Manslaughter only requires death to be a known possible outcome, not the known outcome. If a fertilized egg is a human being, and you create a situation where the egg will die, that could be manslaughter.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I've written to our state rep on two separate occasions regarding two separate issues. The response?


Neither issue was a partisan one, or shouldn't be at any rate. But since he's an (R), guess he felt no obligation to reply. He did send out a campaign card though. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

well good for you to do the prudent thing. I've never gotten any sort of personal reply but I do know that their staff keep tabs on the volume of opinions received (with the correct zip codes).
 
Damocles said:
However this law defines pregnancy as being "known"... IUDs do not do anything with known pregnancy... This law does not affect IUDs.

Even if you repeat your lie it still doesn't make this law fit into what you want it to.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
Mina said:
Here's a good example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Majority_for_Choice

https://rollcall.com/2015/06/04/senate-minority-blocks-same-sex-marriage-veterans-benefits-updated/

If you look at the questions of (1) abortion legality and (2) whether or not to cover veterans' benefits for same-sex marriages, there's no particular reason you'd expect the political factions to be so similar between the two issues... other than if you think what's driving each position are religious taboos about sex. As you should be able to see, the factions are almost identical between the two.

Among the Republicans, only eight voted in favor of ending discrimination against same-sex marriages when it came to veterans benefits:

Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Rob Portman of Ohio. Not surprisingly, that includes all the pre-choice Republicans in the Senate. So, every single pro-choice person in the Senate, regardless of party, also voted to stop discriminating against gay veterans. It was complete over-lap.

Again, that's something that would seem like a bizarre coincidence if you thought of abortion rights in terms of the question of whether fetuses have a right to life -- why would people who thought that also think it is fine to discriminate against gay veterans? But if you recognize that what drives anti-abortion views is a desire to enforce religious taboos about sex, then suddenly that connection makes perfect sense. Non-procreative sex is the problem, from that perspective, and discriminating against gay vets and forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term both have the effect of discouraging non-procreative sex. The same is true, for example, with the opposition from most of the same people to making employers cover contraception under Affordable Care.



"Divine." Anyway, that underscores my point -- that what's really going on here is an attempt by religious people to hijack our shared government to enforce their religious taboos on people who don't share their religion.
Click to expand...

Umm ya we are proudly opposed to gay marriage, the primary reason to incentivize marriage is to produce more children so we don't go down the low population growth death spiral like Russia or Western Europe.

Oh and I guess we were right the whole time with our slippery slope argument what with the left wanting to trans the kids with chemical castration through puberty blockers.
 
Last edited:
FreeSpeech1789 said:
Umm ya we are proudly opposed to gay marriage, the primary reason to incentivize marriage is to produce more children so we don't go down the low population growth death spiral like Russia or Western Europe.

Oh and as I guess we were right the whole time with our slippery slope argument what with the left wanting to trans the kids with chemical castration through puberty blockers.
Click to expand...

You really don’t understand the word choice do your
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top