Skip to main content

View Diary: Catholic bishops very sad SCOTUS upholds health care for ladies (101 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  shucks, if the law had been the (3+ / 0-)

    ACAFF (affordable coverage act for fetuses), then they'd be all OVER it (like little fetuses holding their own little health care guarantees).

    these guys need to go back to their retreats and frigging stay there.  can't somebody lock the doors to the vatican for, oh, say, another 20 years?

    •  But those guarantees (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      edrie, DontTaseMeBro, Calamity Jean

      would expire at birth.  

      The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth. - William O. Douglas

      by PSzymeczek on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 01:32:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Seriously? They do not care about making coverage (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DontTaseMeBro, wintergreen8694

      affordable for women, even for just carrying a fetus to term. Where are the humble and caring offers of full financial support? Where are the Christian pledges of $250,000 needed to raise each and every American fetus to age 18? Where are the matching legal demands upon every father of a fetus to be fully responsible for the fetus through age 18 as well?

      There's nothing in the 'Pro-Life' campaign to demand that all good Christian churches step up and pay for the pre-natal care and protection for these women, and to offer real pro-Life care for the children, from ages 0 through 18, covering all needs for food, clothing, education, shelter and health care. There's nothing in the campaigns to ask government to take this burden of real love and constant care on.  It's not about caring about the lives of women and children.  It's about protecting the dogma of keeping women fully subject to 'the curse' and dependent upon men.  Controlling the destiny of a fetus is the means to controlling all women.  

      They just want to force women to surrender any possible means of controlling their own reproduction, and to carry any conceived egg to term, regardless of the father or terms of impregnation, to fully endure the pain of childbirth, and the life-struggles thereafter, to endure having to seek dependence upon a man, no matter the personal cost to them, just because it's the destiny, a destiny of struggle and pain, imposed by The Holy Law which they demand be fulfilled, regardless of the cost to women.  They really oppose the thought of women managing to find any relief from 'the curse' which God originally imposed on women, after Adam and Eve were ejected from The Garden of Eden.  If women of child-bearing age are not being impregnated, loving it, and willingly giving birth, embracing the pain as just punishment for Original Sin, they obviously are defying God in a way which ensures national judgment and The Apocalypse.

      When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

      by antirove on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:05:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You know what? They wouldn't support it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      edrie, wintergreen8694

      I get your point but I think their brains would explode first, and then they'd declare it evil, because as they think about the logic of protecting fetuses, it would mean comprehensive healthcare for pregnant women... they have a basic problem with women and vaginas, period.  

      Notice how they bypass the woman and go right to the fetus or potential fetus?

      They just don't like ladies and lady parts.


      Spray tons of carcinogens into the ocean to hide petroleum spewed from a hastily-drilled hole from a greedy corporation, but don't smoke pot. -xxdr zombiexx

      by DontTaseMeBro on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:12:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site