Vaginas have awesome secret sperm deflectors!
Options
Replies
-
The biggest issue for me in the Akin case is that I find it absolutely terrifying that someone who is completely clueless about the basic biology of my body is trying to legislate it. This goes so far beyond abortion debate - the statements and law propositions made by Akin are simply and blatantly anti-woman.
Yup. I realize that everyone is human, even politicians, and I often get annoyed at gotchya questions that they get ambushed with, like who the ambassodor from Guatamala is? But I do have the expectation that our elected officials have at least the minimum of knowledge that a GED earner would have....that vaginas don't have star trek shields. Lol.
You know, I have heard stories from the other guys that there is nothing out there but a barrier!0 -
Oh, have you examined every vagina on earth? AND on Mars? If not I don't see how you can state unequivocably that vaginas do not have Star Trek super secret sperm deflectors! Since this is obviously not settled science I think we simply cannot force our views on anyone that there are not deflectors in place. I'm a poster on a fitness site, Adrian, not a damn secret sperm deflector detector!....that vaginas don't have star trek shields. Lol.0 -
The biggest issue for me in the Akin case is that I find it absolutely terrifying that someone who is completely clueless about the basic biology of my body is trying to legislate it. This goes so far beyond abortion debate - the statements and law propositions made by Akin are simply and blatantly anti-woman.
Yup. I realize that everyone is human, even politicians, and I often get annoyed at gotchya questions that they get ambushed with, like who the ambassodor from Guatamala is? But I do have the expectation that our elected officials have at least the minimum of knowledge that a GED earner would have....that vaginas don't have star trek shields. Lol.
You know, I have heard stories from the other guys that there is nothing out there but a barrier!
EPIC :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
The biggest issue for me in the Akin case is that I find it absolutely terrifying that someone who is completely clueless about the basic biology of my body is trying to legislate it. This goes so far beyond abortion debate - the statements and law propositions made by Akin are simply and blatantly anti-woman.
Not to mention the fact that he is on a Committee for Science and Technology in the house.... :-/0 -
As for AngryGuy, depends on your definition of troll. He's passionate about his stance, and he seems to make his point with certain science/historical rhetoric, but it doesn't make him a troll. To me, a troll would be someone who just says it's stupid and that's it. No "valid type" argument. He semi backs it up at least.
Attempting to back up a supposedly rational argument with non-evidenced "natural law" or presumptions of God's intent doesn't really qualify as an attempt for me. Instead, he actually ends up backing up his positions with apparent passion and inflammatory rhetoric (pro-abortionists? try pro choice).
You just don't get it Evan. Sure we had to aquire guns, kill a bunch a people, lose a lot of people, combine ancient greek style democratic elections with more modern constitutional republic ideas to form this nation and give us the rights decided upon by compromise.....but that is it was all god given.
God may strike me dead for actually (somewhat) defending angryguy, but I think I understand what he is saying and I think you guys are talking about two different things. He cites the passage from the Declaration of Independence which reflects the thinking of the time--that certain rights were inherent in nature, that they were an inherent part of man's being -- the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".
Saying they are inherent (or, as he said "god-given") does not mean that they magically appear and are secured without effort (hence the Declaration in the first place). It just means that they are a part of every person's being and there is no moral justifcation for revoking them by legislative fiat or other civic action.
As I understand, that is the justification behind the legal challenges to the Prop 8 amendment in California. On the surface, it would seem that the legality of a constitutional amendment passed by voters would be without question. However, the suit contends that the right to marry is one of those "inalienable" rights that cannot be taken away for any reason.
I think that some people try to use the "endowed by their Creator" phrase as justification for the idea that our government, culture, etc is based on Christianity and then extend that to deny the separation of Church and State, and, in the course of that rhetoric, the original idea may have been obscured.
But, how I read it, you guys ("you people!") are talking about two different things.0 -
As for AngryGuy, depends on your definition of troll. He's passionate about his stance, and he seems to make his point with certain science/historical rhetoric, but it doesn't make him a troll. To me, a troll would be someone who just says it's stupid and that's it. No "valid type" argument. He semi backs it up at least.
Attempting to back up a supposedly rational argument with non-evidenced "natural law" or presumptions of God's intent doesn't really qualify as an attempt for me. Instead, he actually ends up backing up his positions with apparent passion and inflammatory rhetoric (pro-abortionists? try pro choice).
You just don't get it Evan. Sure we had to aquire guns, kill a bunch a people, lose a lot of people, combine ancient greek style democratic elections with more modern constitutional republic ideas to form this nation and give us the rights decided upon by compromise.....but that is it was all god given.
God may strike me dead for actually (somewhat) defending angryguy, but I think I understand what he is saying and I think you guys are talking about two different things. He cites the passage from the Declaration of Independence which reflects the thinking of the time--that certain rights were inherent in nature, that they were an inherent part of man's being -- the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".
Saying they are inherent (or, as he said "god-given") does not mean that they magically appear and are secured without effort (hence the Declaration in the first place). It just means that they are a part of every person's being and there is no moral justifcation for revoking them by legislative fiat or other civic action.
As I understand, that is the justification behind the legal challenges to the Prop 8 amendment in California. On the surface, it would seem that the legality of a constitutional amendment passed by voters would be without question. However, the suit contends that the right to marry is one of those "inalienable" rights that cannot be taken away for any reason.
I think that some people try to use the "endowed by their Creator" phrase as justification for the idea that our government, culture, etc is based on Christianity and then extend that to deny the separation of Church and State, and, in the course of that rhetoric, the original idea may have been obscured.
But, how I read it, you guys ("you people!") are talking about two different things.
Well yes. I'm saying that Values with a cap V only exist so long as we say they do. If we all die off and someone else comes along with totally different values, then clearly Nature has nothing to do with it. And really, that's what the Constitution is, a set of values that we chose to adopt because they kind of make sense if consider the Enlightenment.
Hence we are not afforded Rights by the Grace of anything other than our own choice to hold certain values, and values can change. It has nothing to do with the reality of Nature, concepts of God, or how we're born.0 -
As for AngryGuy, depends on your definition of troll. He's passionate about his stance, and he seems to make his point with certain science/historical rhetoric, but it doesn't make him a troll. To me, a troll would be someone who just says it's stupid and that's it. No "valid type" argument. He semi backs it up at least.
Attempting to back up a supposedly rational argument with non-evidenced "natural law" or presumptions of God's intent doesn't really qualify as an attempt for me. Instead, he actually ends up backing up his positions with apparent passion and inflammatory rhetoric (pro-abortionists? try pro choice).
You just don't get it Evan. Sure we had to aquire guns, kill a bunch a people, lose a lot of people, combine ancient greek style democratic elections with more modern constitutional republic ideas to form this nation and give us the rights decided upon by compromise.....but that is it was all god given.
God may strike me dead for actually (somewhat) defending angryguy, but I think I understand what he is saying and I think you guys are talking about two different things. He cites the passage from the Declaration of Independence which reflects the thinking of the time--that certain rights were inherent in nature, that they were an inherent part of man's being -- the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".
Saying they are inherent (or, as he said "god-given") does not mean that they magically appear and are secured without effort (hence the Declaration in the first place). It just means that they are a part of every person's being and there is no moral justifcation for revoking them by legislative fiat or other civic action.
As I understand, that is the justification behind the legal challenges to the Prop 8 amendment in California. On the surface, it would seem that the legality of a constitutional amendment passed by voters would be without question. However, the suit contends that the right to marry is one of those "inalienable" rights that cannot be taken away for any reason.
I think that some people try to use the "endowed by their Creator" phrase as justification for the idea that our government, culture, etc is based on Christianity and then extend that to deny the separation of Church and State, and, in the course of that rhetoric, the original idea may have been obscured.
But, how I read it, you guys ("you people!") are talking about two different things.
Well yes. I'm saying that Values with a cap V only exist so long as we say they do. If we all die off and someone else comes along with totally different values, then clearly Nature has nothing to do with it. And really, that's what the Constitution is, a set of values that we chose to adopt because they kind of make sense if consider the Enlightenment.
Hence we are not afforded Rights by the Grace of anything other than our own choice to hold certain values, and values can change. It has nothing to do with the reality of Nature, concepts of God, or how we're born.As I understand, that is the justification behind the legal challenges to the Prop 8 amendment in California. On the surface, it would seem that the legality of a constitutional amendment passed by voters would be without question. However, the suit contends that the right to marry is one of those "inalienable" rights that cannot be taken away for any reason.
The most recent, narrow, federal ruling indicates that you're correct in that rights cannot be granted and then taken away. However, the justification for suit also presented arguments that more or less suggested that there are other areas of the US Constitution that cannot be violated just because the citizens of a State want to write something into their own state constitution.0 -
As I understand, that is the justification behind the legal challenges to the Prop 8 amendment in California. On the surface, it would seem that the legality of a constitutional amendment passed by voters would be without question. However, the suit contends that the right to marry is one of those "inalienable" rights that cannot be taken away for any reason.
The most recent, narrow, federal ruling indicates that you're correct in that rights cannot be granted and then taken away. However, the justification for suit also presented arguments that more or less suggested that there are other areas of the US Constitution that cannot be violated just because the citizens of a State want to write something into their own state constitution.
Exactly. The federal suit against Prop 8 is based on the 14th amendment equal protection clause which says that states cannot deny their citizens the equal protection of the law. A state constitutional amendment cannot violate that federal constitutional requirement.
The suit is not based on the Declaration of Independence or its list of inalienable rights. It's based a clause of the federal constitution that was ratified four score and twelve years after the Declaration.0 -
As I understand, that is the justification behind the legal challenges to the Prop 8 amendment in California. On the surface, it would seem that the legality of a constitutional amendment passed by voters would be without question. However, the suit contends that the right to marry is one of those "inalienable" rights that cannot be taken away for any reason.
The most recent, narrow, federal ruling indicates that you're correct in that rights cannot be granted and then taken away. However, the justification for suit also presented arguments that more or less suggested that there are other areas of the US Constitution that cannot be violated just because the citizens of a State want to write something into their own state constitution.
Exactly. The federal suit against Prop 8 is based on the 14th amendment equal protection clause which says that states cannot deny their citizens the equal protection of the law. A state constitutional amendment cannot violate that federal constitutional requirement.
The suit is not based on the Declaration of Independence or its list of inalienable rights. It's based a clause of the federal constitution that was ratified four score and twelve years after the Declaration.
Thanks to both of you for the clarification. While I have cheered from the sidelines, I have kept up with all the specific legal arguments.0 -
As for AngryGuy, depends on your definition of troll. He's passionate about his stance, and he seems to make his point with certain science/historical rhetoric, but it doesn't make him a troll. To me, a troll would be someone who just says it's stupid and that's it. No "valid type" argument. He semi backs it up at least. Anyway, carry on. Let's agree to disagree respectfully. But this....this right here was halarious!
I did not say that he WAS a troll. I said that it felt like he was at times. I did not mean to be insulting. It was more a case of I had watched others in this thread, and other threads, present him with arguments that he either ignored completely, or refused to even consider. If need be I can go back and edit my post.0 -
As for AngryGuy, depends on your definition of troll. He's passionate about his stance, and he seems to make his point with certain science/historical rhetoric, but it doesn't make him a troll. To me, a troll would be someone who just says it's stupid and that's it. No "valid type" argument. He semi backs it up at least. Anyway, carry on. Let's agree to disagree respectfully. But this....this right here was halarious!
I did not say that he WAS a troll. I said that it felt like he was at times. I did not mean to be insulting. It was more a case of I had watched others in this thread, and other threads, present him with arguments that he either ignored completely, or refused to even consider. If need be I can go back and edit my post.
I assume he was talking to me because I was pretty explicit in my accusation of trolldom.0 -
As for AngryGuy, depends on your definition of troll. He's passionate about his stance, and he seems to make his point with certain science/historical rhetoric, but it doesn't make him a troll. To me, a troll would be someone who just says it's stupid and that's it. No "valid type" argument. He semi backs it up at least. Anyway, carry on. Let's agree to disagree respectfully. But this....this right here was halarious!
I did not say that he WAS a troll. I said that it felt like he was at times. I did not mean to be insulting. It was more a case of I had watched others in this thread, and other threads, present him with arguments that he either ignored completely, or refused to even consider. If need be I can go back and edit my post.
I assume he was talking to me because I was pretty explicit in my accusation of trolldom.
Maybe so.. Maybe I just had a guilty conscious over it? :laugh:0 -
Put it up for adoption, whether the kid gets taken or not is irrelevant, it at least has the chance to live and make a decent life for his/herself.
I have also have to take exception to what you said here. Have you ever met a person, especially a child, who has grown up in the foster care system because no one wanted them?
Clearly not.0 -
I do have the expectation that our elected officials have at least the minimum of knowledge that a GED earner would have....that vaginas don't have star trek shields. Lol.
As a GED Instructor, I can tell you that this question does NOT appear on the test. Yet most of my students understand this concept anyway. :laugh:
0 -
The biggest issue for me in the Akin case is that I find it absolutely terrifying that someone who is completely clueless about the basic biology of my body is trying to legislate it. This goes so far beyond abortion debate - the statements and law propositions made by Akin are simply and blatantly anti-woman.
Yep, but reason tells me that Akin is hardly clueless and simply let the proverbial cat slip out of the bag in public. Oops! Retrieving it will prove impossible before the election now that VP Ryan is connected inextricably to this prehistoric and predatory position by sponsoring legislation that detailed "forcible rape". Really, Mr. Ryan? Before your nomination you too could legitimize rape into acceptable and unacceptable actions - forcible verses unforced rape. hmmmmm Now, connect the dots from that to their party's economic positions. . .dum, dum dum dum - duuuuummmm! And these policies are too scary to add the "b" to that ominous tune!!!
-Debra0 -
The biggest issue for me in the Akin case is that I find it absolutely terrifying that someone who is completely clueless about the basic biology of my body is trying to legislate it. This goes so far beyond abortion debate - the statements and law propositions made by Akin are simply and blatantly anti-woman.
Not to mention the fact that he is on a Committee for Science and Technology in the house.... :-/
Given the fact that most congressmen/women couldn't pass a high school science exam (most probably couldn't even pass middle-school-level science either), I'm not surprised. Disappointed? Absolutely. Surprised? Nope.0
