Monday, March 5, 2012

Scopes Trial 2012: The presentation of Limbaugh contraceptive needs

I've always said that it's all in the presentation of the argument that will win the mind, but no one is making a convincing argument when it comes to the Contraceptive argument over the last few weeks. As a matter of fact the argument has evolved into a deadly creature.

I've blogged many times about the Republicans adding, distorting and even circumventing new abortion laws from the State level into the Federal level and yet it took "O's" plan of Churches needing to add Contraceptives to their health insurance coverage to bring "control over the woman's body" into to a larger light.

The argument has grown from the 27 State's that mandate such a practice as being OK to the Feds needing to stay out of our Church. Yet many on the Right are now arguing it as a "Separation of Church and State" as well.

Pres. candidate hopeful Rick Santorum believes Church should be brought into the State, not separate. OK, if that's the thought then the Church cannot be tax-exempt. Will that happen? Highly doubtful.

Last week, the Republicans attempted to add the "Blunt-Rubio" amendment to a Transportation bill. That amendment was about "If a company/employer should have the option not to include a Contraceptive packge to their emplyees if it goes against the company/employer religious belief."

The amendment failed and the Transportation bill was sent packing. Funny how now Eric Cantor is complaining about how the failure to pass now cost jobs and stopped needed road repairs.

Here's an idea, don't add amendments to a bill that don't belong!

So acording to the "Blunt-Rubio" amendment that would mean someone of non-faith or another faith now becomes part of a religion by employment to receive health insurance?

Didn't we just go through the whole "Religion vs. Science" fight some 60+ years ago with the Scopes Monkey Trial?

Why are we going "Back to the future" on Social Issues?

I listened to Limbaugh's tirades last week against Sarah Fluke and he completly took the original argument to a new level, who should use contraceptives and how should they be able to get them.

Of course, Limbaugh in his bloviated egotistical mind took personal attacks on Ms. Fluke and completly ignored the facts of what contraceptives are used for.

Does everyone realize the many types of birth control available today?

Let's see: Abstinence, Fertility Awareness Method: Natural Family Planning (NFP, Barrier Methods:(male & female condoms, sponges, caps, spermicides, diaphragms), Hormonal Methods: (Intrauterine Device (IUD), PILL, NuvaRings),
and Surgical: (Male & Female tube tying).

The PILL has many medical purposes outside of preventing pregnancy, it's a Scientific fact. Oh wait, I forgot this is about God vs. PILL. But according to Limbaugh's rants, women, particularly Democratic women are whores, sluts and prositutes.

In Ephesians 5:6, it says, "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them."

So should we ask Rep David Vitter (R-La.) how he enjoyed paying for sex as the infamous "Client #9" in the DC Madam's little blackbook, since he has taken the Religious route. This is a man that attack Pres. Clinton about morality and cheating on his spouse while doing so himself.

Should we ask former SC Governor Mark Sanford the same as well?

I hope they used contraceptives (Condoms) as well. Oh wait didn't we as taxpayers pay for their extra-marital & condoms as well? Yes, yes we did.

Now we have Democrats arging before Congressional hearing, talking about the medical neccessity of contraceptives, yet those Republicans (Mike Fisher {R-Pa}) stating "We are talking about Religion, not Science."

Actually Mr. Fisher, we are talking about both.

Republicans are arguing that it's OK for men to have Viagra listed on their health insurance because it is a health need. WTF? Um, I missed the Viagra section in the Bible. Was that under Luke or Paul?

If one looks closer and listens to more sources, there is a larger hiden argument, that many are upset that women are having child later in thier lives, some wanting to further their careers before family or some simply not wanting to bear child or unable to concieve child.

Here's a thought; "Gen. 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, 'Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother.' 9 But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to see his brother's wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother."

So Onan was to have sex with his sister-in-law to bear child to help his brother, yet pulled out at the last second not to inpregnant her.

Hey wait! That's a form of contraceptive right there in the Bible and it was OK

And if we go by that writing then Oklahoma State bill 1433 by Constance Johnson, a Democrat, that "every sperm is sacred" is wrong. The insert of "any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child" is against the Bible.

I mean afterall are we not arguing Science Vs. Religion now or has the argument been turned into who will control the purpose of one's body?

Once again it's all in the presentation of the argument to win the mind.

That's it, Slap the tap (non-sexual please) and Pay the political tab.

No comments:

Post a Comment