The Right to Abort Girls only!

7 posts / 0 new

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hDZRaFxUVBDKirqPwgVJHu...

The House just shot down a Bill that would have restricted the God given right for a woman to vacuum out her babys brains for whatever reason she chooses.

However I find it fascinating that Thom Hartmann never once mentioned this historic denting of rights in his show nor have we seen the usual "pro choice" bleating from the THC female peanut gallery such as Zenzoe.

Is it not the women's right to terminate her "fetus" for any reason whatsoever? Is it not her body and she can do with it how she pleases? Why would Thom Hartmann be so silent on the infringement of a fundamental "Right" he has long championed?

The answer is elementary my dear Watson. Leftists don't actually hold any concrete positions on ANYTHING. All that matters is how a particular "victim" ranks against another "victim". Deep down even the reptilian brain of a liberal cannot distort and twist itself enough to convince itself that murdering an unborn baby, for the simple fact that it is a girl, is a God given, fundamental, unconditional human right.

The truth has become self evident, and the leftist is rendered mute.

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Comments

@Calperson It's an interesting proposition, "Is it not the women's right to terminate her "fetus" for any reason whatsoever? Is it not her body and she can do with it how she pleases? Why would Thom Hartmann be so silent on the infringement of a fundamental "Right" he has long championed?".

What about it folks? Is this the right to privacy REDUX. 14th amendment? One prominent poster on the forum finds everything but the "kitchen sink" in the 9th. Maybe a womans right to selectively "terminate" her fetus based on gender lies there?

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

Hi Cal. How's it goin'? ;-D

The way to eliminate the practice of sex-selection abortion is to eliminate misogyny and sexism. Social inequality and the higher status of males compared to females creates the problem, not any law granting women ownership of their bodies. Personally, I agree that choosing to abort based on the fact your baby's gender, or eye and hair color, is a wrongheaded choice. However, I am not willing to grant the State ownership of uteruses, just to keep people from making stupid choices.

The ironic thing is that in China, because of such idiocy, males now have a heck of a time finding girlfriends and wives. Tsk tsk tsk! Serves 'em right.

Oh, and thanks for putting me in the peanut gallery. That was affectionate of you, I must say. I'm really quite flattered.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Personally, I agree that choosing to abort based on the fact your baby's gender, or eye and hair color, is a wrongheaded choice. However, I am not willing to grant the State ownership of uteruses, just to keep people from making stupid choices.

Fascinating, I truly didn't expect this response. I was sure that on the liberal victimhood totem pole that "discrimination" against the superficial characteristics would negate the fundamental "right" to "choose".

How about if the fetus was "gay"? Doesn't the idea of a genetic test on a "fetus" to see if it has the hypothetical gay gene being the basis for an abortion decision make you the tiniest bit squeamish? How about if KKK members donate money exclusively to fund abortion mills in Black neighborhoods? Totally ok? As long as the state doesn't have ownership of the uterus?

What is it about the separation of state and uterus anyway? Don't you actively campaign to have the state take over the health care decision for the ENTIRE body via universal health care? Why is one organ exempt from state control? Can we all get to pick an organ?

If you are willing to declare that "I am not willing to grant the State ownership of uteruses, just to keep people from making stupid choices", are you prepared to give the same defense to the lungs or liver? What if someone wants to make the stupid decision to drink heavily or smoke?

Maybe we have a starting point of commonality after all. You see, "I am not willing to grant the State ownership of ANY of my organs, just to keep IT out of any of my decisions of personal freedom".

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 9:21 am

Nobody on this board actively campaigns to have the state take over the health care decision for any part of the body. Federal healthcare isn't for "providing" healthcare. It's for providing the funds neccesary for healthcare from a health service professional of choice. You still don't know what you're talking about. You're whole analogy is based on your own ignorance Cal.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

That is hilarious, Cal— "the separation of state and uterus." Sounds like a plan, to me. We should propose an amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting ownership of women's uteruses, other than women themselves." Cool. I'm for that.

Well, obviously, the State will do whatever it pleases, sometimes correctly, sometimes according to all sorts of odd and ignorant beliefs, or by folly. Take, for example, laws prohibiting marijuana use, or the use of heroin. The state goes ahead and says, "What you put in your body is our business, and we think prohibition is the best way to keep you healthy, the best way to keep you from robbing and stealing to sustain your habit." It's ridiculous, but the State does it. It matters little that prohibition does not work, or that far better solutions to the problem exist. The State is sometimes governed by fools, and there's no way around it.

So many of these problems would be alleviated, or at least improved, were we to enact policies that created an egalitarian society. (Inequality creates unhappiness, ill-health, and all manner of social problems) But no-no-no...we can't do that! That would be sane!

Did you see the following, Cal? Are you that kind of Republican?:

In Florida, "uterus" is a dirty word. A member of the state house of representatives drew a reprimand when he complained that while Republicans want to repeal rules and regulations on corporations, they are all hot to impose rules and regulations on individuals. Women, for example. The rightwingers who control both the house and the senate in Florida have introduced 18 bills to restrict abortion.

Representative Scott Randolph, a Democrat from Orlando, said that his wife had decided the only way to protect her rights was to, as he put it, "incorporate her uterus". Maybe then the business sycophants of the Republican party would stop trying to micromanage it with laws circumscribing reproductive freedom. Speaker Dean Cannon said he was shocked – shocked! – at such language on the house floor, deeming it a breach of "decorum". Stephanie Kunkel, Planned Parenthood's Florida director, rolled her eyes: "If the speaker can't bear to hear or say the word 'uterus', he shouldn't be legislating it." Newspaper columnists amused themselves concocting acceptable euphemisms: Frank Cerabino of the Palm Beach Post suggests "baby garage".

And that's pretty much how Republicans see women – as a place to park a kid till he's ready to pop out and go to Sunday School and learn that sex is filthy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/28/abortion-...

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I'm still utterly amazed at the misogyny.

And yes, China is having a serious problem and so will India. Well its a good way to control population. The excess men can become serfs. Hey, if they are such "losers" that they can not find a mate, what is the point for them living? or having a life of luxury?

Calperson's attitude will go a long way to find a mate. Mayebe he will be the unlucky many who will not find a mate. Probably best for the world.

Oh what else, or that's right! On farms, intact bulls are generally not desired except for breeding programs. It's best to turn them into gelding or steer. They are much easier to handle and not so aggressive. And you know, the procedure is much less invasive than spaying. It can even be done on outpatient basis for neutering. :D :D :D Have you ever witnessed the procedure on a farm for young bulls? rope'em, tie down, cut, throw some anti-biotic powder on the area... Whole thing takes only few minutes. Hey they are bulls they can take the pain!! Are you man enough to tolerate the pain?

When women run the country, there seems to be more prosperity, golden age of England under Queen Elizabeth I, Iroquois is another example versus, Hitler, IdiAmin Dada, PolPot, Franco, Mussilini (sp), Stalin, Napoleon, Ivan the Terrible (what a name!!)... When men rule, it seems, they rule with aggression, violence and misery.

smilingcat
Joined:
Sep. 23, 2010 8:14 am

Currently Chatting

The other way we're subsidizing Walmart...

Most of us know how taxpayers subsidize Walmart's low wages with billions of dollars in Medicaid, food stamps, and other financial assistance for workers. But, did you know that we're also subsidizing the retail giant by paying the cost of their environmental destruction.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system