Morning-After Pill a religious issue.

Morning after: Oh God! Please don't let this jerk be the father of my baby!

LOL! if morning after pill becomes an abortion, I guess we should be forbidden to have sex unless the woman is fertile and all sperm is ejected into the vagina - otherwise think of all the spermies doomed to be murdered in condoms and such!

Every sperm and egg is a potential human being!

Save the gametes!!!!

The separation of Church and State is a facade. It only existed in desires and words, never in commitment. Never once has any Congress, Presidency or community as a whole been entirely for it or overly zealous to go against Christianity. Plus, even the radical people of this country have a right to voice their opinion in politics. Regardless if they are Christian Fundamentalists or militant homosexual activists, which was not meant derogatory, just as the only direct opposite I could come up with. Why do people think that if you devote yourself to a religion that you cannot participate in politics? Don't you have to live in this country also? Don't you have to live with the decisions that are being made? If so, than you should be able to voice your opinion and, just like anyone else, do what it takes to get it heard.

Personally, I think the morning-after pill ought to be sold over the counter. If it's prescription, it can hardly be considered the morning-after pill unless you know weeks in advance that you're going to have a morning-after. That kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?

Yes, but the fundies don't have to participate if it becomes law. They could just say "no thank you." Live and let live is not in their vocabulary. Instead, they always want their puritanical beliefs legislated ,which ends up restricting the liberities of others. That is the issue. It's always about forcing, by law, their moral codes on everyone else it seems to me.

I think the Christian fundies are as bad as the Islamic fundies- cluelessly still living in the 13 century, or something like that. If it weren't for progress in secular law and rights, these are the same people who would still be torturing and burning people at the stake for heresy and non -belief, in an inquisition.

I'm fine with most mainstream churches though. They tend to "Get it" to some degree.

True. But, we're not talking about when it becomes a law. We're talking about keeping it from being allowed. Because of their "beliefs," they don't want to see the morning-after pill offered over the counter because to them it promotes promiscuous sex. Regardless of their reason, they have a right to have it. And they have a right to voice it in politics. Everyone involved in politics is so because of their "Beliefs."

"You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."

"You better know what you stand for when you come into this town or someone will own you by sundown."

Along those lines.

Remember, at one time women and African-Americans (or whatever politically correct name we use these days) were not allowed to vote, thus were not allowed in politics.

These days, at a more subtle approach, we're trying to keep the opposition out of politics. Just as discriminating in my book. It's almost as if people are saying, "It's OK to disagree with me, just don't be too disagreeable. Don't be too far out. Find the mainstream and conform to either one side of the fence or another, but deviate only by a small degree." Freedom is not set-up that way. And in my opinion, I don't think we actually know how to be free. We are too programmed and brainwashed after centuries of being under some kind of control to be able to actually be free. It's a nice notion. But, we just don't know how yet.

Socrates enlightened us the most on this when he told The Allegory of the Cave. We are people in chains. Our reality is shadows on the wall.

Just another example of religious ARSEHOLES trying to cram their beliefs down everyone's throat. They all ought to piss off to some corner of the world and get the **** out of everyone elses life.

Hmm. . . this is a tough one. I don't advocate abortion, and I think it is morally wrong. However, I believe that it's even more wrong to control other people like that. So I suppose you could call me pro-choice. After all, it's not my body, how can I make them do something? That would be like making all the overweight people go on diets. . . I don't see that happening either.

But pregnancy doesn't occur until the zygote reaches the uterus and implants itself there. So if something blocks that from happening, it's birth control, not abortion. And the morning after pill does block the zygote from implanting itself to the uterus.

Let me put it this way. My wife is very against abortion. Having lost a child, she doesn't understand how someone would consider abortion. But she, like me, doen't believe in dictating that to other people. In any event, we have used the morning after pill, just the one time. So if she thinks it's not abortion. . .well, I see her POV.

But OTC? Not to sure I like that. But then, I wouldn't like having a prescription for a condom, either.

Good point! Just the kind of pointed accuracy I like to see in discussions.

Although I get bothered by fundy viewpoints on issues like this, Michael made some excellent points in his arguments about their rights to participate as vocally as they want.

I can only hope we have a government that responds to pressure as open-mindedly as possible.

I certainly do not want our country run by people who are themselves run by what I see as superstitions...but that involves work and effort on the part of those of us who see that stuff as "superstition."

Everyone has got a voice in the process.

I hope they never even come close to prevailing.

While it is true in a democracy such as ours everyone even the religious fanatics have a right to express their opinions. However, what I find disturbing is the imposition of laws that are based entirely upon religious beliefs and convictions. These have no place in our society. Religion IMO should remain where it belongs in houses of worship and at home and never be imposed upon the general public.

I keep those suckas in a pez dispenser next to my bed. Word.

Here we go again. It is up to Frank and I to stick up for the so-called religious fundamentalist "ARSEHOLES". (Geesh I am a pro-choice agnostic - why me?!)

Doesn't anyone else here believe in Democracy? Why should the fact that au thinks a person is a fanatic take away her right to vote on moral issues. Sigh!

Society has throughout history seen the need to create laws based on moral issues. Some of these you all would probably agree with. Incidently these issues all were banned with religious motivation: let's see... there is incest (which was practiced in Europe before it was Christianized), pedophilia (also practiced in many cultures and banned in Christian countries for originally religious reasons) and bigamy to list a few.

A society has the need and the right to set boundaries on what is acceptable, moral and legal behavior for its citizens.

What's wrong with using the democratic process to decide what is moral and what is immoral?

I would also like to point out that abortion is argued as a moral, not a religious issue. I don't think any of you would like to argue that morality is exclusive to religion.

The question that the pro-life camp is raising is - when does life begin. This is a philosophical question, but not a religious one. If you believe that life begins at conception - than that means that abortion is murder by definition. It is easy to come to the conclusion that abortion (including the Morning after pill) is morally wrong.

If I remember history correctly, in Rome parents had the right to kill their children until the age of majority. We don't allow that today, and as a society we need to set a subject age of when a child becomes a person (with the right to not be killed).

I hear one side saying life begins at conception. I hear another side saying it doesn't begin until birth -- or this strange concept of "viability".

But society does need to make a somewhat difficult decision as to when a parent has the right to stop a pregnancy.

The pro-life group argues - life begins at conception and "abortion stops a beating heart". These are secular moral arguments not religious ones.

It is you all who are making religion an issue.

Let's stop these inane posts.

Brown
Why not just have a theocracy. Whose religious morality shall we adhere to those in the majority? Sounds like religious tyranny as practiced in------- well you know.

Au,

You aren't listening.

I am proposing a constitutional Democracy where every citizen gets a vote for legislators to represent her regardless of her religion.

Further more I propose Bill of Rights to guarantee basic rights of minorities against the majority.

Of course this means that the people you look down on have the same right to vote that you do. Is this what is getting you so bent out of shape?

Do you have a problem with Democracy in a pluralistic society?

First of all -- thanks to eBrown for a couple of excellent posts. It is hard to be defending these people, but I'm glad there are a couple of u who can get past our aversion to their philosophy and argue on their behalf on an issue such as this.

au...a comment.

There are many, many ways for a person to come to a personal philosophy - religion being one of them.

No matter how anyone comes to that philosophy, he/she certainly should be free to espouse laws that incorporate that philosophy.

The constitution of the United States pretty much guarantees two things (which may seem in conflict, but truly aren't):

One -- majority will rule.

Two -- those in the minority are to be protected from unnecessary and inappropriate laws of the majority.

I think it pretty much works that way.

Yeah, the religious group is the majority right now -- and they do move for laws that further their religious agenda -- but those of us who are in the minority (and who are not religious) do have lots of protection.

I think your position is off-base on this issue.

Frank
As usual we disagree. The only reason for the controversy regarding the pill is one of religion. On that basis I object. And I wouldn't care if every religious group objected to it. I would still insist that religion should not be the basis for civil law.

I'm with Frank and Brown. Check my earlier posts.

Michael,

I want to point out that this statement is wildly self-contradictory.

How can the Congress or the Presidency "go against Christianity" if there is a separation of Church and State.

The Separation of Church and State as established by the Consitution has been very well enforced and very successful in the US. Look at the battles that we have won. We teach evolution in the schools. We have had a catholic president (very controversial at the time). Judge Moore is gone. There is no prayer in schools. Furthermore we have had open public debate on the Pledge of Allegiance.

In addition we allow all citizens to vote according to their conscience and to express their views in public.

What more can you possibly want?

If you are asking us to punish people with religious views and exclude them them from expressing their views on political issues -- you are in direct conflict with the idea of Separation of Church and State.

Let's review:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Everyone wants the Bill of Rights to only apply to people who agree with them.