A group of men in Congress are trying to take away the rights of women in the nation’s capital

343 posts / 0 new

Comments

How about not letting them put their reproductive organs in the right place but at the wrong time?

Blackpandas's picture
Blackpandas
Joined:
May. 17, 2012 6:21 pm

Are you quoting song lyrics? You aren't making any sense.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

Jan, don't waste your time. They have painful vagina envy and they're out for blood.

Cheers!

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

You did a good job today standing up for us girls. I think there are only 3 women on the blog, you and Zen fought a hard battle!

I just can't let guys like workingman get away with saying horrible stuff like that.

Keep your spirits up girl!

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote workingman:Maybe we should make murder legal for females that way they can kill their children when ever they wish, even after birth.

This is goes beyond the pale. You should be ashamed to make such a statement. Would you say this terrible thing to your mother or grandmother? What are you thinking?

I was thinking we need to protect womens reproductive rights. That is what you want right?

I have no problem women deciding how And when they reproduce. I do not believe the government should have any say in this at all. It is a decission the woman And her doctor make.

I can also understand wanting to put limits on the number of weeks the baby has been developing before the woman makes up her mind. I think after 20 weeks they have had plenty of time to decide.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:Maybe we should make murder legal for females that way they can kill their children when ever they wish, even after birth.

Your statement is vulgar and course, you can do better than saying things such as this. You should apologize to the women on this blog, we show you more respect than to say anything like this to you. Apologizing is what a gentleman would do.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

Appears to me your saying the "the poor woman" (typical tug at the heartstrings) and the father are both unfit. However, Ms. Poor Unfit Mother gets the option of cutting ties to maybe-baby and keeps her reproductive organs intact while Mr. unfit father gets his reproductive rights severed. Interesting... why not make that proposal to "Planned Parenthood" to get their take? Or should we call it "Unplanned Parenthood for Unfit Parents"?

Blackpandas's picture
Blackpandas
Joined:
May. 17, 2012 6:21 pm
Quote Karolina:

... We need to be discussing penises and testicles in Congress—allowing only the ladies to the michrophone, as the men sit quietly in their seats and hear as the ladies discuss what they feel should be done to the men's penises and testicles.

This interests me far more than anything the dunderhead anti-woman boys here have to say about abortion.

How about Congress pass a few draconian laws punishing men for their selfish behavior:

1. Men who rape will have Penectomies.

2. Men who hit women will be locked in cold, tiny rooms, tied to chairs and gagged, while the women they hit scream bloody murder at them, or whatever suits the women, like whispering humiliating comments to them about the size and inadequacy of their penises.

3. Men who talk women into having unprotected sex, then fail to support the outcome nine months later, will be put on leashes and forced into slave labor.

4. "Players" will have "I'm a bastard and a creep" tattooed to their foreheads.

5. Pimps and traffickers will be castrated.

6. Sex-harassing employers will be put on female hormone replacement "therapy" and made to undergo a sex change.

7. Congressmen who vote against the Violence Against Women Act will be prohibited from using Viagra—forever. Same with those who vote to restrict women's access to birth control.

8. Men who use misogynist slurs against women will have Glossectomies.

I could go on ladies. The possibilities are endless. ;-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Such valor!

Blackpandas's picture
Blackpandas
Joined:
May. 17, 2012 6:21 pm

You people just did not understand what i said. Females And their doctor make the decission on abortion or not. Government should have very little say in the matter. But because murder is still illegal they have the right to say it is murder after this many weeks of development. If you want to change that maybe we should lift the murder laws for women that way they can kill unwanted kids all the way up to 18 years of age.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

1Im totally fine with weed being legal. 2 Lot of what you just said was opinion not fact. 3 preamble to the constitution:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion of a fetus that could survive on its own denys it of the rights we are founded on. 4 14th amendmentSection 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If we truly have equal protection under the law why is destroying a life capable of sustaining itself not considered murder. By your logic what casey anthony did was just making her choice to preserve her lifestyle.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

I could care less what a woman wants to do with her unborn child. That is her decision but don't deny me my right of not wanting to pay for any of it! It's not my problem and if it ever is I will deal with it. If all you probortionists feel so strongly about it, deal with it but not on my time and dime!

Blackpandas's picture
Blackpandas
Joined:
May. 17, 2012 6:21 pm

"Don't waste your time"? Such arrogance! Seems like liberals only accept the the God concept when it is they who appoint themselves as one.

Blackpandas's picture
Blackpandas
Joined:
May. 17, 2012 6:21 pm

Zenzoe will you stop stroking your ego with the incessant use of impressive words? I get it! you must be a high fucnctioning Muddafugga but it's so apparrent you can't put yourself out there unless you give the impression that you are perfect.

Blackpandas's picture
Blackpandas
Joined:
May. 17, 2012 6:21 pm

Though it'll probably never happen, I would enjoy nothing more than Congress allowing only ladies taking the mike with no input from the opposite sex. No offense intended, but I began think of how much comedy SNL could have gotten out of mocking such a situation. I imagined the women all using the microphone as a prop to act out their frustrations or fantasies as if the microphone was a penis. I wrote nearly 10-minutes of writing comedy on it.

Blackpandas's picture
Blackpandas
Joined:
May. 17, 2012 6:21 pm
Quote Blackpandas:
I agree with you! It is private and personal. But don't deny me my constitutional right if I don't want MY taxdollars paying for what you believe is your constitutional right.

❝It Was Not Intended To Be A Factual Statement❞
~ Blackpanda imitates Kyl.

As I've shown you, your tax dollars, ahem, if you actually pay them unlike most GOPerverts dodging them or stashing them offshore. They should be forced to give up their citizenship. Or the Church stealing tax dollars from kids food supplies. Or as I said all of you crud oil flag jerkers sending kids to die in Iraq on a lie paid by taxes. Bailing out the Banksters with tax dollars or busting protesters with tax dollars, what about their first amendment rights? Or the basic right of a woman to decide not to have sex in the first place. That right came in the 1980's for christ sakes. You segregationists seem fine lynching blacks for making eye contact. Murder 50,000 Americans fighting for slavery. Now you cage people for using Ganja to relieve symptoms of disease. I stopped asking how low can they go when I saw flames shoot out of a bathtub faucet from fraking more fossil fools profits. While the mother was bathing her baby.You are just another boring hypocrite I'm saorry to have to say. Maybe one day a real conservative will come along and leave the bullshit at home. Don't you crazy ugly people know it's conservatudes having the abortions? Liberals know how to put on a condom. They have self esteem to just say no, and mean it. Not obedient to the whims of their horny hubbies. Toothless like metheads before they can legally run for president. If working was aloud in their xenophobic universe.

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am

Im an environmental studies major and have had to write at least 50 pages on franking and a few 1000 in reports, their is no evidence yet that the fracking is causing the natural gas seepage most reports so that it was present before drilling started. We will no more when the new epa study comes out in 7 years or so

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:
1Im totally fine with weed being legal.

atypical of conservative women, it's a start.

Quote CollegeConservative:
2 Lot of what you just said was opinion not fact.

I bring references so i'd say all of what you say is opinion, not fact. If you really had something to say, you would have said it and not generalized that a "lot of what" I say? What exactly are you confused over?

Quote CollegeConservative:
3 preamble to the constitution:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Are you saying they only meant men are equal? Or that a Creator implies Christianity? Or that homelessness isn't denying a prerequisite to Life. Nothing in there about a fetus persuing happiness either. Again if all are created equal then that should include the right to say no, or the right to Planned Parenthood prenatal care and prevention of abortions. The other dozen ways of abortion just skips your mindset. Blowing up clinics or shooting doctors in church somehow doesn't fit with the creator;s idea of unalienable rights. in alien able rights are for UFO watchers I reckon.

Quote CollegeConservative:
Abortion of a fetus that could survive on its own denys it of the rights we are founded on.

Its have no rights, fetus' have no life and surviving on it's own is opinion or lack thereof.

Quote CollegeConservative:
4 14th amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Born dear, not pre born pre human parasitic organs.

Quote CollegeConservative:
No State .... of citizens ... any person ...destroying a life ... murder. By your logic ... casey anthony ....choice to preserve her lifestyle.

Wasn't she found innocent? Privileges or immunities of citizens, a fetus is not a citizen. Without due process of law, the law is RvW. Blowing up doctors is against the law. To any person, a fetus is not a person. Even if it looks like one. Some dogs look like their masters too. Destroying a life capable of sustaining itself? No life, and that's debatable since most abortions are conservatives who obviously can't sustain themselves without a man telling them what to do. Or when to do it. Obedience and all that religious stuff. Not considered murder. You can't murder what isn't alive and you can't call something alive if it isn't yet. Not till it's born. Thats why we have Birthdays and not Conception days.

I do more to stop abortions by wearing hemp than all the laws against the unalienable rights of women do. I prevent more abortions toking doobies than drinking booze. Or by wearing cotton or dropping bombs or any of the other abortionists acts no GOPerverts even discuss. Including having mutually agreed upon sex with women. Hypocrites are cheap like Wallmart. No one should have to have an abortion and when men can learn to abstain without force or oppression, and when women can learn to stand up for themsleves and get support in their choices to say no. I agree, no one should have cancer either, or AIDs or breath carbon emmissions. We won't have a need for stupid laws against women or a need for abortions outside of medical emergencies. Empower women to raise their self esteem, burn your bra! Send a pic. ¶8) Fght for the right to equal pay and healthcare for your kids, including preventive. I'll be there right beside ya. Show me you really care about life by not advocating the death penalty or these various police actions to sell war toys. Give the farmers back their stills to produce their own tractor fuel over the abortion causing fossil fools crud. Or as I mentioned the other for profit enterprizes that abort lives as well as fetus' I like it when the young stand up for something. As long as it's their choice and not astroturf obedience. Just broaden your outlook to include reality.

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am

As soon as you're born they make you feel small. By giving you no time instead of it all. Till the pain is so big you feel nothing at all. A working class hero is something to be. They hurt you at home and they hit you at school. They hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool. Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules. A working class hero is something to be.

When they've tortured and scared you for twenty-odd years. Then they expect you to pick a career. When you can't really function you're so full of fear. A working class hero is something to be. Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV. And you think you're so clever and classless and free. But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see. A working class hero is something to be

There's room at the top they're telling you still. But first you must learn how to smile as you kill. If you want to be like the folks on the hill. A working class hero is something to be. If you want to be a hero well just follow me.

Quote workingman:Maybe we should make murder legal for females that way they can kill their children when ever they wish, even after birth.

I wish they had that law for Barbara Bush when her maids were raising the brats. Her brood of war criminals, abortionists and murdering thugs are the best examples of why women should have the Constitutional right to make sound choices. She's not even anti choice and blew her chance to make this a better world. None of you script reading all of the above abortionists have the guts to call the Neocons on what they do. You make money off of abortions and dare to stress out women more than they already are. Constantly terrorizing the same as the GOPerverts with real money do to the poor. Disgusting animals and you think you have the right to an opinion? You have no rights at all, you made a choice to enslave yourself and now lashing out at the rest of the country only shows your desperation. You seek to overthrow the American way of life in this country, including the woman's right to say no that you clung on to until the 80's. It's still a common way of life brainwashing throughout the south. No matter what RvW says, thousands of women are shackled into a "marriage" still equipped with the king of the castle crap and the obedience loophole. Still doing your damnedest to keep em barefoot and pregnant. Uneducated nun in public and whores in the bedroom. Can't even get it up unless you slap em around a little eh goober? Pitifools.

Reciting partially memorized verses and bible poems that make no sense to the issue anymore than with the hundreds of other abortions for money GOPerverts worship. It's not the fetus' you care about, it's the control, ya freaks. Someone reads your illiterate ass a story they made up and you go apeshit following behind like lapdogs. Only have faith in what harms humans, including their fetus'. Fossil fools, wars and prisons. Chickenhawks without the balls to serve themselves. Chicken littles selling treatments for misery they cause. You're beyond traitors. Mass murderer is too mild, you've continued killing living humans for someone else's profits. Outlawing beneficial plants while making us all sick on your plastic crude oil poisons. Now bark like a whipped dog, you display for your good ole boy friends on the weekend. Or is it chickenfights, or midnight boar hunts or shooting gator's after you trap them. Sport, using dogs to hunt deer?

Not that the Cathoholic's have room to judge, anyone. The pope is still killing poor Mexicans. The Perverts in Robes are still perverting little kids. The tax money they keep still buys gold for their vaults and no one has murdered more in the name a book. About someone who never read it. Sad lot of penguins wobbling in line towards the distant sound of a fetus whining, over the shouts and screams of real human beings standing right beside them. Hey bubba, you do know continuing hypocrisy doesn't make it come full circle into truth. You keep going down a nasty ugly evil oppressive dark dank road, turn around dude, or you'll never see the light. NO FUNKING ONE WANTS AN ABORTION IDIOT!!! But life doesn't play fair and the scenarios given are true and women need to have a choice to say no to a man, and a place to prevent abortions like Planned Parenthood.

Anyone who takes that choice away can never claim to be an American concerned about Big Brother taking their rights or guns or beer. Hypocrites only get one chance then they expose themselves in public.. The women haters who want human appliances to screw at will have no Constitutional rights, on the contrary, you are what the Constitution protects all of us against. Your tyranny is the same as throughout History, with a different title. Same child labor, racist classist. Same denigrators, segregationist pigs. Your New Berlin won't happen here. Your churches are stealing taxes from children. Your media whores are repeating themselves and most of the time simply crank up the volume, not that they ever had anything to say.

You're a pitiful bunch of cowards, can't even cook a meal I'd wager. Work real hard for the bossman to yell at you for being so stupid, and you think that gives you the right to take it out on the kids and wife. Your little voice said its ok. Probably Schizophrenia you have named Geeeeeeezus. You shit in the well and then deodorize the smell. Pour it into crud plastic bottles to sell. Then go find another well. What drives you moronic nimrods? Money? How much damn money can you hoard, that has to make you feel like crap. Can you have so little conscience, how can you sleep? Must be hard or like rush, do you just pop speed in the daytime? Maybe your parents thumped your head with a bible too many times and it damaged you into this high, getting off on bullying preggo's. Pulling wings off of flies.

You one of them Antioak Blabtists that likes to get off at work then come to the trailor, kick the dog, swig the beer, grease the shirt, yell at the rugrats scampering around under the car up on blocks and then beat the wife for geeeeeeeezus types? Now you gonna vote fer a heathern who believes in many wives as long as they're the opposite sex of whatever Mitt is. Half of him is polyvinyl chloride plastic. Remember Waco and Khristzion wingnuts with many wives not quite old enough to drive. Blame it on Reno. Oh but not the Patriot Ax she wrote, let junior use it to steal some more old folk's pensions. Oh wait that was mcCain and Kneel Bush and Headwaters old growth clearcutter Horewitz. Oh ElDorado... They got fined. GOPerverts talking out of both sides of their asses advocating more prison time for growing rhumatize medicine than war crimes killing civilians, I mean collateral damage. Pro Life DEAth Mongers and Moerchants. Pro Life Death Penaly activists. Pro Life except for actual lives. Pro Pre Life abortionists! OK how bout I'll hug your elephant if you kiss my ass. parumpum. It's the damned Neocon faithful followers of trump birthers and anti choice con life abortionist teabog ditties gonna make me a Democrat again.

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am
Quote CollegeConservative:Im an environmental studies major and have had to write at least 50 pages on franking and a few 1000 in reports, their is no evidence yet that the fracking is causing the natural gas seepage most reports so that it was present before drilling started. We will no more when the new epa study comes out in 7 years or so

At Pheonix no doubt. Save your propaganda for the fossil fools. Franking? You mean against Barney? In spite of the evidence against fraking, We simply don't need more fossil fools period. We will no more? In alienable? Yea, college eh? Me thinks me smells a fraud... Ok you get a reprive... "The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing."

Cheney's Legacy of Fracking America to Death

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am
Quote blackpandas:

Zenzoe will you stop stroking your ego with the incessant use of impressive words? I get it! you must be a high fucnctioning Muddafugga but it's so apparrent you can't put yourself out there unless you give the impression that you are perfect.

My apologies, BP. I didn't realize you'd had a frontal lobotomy.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote workingman:You people just did not understand what i said. .... we should lift the murder laws for women that way they can kill unwanted kids all the way up to 18 years of age.

You are only digging yourself a deeper hole. You should apologize for making this statement.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

because at that point there is a heart beat finger, prints, brainwaves and teeth so its more like murder at that point so yeah.

Yep, another character asassination. No body is interested in taking away the rights of women. They want to protect the lives of babies. Spin, total spin.,

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote Karolina:

Jan, don't waste your time. They have painful vagina envy and they're out for blood.

Cheers!

Hi Karolina! Did you know that its a crime to practice psychology without a license? We appreciate the diagnosis, but is it possible that what we say is exactly what we mean? There is no real sinister plot to be discovered? I have learned that if one disagrees with a liberal it is due to one of the following reasons:

1)Psychological disorder

2) Character flaw

3) Meaness

4) Stupidity

And their are millions of amateur psychologists waiting on the edge of their seats ready to offer us a diagnosis. Thanks K! Stalin would have loved this!

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote Zenzoe:

Kerry, for one, cannot be reasoned with.

You have a lot of room to talk, Zenzoe. You were the one who kept insisting on the examples of suicidal ideation, dire circumstances, and supposed risks to the mother's life (that you extended to any potential psychological risk for all her life) to qualify as justifications for elective abortions--which, if self-respect is to be involved, is best done as a free choice act. You, also, were the one that praised D_NATURED for 'supporting women' by being for sucking fetal brains out right before birth (claiming D_NATURED was 'exaggerating for a cause' when even D_NATURED claimed not to be exaggerating)--yet, were involved in claiming all sorts of things about my position when I kept using D_NATURED's example. Is that the kind of 'reasoning' you are talking about, Zenzoe?

Quote Zenzoe:

It never ended, until everybody but Kerry came to realize Kerry was crazy and decided to just walk away.

Well, actually, I don't see it that way, Zenzoe. One of the last posts there was where D_NATURED made no amends to claiming to be all for sucking fetal brains out right before birth as a way of supporting 'women's rights'--removing any and all real and potential responsibility to that fetus just about to be born. That's 'reasonable' to you, Zenzoe? I figured you and the clan didn't have anything more to say (since most of it was more about accusing me and less about what you really had to say about elective abortions, anyway)--and that was probably because perhaps some of you saw how unrealistic, and unreasonable, D_NATURED's posturing really was--as you kept blaming me for keep bringing it up (even had people come in and accuse me of making it up--and no one in the clan corrected them). Is that really 'reasonable' to you, Zenzoe? Then go ahead and say it: You support sucking normal fetal brains out right before birth as the only way to endorse women's rights. And, then, tell me how 'reasonable' that is....get your clan in here to support you....

Actually, during the course of our 'discussion', D_NATURED had backed off that position when you came in with your suicidal ideation, dire circumstances, and supposed risks to the mother, to claim something to do about risks to the mother (threatening me with something about a pork shoulder if I 'kept the fetus alive and killed the mother'--which indicates that none of you know how a critical delivery is done--and forgetting that, in the right setting, a C-section can take 5 minutes--it would take longer than that to kill the fetus before delivering it in an abortion). However, I am sure that D_NATURED backed off only because of your statements, Zenzoe (as apparently the only woman there, you were the leader of the clan). But, when it came to confronting me, D_NATURED was back to sucking fetal brains out right before birth if the mother wanted it. And, all of that was 'reasonable'? I even envisioned you all as singing Kumbaya and holding hands while D_NATURED sucked those fetal brains out right before birth like some surreal horror film that this kind of posturing conjured up in my mind. But, 'reasonable' wasn't what that was all about. Being against my position (especially as a 'leftist libertarian'--centered on individual rights) is what started it all--and, as I remember it, that's with your disagreement (after you first agreed to it) on me being comfortable with Texas law allowing elective abortions to 20 weeks setting off the whole clan's responses (including DRC declaring the entire state of Texas as being misogynist and telling me to go to hell--and, of course, Ulysses saying nothing constructive but slurs against me--even when the conservative Capital came in to support it--and all of it supported by you, Zenzoe--as the clan's leader--but, I wouldn't claim too much of it as being 'reasonable' if I were you).

Quote Zenzoe:

He has more energy on the subject than you'll ever have, and he won't hear anything you have to say.

What did you say, Zenzoe? At one point, you said that you were 'comfortable' with California law limiting elective abortions to 24 weeks. But, then, at another point, you turned around and claimed to be mad at Thom Hartmann because you said Thom said that he was comfortable with Roe vs. Wade's limits on elective abortions. You praised D_NATURED sucking fetal brains out right before birth. And, you condoned Ulysses and DRC's assaults on my character. What is your position here, Zenzoe? Are you all for sucking fetal brains out right before birth as the only way to endorse women's rights? Disrespect every pregnancy as the only way to respect women? Or, what is exactly your position on this, Zenzoe? You jumped around so often and started leading the clan down the road to slurring me (because you didn't want this to be based on 'rights', right?--at least not any consideration whatsoever of 'fetal rights'--when my whole point of this is dealing with the individual rights involved), I really couldn't keep up with what you (or your clan) really had to say about elective abortions (and the clan was all too willing to pounce on me to support you, weren't they, Zenzoe?--'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey'....) .

Remember very early on in that thread when you asked me my position? Remember that? And, I told you about my postion consistent with Texas law and 20 weeks. For just a brief moment after that, you even asked 'Then what are we arguing about?' Buit, somehow, that wasn't enough and you lead the clan on the march--more against me than anything that you actually definitively said about elective abortions. Other than wanting to condition all rights to life--and claim suicidal ideation, dire circumstances, and risks to the mother's life as 'reasons' for elective abortions. Are those really 'reasons' for elective aboritons? And, how do all those 'reasons' support 'self-respect'? It takes killing the fetus to 'respect yourself'? Along with your friend, D_NATURED, you just kept diving deeper and deeper into irrational claims on what constitutes elective abortions. But, it's still true, Zenzoe, there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance--all elective abortions really, and reasonably, deal with is its political and legal basis (and, I know how DRC wanted to claim this all needs to just be 'between the woman and her doctor'--but, really, as I asked you then, what do you want the doctor to say that is going to support this as a right to women--and a right that women should use to endorse their self-respect?)., All that is 'reasonable', Zenzoe?

Quote Zenzoe:

They're ideologues and sexists.

I thought this was about being 'reasonable', Zenzoe. Your labels aren't reasonable. And, remember, at one point you 'had no problem' with my position. At another, you lead the way into having the clan castigate my every statement....resorting now to claims that I do believe are unwarranted on your part don't clarify the issue. That's if you want the issue 'clarified' any more that one having to be for sucking fetal brains out right before birth as the only ways to endorse women's rights....but, I don't think that's a personally responsible position to have....

They're stuck in their phony "concern" for "life." Phonies! They don't really care anything about life, or they wouldn't be conservatives. Get it?

I don't consider myself a conservative or a liberal. And, as I told you and the clan on several occasions on that thread, this was the first time that I have ever got into a discussion where I was talking against elective abortions--and, you're right, aboritons has been one of my most popular topics that I have been talking about on boards like this for over a dozen years. So, I am usually talking against conservatives on this issue for elective abortions (but, of course, leave it to you to ignore that point--this isn't about being 'reasonable' is it, Zenzoe?). What I didn't like from the moment the clan took action was how the clan supposedly 'supported' elective abortions--and many of their actions were more against me and what I said than what they meant. You tried to qualify killing fetuses right before birth for reasons apart from free choice--and how that had anything to do with self-respect or elective abortions, I still don't know. While you made some concessions as 'being acceptable' to the point that my position, and most states limit elective abortions generally along pre-viable lines, you weren't going to let it rest there. You lead the way for the clan to be against any statement that I made or any position that I took that didn't, implicitly or explicitly, condone sucking fetal brains out right before birth if the mother wanted it as the only way to endorse 'women's rights'. And, at no point, did any of you even try to discuss this in the manner in which it had been decided in the real world through Roe vs. Wade--and that being, of course, the contention of rights that this position held--the right of the woman to choose up against the right of the fetus to live. And, you still have the audacity to not only continue accusing me--but claiming that 'your position' is 'reasonable'.

Get over yourself, Zenzoe. And, then, maybe, we can talk....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rigel1:

I have learned that if one disagrees with a liberal it is due to one of the following reasons:

1)Psychological disorder

2) Character flaw

3) Meaness

4) Stupidity

Liberals could substitute the word conservative and give you the same reasons.

How about we just don't see eye to eye?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

Actually baylor one of the top ENV programs in the country

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 2:22 pm

Actually, this is my last post on that 'Sane' abortion thread in response to CollegeConservative's claim of the fetal right to life at conception (and how I usually discuss elective abortions before being sabotaged by Zenzoe and the clan for not following lock-step into crushing fetal skulls right before birth):

Well, CollegeConservative, that is the whole point in this, isn't it? When does a human life with rights begin? If there is to be a natural answer to that question, 'at conception' isn't quite as 'cut and dry' as you may think--about 20% of all pregnancies naturally miscarry (and almost all of them do so early on in the gestation). And, if human life with rights were to be seen as beginning at conception, why haven't any of the many, many, miscarriages been named and handled like deaths as everyone else''s death would have been (with death certificates, investigations into their untimely deaths, buried, etc.)? Also, just exactly like what Roe vs. Wade noted in its oral arguments, if life with rights were to begin at conception, why hasn't any woman who has committed her own abortion ever been charged with murder like never before? All the laws that have ever dealt with abortions have limited their concern only to anyone helping that woman--not the woman, herself. But, then, that was at a time when the sanctity of the individual were still in political play--unlike the present debacle that 'we' have gotten ourselves into now (by ignoring the sanctity of the individual for some 'new paradigm' that includes 'community interest', 'dire circumstances' and 'victimhood triumphancy'). Even to the point to where now I have recently heard that some Alabama law now charges a drug-addicted woman with manslaughter if her child is born also drug addicted and whose withdrawal kills that child (but, if that mother were to face her own consequences in the manner of responsibility that she were offered, she should have aborted that child when she could have, so, maybe there is a point to that law....).

There's room enough to go apeshit both ways on this 'war on women's issues' that includes elective abortions. I think the answer is fairly simple: If the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive. If it takes a special procedure to kill the fetus in order for it not to come out alive, it could have come out alive. Otherwise, prior to any age consistent with fetal viability, the woman has the right to choose what to do with that pregnancy for any--or no apparent--reason at all. Politically, the contention is between the rights of the mother to choose until that fetus can be determined to have a right to life (which I see as naturally being only when that fetus can live). Personally, and prior to any contention of a fetal right to life, as far as any moral obligations to 'justify' that abortion, there is none--as Jefferson would have put it, that contention is between that person and God (or whatever 'integrity binding' capacity that person holds to any moral or ethical conduct, if any, personallly--even though, as I've said before, that when there is a contention of rights to be considered politically, there is a need, and responsibility, to justify any imposition offered by anyone or anything--and that can include moral and ethical justifications--in other words, politics is not without moral and ethical justifications--and cannot be if a truly democratic governing position is to be effectively enacted--in other words, 'lies' cannot run a true democracy for long--and, that's even if personal conduct that is not imposing on another's rights may be considered to be absent such moral and ethical justifications from such a political perspective--again, that is to be between 'that person and God' when no one else and their rights is concerned--that's how I read how the framers of America--especially Thomas Jefferson--saw this issue....and, the question with the fetus becomes 'When does a human life with rights begin?'.....)......

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote rigel1:

I have learned that if one disagrees with a liberal it is due to one of the following reasons:

1)Psychological disorder

2) Character flaw

3) Meaness

4) Stupidity

Liberals could substitute the word conservative and give you the same reasons.

How about we just don't see eye to eye?

Agreed. I but I don't do it. Period. It's immoral. There are some conservatives who try this, but it doesn't have staying power.It doesn't stick, it fails. Liberals do it better and more often. Typically it'sone of the first cards a liberal plays. Racist, homophobe, sexist, war monger, hater, etc.etc.etc. I don't do it at all. (At least not purposefully). I don't assume that everyone who disagrees with me is somehow messed up in the head.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote rigel1:
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote rigel1:

I have learned that if one disagrees with a liberal it is due to one of the following reasons:

1)Psychological disorder

2) Character flaw

3) Meaness

4) Stupidity

Liberals could substitute the word conservative and give you the same reasons.

How about we just don't see eye to eye?

Agreed. I but I don't do it. Period. It's immoral. There are some conservatives who try this, but it doesn't have staying power.It doesn't stick, it fails. Liberals do it better and more often. Typically it's one of the first cards a liberal plays. Racist, homophobe, sexist, war monger, hater, etc.etc.etc. I don't do it at all. (At least not purposefully). I don't assume that everyone who disagrees with me is somehow messed up in the head.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

This has become an esoteric rant.

These are REAL issues facing REAL people. That is why it should be left as a person and private matter. Every woman isn't running out trying to get pregnant so she can joyfully kill. Get a grip!

Circumstances happen in women's lives that are out of their control and effect them the rest of their lives. The men who are commenting are failing to grasp what a difficult and long lasting decision having an abortion can be. If a woman felt some support from her partner (or the father), her family or her community, maybe she would not feel it necessary. There are a myriad of reasons women consider this procedure or have no real choice about it.

So everyone needs to take a deep breath and at the very least try have empathy for women in such a bad situation.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote workingman:You people just did not understand what i said. .... we should lift the murder laws for women that way they can kill unwanted kids all the way up to 18 years of age.

You are only digging yourself a deeper hole. You should apologize for making this statement.

why should I apologize I am upholding your right to choose if you want to have kids or not.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

A late term abortion is not a private thing between a woman and her doctor. It is done in the setting of a hospital operating room with several nurses, aids, anesthisist etc. And I would be willing to bet that some in there are going to find the procedure offensive. A late term aborted child looks exactly like a live newborn only dead.

I am not a doctor or medical anything but I did watch the birth of my daughter, so I can only imagine.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Wow I think you should put the crack pipe down for a bit, maybe smoke some pot to calm down a bit.

You have most of your post incorrect when it comes to the positions I take on the issues.

So lets start with drugs I think they should be legal and up to the individual to use or not use them, however if you as the individual choose to use drugs you should have to pay for it, this includes the rehad if needed. If you need government assistance, they should have the right to test you to make sure you are not squandering the money on drugs instead of food.

Abortions should be a decision between the woman and her doctor the federal government should have zero say in the matter. If the state government wants to put in restrictions that is completely up to the people of that state. Except for medical reasons why I understand some people wanting to cut off abortions at 20 plus weeks.

Not sure where you get that women had no right to say no to men for any reason until 1980?

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are legal the president went to congress and asked for permission to attack those countries the congress said yes. If the congress changed its mind they can end the war just as easily as they started it. That is more than I can say for Obama in Libya, where he did not even ask the congress instead taking his direction from the U.N.

any other questions?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote jan in iowa:

This has become an esoteric rant.

These are REAL issues facing REAL people. That is why it should be left as a person and private matter. Every woman isn't running out trying to get pregnant so she can joyfully kill. Get a grip!

What do you mean by "Get a grip"? I don't see things like you so there must be something wrong with me? BTW, I do know a little something about women. I had a mother, I have a wife, I have three daughters, I have two sisters, I have three nieces, I have two sisters- in-law, a mother-in-law and many wonderful female friends. And accorcing to progressives, I'm at war with them and I won't be happy until my daughers are under control of some man and paid far less than their male counter parts. Are you serious? Instead of claiming that I am at war with my own loved ones, why not just say this is about abortion and how we define a human being. Why?Because slander works. I am not at war with my family. And I don't need anyone to tell me "Get a grip".

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Gentlemen..... Okay I get it.... you're outraged about abortion.

So where is your outrage for the 16 million living breathing children who are going to bed hungry? Who's families are homeless and they're living in shelters or on the street? Where is your outrage about this? Is the condition of a child only important when it is in a woman's body?

Your moral outrage should be at a Congress who is planning on taking food out of hungry children's mouths by cutting food stamps and medical care by cutting medicaid.

This argument about limiting abortion is just a smoke screen to get everyone all upset and distracted while the cuts are made to these vital program for living breathing children.

You have fallen in the trap laid by those who want you distracted!

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

I agree with Jan. We can print, borrow, conjure up, however, enough money for illegal,, unConstituional, immoral, unjust wars. We can find, print, borrow billions to fund phony unworkable alternative energy companies. Politicians, especially Presidential candidates, can garner billions in funds to run lying, diverting from the real issues, dig up dirt on your opponent campaigns. But we can't find the funds to help those , through no fault of their own, especially the least among us, that are truly in need. The profits for the military industrial complex are more important and must come first. All others shut up and be damned.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote jan in iowa:

Gentlemen..... Okay I get it.... you're outraged about abortion.

So where is your outrage for the 16 million living breathing children who are going to bed hungry? Who's families are homeless and they're living in shelters or on the street? Where is your outrage about this? Is the condition of a child only important when it is in a woman's body?

Your moral outrage should be at a Congress who is planning on taking food out of hungry children's mouths by cutting food stamps and medical care by cutting medicaid.

This argument about limiting abortion is just a smoke screen to get everyone all upset and distracted while the cuts are made to these vital program for living breathing children.

You have fallen in the trap laid by those who want you distracted!

that is the responsibility of the parents to insure they can afford the kids they are having. it is not the governments place to force anyone to assist any one else. it is a charity issue not a government issue.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote workingman:

that is the responsibility of the parents to insure they can afford the kids they are having. it is not the governments place to force anyone to assist any one else. it is a charity issue not a government issue.

Here lies the conflict.

Are we living in a community or are we all on our own. Simple.

workingman - Can you rest at night knowing that children are going to bed hungry? That they are sick and aren't getting medical attention?

Where is your moral compass?

So, here we are. Each of us has to ask ourselves what kind of a country do we want to live in. One where we can help each other with a hand up or the libertarian other.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

Well, if we had women with enough self-respect (and its consideration of personal responsibility) to freely (and responsibly) choose to abort at a time when it was legally appropriate to do so, we might could actually use elective abortion rates as an indication of what women think about their 'supportive environment' domestically, locally, and politically, instead of accusing them for it.--and, then, consider how to change those elements if the elective abortion rate seems too high (again, instead of accusing them for it).

But, the abortion issue has been piled on and altered by so many factors, it's difficult to see if that would ever be an accurate assessment on directly relating to what women think about their 'environment to raise children'. Especially considering the point that it is usually the poor that are less likely to abort--and that may be as much from religious convictions (along with their lack of self-respect) than not having the choice of abortion available (of course, if workingman is right, if that choice is taken away from them by lack of government support, then, they will have more children than they can afford regardless of religious convictions compounding the issue--what then?--and, no affordability, then, compounds a lack of the self-respect that it takes in choosing to abort a child).

So, considering the point that this issue of 'self-respect' and 'free choice' are difficult to assess, anyway, and, then, when reasons to abort are clouded by dire consequences and victimhood triumphant excuses, this issue seems destined to never be considered 'reasonably' or 'sanely' from a personal or social perspective....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Kerry - You have said so many unsubstantiated things that I choose to ignore all of them.

So I ask you again.... Where is your moral outrage at children going to bed hungry and not being able to get medical attention?

What about the living breathing children who through no fault of their own need help?

You are reacting to the cattle prod stimulus of "abortion" while the Congress is abusing children!

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote Zenzoe:

Kerry, for one, cannot be reasoned with.

You have a lot of room to talk, Zenzoe. You were the one who kept insisting on the examples of suicidal ideation, dire circumstances, and supposed risks to the mother's life (that you extended to any potential psychological risk for all her life) to qualify as justifications for elective abortions--which, if self-respect is to be involved, is best done as a free choice act. You, also, were the one that praised D_NATURED for 'supporting women' by being for sucking fetal brains out right before birth (claiming D_NATURED was 'exaggerating for a cause' when even D_NATURED claimed not to be exaggerating)--yet, were involved in claiming all sorts of things about my position when I kept using D_NATURED's example. Is that the kind of 'reasoning' you are talking about, Zenzoe?

Quote Zenzoe:

It never ended, until everybody but Kerry came to realize Kerry was crazy and decided to just walk away.

Well, actually, I don't see it that way, Zenzoe. One of the last posts there was where D_NATURED made no amends to claiming to be all for sucking fetal brains out right before birth as a way of supporting 'women's rights'--removing any and all real and potential responsibility to that fetus just about to be born. That's 'reasonable' to you, Zenzoe? I figured you and the clan didn't have anything more to say (since most of it was more about accusing me and less about what you really had to say about elective abortions, anyway)--and that was probably because perhaps some of you saw how unrealistic, and unreasonable, D_NATURED's posturing really was--as you kept blaming me for keep bringing it up (even had people come in and accuse me of making it up--and no one in the clan corrected them). Is that really 'reasonable' to you, Zenzoe? Then go ahead and say it: You support sucking normal fetal brains out right before birth as the only way to endorse women's rights. And, then, tell me how 'reasonable' that is....get your clan in here to support you....

Actually, during the course of our 'discussion', D_NATURED had backed off that position when you came in with your suicidal ideation, dire circumstances, and supposed risks to the mother, to claim something to do about risks to the mother (threatening me with something about a pork shoulder if I 'kept the fetus alive and killed the mother'--which indicates that none of you know how a critical delivery is done--and forgetting that, in the right setting, a C-section can take 5 minutes--it would take longer than that to kill the fetus before delivering it in an abortion). However, I am sure that D_NATURED backed off only because of your statements, Zenzoe (as apparently the only woman there, you were the leader of the clan). But, when it came to confronting me, D_NATURED was back to sucking fetal brains out right before birth if the mother wanted it. And, all of that was 'reasonable'? I even envisioned you all as singing Kumbaya and holding hands while D_NATURED sucked those fetal brains out right before birth like some surreal horror film that this kind of posturing conjured up in my mind. But, 'reasonable' wasn't what that was all about. Being against my position (especially as a 'leftist libertarian'--centered on individual rights) is what started it all--and, as I remember it, that's with your disagreement (after you first agreed to it) on me being comfortable with Texas law allowing elective abortions to 20 weeks setting off the whole clan's responses (including DRC declaring the entire state of Texas as being misogynist and telling me to go to hell--and, of course, Ulysses saying nothing constructive but slurs against me--even when the conservative Capital came in to support it--and all of it supported by you, Zenzoe--as the clan's leader--but, I wouldn't claim too much of it as being 'reasonable' if I were you).

Quote Zenzoe:

He has more energy on the subject than you'll ever have, and he won't hear anything you have to say.

What did you say, Zenzoe? At one point, you said that you were 'comfortable' with California law limiting elective abortions to 24 weeks. But, then, at another point, you turned around and claimed to be mad at Thom Hartmann because you said Thom said that he was comfortable with Roe vs. Wade's limits on elective abortions. You praised D_NATURED sucking fetal brains out right before birth. And, you condoned Ulysses and DRC's assaults on my character. What is your position here, Zenzoe? Are you all for sucking fetal brains out right before birth as the only way to endorse women's rights? Disrespect every pregnancy as the only way to respect women? Or, what is exactly your position on this, Zenzoe? You jumped around so often and started leading the clan down the road to slurring me (because you didn't want this to be based on 'rights', right?--at least not any consideration whatsoever of 'fetal rights'--when my whole point of this is dealing with the individual rights involved), I really couldn't keep up with what you (or your clan) really had to say about elective abortions (and the clan was all too willing to pounce on me to support you, weren't they, Zenzoe?--'I'll still respect you in the morning, honey'....) .

Remember very early on in that thread when you asked me my position? Remember that? And, I told you about my postion consistent with Texas law and 20 weeks. For just a brief moment after that, you even asked 'Then what are we arguing about?' Buit, somehow, that wasn't enough and you lead the clan on the march--more against me than anything that you actually definitively said about elective abortions. Other than wanting to condition all rights to life--and claim suicidal ideation, dire circumstances, and risks to the mother's life as 'reasons' for elective abortions. Are those really 'reasons' for elective aboritons? And, how do all those 'reasons' support 'self-respect'? It takes killing the fetus to 'respect yourself'? Along with your friend, D_NATURED, you just kept diving deeper and deeper into irrational claims on what constitutes elective abortions. But, it's still true, Zenzoe, there is no medical indication to kill a normal fetus under any circumstance--all elective abortions really, and reasonably, deal with is its political and legal basis (and, I know how DRC wanted to claim this all needs to just be 'between the woman and her doctor'--but, really, as I asked you then, what do you want the doctor to say that is going to support this as a right to women--and a right that women should use to endorse their self-respect?)., All that is 'reasonable', Zenzoe?

Quote Zenzoe:

They're ideologues and sexists.

I thought this was about being 'reasonable', Zenzoe. Your labels aren't reasonable. And, remember, at one point you 'had no problem' with my position. At another, you lead the way into having the clan castigate my every statement....resorting now to claims that I do believe are unwarranted on your part don't clarify the issue. That's if you want the issue 'clarified' any more that one having to be for sucking fetal brains out right before birth as the only ways to endorse women's rights....but, I don't think that's a personally responsible position to have....

They're stuck in their phony "concern" for "life." Phonies! They don't really care anything about life, or they wouldn't be conservatives. Get it?

I don't consider myself a conservative or a liberal. And, as I told you and the clan on several occasions on that thread, this was the first time that I have ever got into a discussion where I was talking against elective abortions--and, you're right, aboritons has been one of my most popular topics that I have been talking about on boards like this for over a dozen years. So, I am usually talking against conservatives on this issue for elective abortions (but, of course, leave it to you to ignore that point--this isn't about being 'reasonable' is it, Zenzoe?). What I didn't like from the moment the clan took action was how the clan supposedly 'supported' elective abortions--and many of their actions were more against me and what I said than what they meant. You tried to qualify killing fetuses right before birth for reasons apart from free choice--and how that had anything to do with self-respect or elective abortions, I still don't know. While you made some concessions as 'being acceptable' to the point that my position, and most states limit elective abortions generally along pre-viable lines, you weren't going to let it rest there. You lead the way for the clan to be against any statement that I made or any position that I took that didn't, implicitly or explicitly, condone sucking fetal brains out right before birth if the mother wanted it as the only way to endorse 'women's rights'. And, at no point, did any of you even try to discuss this in the manner in which it had been decided in the real world through Roe vs. Wade--and that being, of course, the contention of rights that this position held--the right of the woman to choose up against the right of the fetus to live. And, you still have the audacity to not only continue accusing me--but claiming that 'your position' is 'reasonable'.

Get over yourself, Zenzoe. And, then, maybe, we can talk....

Thanks for proving my point, Kerry. I rest my case.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What point is that, Zenzoe? And, can you start that 'point' with how you feel about sucking fetal brains out right before birth as the only way to endorse rights to women? Does it, or does it not, include that, Zenzoe? D_NATURED said it. The clan kept accusing me for it. And, nothing was clarified about it. In the interest of 'reasonableness', Zenzoe, can you clarify it now?

You claimed that I was disingenuous. What a fabricated insult coming from someone who has jumped around all over the place with what they have to say about elective abortions....are you 'comfortable' with California's law allowing legal elective abortions to 24 weeks--or 'mad' at Thom Hartmann for being comfortable with the state restrictions Roe vs. Wade offers?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jan in iowa:

Kerry - You have said so many unsubstantiated things that I choose to ignore all of them.

So I ask you again.... Where is your moral outrage at children going to bed hungry and not being able to get medical attention?

Well, I am not sure what you are getting at by 'unsubstantiated things'--but, you certainly can ignore what you want. However, I am not sure how my post right above your remarks has you claim to me 'Where is your moral outrage at children going to bed hungry and not being able to get medical attention?' The whole point that I was making in that post is that, if women were to abort freely and responsibly, then, the elective abortion rate could be seen as an indicator of how women saw their 'supportive environment to raise children' (and not accuse the woman for it)--noting that there is an implicit problem in using that statistic due to how clouded the issue of abortion has become from women freely and responsibly choosing it. I think that 'supportive environment' would include, but not be limited by, any proposed children 'going to bed hungry and not able to get medical attention'. And, if the society saw the elective abortion rate to be too high, instead of accusing women, they could figure out if there is anything that could be adjusted to improve that 'supportive environment'.

God, with all of you, you can't win for losing. Nothing counts unless you're willing to suck fetal brains out right before birth as the only endorsement to women's rights, is it? Just no comment unless it includes 'women should abort at any stage for any reason without any consideration of any other responsibility'. Sorry, won't do that.....but, I don't think it's because my position is 'unsubstantiated'. All along, as the real world decision of Roe vs. Wade shows, this is about the right of the woman to choose up against the right of the fetus to live. And, until the Kumbaya clan can usurp the legal and political priorities of individual rights for whatever they think that their 'community interest new paradigm' prospects means, that's the way the law has to see it.....reasonably and rationally....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote workingman:

that is the responsibility of the parents to insure they can afford the kids they are having. it is not the governments place to force anyone to assist any one else. it is a charity issue not a government issue.

Here lies the conflict.

Are we living in a community or are we all on our own. Simple.

workingman - Can you rest at night knowing that children are going to bed hungry? That they are sick and aren't getting medical attention?

Where is your moral compass?

So, here we are. Each of us has to ask ourselves what kind of a country do we want to live in. One where we can help each other with a hand up or the libertarian other.

I sleep just fine because i donate money And food to the local community food banks. Like i said its a charity thing not a government thing.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

Well, here we go, again, workingman. I guess the question could be raised: What are you to do with the poor women that get pregnant--but can't afford the right to abort? Is government to supplement their right to abort--or supplement the children they have that they can't feed? Or, do you think that voluntary 'charities' are going to fill in all of that?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Did it ever occur to anyone that it may be the Globalists that make abortion a woman's rights issue to 1) divide the public while 2) supporting their population reduction agenda.

An abortion is only acceptable when the woman's life is in danger or in the case of a rape/incest.

If a woman is real irresponsible, then allow her to have the baby then tie her tubes. I've known women who have had all their children taken from them for being unfit parents but never was the child in any danger of being aborted.

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm
Quote Kerry:

Well, here we go, again, workingman. I guess the question could be raised: What are you to do with the poor women that get pregnant--but can't afford the right to abort? Is government to supplement their right to abort--or supplement the children they have that they can't feed? Or, do you think that voluntary 'charities' are going to fill in all of that?

Everything you brought up is a personal responsibility issue And a local charity issue not a government issue. If you cant afford kids dont have sex its pretty simple really.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am

How about women have better choices in men when deciding to have sex.

Go for the dependable man not one who is a good dancer or plays a musical instrument.

How long did Carrie pursue Mr. Big, the guy who went through a divorce and wasn't ready to commit yet, before finally deciding to marry him. Too bad they didn't come out with Sex in the City 3, Family Reality Sets In. Then Sex in the City 4, Divorce by Reason of Incompatibility.

This may just be my paralax opinion here, but usually womens problems stem from making immature decisions throughout their lives in 90% of all cases. I say paralax cuz most women I meet are still mentally teenagers and I may change my view when encountering more mature women.

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm
Quote antikakistocrat:

If a woman is real irresponsible, then allow her to have the baby then tie her tubes. I've known women who have had all their children taken from them for being unfit parents but never was the child in any danger of being aborted.

Well, that does tie into the idea that women are to consider elective abortions freely and responsibly--and you are imputing the problem with irresponsible behavior--something that I agree with even if I don't agree with your solution.

You can't 'force' someone to have their tubes tied. Medicine is more directly tied into individual rights than that (and, despite the Kumbaya clan's position against this, individual rights are still the politcal and legal priority in the United States especially when it comes to the application of medicine)--and even if a doctor touches a person against their will, that's assault....

Do you have any other ideas related to this?

Sorry about editing this post out of position...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system