The neutering of Trump begins - Page 3

No problem on formatting Beetree.  I have some issues with the site recently too.  😀

As most women know, oral contraceptives cause a myriad of health issues such as blood clots, cancer, increase migraine severity, etc.  IUDs can't be used by women with endometriosis.  Implants, rings, and injections have the same side effects as the oral contraceptives.  So that leaves the options few for many intelligent women and of course poor women have Planned Parenthood if it hasn't been closed in their area.  Planned Parenthood is limited on the options because of funding so if people don't want abortions to be so high, stop trying to defund Planned Parenthood.  I remember in Texas where I was, women had to travel hundreds of miles to one of the 20 Planned Parenthoods in the ENTIRE state.  Many did not have cars or a means of getting there.They were highly intelligent women, maybe not college educated but very intelligent.

Other things that can lower the efficacy of oral birth control include any GI tract problems such as diarrhea, IBD, vomiting, and so on.  Medications that are called "liver enzyme inducing" which are medications that help the liver to break down things ingested can lower the efficacy of birth control.  Phenobarbital can lower efficacy as can Topomax, primidone, oxycarbazimine, phenytoin, some SSRIs and anti-depressants can lower efficacy, diabetes medication, blood pressure medications, statin drugs, some oral yeast medications, some medications used to treat asmtha and COPD, and the list goes on.  So many physicians do not know all the drugs that lower birth control efficacy so how is an intelligent moral woman going to know them all?  🤔

On the topic of morality: when the majority of anti-abortion campaigners actually start acknowledging that there are no 'black and white' answers to why SOME women (I think definitely a minority, but we could argue the stats all night) treat the facility of abortion as a contraceptive convenience, and stop using those claims to justify trying to stop ALL abortions, PLUS they actually regularly make that distinction that you did ^ Bee, re. "not talking about rape", AND they stop bombing clinics and maiming their staff, and terrifying clients going in,THEN I will start to debate the issues on the terms they say they want.
Until then, I do not need to be "butt hurt" myself (which I am not, by the way) to keep me fighting for female reproductive rights.

And deftly it was left out the obvious choice(s) that do work, without side affects. The ones where a person has to plan ahead and stop the action to implement the contraceptive. Not all contraceptives involve disrupting hormonal cycles.

Convenience. That becomes the biggest objection to choosing what works effectively and best.

An abortion costs about $450. There certainly are different measures for intelligence, too. Traveling a couple hundred of miles is Texas isn't an unusual event, either. My point is if you are adult and smart and you want to engage in sex, then you should have a plan for the contingencies. Well, depending on government support is the plan, then. That isn't exactly taking any sort of personal responsibility though, is it? I am not even talking about the teen kid here, I am talking about the biggest statistic group of women who have abortions because of unplanned pregnancy. The over 20 crowd.

A moral person would want to avoid the option of abortion because there is a price to pay with conscience, not just science. And to risk that for the sake of convenience? It is a bad trade off, IMHO.

Without that personal trait, a person wouldn't care any more than if having a tooth extracted. 

 

(I fixed the formatting as I became able.  )

Being moral would be for you to look women that have had an abortion in the eye and tell them they lack morals, do it for convenience and it means no more than pulling a tooth out.

There certainly are women who deserve that confrontation.

What would be better is if the situation was handled so it never was needed.

Beetree said, "Taking down the TRUMP name was destroying the symbol of the newly elected presidency. The Taliban destroying religious icons was symbolic of their insurgency and new power."

Taking down the Trump name is not destroying anything, it is removing it. Why would they do it? Maybe they don't like Trump and they have the right to not like Trump. Are they supposed to be docile sheep and accept having the name of someone they don't like on the place where they pay to live? He doesn't own the buildings and the owners were not obligated to keep his name on them any longer. Who should they listen to? Trump, or the tenants who live there? I had a professor whose father grew up under Mussolini. He refused to wear a black shirt because it was symbolic of Mussolini's black shirts. Was he wrong to "destroy" a symbol of his country's leadership? Or should we all act like we live in fascist Italy and worship the Trump name?

That is a lot different from the Taliban expressing its religious intolerance by destroying the monuments and symbols of other religions and cultures. What they destroyed cannot be replaced, it's gone for good. Trump is still alive, his name is still out there. He is an elected official not a cultural treasure or religious icon. His name adorns casinos, bad steaks and ties made in China, not churches.

Wrong. History supports the obliteration of the monuments, tributes or statuary erected by the previous opposition rulers. Why else does David have no head or arms? Did not the public falling of Saddam Husseins' bronze statue make a statement? Mob action, realized.

It isn't religion that motivates the action, but the expression of power.

I have an idea that is better than confrontation, it's called minding one's own business. As far as someone's conscience goes, she has to live with it, not me. I don't think the government should be in the conscience regulating business.

It's a really strange world we live in. The government wants to control women's bodies because of morality. It wants to keep marijuana illegal because of morality. It wants to keep gays from marrying because of morality. Meanwhile we invaded a nation on false pretenses, and people cheered. We're denying climate change because it will interfere with profits. We do business with a nation, China, that has a terrible record when it comes to human rights (let's not even get into animal rights). We call Saudi Arabia an ally even though it is spreading Wahhabism and treats women like second class citizens.

I really don't think we should be talking about morality. We are not qualified.

History? We're talking about the present. The Buddhist statues in Afghanistan were there long before the Taliban and did not represent the government that the Taliban replaced. Besides, we do know the reasons why the Taliban destroyed monuments because they said why they did it.

"The destruction followed an order issued on Monday by the Taliban's reclusive supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, to destroy all statues as idolatrous." https://web.archive.org/web/20110106181318/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/taliban-destroy-ancient-buddhist-relics-694425.html

"An adviser to the Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, Mr. Rahmatullah gave for the first time here the Taliban's version of events: how a council of religious scholars ordered the statues destroyed in a fit of indignation.

The destruction, according to his account, was prompted last month when a visiting delegation of mostly European envoys and a representative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization offered money to protect the giant standing Buddhas at Bamian, where the Taliban was engaged in fighting an opposition alliance.

Other reports, however, have said the religious leaders were debating the move for months, and ultimately decided that the statues were idolatrous and should be obliterated." https://web.archive.org/web/20130108223837/http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/19/world/19TALI.html?ex=1142571600&en=e5ba6c267eada53a&ei=5070&pagewanted=2

Then there is this: "During the years of Taliban rule in Afghanistan, there was a ban on many forms of artistic expression, including any depiction of human form.

In February 2001 a group of high-ranking Taliban officials, including the Minister of Culture, visited the National Museum of Afghanistan in Kabul. At the time the museum was filled with priceless, ancient artefacts.

Yahya Muhibzada worked at the museum at the time. He looked on helplessly as members of the Taliban destroyed countless pieces of art."
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35342190

The Macedonians did not destroy Egyptian monuments after they conquered it and neither did the Romans after they conquered it. The French, under Napoleon, pretty much created modern Egyptology when they invaded Egypt. The Turks did not destroy the Hagia Sophia when they took Constantinople.

I don't know which statue of David is being referred to as the one by Michelangelo is intact.

Oh boy, you want to believe the Taliban cares about what God wants, too? Please spare me that one. The destruction is an expression of their power transfer. The excuse is the God angle. Isn't that the party line, always? Hate not all the Muslims for the extremists actions? Taliban uses religion but they are always about POWER.

Really, in your quest to be always right you are just off the mark. If you care to be EXACTING then go back to my original statement where I left myself wiggle room, because I knew you'd have to be an azhat about this.

Now, you are correct about this: I was thinking the Italian DAVID, but yes, he has his arms and head. I probably meant Aphrodite or the Venus di Milo. However that does not negate the numerous statues and Roman busts of marble missing noses and limbs due to deliberate vandalism by the opposition party. The Egyptians were also adamant to obliterate the pasts of whomever they deemed, objectionable rulers. I am cooking and don't have time to be more specific.

You will find plenty of history to validate vandalism of Art forms as an expression of Power. No matter what if some did not. The most recent example was the pulling down of Saddam Husseins' bronze, why do you not remember that?