Bush, Our Ex-Boyfriend


Bush is the ex-boyfriend we’ve finally gotten out of our life only to
discover he left an unpleasant souvenir, like an STD. A
particularly nasty strain too, in the form of new HHS regulations.

The HHS regulations were a last minute, hastily executed,
unconstitutionally vague, attempt by Bush to repay his only loyal
constituency left, the religious right wing. The regulations attempt
to expand health care workers right to "consciously object" to the
broadest array of health care services imaginable, basically anything,
even in medical emergencies. They can, in other words, refuse to
provide you medical care, because it offends them! It opens the door
to many patient abuses, shreds state laws and contradicts federal
discrimination statutes. Healthcare workers would be able to withhold
information from a patient about healthcare options without the
patient even knowing that any information is being withheld. Patients
can be refused referrals if the healthcare worker objects to the care
they’re seeking somewhere else.

And here is one particularly bizarre twist. The regulations specify
that workers don’t have to inform their employers of the service or
services they object to before hand. It’s also unclear the extent to
which employers have the right to ask job applicants about their
willingness to take part in the services they provide. Thus, imagine
the situation in which an anti-choice person applies for a position at
Planned Parenthood. Her employer couldn’t ascertain that she’s against
abortion, nor could it fire her when she refused to have anything to do with it.

But the regulations’ real intent (revealed in a draft version of the
proposal leaked this summer) is perhaps worse: to allow those who want
to obstruct a woman’s access to birth control full license. Keep in
mind, there is already ample protection for those who do not wish to
take part in abortion services, three laws in fact. The right to refuse
to take part in abortion services has existed for over 30 years. Here’s
the thrust of the new regulations (in my own words), "If you’d like to
consider contraception an abortion method and refuse to take part,
please do, but also feel free to object to contraception, or any other
health care service, for any reason you can dream up. The only thing
limiting your right to refuse is your own imagination." Your conscience
is yours. Use it how you want. Even if it infringes on the conscience
of others.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at anything (but, perhaps, the
timing). The new regulations are the final revenge of an
administration long hostile to women’s rights and health. And this
last abusive act will literally take affect in the final minutes of
the Bush administration, the morning of inauguration day.

As Connecticut attorney General Richard Blumenthal explained, "On the
way out, the Bush administration has left a ticking political time
bomb that is set to explode literally on the day of the president’s
inaugural and blow apart women’s rights." Yesterday Blumenthal joined
the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association
(NFPRHA), which represents many county and state health departments
and providers, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America in filing
lawsuits asking the federal court to block the regulations from taking
affect. Blumenthal filed a lawsuit on behalf of his state and six
others (CA, NJ, IL, MA, OR, RI) alleging that the regulations violate
federal law, women’s rights and states’ sovereign rights to enforce
their own laws.." It’s particularly ironic that Bush trampled on
states’ rights, something he once professed to value above all else.

The states have particular cause to worry. The federal regulations
could be used to argue that state laws are unenforceable, like those
mandating contraceptive coverage (the law in 27 states) or the
provision of emergency contraception to rape victims (the law in 13
states
).

Bush, as is his way, ignored staunch, diverse and thoughtful
opposition. He dismissed resistance even from within his own
government. Over 200,000 individuals and organizations weighed in
during the public comment period, most opposing the regulation. They
pointed out that
the regulations could throw an entire system into
confusion.

For instance, the American Hospitals Association, not a group known
for taking controversial positions, explained,

Hospitals and their emergency departments are complex entities; as the proposed rule is written, it would be extremely difficult for
hospitals to anticipate all the scenarios under which a health care
worker might invoke the provider conscience clause. As a result it
would be impossible for hospitals to make the staffing arrangements needed to ensure access to those services. The [American Hospital Association] is concerned that access to services for patients may be significantly hampered by the current definitions of this rule.

 

Blumenthal and 12 other state attorneys general jointly offered this comment,

The proposed regulation completely obliterates the rights of patients to legal and medically necessary health care services in favor of a single-minded focus on protecting a health care provider’s right to claim a personal moral or religious belief … By focusing exclusively on the personal moral and religious beliefs of the health care provider, the proposed regulation unconscionably favors one set of interests, upsetting the carefully crafted balance that many states have sought to achieve … We urge the HHS to adhere to a basic medical tenet—first, do no harm to the patient—and withdraw the proposed regulation.

During the public comment period, even Bush’s own administration—in
this case, the agency charged with protecting against discrimination
including in matters of religious freedom–came out in opposition to
the regs. EEOC Commissioners Stuart J. Ishimaru and Christine M.
Griffin wrote,

The proposed rule is unnecessary to protect the religious freedom and freedom of conscience of healthcare workers, because Title VII already serves that purpose…The issuance of the proposed regulations would throw this entire body of law into question, resulting in needless confusion and litigation in an attempt to redefine religious freedom rights for employees in the healthcare sector…


Bush’s team brushed aside all criticism, indifferent to protests,
thoughtful or otherwise. They behaved like a kid doing a book report
who hadn’t read the book, to paraphrase one Planned Parenthood lawyer.
They were obligated to respond to comments and so they did, not caring
whether their responses were coherent or consistent. In fact, at one
point they said they agreed with Title VII, which guarantees, among
other things, the right to exert one’s conscience in the work place,
and at another they suggested they’d like to reinterpret the act.

The contradictory message was clear in this: We are immune to
criticism. Moral certainty has always trumped evidence or "outside"
opinion among the Bushies. It seemed determined to stick to its guns
all the way out the door.

And so the Obama administration enters office with a thatch of new and
purposely vague regulations on its books. Obama may be a pro-choice
president but Bush has tried to tie his hands. Sadly, Obama can’t
merely reverse the regulations with a stroke of his pen, though he has
indicated he would like to. The process to undo regulations is as
time-consuming as it was to push these through. Especially, if a
government is responsive to criticism. Fortunately, the pro-choice
lawyers with their attorney general colleagues have moved decisively
to block implementation until the courts can review the regulations.
An injunction is likely to follow soon.

Util the regulations are definitively overturned, many of those who
have thrived at the margins of the law, in the vaguenesses that Bush
has consistently pushed, may continue to feel empowered.

There was recently, for example, the case of a nurse who removed a
patient’s IUD every time she was supposed to adjust one. She’s against
birth control. And though she claimed the repeated removals were
merely "accidents," under the HHS regulations she might not have to.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • invalid-0

    Take heart! We may just find Saddam alive and well and coming to colleges for speaking forums.
    Rumor has it that Bush will spend his post-presidency in pro-life advocacy campaigns. Surely no threat there.
    Rumor also has it that Clinton is seeing a few hotties around the globe. Damn, I will never get a date with that babe at this rate!
    There is some talk that America will finally do a military aid in Darfor! Yeah troups! We are also in for an Obama pseudo draft: The Civilian Militia. Why he is keeping the current Military advisors around is beyond me! Where is the CHANGE? We voted CHANGE and specifically out of the War Monger Bush, Senate, House and the whole 99% of Washington DC that took us there!
    Abortion…. well, it is enough, already. Our society is so hurt from it. Every chick I talk to has had one, and hates it! They can’t even talk about it due to some unspeakable pain. Guys, too! I have heard 7 guys cry over it. I’m over it already, all right? Fact is, it’s just nasty. It is!
    Don’t ask someone else to perform an abortion until or unless YOU do it —against YOUR will. Let’s see every judge perform a few. Let’s see your husband, your neighbor, your grandmother, your daughter, your son, your parents perform a few hundred abortions a month, THEN we can talk about having health care workers forced to end a human life.
    Gross. No shame in that.

  • invalid-0

    Being an abortion provider is a choice as well, it is a specialized field and requires a full medical license (M.D.). They are never “forced to end a human life.”

    • invalid-0

      Nurses perform it.
      Surveys show a growing number of disbarred M.D.s are America’s Snuff-Surgeons. 99% of all post-abortive women claim they NEVER “consulted” with their Snuff-Surgeon or pastor or family BEFORE the snuff-surgery of their baby. Most say NO ONE was there for them to calm the panic. Most say they regret and were or are consumed with drenching remorse. Most never knew the sex gender is identifiable at 7 weeks gestation. Most have nighmares for 5-10-20-30 years of their baby rotted in a landfill, sewer drain, or research dissection lab.

      Oboma will force Catholic hospitals to perform snuff-surgery because abortitoriums are closing. Perhaps all you Choice of Creep the Critters’ could legislate it to be performed in public school after hours. Catholic hospitals will close, thank God. You simply don’t get the vile venture of death you so thirst for. If snuff-surgery is to be so “rare” then expect the snuff-surgeons and death dens to be rare, too.

      • angryreptilekeeper

        Nurses perform them? Really? Well, spank my butt and call me pinky.

         

        So when I had my 2 abortions, I suppose that the "M.D." on the nametags of the very nice man and the very nice woman who performed my abortions were just a lie?

        Then who were those nice people standing around me holding my hand and trying to lessen the pain I was in?

        • invalid-0

          S A T A N ?

      • invalid-0

        Crazy…I had an abortion, and there was a doctor there. Introduced herself and everything. And my friend that I told, and my boyfriend there to hold my hand, drive me home, make me dinner, take care of me…that’s what, exactly? An illusion?
        And wow, all those nights of sleeping well because I know that my boyfriend and I aren’t going to be thrown into complete poverty because of all the (uninsured) medical bills associated with pregnancy and birth(at the very least. That’s not even metioning the cost of raising a child.)
        There is regret for the situation, and pain over a difficult choice. No nightmares or psychological scarring though.
        I think you’re making shit up.

        • invalid-0

          The Business of Being Born

          Then time warpies like you ignorant pro-aborts won’t burden us all with your dribble.

      • invalid-0

        That whole post is disgusting. The BS about the nightmares; where did you come up with that? I’ll tell you what’s gross: your imagined consequences of a simple medical procedure.

        Also, none of what you said applies to any of the women I know who have had abortions, myself included. And every single one of us had the procedure performed by a medical doctor who chose to be an OBGYN that provides abortion. My own doctor did not, so I found another, WILLING, doctor to perform the procedure. Doctor’s aren’t being forced to perform abortions so this rule is redundant.

        And you’re creepy. Really. Go to a therapist and work on those issues. Wow.

  • cristina-page

    There’s that Carly Simon song where the verse goes…"You’re so vain you probably think this song is about you." Antis who claim everyone wants them to provide abortion services always remind me of it. For one, please be assured that we don’t want anti-abortion people caring for women seeking abortions. So, the idea that people opposed to abortion are being forced to take part in abortion care is a total fiction. In fact, of the 1.3 million abortion procedures performed each year there has been no incidence reported of such a case. Second, there are three laws, count them, 3, that have existed on the books–the oldest has for 30 years–protecting those who do not wish to offer abortion care. So, please do your homework before incoherently posting and claiming people are being forced to provide abortion services–they are not. The regulations allows religious extremists to obstruct our access to every other healthcare service as well–including birth control–with out even informing us they are doing it. Re-read the post to understand what the regs actually do. Then try to act snarky.

  • mellankelly1

    99% of all post-abortive women claim they NEVER "consulted" with their Snuff-Surgeon or pastor or family BEFORE the snuff-surgery of their baby

    Now, where’s that link that will take us to the source for your made up super accurate statistics?  And I think you’re confusing the doctors with the dragon (Snuff, the magic dragon anyone?)

    Perhaps all you Choice of Creep the Critters’ could legislate it to be performed in public school after hours

    You should totally write childrens songs… look out Wiggles, Creep the Critters is a comin’!

    • invalid-0

      Nice!

  • invalid-0

    I must say Rh you are getting your fill of crazies lately. Lay off Mellankelly1 as well… This is a place for debate and thoughtful comments on reproductive rights not for hate speech go peddle that crap on your beloved right wing sites we won’t have it here, okay? Now if you have something useful to say you are more than welcome here but don’t be calling people names and such. Of course I can’t speak for RH but I am sure they would agree.

  • brady-swenson

    Two comments from an anonymous poster were deleted for violating the civility standards set forth in our commenting policy:

     

    We understand that the issues discussed on this website are divisive. Unlike many forums that concern these issues we embrace and encourage a civil discourse about them. We will continue to allow open commenting that is of a civil nature and that seeks to engage the debate, but we will delete without further explanation comments that threaten, demean, or decrease the civility of discussion.

  • invalid-0

    She is demeaning poster with negative defaming “crazies” comment. Her comment is offensive and aimed at embarrassing the poster. Because the debate is against her lack of values she coins the poster as “crazy” which is very uncivil and decrease the peace of the discussion.

  • mellankelly1

     Her comment is offensive and aimed at embarrassing the poster

    I don’t think so… "the poster" does a pretty good job of embarrassing him/herself.  Let’s please give credit where credit is due, eh?

  • invalid-0

    Yeah, all those “Croak the
    Yeah, all those “Croak the Kid Womb War Wrath” gang of gangsters should never expect Snuff-Surgery Centers to be located across the street of every Doughnut Shop in America. The best location is next to landfills… that way the stench in those clinics will be masked by the rot of garbage rather than baby blood. At your next snuff-surgery, I dare you to look under the table. Dare You!!! So, don’t go wondering why most post-abortive chicks walk in and out with womb ravaging infection. Take a good look at the “watery eyed” Snuff-Surgeon, too. Don’t go wondering why your womb is perforated. Don’t go wondering if you aborted twins, either. If you keep your ears open, the Snuff-Surgeon or nurse will hint there are twins being aborted. (25% of all Snuff-Surgeries are TWINS terminations!)
    Submitted by Anonymous on January 17, 2009 – 5:47pm.

  • colleen

    Christina Page,

    Thank you and RH for the updates on this ridiculous and dangerous rule change. I’m still wondering how it is possible for one branch of government to inflict so much damage on our nation. Hopefully out of this the religious right will be further expose themselves as the lying, extremist loons they are, however much they dress themselves up as people of faith and conscience. 

     

    I am very interested in the story of the ‘conscience’ of the nurse who took to removing the IUD’s of women unfortunate to have come in contact with her. Unfortunately the link you provided does not work. Another link or some more information which would allow me to research this story more thoroughly would be much appreciated.

     

  • invalid-0

    just the implantation of the conceived human.

    • angryreptilekeeper

      Oh, you mean this human?

  • invalid-0

    just the implantation of the conceived human.

  • invalid-0

    IUDs prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg,not a “conceived human”.More than half of of all fertilized eggs never even reach the implantation-phase,they get washed out during menstruation without human interference.Please stick to the facts,Anonymous.

  • otaku1960

     Are you available for parties or Bar Mitzvahs, by any chance?

     Your grievance shall be avenged.

  • therealistmom

    … they prevent the implantation of a human zygote to the uterine wall, thus preventing a pregnancy from beginning, since pregnancy is defined as beginning when the fertilized ovum latches to the lining of the uterus. Women shed zygotes with unique DNA on a regular basis, with or without an IUD.

  • otaku1960

    Care to post a link to these "surveys" you claim abortion providers are disbarred doctors?   Or the source of the 99% claim?  "Most say"?  According to what source(s)?   Your claim Obama will force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions is completely without merit, because if it had any, you would have posted a link to this news.   You are an embarrassment to the intelligent and pragamatic pro-lifers out there, plus youir posts are better suited to Fred Phelps’s lame web stie.

     

    Your grievance shall be avenged.

  • invalid-0

    so sorry. I think people who are “repulsed” and deny “human” to a fertilized human egg: an aborted human; etc. are themselves a bit on the “sub”human realm. Deny it is “human” and you have the mind cleared of conscience to kill it… like the Nazi, slave owners, India’s infanticide, Muslim Honor Killings, etc. Just think of “it” as “less than” human… “it” is dumb, can’t think, inferior being, different, etc. What a load-a-closed hearted freaks. So sad. Laughably pitiful.

  • invalid-0

    Threatening? Don’t you get enough blood and death in your “movement?” Abortion is linked to violence to children, women, etc. Your threat doesn’t scare anyone. Your aura is enough to keep you away from most. What are you going to do? Sic angels of demons on me? lol. It stings to have someone actually CARE about human life. Get over it.

  • invalid-0

    Terribly invasive and unnatural, isn’t it? Could it scar the uterus? Does it prevent STDs?
    I thought one was “pregnant” when a conception occurs. Whether the conception of a human being (auh…YOU started your life exactly the same way!) continues to live by phases of that life ie: implanting, growing, nourishment, etc. The womb rejects the occasional conception usually because of womb scars, hormone imbalance (too many years on The Pill?), acidic diets, caffeine toxicity, STDs, etc. There are issues of weak egg or sperm structure, too. Say, a woman was on years of Meth abuse, her eggs may not be viably healthy for months. Even on the Pill, one should wait to conceive one month for every year on the Pill….why? Because the eggs have been affected.
    Trust Big Pharma. They’ve so earned it, girls.

    • alexm

      What about when an in vitro attempt is successful?  There’s full zygote there, but it is not inside any woman.

       

      If the zygote dies before it can be implanted in the uterus, who is responsible?  The woman, the IVF specialist, the surgeon, God?  And more importantly, WHO CARES?  We should focus on families and children that already exist in the world and who are not having their basic needs yet.

       

      Honestly, I don’t understand all this energy wasted on zygotes and embryos that could have "potentially" become a human.  By that logic almost all men commit mass murder, probably several times a day!

      The personal is political.

      • invalid-0

        When was the last time you gave a dime or minute of your selfish time to a homeless person?

        Thought so.

    • invalid-0

      Trust Big Pharma. They’ve so earned it, girls.

      My birth control- the NuvaRing- is a lot better than “home” remedies or the “rhythm” method.
      So yeah- I do, have and will CONTINUE to “trust big pharma”. In fact, I work at an IRB and know that there are a lot more drugs out there that are a LOT worse than all of the birth control pills put together. But all those silly drugs do is help people LIVE with chronic diseases.

      As far as “hormonal imbalances” go- I assume from the tenor of your posts that you have a lot more of that to worry about than most everyone else here dear.

  • therealistmom

    … pregnancy does not start medically speaking until implantation. And 50% of fertilized ova are believed to be shed in general among women, pill or no pill… there is no such thing as "caffiene toxicity" (there is evidence it MIGHT contribute to very early miscarriage in high doses, but the evidence of correlation is tenuous at best)  and uterine scars are rare. Acidic diets? Where are you getting this stuff? The only thing that might effect would be the cervical mucous making it hostile for sperm, not the uterine lining.

    The IUD may be the only full-time contraceptive option for women in long-term relationships who can’t tolerate hormonal BC. My docs never told me to wait to concieve after the pill or the use of the Norplant… they just said it might take a couple of months for my cycle to return to normal. It wouldn’t affect the ova themselves.  For the record, I concieved the very next month the first time I went off the pill, the first month after Norplant removal, and 2 months after the second time off of the pill.

  • therealistmom

    It is a human zygote. A human ova and sperm are going to produce a human zygote, as opposed to a bovine or canine one. Skin cells are human, if they come off of a member of homo Sapiens. Of course the product of conceptus is human.

     

    The question is- is it a "person". No more so than the other hundreds of fertilized eggs it is possible for a woman to shed with her menses. Your anaolgy doesn’t work here… Nazis etc (btw, when you Godwinize an argument, you instantly lose) dehumanized actual born, thinking groups of people.  Some religious fanatics dehumanize women so that they become worthless and have no rights in the idea of the ruling male class.  The people they attempt to dehumanize can, in fact, think and have sentience. A fertilized egg != person. It is a POTENTIAL unique human, because the cells have human DNA. Unless it literally parasitizes a woman, taking over her womb and circulation, and takes nine months to develop, it will not become a child, a complete "person".

    It is not "dehumanizing" anything to note that a fertilized egg is just that, a single cell. It will split a couple of times before implantation. It cannot think, feel, have any kind of sentience, as it is simply a group of dividing cells at that point. Unless you think individual cells have the ability to think now?

  • invalid-0

    “Cells” of a Human Being Zygote are THINKING: brain, tongue, hair nerves,…(so much “thinking” is going on women get nausea!) all the new and unique individual, inherited features of the new person are already set- whether it is a boy or girl, color of eyes, hair dimples, chin… all set!… If that isn’t “thinking” then what is, pray tell?! It is a miracle of being a Human Being.
    As far as “thinking” is concerned, you must know that at 7 weeks the fetus hiccups, frowns, squints, furrows the brow, purses the lips, sucks the thumb, turns head, opens mouth, yawns, kicks…. BUT….it isn’t a “thinking” human??? It couldn’t possibly be a “human person” because—uh, well, HA, let’s hear your explanation again. At 8 weeks EVERY organ is present (as was YOURS) The liver is making blood, the kidneys function, and the heart beats steadily. The skull, elbows, and knees are forming. Of the 4500 structures in the adult body, 4000 are already present at 8 weeks. The skeleton begins to stiffen.

    If a woman has a “hostile” womb environment that rejects conception she is considered sterile. There are numerous ways to have her womb be a natural and welcoming life sustaining place for conception.

    So… people in comas aren’t thinking. People sleeping aren’t thinking. OH, wait! Brain waves… they measure fetal brain waves, now! Wow! The 7 week fetus IS thinking!!! Now what?

    Talk about “dehumanizing!” Wow! Take a good long look in a mirror. Seriously! There is dehumanizing in just about everything our secular culture pukes up: porn; hideous drug addiction; child, animal, spousal violence; abortion; food, land, air toxin feed; depopulation; etc.

    Is a 2 month old baby a “potential” criminal or a “potential” world famous author? Do YOU parasite off mother earth? Do you parasite off your parents, husband, employer, farmer? YOU are a parasite …. a worthless feeder? Or do you go out to your field and suck the tit from your own cow every day? YOU are a parasite feeder on our planet! Drinking the water, using our energy. I wouldn’t call a fetus a parasite unless you can legitimately prove you yourself aren’t a parasite in our society. If we deem you “worthless” because you can’t “think” any longer… well, hopefully you can see how short sighted and callous you sound.
    What is it you want the 1 month old to be thinking? What is it YOU need the “human” to be “thinking” for you to consider it a member of the human and spiritual family on earth?

  • alexm

    What some anti-choice folks don’t get is that the pro-choice accepts that a fetus is the result of a human sperm and egg meeting.  We get that it has potential to be born and become a unique individual!  We just recognize that abortion should be an option available to women who are facing an unintended pregnancy.  Making abortion illegal only drives its practice underground.

    • invalid-0

      AUH!!!! IS THAT WHY killing my boyfriend has to be done on the sly? Is that why I can only go naked around my own home? Is that why I can shoplift when no one is looking? Wow, drive abortion underground with all the other low lifes. What a concept!

  • invalid-0

    What the everloving hell is this crazy anonymous commenter crowing about? If you want to go and be a uterus-for-rent moo, fine, suit yourself. Don’t try to drag the rest of us along with your crazy ass.

  • mellankelly1

    If that isn’t "thinking" then what is, pray tell?!

    Thinking is the action of using one’s mind to produce thoughts.  Not to be confused with a zygote possessing dna, or rapidly dividing cells.  Medical science is your friend.

    BUT….it isn’t a "thinking" human???

    Listen, I’m super sorry that a seven week old embryo does not have the capacity for thought.  It almost seems as if you’re blaming those who support reproductive choice for this scientific fact… we do not get to decide at what point thought is a possiblity, we do not have control over prenatal development.  It just is…. sorry that it doesn’t suit your agenda but that is really not our problem.

     OH, wait! Brain waves… they measure fetal brain waves, now!

    Anti-abortion rhetoric… do some fact checking (I cannot stress the importance of using non-biased medical sources.)  If you do the proper research you will find that a fetus at seven weeks has live nerve cells present in their brain stems (these are most certainly NOT "brain waves"; brain waves refer to organized activity in the cortex which are first seen at 20 weeks, sustained at 22 weeks and synchronous at 26-27 weeks). The use of misinformation, pseudoscience, half truths and outright lies does nothing for your cause.

  • therealistmom

    .. somehow equals "thinking", then every bacillus on this planet is a sentient being.

     Just a thought for our friend there who seems to equate the possession of coded chains of four amino acids that can be reproduced with the ability to think.

  • http://www.billykess.com/blog invalid-0

    Not for nothing, but I don’t think George W. Bush would ever lower himself to go out with any of you reality check gals in the first place. So he can’t be an “ex” boyfriend.

    :)

    • invalid-0

      G W sees these gals as the epitome of low vibrational hags. The arrogant ignorance is crowding hell. They bolster the faithful, we get to glimpse of the wretched here, to never be violated by them for eternity.

      It’s all good.

    • invalid-0

      What woman in their right mind would want to go out with throw up Bush??? aaah I am gagging yuck !!

  • invalid-0

    Most disgusting evil ALWAYS goes underground. There is no “ending” it. No matter legal or illegal, crimes to humanity will always continue. Shouldn’t we just legalize rape? prostitution? child sex? theft? With it being legal, so many lives would be spared prison, etc.

    • alexm

      Thanks for bringing that up, Anonymous, actually I think sex workers should be protected by the law.  They perform a service, probably to chauvinist pigs like you.  Ever heard of the "oldest profession"? 

      The personal is political.

  • invalid-0

    Michael Moore! LOL …when he’s finished with his “sticky duty doo” and pretty girlie magazines.

  • invalid-0

    You seem “dead” in spirit. A fetus would have to recite the tax code for you to find it human. So, why is it legal and all right to abort the child inches from a natural birth? Why at 22 weeks? So, if someone is drugged and raped, and never feels, thinks or knows about it… no crime, right?

    • angryreptilekeeper

      I hope that you don’t eat, for the sake of your own conscience, then. Do you have any idea how many living things suffer and die so that you can live? That carrot in your salad was grown for the sole purpose of being mercilessly ripped out of the ground by it’s delicate foliage, shoved into a bag, cut up into pieces and eaten. All while still alive.

      And that steak you ate the other day? It’s mother was forcibly artificially impregnated and kept in a stall so tiny that it can’t turn around. Then when the animal was born, it was taken from it’s mother to be raised in a factory farm in the same conditions, then sent to have it’s throat cut so it could bleed to death. If it was lucky, it didn’t suffer for long. Then it was cut up into pieces so you could enjoy eating it.

       

      Not that I find anything inherently wrong with this. Things must die so that others can live. ‘Tis the natural way of things. It sucks, but such barabric methods are necessary to feed Earth’s large (over)population.

      Just saying.

       

      Nobody likes a hypocrite.

      • invalid-0

        As a Vegan I understand. Carrots often remind me of humans. I think they actually are more protected than fetus. Things must be murdered so others can reap KARMA.

        If it is such a crowded world why no jobs? Why so many obese slobs? Why no one to care for elderly? Why not enough in our armed forces? Why Austria and France and many others paying parents to have children? Why so much wasted food?

        You think abortion is the answer to the world’s problems…. what idiots of evil your cold stone souls are.

        • invalid-0

          Because they are all old. Like anything human is precious. The hell with the rest of the creatures past and present. We human we can destroy what ever gets in our way for the sake of the almighty dollar!!!
          Why do we want more selfish rude disgusting humans?????

  • invalid-0

    The article starts with admonitions against a ‘conscious clause’ in the medical and/or pharmaseutical fields. I would with that said language was more specific. However, said alnguage MUST BE PRESENT! Otherwise, one would be forced to act in opposition with one’s deeply held beliefs.

    You say that ‘anti-choice’ people would secret their beliefs in order to be hired at a local Planned Parenthood. There are three flaws with your example:
    1) the term is ‘pro-life’. It is not that we disagree with ‘choice’ as an absolute construct, it is that we disagree with the nature of the ‘choice’ you are proposing, and disagree the object of ‘choice’ is the correct focus.
    2) Someone who is pro-life would likely NOT work at a local Planned Parenthood to begin with as PP routinely provides abortions to any and all that ask. (And some that don’t.)
    3) It is highly unlikely that anyone claiming to be pro-life would keep this information secret in order to litigate their point of view into societal acceptance – eventhough so-called ‘progressives’ use this exact tactic to their own ends.

    I hear a lot of ‘anti-choice’ & ‘reproductive health’ language… Those of you who are ‘pro-choice’… What are you chosing? To terminate (an unwanted) pregnancy.

    What is a pregnancy? The gestation of a fetus; a.k.a. a human being; a.k.a.: a person; a.k.a.; a child.

    What does it mean to ‘terminate’? Synonyms: end, cease, discontinue, cut short, kill.

    Let’s put the pieces together… What you advocate ‘choosing’ (and may have ‘chosen’ yourself) is: the end of a person; the cessation of a human being; the killing of a child.

    It IS a ‘choice’. However I can NOT fathom why someone would voluntarily ‘choose’ to kill their own child.

    If the cry is “unwanted pregnancy”… Did anyone force you to become pregnant? (Speaking of abortion-as-birth-control.) Why should the child be punished for your ‘choice’? Have the child and allow those to are unable to have their own children, to adopt. Be selfless.

    What about rape? Let’s kill the rapist, not the child. (If you think killing the rapist is barbaric, why do you think killing a child is not barbaric?)

    An illustration:

    A plane crashes. Of the 200 people on board, there are 50 survivors. Those who are ‘pro-choice’ would rail against God saying “How can a ‘good’ God choose for those people to die?!?! What your God did was absolutely wrong!” Bet here’s the rub… God has the ability to restore the lives He chose to end. Those who support, perform, and have abortions do NOT have the ability to restore the lives they choose to end.

    Why is God’s determiniation of who lives and who dies an absolute moral wrong, but your determination of who lives and who dies is an absolute moral right?

    • invalid-0

      the woman didn’t “choose” to become pregnant.

  • invalid-0

    if you insist on thinking of it that way, then here’s a question for you:

    who would you rather dehumanize? the woman, or the fetus? because that’s ultimately what it comes down to.

    • invalid-0

      Positively! YOU!! At least the fetus has a chance of meaning to life, yours is rot for hell.

      • invalid-0

        What meaning do you have?? You are just another obnoxious human butting into anothers buisiness.

  • pcwhite

    Hmm, better question: why didn’t our parents chastely abstain from sex?

  • pcwhite

    Does RHRC usually get this many abortion trolls, or is there a reason for the huge insurgence? It’s really detracting from intelligent dialogue about the pertinent issues :\

     

     

    [edit: god, people, learn to close your html tags!]

  • invalid-0

    Actually I thought that everybody is writing rather well. Some good points made by all. Although “parasite” was a bit cold.

    The sad thing for me is that the divide is not really over choice. It is really over WHAT the choice is about.

    Some people feel that a fertilised egg is immediately sacrosant as a God-created person. They feel that the choice is about murder, that the egg has more right to grow than the mother has to reject the burden of an unwanted child. Presumably they base their thought in general on their interpretation of the Bible saying such things as “Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you” (Jer 1:5). I’d guess that most of these people believe in God and the divine inspiration of the Bible.

    Some people feel that the zygote does not attain personhood until it reaches a cetain stage, such as awareness, or being pain-sensitive, or viable, or maybe born. They feel that the choice is about removing a collection of cells that means nothing until it develops further, that she is the only person involved in the choice until that point.

    The sad part is that these two groups of people are fighting bitterly over whether the choice should be allowed or forced, instead of gently resolving or agreeing to differ over the underlying questions which make the choice murder or personal lifestyle: is there a God, and does he form persons before they’re conceived, and does he mind if we cancel that? Or are we simply evolved?

    At the end of the day, I think the decision should be made by the people – not by a mass force of democracy, whichever way that may go, but by their representatives voting on it.

    And we should all accept that law for now, and if we disagree, work to change the people’s views in an informative, rational and amicable way.

    Unfortunately, some people would prefer to have their own way regardless and will lie and misrepresent things to get the law there. Both sides, being such a gulf apart, will naturally think the other side is being this way. But we must remember that most of it is really heartfelt fervor, and we must remain gracious and respectful, not falling into insults.

    This will help for a while. But underneath, deep down, I believe that we are seeing the tremors of a titanic clash between the tectonic plates of the religious and non-religious world-views. So hold onto your seats, ladies and gentlemen. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

    The good thing is, that no matter who is right, ultimately that side will win.

    In the meantime, let’s understand that we don’t need to fight about this one. We can give rational reasons for our views. We can agree to disagree.

    • invalid-0

      At the end of the day, I think the decision should be made by the people – not by a mass force of democracy, whichever way that may go, but by their representatives voting on it.

      I hate to break it to you, but representatives voting on it do not necessarily represent the will of the people. They’ve all been bought and sold by special interests.

  • invalid-0

    Ironic that the writer complains about Bush’s “infringement” on womens right to choose to terminate (kill) their children or fetuses if your “PC”. She wants to be pro-choice but doesn’t want anybody else to have a right to choose whether to terminate (kill) a child or not. Ah Yes!!! Arrested Development. I want what I want and I want it now! I don’t care if it offends you. Its all about my wants.

    • invalid-0

      the entire point of the pro-choice movement is so that women CAN decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. i don’t see how anyone could possibly come to the conclusion that we DON’T support choice. if you don’t want to have an abortion, then don’t have one. if you don’t want people you know to have abortions, you’re free to tell them so. but the entire point is that, while you can tell them you disapprove of thier choices, you can’t actually make the choice for them. i’m sorry if free will offends you, but it’s about rights, not protecting sensitive people from offense.

  • therealistmom

    I’m hardly dead in spirit, since I have three beautiful children that I work to make the world a better place for every day, and want to raise them to be caring, compassionate, responsible adults.

     Why didn’t my mother abort the fetus that developed into me? I can’t speak for her entirely of course, but I will say one thing- because it was her CHOICE not to. I was born in 1972. The choice was there. I would guess because my sister and I were seven and a half years apart and my mom didn’t think she would ever have another child, and because my biological father died shortly before my mother realized she was pregnant and she wanted to have his child played into her decision making. She had a child already and chose to have another. It’s all about CHOICES.

    • invalid-0

      Auh…. you aren’t her daughter then…. you are just a “choice” a “whim” a “undignified object” (like a dog, or vase, or clothing choice. Your meaningless other than the fact that you were the “chosen one”. Got it.

    • invalid-0

      You meant to say “3 beautiful Choices”
      They are not KIDS, they are Choices. You simply chose not to kill them.

      • invalid-0

        Because someone chooses to take on the sacrifices to gestate and bring forth life does not mean the resulting children are undignified objects. Otherwise its like saying that outside of rape removing the choice over sex, any other conceptions are undignified too.

  • colleen

     

    "At the end of the day, I think the decision should be made by the
    people – not by a mass force of democracy, whichever way that may go,
    but by their representatives voting on it."

     

    Oh, I think not. 

     

    "I believe that we are seeing the tremors of a titanic clash between the
    tectonic plates of the religious and non-religious world-views."

     

    No, not the ‘religious world view v. the non-religious world-view’,
    It’s the fundamentalist world view v. science, rationality, honesty
    and, when it comes to women’s bodies, all manner of decent people who
    love their daughters just as much as their sons. Don’t confuse
    ‘religion’ and ‘ institutionalized misogyny’.It’s like confusing
    capitalism with Democracy or ‘compassionate conservatism’ with
    compassion.

    I refuse to cede religion and a spiritual world view to the fundamentalists of any religion, much less conservative Christians. 

    As such I believe that the divide is much greater than you understand.

    • invalid-0

      I refuse to cede religion … to the fundamentalists of any religion

      “I refuse”? …to cede that people who believe in and follow a god are religious? Isn’t that the definition of religious? Are they so repugnant to you that you disallow them to be truly ‘spiritual’? Jesus too?

      Reminds me of a girlfriend who stopped at a shop window to remark on the poor taste of some item there. I suggested that beauty may be in the eye of the beholder and perhaps some people may like it – presumably its maker, for one! She replied, “Of course not! It’s obvious how tasteless it is!”

      Surely the question of whether God exists and designs us in his mind before we are ever conceived is a valid and tolerable religious view, no matter what your own persuasion is?

      No, not the ‘religious world view v. the non-religious world-view’,
      It’s the fundamentalist world view v. science, rationality, honesty

      You convert ‘religious’ to ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘non-‘religious’ to ‘scientific’ so quickly and without need that I wonder whether your thinking depends on it for its survival. Whether you cannot be open to the original line of thought without experiencing painful emotional turmoil.

      So for you, belief in God with the integrity to act accordingly = fundamentalist = wrong,crazy,unscientific by definition, and choosing what you want = rational = wise,scientifically proven as day from night. And it’s obvious to you that you’re correct.

      Let me ask you a question if I may:

      What if Jesus really does love you?
      What if he can’t tell you directly, because he has promised not to interfere with your right to choose?
      What if he is waiting for you to come back to him?
      Voluntarily.
      Because that’s what he’s like.

  • invalid-0

    I took colleens comment a bit differently, but then again I belong to one of the many denominations that does not oppose abortion.

    http://www.rcrc.org

  • invalid-0

    If someone in the medical field isn’t going to do his or her job in regards to what a woman wants done to her body, then they have no business being in the health care Industry PERIOD. A woman has a choice as what to do with her own body and what grows in it, however no one else has that right over her, especially if she is seeking health care. We will overturn thes anti women regulations, and the sooner, the better. So thankful for President Obama!

    • invalid-0

      The job in the medical field is to save & preserve life not destroy it. You know that silly outdated thing called the Hippocratic Oath. A child is not a cancerous tumor or a disease to be destroyed. The medical worker will help a woman to save her life, but they are not there because you had a drunken orgy and now you have a “problem” to deal with. Or that a child is not part of my career path at this time. There is always adoption or taking greater responsablity for you actions before the pregnacy. Don’t make the medical worker a co-conspiritor in a childs murder. It is a pity that a child must die so as not to inconvienence your lifestyle. You should go and thank your Mother that the only reason your here alive today is that she chose not to have you killed. If by some odd perverse chance that you are not glad to be alive you can always post terminate.

  • invalid-0

    Um said, “If you’re against abortion, don’t have one.”

    And if you’re a “male”, _don’t force one on your mistress or daughter_.

  • invalid-0

    In America, no one has the right to use the law to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone…Your right stops where mine begins – end of story

    • invalid-0

      It is done every day. Almost all of our Laws are based on a religious belief. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal.
      Thou shall note covet thy neighbors wife. Rape, murder, thief, all human nature to do, but because of “Judeo-Christian” religion we made laws not to. Can’t speak for the Muslims. As we were a Judeo-Christion Society at one time, it is debatable if we still are, we the collective society (Country) decieded to make laws that are based on those principles. When we change to atheistic or secular society you are free to change or rewrite them to what ever beliefs or non-beliefs you aspire to. Sorry to rain on your parade.

  • alexm

    I don’t care whether anti-choicers like me.

     

    The personal is political.

  • invalid-0

    I ask all you religious ones,Would you abort a fetus if you found out it was going to be gay? We know how understanding and tolerant you all are about gays right? Think about it really hard. I bet you would. Or how about in India they abort fetuses that are female. I guess that would be ok too considering that according to the men who talk about the bible , women have no rights.

  • invalid-0

    Thats a straw argument because it is known that homosexuality is not genetic. So it can not happen. If you are going to use the nature vs lifestyle argument please provide a verifiable peer-reviewed study. That should stir you up.

  • pcwhite

    When we change to atheistic or secular society you are free to change or rewrite [the laws] to what ever beliefs or non-beliefs you aspire to.

    uh, America is a secular society.

     

    Also, the fact that the US’s laws bear a resemblance to the ten commandments does not necessarily mean that they were derived from the bible. Even in the event that they are, it does not follow that religion should continue to dictate public policy.

     

    (p.s., because I can’t resist…it isn’t against the law to "covet thy neighbour’s wife." Or husband, for that matter. It is also not against the law to dishonour the sabbath, disrespect your parents, fashion idols, commit adultery, lie to your neighbour, or covet your neighbour’s goods. Sorry to rain on your parade.)

  • therealistmom

    I was under the impression that it was almost certain now that homosexuality has a genetic component. Since one doesn’t "choose" to be gay, from where do you suppose it comes from?

  • therealistmom

    … is not a nation founded on religious laws. Period. That is why public law must pass the "lemon test", they must serve a secular purpose. Laws against killing, theft, etc predated Christianity by millenia, mostly by spoken word and universal agreement (the devlopment of empathy becoming essential for humans to evolve into communal living) but also encoded in such works as the Code of Hammurabi. The "Golden Rule" has been developed independently via human compassion in literally every society on earth, with or without any kind of religious influence. Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists (and some maybe atheists, it really was not a position self-identified by many at the time). Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration, was the originator of the idea of teh "wall of separation" between church and state and was highly critical of organized religion.

     

    From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, signed by then President John Adams:

    "As the government of the United States of America
    is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in
    itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility
    of Musselmen…"</i>

  • invalid-0

    Wishful Thinking. Ifyou are born that way you can argue that you can’t change. If it is not genetic determined then it is very possible and proven you can change. Are we as a people not being compassionate to gays by not helping the to get out of there destructive lifestyle and giving them the false hope that it is and there is nothing wrong. Hope and Change. Having Hope that we can be compassionate enough to help the change and heal.

  • invalid-0

    Before Paine published his Age of Reason, he sent a manuscript copy to Benjamin Franklin, seeking his thoughts. Notice Franklin’s strong and succinct reply, and keep in mind that those on all sides of the religion question would concede Franklin to be one of the least religious Founders:

    I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that . . . the consequence of printing this piece will be a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits into the wind, spits in his own face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? . . . [T]hink how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue . . . . I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person . . . . If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? I intend this letter itself as proof of my friendship.[2]

    Samuel Adams was not quite as cordial as Franklin:

    [W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States. The people of New England, if you will allow me to use a Scripture phrase, are fast returning to their first love. Will you excite among them the spirit of angry controversy at a time when they are hastening to amity and peace? I am told that some of our newspapers have announced your intention to publish an additional pamphlet upon the principles of your Age of Reason. Do you think your pen, or the pen of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?[3]

    John Adams certainly spoke harshly of such anti-Christian propaganda:

    The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.[4]

    Far from opposing “the God of the Old and New Testaments,” Adams defended the Bible as the basis for government in a Christian nation:

    Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God…. What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.” [5]

    This was, in fact, the basis for the system of government in America, as Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:

    The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite….And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. [6]

    Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickenson that Paine’s Age of Reason was “absurd and impious.”[7]
    Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine’s work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion.”[8]
    John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration and mentor to many other Founders, said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith.”[9]
    John Quincy Adams declared that “Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution.” [10]
    Footnote 1. Michael McDonald, “Founding Fathers Weren’t Devout,” The Charlotte Observer, Friday, January 15, 1993, 7A.

    Footnote 2. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, Ed., (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840) X:281-282, to Thomas Paine in 1790. Read more here.

    Footnote 3. William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1865) III:372-73, to Thomas Paine on Nov. 30, 1802.

    Footnote 4. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, Ed., (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856) III:421, dairy entry for July 26, 1796.

    Footnote 5. John Adams (1735-1826), (L.H. Butterfield, ed., Diary and Autobiography of John Adams (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard Press, 1961), Vol. III, p. 9. [February 22, 1756]

    Footnote 6. Lester J. Capon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 2:339-40

    Footnote 7. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L.H. Butterfield, ed., (Princeton University Press, 1951) II:770, to John Dickenson on Feb 16, 1796.

    Footnote 8. Joseph Gurn, Charles Carrol of Carrolton (NY: P.J. Kennedy & Sons, 1932, p. 203.

    Footnote 9. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Phila: Wm W. Woodward, 1802) III:24n2, from “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men,” delivered at Princeton on May 17, 1776.

    Footnote 10. John Quincy Adams, An Answer to Pain’s [sic] “Rights of Man” (London: John Stockdale, 1793) p. 13.

    Your Turn

  • therealistmom

    How is being gay "destructive"? Anyone? Anyone? It’s love between consenting people. That simply can’t be "destructive". The only "healing" that needs to go on is from the damage created by homophobes. It’s not a "lifestyle". I can’t make myself be attracted to someone; I can’t change my orientation at will. Nobody can. They CAN be hurt and shamed into never having relationships. That’s terribly compassionate, right?

    As far as it being "wishful thinking"… why would anyone CHOOSE to be in a group that historically has been hunted, condemned, and even in today’s supposedly enlightened age discriminated against and denied simple legal rights permitted to every other adult in this country? Think about it- a man in prison can get married. A gay person cannot.

    The discrimination against homosexual people is a religious bias dating from an almost bronze-age people (ie, the Hebrews) who were a weak tribe living amongst larger ones. They encouraged breeding to increase their population- thus being able to have more than one wife, the law that Onan got caught in (having to impregnate your dead brother’s wife to continue the familial line), knocking up your female slaves to take the children as your own, etc. They didn’t have an understanding of the depth of human sexuality we do now, and so may have prohibited gay sex (even that is controversial, the verse may be translated several ways) because it didn’t contribute to creating more little Hebrews. Note that "laying with a man as with woman" is a sin along the same lines as eating a cheeseburger, and I know a LOT of xians do that.

    Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, among many species; I hardly doubt that you can claim they are being created by "culture" and can be "taught to be straight".  Sexuality among many animal species, particularly those of higher intelligence such as bonobos, dolphins, and the like, as not only for procreation but the nuturing of social bonds. Humans have gone beyond that, to where the women don’t even come into "season" so to speak in a way that can be detected by men but can be sexually receptive year-round. Clinical, yes, but it shows that our species is rich in the expression of sexuality not simply using it to mate. It is bonding and pleasure and a myriad of other emotions. Who is one person to say that another person’s sexual orientation is "wrong" when it is people of a consenting age and who may grow to truly love each other and have relationships even stronger than many hetero married couples?

     

  • invalid-0

    Have you lived the lifestyle or know any one who has? Can you get them to tell you honestly about it? The drugs, the disease, the alcoholism, and the violence. The insatiable urge for sex for the pure sake of sex, no emotional bonding, no love just raw sex i.e.: (bathhouses). The deep emotional pain of knowing something is just not right. I can see the reason for the frantic push for acceptance. Then you can say the abnormal is normal and justify and rationalize it in your mind.

    As for nature, homosexuality usually occurs when animals are placed in abnormal situations or conditions and the homosexual activity disappears when the conditions return to normal. There was a resent story about 2 male penguins that set up house together. There was a deficiency of female penguins to pair up with. As soon as they were separated and paired up with females their “homosexual tendencies” disappeared. Homosexuality in nature is not a normal condition. It goes against evolution. If a species can’t or won’t reproduce it dies off. I don’t know any species that is able to pass on homosexual genes. Those genes would have been breed out of the species over time.
    That is one of the reasons I believe homosexuality is not genetic.

    Most homosexuals that have been honest in my conversations with them have said they became that way from a traumatic experience. Most of the lesbians said they had been molested or abused in some way by a man. It could have been a relative or a close friend or even a stranger. The experience hurt them and turned them away from men. They were looking for friendship and companionship to satisfy a normal heterosexual need and turned to another woman for that. Most of the time with another woman that was in the same situation. So instead of helping these women get better we say this is ok, so as not to hurt their psyches. Have we helped them heal? The men I talked with were usually preyed upon by older homosexual men for their personal satisfaction. Then made to feel that they were that way because: “If you weren’t homosexual why would I pick or be attracted to you”? So you must be one of us, we know these things. You were giving off gay signals. Typical predator con! Once conned, the individual figures I must be this way, they would know and so the con builds and strengthen itself with each act until the individual is fully invested into the lifestyle. While this is not a scientific study and not all situation are cut and dry, this is what I found when I had honest dialogue with individuals.

  • therealistmom

    … if you are homophobic. A certain part of any population doesn’t reproduce- whether it is because of homosexual pairings, infertility, or simply not having an opportune time to mate. And yet all of these situations still result in a positive net gain in population for species. As i said- look into higher intelligence mammals, particularly bonobos and dolphins. In the case of bonobos, "lesbian" sexual encounters are actually a necessity for their social structure, bonding together the group for survival. These are things observed in the wild, not in labratory settings.

    As for your other examples- I think you’re reading the wrong sources for both gay relationships and child abuse. I’ll use my sister and I as real-life examples. Both of us, at one point, were molested, though in different circumstances. Both of us had the same primary parent. My sister did not come out until her early 20’s- I don’t think she even realized it herself until then.  She had no "lesbian" influences in her life- she simply realized that is who she was attracted to. Since then she has been in two long-term relationships, the current I believe would be a marriage if it were permitted.  I, on the other hand, married when I was 18, and was married for 17 years until my soon-to-be-ex filed for divorce. Same circumstances, two entirely different people. 

    There simply are not "predatory homosexuals" lingering out there to scoop up abuse victims and "convert" them. If there IS someone out there trying that, they are not "gay", they are a predator!  The same way that a man who sexually abuses young girls is not "straight", he is a pedophile and an abuser!

    The short version: gay people are JUST LIKE straight people. They just happen to be attracted to the same gender because they are hard-wired to be. There are jerks and abusers among them just like in any other given group of human beings. These generalizations are hurtful, inaccurate, and downright bigoted.

  • invalid-0

    you don’t know many (or any) homosexuals, at least not very personally. i, while a straight woman myself, have had a huge amount of contact and close relationships with various gay individuals. i have lived with both a gay male couple and a lesbian couple, i’ve been close friends with single gay men and single gay women. i’ve helped them through breakups and hookups and problems with parents and friends just like any of my other friends. a few of them did drugs. one or two might have been alchoholics. a few of them had a lot of sex with random people. most of them have at one point or another been in at least one long term, deeply emotional relationship. some of them suffered from depression, or from anxiety, or not knowing what to do with themselves. others were incredibly well adjusted, good at school, excelling in their chosen careers. just like every other twenty something in the country.

    i’m not sure homosexuality is neccessarily genetic in the way you’re thinking about it (like huntington’s disease or blue eyes), but it’s most certainly natural and ingrained, maybe akin to left handedness or synethesia. it’s there from birth and there’s no choice in the matter for the individual. just as i could never really have a meaninful romantic relationship with another woman, because i’m straight and i like men and i have no choice in that. and other than that one tiny facet of their makeup, gays and lesbians are exactly as well adjusted and able to be happy as the rest of us.

  • invalid-0

    It’s been fun, but I have to give up trying. You obviously got me figured out and are one step ahead. Although I do notice you keep reconfirming my theories. While my theories aren’t 100% and some what generalized you appear to reconfirm them in your arguments. Your analogy with your sister is one. But then again you went the other way. I didn’t say it was 100%, but just what was told to me in moments of honest conversation. By the way mathematically how do you get an increase in population with no reproduction? Is this new math? Oh don’t bother explaining it to me, it’s probably over my head and I won’t get it.

    I knew any logic in this debate was lost with the crack about homophobia. That’s a sure sign you have nothing and are just trying to throw insults when you only have emotion to drive your arguments. Not too mature, pretty Liberal. Actually I care a lot for people with homosexuality and I would love to see the medical world direct its resources towards their illness. You are right in the point of why would someone choose to be that way. They need help to change unless that is you are like Ann Heche who was miraculously cured. But she was probably never really a “genetic” lesbian, probably just a wannabe.

    As said earlier this was fun but now it’s getting boring, nothing new to add and we have gotten so far from the original subject.

    I wish you and your family well and hope you survive the turmoil in the economy and the next 4 years.

    Bye

  • invalid-0

    It’s been fun, but I have to give up trying. You obviously got me figured out and are one step ahead. Although I do notice you keep reconfirming my theories. While my theories aren’t 100% and some what generalized you appear to reconfirm them in your arguments. Your analogy with your sister is one. But then again you went the other way. I didn’t say it was 100%, but just what was told to me in moments of honest conversation. By the way mathematically how do you get an increase in population with no reproduction? Is this new math? Oh don’t bother explaining it to me, it’s probably over my head and I won’t get it.

    I knew any logic in this debate was lost with the crack about homophobia. That’s a sure sign you have nothing and are just trying to throw insults when you only have emotion to drive your arguments. Not too mature, pretty Liberal. Actually I care a lot for people with homosexuality and I would love to see the medical world direct its resources towards their illness. You are right in the point of why would someone choose to be that way. They need help to change unless that is you are like Ann Heche who was miraculously cured. But she was probably never really a “genetic” lesbian, probably just a wannabe.

    As said earlier this was fun but now it’s getting boring, nothing new to add and we have gotten so far from the original subject.

    I wish you and your family well and hope you survive the turmoil in the economy and the next 4 years.

    Bye

  • invalid-0

    and the underground railroad…

  • invalid-0

    Speaking of George W. Bush:

    George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).

    George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.

    And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.

    Many people know what Bush did.

    And many people will know what Bush did—even to the end of the world.

    Bush was absolute evil.

    Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.

    Bush is a psychological prisoner.

    Bush has a lot to worry about.

    Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.

    In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.

    Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
    B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
    Messiah College, Grantham, PA
    Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

    “GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
    ______________________
    I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: “If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memory so it never got stale and faded.” Oh wait—off the top of my head—I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

  • http://www.juicycouturestore.net invalid-0

    We have some very horrible incidents and series of events in our life so it happened twice in form of Bush. I don’t know that how long it will take to get out of it but we’ll suffer it many years.

  • invalid-0

    that certainly shows the true colors of these crazies
    Us poor women folk aren’t worth a darn-
    oooookkkkkaaaayyyy

  • http://www.emetophobiaeraser.com/ invalid-0

    Many people after some time wish to get back with their old boyfriend/girlfriend.

    Time will tell.