• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?'

kenvin said:
Oh so it just happens to be about birth control for women, but that's not important. Thanks for the clarification. Is that like how the discussions pre civil war weren't about slavery but about Property rights. It just so happened that the property in question were people held as slaves so their opinion wasn't really relevant?

lets just have an honest intelligent discussion.
Click to expand...

/sigh

When you're ready you let me know, okay?
 
tessaesque said:
Should they also have included a proportionate number of representatives from all races present in this country as well?
Click to expand...

Why does it bother you so much to expect some sort of representation - to at least get a bigger picture of the subject at hand? To me it's only logical ot want to hear ALL sides of the story: as much variation and as many different views as possible - not just *one* single opinion.

Talk to a woman about what birth control enables her to do and talk to a man about what birth control enables him to do and you'll get different answers and a more well rounded and in depth discussion.

You cannot engage only one and think you're getting hte full picture.
 
kenvin said:
discussions that involve women should include women. That is common sense.
Click to expand...

this hearing is not about women, it is about whether or not legislation violates separation of church and state and/or threatens religious freedom.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Why does it bother you so much to expect some sort of representation - to at least get a bigger picture of the subject at hand? To me it's only logical ot want to hear ALL sides of the story: as much variation and as many different views as possible - not just *one* single opinion.

Talk to a woman about what birth control enables her to do and talk to a man about what birth control enables him to do and you'll get different answers and a more well rounded and in depth discussion.

You cannot engage only one and think you're getting hte full picture.
Click to expand...

Personally? I think the entire issues is manufactured nonsense because the hearing has nothing to do with women. It has to do with whether or not the administration is violating protections issues to religious institutions. When it becomes about women, get all outragey and upset if they aren't included. Until that time, this is a stupid issue.
 
tessaesque said:
Personally? I think the entire issues is manufactured nonsense because the hearing has nothing to do with women. It has to do with whether or not the administration is violating protections issues to religious institutions. When it becomes about women, get all outragey and upset if they aren't included. Until that time, this is a stupid issue.
Click to expand...

The isue is about birth control for women. So it has a lot to do with women. Women make up more than half the population of the country who constitutional rights we are talking about. So in multiple respects it is an issue that women were not included in the discussion.
 
tessaesque said:
Personally? I think the entire issues is manufactured nonsense because the hearing has nothing to do with women. It has to do with whether or not the administration is violating protections issues to religious institutions. When it becomes about women, get all outragey and upset if they aren't included. Until that time, this is a stupid issue.
Click to expand...

It has to do with how religious institutions are treating women, how can anyone know the potential impact and weigh the good / bad to the general public without knowing how important contraception is. Not only Birth control for preventing babies but also for its other medical properties. The women are the ones having the IUD's implanted, the hormones in their system and the consequences of not haviong these tools available.
 
It doesn't have to be percieved to be affecting them negatively. The only issue is that it affects them. As such it makes sense they should be represented by witnesses
Click to expand...

This affects everyone. So by this logic they should have have millions of witnesses. Men, women, each race, religion, gay, lesbians, tall people, short people ect, and every combination of each.
 
tessaesque said:
Personally? I think the entire issues is manufactured nonsense because the hearing has nothing to do with women. It has to do with whether or not the administration is violating protections issues to religious institutions. When it becomes about women, get all outragey and upset if they aren't included. Until that time, this is a stupid issue.
Click to expand...

Fascinating that you think it has nothing to do with women when it's purely discussing reproductive rights, the churches view of them VS the government's view of them.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Fascinating that you think it has nothing to do with women when it's purely discussing reproductive rights, the churches view of them VS the government's view of them.
Click to expand...

That's the issue in the public face. The issue of the hearing is whether or not what the administration tried to do violates existing law protecting churches from certain actions.

I seriously don't understand why you people can't separate the two, because there is a distinct separation.

This hearing is not about denying birth control to women.
This hearing is not about whether or not women should have "free" access to birth control.
This hearing is not about rights of women.
This hearing is about whether or not the administration overstepped its bounds via separation of church and state.
 
muciti said:
This affects everyone. So by this logic they should have have millions of witnesses. Men, women, each race, religion, gay, lesbians, tall people, short people ect, and every combination of each.
Click to expand...

The logic is simple. The issue of birth control for women effects women so they should be represented.
 
tessaesque said:
That's the issue in the public face. The issue of the hearing is whether or not what the administration tried to do violates existing law protecting churches from certain actions.

I seriously don't understand why you people can't separate the two, because there is a distinct separation.

This hearing is not about denying birth control to women.
This hearing is not about whether or not women should have "free" access to birth control.
This hearing is not about rights of women.
This hearing is about whether or not the administration overstepped its bounds via separation of church and state.
Click to expand...


People don't separate the two because the two aren't seperate. Why are you afraid of letting women have representation in regards to an issue that directly affects them?
 
People don't separate the two because the two aren't seperate. Why are you afraid of letting women have representation in regards to an issue that directly affects them?
Click to expand...

Congratulations, a straw man and an ad hom in one! You have won the fallacy sweepstakes for this thread. Now get out.
If it were 5 women, your reaction would be what? Just checking.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Congratulations, a straw man and an ad hom in one! You have won the fallacy sweepstakes for this thread. Now get out.
If it were 5 women, your reaction would be what? Just checking.
Click to expand...

It is an issue that directly effects women. Also, women make up over half the population. So to say women should have no representation in this matter is intellectually dishonest at best and outright sexism at worst.

If it were only women I would ask why aren't men being represented.

Taxation with out representation is wrong. Women are taxed and bound by the constitution. This legislation directly effects them so they by any stretch of logic and integrity should have representation.
 
taxigirl said:
Angry lawmakers challenge lineup at hearing: 'Where are the women?' - CNN.com

"What I want to know is: Where are the women?" Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, said as she began her remarks at the top of hearing titled "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"

Directing her question at Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Maloney was referring to the fact that the first panel of five witnesses at the hearing did not include a woman, even though the discussion touched on the recent controversy over an Obama administration regulation requiring health insurance coverage for contraception.

:2mad:What are we only talking about condoms and vasectomies?:2mad:
Click to expand...


Rep. Darrell f***ing Issa!!!!????

Who says dumbass teatard Tea Baggers can't come from California?

Yes, the sunshine state brings its share of shame to the House.

birthcontrolpic.jpg
 
Do any of the genuis glitterati in here still really think this is about contraception at all? Cause I got news for everyone....It isn't.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Do any of the genuis glitterati in here still really think this is about contraception at all? Cause I got news for everyone....It isn't.


j-mac
Click to expand...



Oh thanks for that profound observation. To bad it isn't true. It is exactly about contraception.
 
kenvin said:
Oh thanks for that profound observation. To bad it isn't true. It is exactly about contraception.
Click to expand...


Nah, it isn't...Tell me, what 'access' exactly was restricted in terms of contraception before this?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Nah, it isn't...Tell me, what 'access' exactly was restricted in terms of contraception before this?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Well seeing as how the issue of the OP is about women being represented in a discussion that concerns women I think we shouldn't stray too far off topic. The issue certainly effects women so they should be represented.
 
kenvin said:
Well seeing as how the issue of the OP is about women being represented in a discussion that concerns women I think we shouldn't stray too far off topic. The issue certainly effects women so they should be represented.
Click to expand...

The only one on that panel I believe that could have been possibly a woman would have been the Lutheran...Just a guess....But I'd still like to have an answer to my question if you'd be so kind.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
The only one on that panel I believe that could have been possibly a woman would have been the Lutheran...Just a guess....But I'd still like to have an answer to my question if you'd be so kind.


j-mac
Click to expand...


To answer your question women pay taxes and as such deserve representation in constitutional arguements that concern them. So there you go.
 
kenvin said:
To answer your question women pay taxes and as such deserve representation in constitutional arguements that concern them. So there you go.
Click to expand...



Who said they didn't???? That wasn't my question.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Who said they didn't???? That wasn't my question.

j-mac
Click to expand...


I am so glad we agree that women should have been represented in the discussion that most certainly effected them.
 
tessaesque said:
not sure how women are being negatively affected by legislation that gives them access to free birth control, but okay.
Click to expand...

Because the panel seems to be in favor of removing that legislation. Even if it's about religious freedom, are there no female religious leaders? Surely, an arguement against female contraceptive for religious reasons would be better coming from a female religious leader who can at least demonstrate that she would not want to use it herself for religious reasons.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom