Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed by the media...

[Big Fitz]

In my opinion, if you're going to reach for the power, you have to take the lumps, along with the rest of 'em.

Just like Ms. Fluke. [/your argument]

 

[Vast LWC]

Just like Ms. Fluke. [/your argument]

Ms Fluke didn't reach for power.

She testified in front of a congressional committee.

You honestly don't see the difference there?

 

[Vast LWC]

Unfortunately for that argument, you can't prove definitively that the practice is one of sexual discrimination.

Consider this, for instance. Viagra is taken in response to erectile dysfunction. Not all erectile dysfunction implies impotence. Some people are on blood pressure medication that makes it really hard to acquire/maintain a hard-on, but their tadpoles are still capable of hitting the water and Michael Phelps'ing their way to the egg. Some of these people are Catholics who believe that only sex for procreation is okay, and some of them are honestly attempting fertilization -every- time they pop their little blue pill and plug in.

On the other hand, consider a morning after pill. There is quite literally no use for this pill other than as a preventative measure to avoid pregnancy after sex, meaning that the sex was, for the person using the pill, purely casual and in no way an attempt to procreate.

One of these products can, potentially, be used in a manner that is in no way contradictory to popular Catholic practices. One of these cannot. I understand that this example doesn't cover every argument with every organization's objections, but it doesn't need to. Even if every single Catholic organization in question has a completely different interpretation of their doctrine and a completely different set of exact reasons for objecting, each one of these organizations has that right if it can't be proven, definitively, that their practice is one of sexual discrimination and not based upon one of the other many intricacies of this issue.

Those are good points, though one could argue that the Church could easily apply circumstances (married to a woman below the age of 50) as a prerequisite to getting the drug, without too much trouble.

Also, Birth Control pills are also used to treat several health conditions, so I believe a case can be made.

However, I do find the point you made about sexual discrimination in the Catholic Church to be an interesting one.

Does "Separation of Church and State" give the Church license to stomp on the constitutional rights of it's employees?

Shouldn't women in the Catholic Church be given equal opportunity to advance in said organization, just as is required in every other organization in the US?

Perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed legally. I wonder how many American nuns would be bitter enough to form a class-action suit?

 

[Meister]

Just like Ms. Fluke. [/your argument]

Ms Fluke didn't reach for power.

She testified in front of a congressional committee.

You honestly don't see the difference there?

She's been an activist for her issue, that IS reaching for power.

 

[koshergrl]

Why do liberals want to argue with people who actually say what they are and what their motives are?

If you say "I like the color green" a lefty will say that means you like red.

And when this woman SAYS she's an activist, when she has been upfront about her activism throughout her college career and even now, progressives want to argue it. She's not an activist, they say, she's just a poor girl who can't fully enjoy herself because we won't give her a yearly pelvic exam!

SHE IS AN ACTIVIST. THAT IS WHY SHE WAS HEADING UP THE REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE GANG. I mean, it doesn't get much plainer than that. "Reproductive Justice" is not the title of a garage band.

 

[saveliberty]

Why do liberals want to argue with people who actually say what they are and what their motives are?

If you say "I like the color green" a lefty will say that means you like red.

And when this woman SAYS she's an activist, when she has been upfront about her activism throughout her college career and even now, progressives want to argue it. She's not an activist, they say, she's just a poor girl who can't fully enjoy herself because we won't give her a yearly pelvic exam!

SHE IS AN ACTIVIST. THAT IS WHY SHE WAS HEADING UP THE REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE GANG. I mean, it doesn't get much plainer than that. "Reproductive Justice" is not the title of a garage band.

Might be by now.

 

[saveliberty]

Reproductive Justice new album:

Can't Fight the Feeling

Bust the John Too

Tainted Love

Love For Sale

 

[Cuyo]

I didn't get the impression that 'The media' 'portrayed' her as anything other than what she is; A woman's rights advocate.

You're attacking a nonexistent phenomenon.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Of course she has an agenda, and she's had it since the day she enrolled. Her agenda is to force the church to conform.

Writes a Georgetown graduate and "former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution", Cathy Cleaver Ruse:

"I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.
"Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further."

Cathy Ruse: Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate - WSJ.com

No, she's a slut who believes it's the Federal governments responsibility to force vendors to provide "anything she wants" via legislation...

She's an authoritarian bitch just like every progressive...

 

[saveliberty]

I didn't get the impression that 'The media' 'portrayed' her as anything other than what she is; A woman's rights advocate.

You're attacking a nonexistent phenomenon.

No the media portrayed her as an example of Obama policy. That is why Obama ran to her aid. It also shows the debate as a religious one and not about birth control.

 

[Cuyo]

I didn't get the impression that 'The media' 'portrayed' her as anything other than what she is; A woman's rights advocate.

You're attacking a nonexistent phenomenon.

No the media portrayed her as an example of Obama policy. That is why Obama ran to her aid. It also shows the debate as a religious one and not about birth control.

Well sure he did, a lot of people agree with her position, including Obama and myself.

But that's not 'portraying her as an everywoman.' It's just reporting on what happened. She's a woman's rights advocate who spoke her mind and got called a slut for it.

Not seeing any kind of seedy conspiracy here.

 

[saveliberty]

Nope, just a slut on tv.

 

[Vast LWC]

No, she's a slut who believes it's the Federal governments responsibility to force vendors to provide "anything she wants" via legislation...

She's an authoritarian bitch just like every progressive...

Okie dokie then.

Let me ask you this:

If a married couple has sex, and has a child, and then that child attends public school, and the family gets tax credits for their children.

How is the mother of the child not then considered a "whore" in the exact same way that Rush Limbaugh called Ms Fluke a "whore"?

She had sex, and she is receiving benefits from the public for that sex.

So, how is Rush Limbaugh not calling pretty much every mother in America a "whore" and a "prostitute"?

Do you people never think this jackassed reasoning to it's logical conclusion?

 

[Cuyo]

Nope, just a slut on tv.

You ever used birth control or slept with someone who did?

Whether yes or not, just what the fuck gives you the right or qualification to judge her?

 

[saveliberty]

No, she's a slut who believes it's the Federal governments responsibility to force vendors to provide "anything she wants" via legislation...

She's an authoritarian bitch just like every progressive...

Okie dokie then.

Let me ask you this:

If a married couple has sex, and has a child, and then that child attends public school, and the family gets tax credits for their children.

How is the mother of the child not then considered a "whore" in the exact same way that Rush Limbaugh called Ms Fluke a "whore"?

She had sex, and she is receiving benefits from the public for that sex.

So, how is Rush Limbaugh not calling pretty much every mother in America a "whore" and a "prostitute"?

Do you people never think this jackassed reasoning to it's logical conclusion?

If I have to explain why your post is stupid, then there really is no need for a discussion.

 

[Rinata]

Of course she has an agenda, and she's had it since the day she enrolled. Her agenda is to force the church to conform.

Writes a Georgetown graduate and "former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution", Cathy Cleaver Ruse:

"I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of "Students for Reproductive Justice" and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the "everywoman" portrayed in the media.
"Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say "this far and no further."

Cathy Ruse: Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate - WSJ.com

If you don't know her personally, then shut up!!! You know nothing about her. I don't like you. You are constantly running your mouth about things you just make up in that fat, stupid head of yours. Grow up.

I don't have to know her personally, and you idiot, those are QUOTES from a WSJ piece.

Cripes. Negged for terminal stupidity.

Your comprehension skills stink. I still don't like you and you're still an idiot. And you know what you can do with your neg reps, you immature idiot.

 

[Cuyo]

No, she's a slut who believes it's the Federal governments responsibility to force vendors to provide "anything she wants" via legislation...

She's an authoritarian bitch just like every progressive...

Okie dokie then.

Let me ask you this:

If a married couple has sex, and has a child, and then that child attends public school, and the family gets tax credits for their children.

How is the mother of the child not then considered a "whore" in the exact same way that Rush Limbaugh called Ms Fluke a "whore"?

She had sex, and she is receiving benefits from the public for that sex.

So, how is Rush Limbaugh not calling pretty much every mother in America a "whore" and a "prostitute"?

Do you people never think this jackassed reasoning to it's logical conclusion?

If I have to explain why your post is stupid, then there really is no need for a discussion.

Methinks you got nothin.

 

[saveliberty]

Nope, just a slut on tv.

You ever used birth control or slept with someone who did?

Whether yes or not, just what the fuck gives you the right or qualification to judge her?

So useless question you answered anyways followed by a question I will answer. She put herself out with a judgement that involved the public. She gets judgement back.

 

[Vast LWC]

No, she's a slut who believes it's the Federal governments responsibility to force vendors to provide "anything she wants" via legislation...

She's an authoritarian bitch just like every progressive...

Okie dokie then.

Let me ask you this:

If a married couple has sex, and has a child, and then that child attends public school, and the family gets tax credits for their children.

How is the mother of the child not then considered a "whore" in the exact same way that Rush Limbaugh called Ms Fluke a "whore"?

She had sex, and she is receiving benefits from the public for that sex.

So, how is Rush Limbaugh not calling pretty much every mother in America a "whore" and a "prostitute"?

Do you people never think this jackassed reasoning to it's logical conclusion?

If I have to explain why your post is stupid, then there really is no need for a discussion.

This entire conversation is stupid. Rush Limbaugh brought a world of stupidity upon us with this moronic line of logic.

But since it's been brought up:

If a woman who receives financial benefit from the public as a result of sex is a whore (which is exactly what Limbaugh was saying), then how are mothers who receive tax breaks and public assistance with the child's schooling not also a whore?

Obviously I don't believe any of this crap to be the case.

But that is, quite definitely, the logical conclusion of Rush Jackass Limbaugh's line of (ahem) "reasoning".

And you wonder why people are so fucking offended?

 

[saveliberty]

Okie dokie then.

Let me ask you this:

If a married couple has sex, and has a child, and then that child attends public school, and the family gets tax credits for their children.

How is the mother of the child not then considered a "whore" in the exact same way that Rush Limbaugh called Ms Fluke a "whore"?

She had sex, and she is receiving benefits from the public for that sex.

So, how is Rush Limbaugh not calling pretty much every mother in America a "whore" and a "prostitute"?

Do you people never think this jackassed reasoning to it's logical conclusion?

If I have to explain why your post is stupid, then there really is no need for a discussion.

This entire conversation is stupid. Rush Limbaugh brought a world of stupidity upon us with this moronic line of logic.

But since it's been brought up:

If a woman who receives financial benefit from the public as a result of sex is a whore (which is exactly what Limbaugh was saying), then how are mothers who receive tax breaks and public assistance with the child's schooling not also a whore?

Obviously I don't believe any of this crap to be the case.

But that is, quite definitely, the logical conclusion of Rush Jackass Limbaugh's line of (ahem) "reasoning".

And you wonder why people are so fucking offended?

Restating stupid does not reduce the stupid.