Politics, Economics, and Religion

Information

Politics, Economics, and Religion

Religion has so many connections to political and economic beliefs, there needs to be a place to identify linkages, problems, goals, options, action plans and evaluation criteria.  

Members: 97
Latest Activity: on Saturday

What is the purpose of life?

An eternal question, what is the purpose of life?, occupied philosophers’ thoughts throughout history. Stone pictographs reveal even primitive peoples reflected on this query. Each one has the capacity to define his or her personal thinking about politics, economics and religion.

Discussion Forum

Free market creates monopoly - no market, no freedom

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck on Saturday. 10 Replies

Barry Lynn explains that a monopolist doesn't have to control 100% of a market. With the US having thousands of markets controlled as monopolies, we suffer the Economics of Destruction.What monopoly means is that a company has sufficient control of…Continue

Tags: free market economics, monopoly

Turns out that lawsuits have rules (Daily Kos)

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Joan Denoo Aug 6. 4 Replies

So ... now that John Boehner and the House of Representatives have decided that the most important thing on their agenda is suing President Obama for having the unmitigated nerve to want to accomplish something during his second term of office, it…Continue

Tags: rules, president, Barack Obama, sue, John Boehner

An Open Letter to Congressman John Boehner

Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 26. 2 Replies

Some days ago, Congressman John Boehner (R - Ohio) wrote an op-ed piece entitled, "…Continue

Tags: president, Barack Obama, sue, John Boehner

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Politics, Economics, and Religion to add comments!

Comment by sk8eycat on September 18, 2012 at 4:22pm

"Sure you can overturn Roe, even with what should be stare decisis status.  You won't stop abortions, not so long as there is a demand for them."

Thank you, Loren!

I knew by the time I was 13 that I was not fit to raise sane children, and that I never wanted to try.  So, in the summer of 1959 I was 19 years old, pregnant, and 2000 miles from home.  The guy who said he loved me suddenly revealed that he was already engaged and couldn't/wouldn't marry me.  All I could think of was finding a building in Sioux City that was tall enough to jump off of and die. 

Somehow my employer found out, and through connections found an MD who was willing to do a D&C in his office after hours.  Without anaesthesia.  It was expensive (for me... $300...a lot of money in 1959), scary, and painful, but I have never regretted it.  Not even for a minute.

And I would do it again, if I had to.  But I won't, now. 

Hooray for menopause!

Comment by booklover on September 18, 2012 at 3:07pm

Joan, what an apt picture.

Comment by Joan Denoo on September 18, 2012 at 2:59pm

Milt Priggee 

Comment by Joan Denoo on September 18, 2012 at 2:51pm

Robert, You wrote, "With medical technology increasing, a baby or fetus if you prefer has greater and greater viability to survive at an earlier time outside of the womb.  So if it can live outside of the womb, how is it not its own individual with individual rights?"

Have you ever worked with battered children or women, or boys placed in ranches for violent behaviors, or in prisons with men and women who have some incredibly awful stories to tell? I have worked in all these conditions and I am of the opinion that every child born be a wanted child. 

I had five miscarriages before I was able to carry to term. Each death was like a death of a "born" child. I wanted children so badly, we adopted a five day old boy and five-months thirteen-days later our twins were born. For two weeks I had three children under six months and I was in heaven. I was even able to nurse all three. 

What about children born to mothers who don't want them? Are you going to adopt them? Or the State of whatever? or the USA? Who is going to care for them, teach them, confront challenges and have to be resourceful and compassionate, even in the worst of times. 

As I type this in my garden, my eldest son brought me a cold glass of water and chatted for a minute. He is a jewel and I am so glad to have him. He knows and has always known I wanted him, love him, respect him. Had his mother decided to abort him, I would not have him as a loving, caring, attentive son. However, she had the right to make that decision. 

Comment by Joan Denoo on September 18, 2012 at 2:33pm

Robert, you wrote, "When we conservatives disagree with liberals we think you are wrong, but when liberals disagree with conservatives, not only are we wrong, but we are bigoted and many other disparaging names"

Do you have any idea of the responses we get?, "You will burn in eternal fire of damnation", a rather judgmental kind of language. 

Or we hear, "You have no morals or ethics." EXCUSE ME! Such comments come out of pure, unadulterated ignorance. 

Or we hear, "You don't have Jesus, or god, or whatever, on your side!"

DO YOU REALIZE YOU DON'T HAVE THEM ON YOUR SIDE? 

HOWEVER, you are absolutely correct, when I hear, see or think about gods I think of the most objectionable character in all fiction, demanding and arrogant about it, irrelevant, corrupt, revengeful, abusive, ruthless, mass executioner, misogynistic, misanthropic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, malevolent, bully, and thug. 

Comment by booklover on September 18, 2012 at 2:00pm

Robert.  A woman who lives and breathes on her own trumps an embryo that can't. PERIOD.  And since you are not a woman, you don't even need to worry about it.  Someone else's body is NEVER YOUR CHOICE. EVER. EVER. EVER. 

Comment by Joan Denoo on September 18, 2012 at 1:56pm

Robert, when you wrote, "pro-abortion folks conveniently forget the human life in the woman and only focus on the mothers rights", I understand your angst and a part of me feels the same way. BUT, the consequences to a woman for having an unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancy is overwhelming. Just stop and think about it for a minute; It takes more than a woman being pregnant, and if she is alone, or if she has no means of support during the pregnancy and raising a child, or if she conceived from a blood relative, or from an attacker, why would you want to subject a woman to those challenges? Do you have any idea what it would be like to be caught in such circumstances? Or even the very human situation of being carried away by passion, forgetting consequences, leaves terrible options. What about the woman who has more than she can handle, for whatever reason and doesn't want to be pregnant? I know! She has the responsibility to think before she conceives, but let's get real here; did you think before you released your sperm? Do most men? 

It would be so nice if every woman had a loving partner, had access to resources of food, shelter, health care, in order to meet basic needs, and had resources for family planning, but can you honestly stand in judgment of a woman who lacks any of these resources? 

I am anti-abortion for myself, but each woman has to decide for herself and has the right to do so without permission from anyone or   being shamed by those who have their right to choose. I stand for woman's right to make decisions about her own body. If you are troubled by the thought of killing an unborn child, well, get over it; life happens while making other plans. 

Comment by Loren Miller on September 18, 2012 at 10:02am

Sorry, Robert, what you're talking about still amounts to removing a right granted to women - that of controlling their own bodies.  Insofar as I'm concerned, the whole issue of fetus viability is a smokescreen to equate viability with person-hood, and it won't wash.  Ultimately, the aim is to stop abortion altogether, to illegalize it, and from where I sit, that's an unachievable task.

Why?  For openers, I remember before Roe v. Wade.  I remember jokes about coat hangers which weren't funny and back-alley procedures which frequently took the life of the mother, never mind people of means (read: MONEY) who went to Scandinavia to get their abortions with zero fuss raised on this side of the puddle.  I also note with interest that even Italy, the home of Vatican City and of Humanae Vitae and all the crap which comes with the church, even there, a woman has a CHOICE.

Sure, you can overturn Roe, even with what should be stare decisis status.  You won't stop abortions, not so long as there is a demand for them.

Comment by Robert Brown on September 18, 2012 at 9:43am

Loren, that is why there should be discussion and argument over the issue and not just shouting down somebody as a bigot. You say a woman has a sole right to determine what goes on with her body, I agree.  But you fail to see that the unborn woman in a womb has the sole right to determine what happens to her body as well, including whether she is aborted or not.

With medical technology increasing, a baby or fetus if you prefer has greater and greater viability to survive at an earlier time outside of the womb.  So if it can live outside of the womb, how is it not its own individual with individual rights?

That is the real argument conservatives make, religious or not. It suprises me how many liberals truly believe that conservatives are actually sitting around discussing how to take rights away from women when we are just trying to give rights to those without a say in the matter.

Can you not see the parallels to women once not having rights in society to children or the unborn not having them now? It isn't just a religious control over women issue.

Shoot, even pets are getting rights these days, I mean furry companions :)

And my conservative views on abortion are not the only ones I have been called a bigot over. Many of the liberal viewpoints I disagree with.

Comment by Loren Miller on September 18, 2012 at 9:24am

Robert, you have the right to think as you please regarding abortion and to express that opinion.  What you do NOT have is the right to superimpose your opinion on someone else, and sure as hell not a woman with an unwanted pregnancy who may be struggling with her options.

If she carries the pregnancy to term, that's her choice.  If she aborts it, again, her choice.  Not yours, not mine, HERS ... and as it happens, her choice is supported as the current law of the land.  Whether you value the life she is carrying isn't the point.  It's the value SHE puts on it that counts, and neither of us get a vote on that.

Note what I said earlier: that these people look to make their bigotry UNIVERSAL.  Personally, I'm looking to do no such thing.  I don't force my sensibilities on others, and by the same token, I expect my sensibilities to be left unmolested.  Now, if you want to allege that a blastomere or embryo or fetus has rights, then take your best shot.  Just expect a LOT of blow-back.

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service