Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2014, 05:14:20 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: True Federalist, Former Moderate, Badger)
| | |-+  The GOP War on Women - The Megathread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Print
Author Topic: The GOP War on Women - The Megathread  (Read 7170 times)
Lt. Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4664
United States


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: March 20, 2012, 07:49:32 pm »
Ignore

Hi all.
I've been lurking here for months, but after seeing some of the responses in this thread, I just had to respond.

First of all, welcome to the forum Smiley

Quote
TJ, I have a happy, healthy 4 year old son. If I was to murder him because I could no longer take care of him (or didn't want to, for some reason), you would (rightly) label me a complete monster who needs to be (at the very least) imprisoned for the rest of my life.

Yet when a woman who cannot take care of her unborn child (or again, doesn't want to) seeks an abortion (which you SAY you believe is murder), you say that punishing her isn't the important thing.

Your position that abortion is murder is completely undermined by your treating them as two separate actions.

I would label you a person who murdered your child; the term "monster" is your word. In general, I do not view the criminal justice system as a means of using punishment under the premise that by such punishment we can achieve justice. The point of having a criminal justice system is to protect others from having crimes committed against them by 1)locking up those who have committed crimes previously, and 2) creating a deterent. To use the system as a means of simply inflicting punishment is no longer justice but revenge. For this reason I oppose using the death penalty as a criminal sentence. In an ideal world (aside from the part about you killing your child because that obviously would not happen at all in an ideal world) you would be sentenced until you are no longer dangerous and can once more be a productive member of society or at least some number of years long enough such that others would not do the same simply because there are no consequences.

I believe the exact same when it comes to abortion.

Quote
As another piece of evidence, in the years George W. Bush was in office, there were over 6.7 million abortions in the United States. During Clinton's term,  there were over 8.8 million abortions. In Reagan's term, there were almost 9.3 million abortions. In each of those cases, those numbers are higher than the number of murders committed in the Holocaust! Yet, you don't claim that any of those Presidents are worse than Hitler, or that the United States needs to be invaded in a massive world war to stop the wholescale slaughter of millions of innocent people.

I am aware of the magnitude of the situation.

Comparisons to Hitler and to the Holocaust are rarely a good idea to make even if they are true. The primary reason why I would never make such a comparison is that these types of comparisons are purely rhetorically anyways (What actual difference does it make who's worse?) and they tend to offend more people than they convince. There are much more effective ways at conveying the magnitude of the problem than comparing it to the Holocaust.

In general, I make some degree of effort not to compare the moral worth of any two people. I can't claim to know what God will say to me when I die and go before him, but I'm pretty sure he won't say "well TJ, you deserve to burn in hell for all eternity but you were at least better than that Son of Will guy, so I'm going to let you off". This does not mean I should not question the morality of any act, lack of action, etc., but I do think these sorts of comparisions between people are not particularly meaningful.

FWIW, I do think that the US Presidents you mention are somewhat different than Hitler becuase the abortions that took place while they ran the country were not specifically ordered by their governments. Theirs is a sin of failing to stop someone else from doing something bad rather than actually orchestrating it. That is a very important moral difference.

Quote
TJ, in other posts you've made, I've seen you to be a person of upstanding moral  character, and while I may not always agree with everything you've said or every position you take, I've usually been able to respect your opinions.

Thank you.

Quote
In this case, however, I wholeheartedly disagree with the opinions you've expressed here, and quite frankly, find your statements to be self-delusional.

I try to be open-minded, and if you believe I am being unfair, please tell me so with reasons why. I just find it hard to believe that you truly believe everything you've said here.

What part in particular do you find delusional? The underlying point that life begins at fertilization or something else that follows? I can see how people might disagree with that point, but where does that become delusional? Or is it something else?
Logged
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2526


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #51 on: March 20, 2012, 07:55:54 pm »
Ignore

The sponsor of an Idaho mandatory ultrasound bill, state Sen. Chuck Winder, made some highly controversial comments Monday during his closing arguments, suggesting women might falsely use rape as an excuse to obtain an abortion.

Just before the Idaho's Senate passed the bill, which requires woman to have an ultrasound prior to obtaining an abortion, opponents of the bill pointed out that it makes no exception for rape victims, incest victims or women in medical emergencies.

Winder, a Republican from Boise, responded to those concerns by raising the question of whether women understand when they have been raped.

ďRape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this," Winder said on the Senate floor. "I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that goes on.Ē

Quote
If Winder's mandatory ultrasound bill becomes law, a victim of rape or incest or a woman with a medical emergency who is seeking an abortion must obtain an ultrasound first and the state will provide a list of providers. Nearly every provider of free ultrasounds in Idaho is a "crisis pregnancy center," which aims to dissuade women from having an abortion. The woman would also have to obtain from a doctor a second ultrasound, which would involve an invasive transvaginal procedure if she is in her first trimester of pregnancy. Even if she averts her eyes from the ultrasound image and refuses to listen to the fetal heartbeat, she would have to hear the doctor describe the fetus in detail.

The state Senate voted 23 to 12 to pass the controversial ultrasound bill on Monday, with all seven Democrats and five Republicans against it. The Republican-controlled House is also expected to pass the measure.
Logged
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18788
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: March 20, 2012, 10:20:23 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Quote
If you say that life begins at birth, then the fetus just about to be born is not a person until it comes out, even though itís structure before and after that point are essentially identical.

Which almost nobody does. This is why even most pro-choice advocates are fine with third-trimester abortions being illegal, and why the are illegal.

Which is even more arbitrary than calling birth the start of personhood because the cut-off between the second and third trimesters is when the Supreme Court arbitrarily decided to make it.

No, birth is more arbitrary because it takes no other additional things, such as brain development, into account. Being arbitrary is about taking things on whim and preference rather than on fact an reason. The more things you take facts and information into account, the less arbitrary it is.

Quote
Quote
The heart is irrelevant to personhood as it is simply a pump for blood. On the other hand the brain does matter as that is what holds our memories, senses, feelings, intellectual capacity, etc., therefore it is perfectly logical to look at the state of brain development if you're going to make a determination.

Intellectual capacity is what we should base our determinations on? Does this mean it's much less serious to kill and adult than an infant? They have a greater intellectual capacity.

Intellectual capacity is certainly one of the factors. (notice those others I listed) We treat other lifeforms differently based on these same things. For instance most modern nations outlaw animal abuse, even though we're willing to kill some animals for food. Yet we don't afford plants that protection, even though they are also alive. Why do you think that is?

And no, of course it isn't less serious. The idea is that once a being reaches a certain level it becomes wrong to kill it. If there were a sapient race with just half of the brain power of humans, any civilized person in this day and age would say it would be wrong to kill them.

Quote
I suppose this goes along with Nathan's point that seeking an abortion, even if prevented from having one, would constitute a mortal sin still so the point about saving the woman directly is moot.

What constitutes a mortal sin depends on your particular brand of Christianity. For instance one of the requirements in the Roman Catholic version is that you have to have full knowledge and understanding that what you are doing is a sin - I don't think most women who get abortions feel this way.

Quote
More importantly, there is an intrinsic value in preventing a horrible act from being committed such as the intentional slaughter of an innocent child.

I agree, but you've demonstrated no facts that show that a fetus in all stages of development is a person.


Science cannot answer questions of personhood because of the concept of a "person" is not a scientific concept.

What science can do is give us information which we can use to assess whether something is a person or not based on what our concept of a person is. We can look at the traits of things we consider to be persons, narrow down those traits to the ones we consider essential, and then make the comparisons against the subject we want to determine the personhood status of.
Logged

Son of Will
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: March 21, 2012, 08:39:16 am »
Ignore

Quote
First of all, welcome to the forum Smiley

Thanks!

Quote
I would label you a person who murdered your child; the term "monster" is your word. In general, I do not view the criminal justice system as a means of using punishment under the premise that by such punishment we can achieve justice. The point of having a criminal justice system is to protect others from having crimes committed against them by 1)locking up those who have committed crimes previously, and 2) creating a deterent. To use the system as a means of simply inflicting punishment is no longer justice but revenge. For this reason I oppose using the death penalty as a criminal sentence. In an ideal world (aside from the part about you killing your child because that obviously would not happen at all in an ideal world) you would be sentenced until you are no longer dangerous and can once more be a productive member of society or at least some number of years long enough such that others would not do the same simply because there are no consequences.

I believe the exact same when it comes to abortion.

I apologize for putting my words in your mouth,and I generally agree with your thoughts on the justice system. However, my original point (which I didn't get across as clearly as I would have liked) remains. My point is that if you say abortion is equal to murder, then the consequences for both actions have to be the same. That is the whole basis of our justice system, that the same crimes have the same sentence.

Quote
I am aware of the magnitude of the situation.

Comparisons to Hitler and to the Holocaust are rarely a good idea to make even if they are true. The primary reason why I would never make such a comparison is that these types of comparisons are purely rhetorically anyways (What actual difference does it make who's worse?) and they tend to offend more people than they convince. There are much more effective ways at conveying the magnitude of the problem than comparing it to the Holocaust.

I agree that invoking Godwin's Law rarely produces meaningful conversation, but I thought that in this specific case (talking about vast numbers of murders), it was a valid comparison. What else might you compare it to? I'm not trying to talk about who's worse, because you're right that it doesn't really matter anyway. I'm just trying to illustrate the magnitude of the crimes you claim are being committed in this country, and since you seem to understand, I see no further need to bring up that man or his crimes again in this conversation.

Quote
In general, I make some degree of effort not to compare the moral worth of any two people. I can't claim to know what God will say to me when I die and go before him, but I'm pretty sure he won't say "well TJ, you deserve to burn in hell for all eternity but you were at least better than that Son of Will guy, so I'm going to let you off". This does not mean I should not question the morality of any act, lack of action, etc., but I do think these sorts of comparisions between people are not particularly meaningful.

FWIW, I do think that the US Presidents you mention are somewhat different than Hitler becuase the abortions that took place while they ran the country were not specifically ordered by their governments. Theirs is a sin of failing to stop someone else from doing something bad rather than actually orchestrating it. That is a very important moral difference.

I would hope God WOULD make some distinction between crimes. Perhaps, though, that is another conversation at another date.

I'm not sure I see the moral difference. Choosing not to stop a murder when you are safely capable of doing so leaves you just as responsible for the death as the guy who pulled the trigger.


Quote
Thank you.

You're welcome!


Quote
What part in particular do you find delusional? The underlying point that life begins at fertilization or something else that follows? I can see how people might disagree with that point, but where does that become delusional? Or is it something else?

I doubt that we'll ever be able to determine where life begins in a way that satisfies all people.

Perhaps delusional was a bad term, but the point I'm trying to make is this. You claim that abortion is murder and that you understand that the number of such murders would be on a nearly unprecdented scale in human history. However, I believe that your actions show you think otherwise. You do not wish abortion to be punished like murder (at least in the near-term), and you show no wish to stop it other than to provide more and more restrictions on it, until anybody would be to embarrased to get one.

I believe you argued earlier in the thread that holding an armed insurrection against the government would be futile, and it may be. But if you truly believed that your government was sanctioning the murder of MILLIONS of innocent people, wouldn't that be almost necessary, morally speaking, to start one anyway? Murder is one of the ultimate crimes in this world, and in the next. Something like that would need to be stopped now, by any means available, rather than at some indeterminate point in future.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2012, 09:22:35 am by Son of Will »Logged
MooMooMoo
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12018
United States


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: March 21, 2012, 09:01:42 am »
Ignore

The Republican party just has this bizzare rapist mindset that just gets worse by the year. Its like that Yale battle song to them. "No means Yes and Yes means Fuck". Am I right?
Logged


the result is a sense that we were told to attend a lavish dinner party that was going to be wonderful and by the time we got there, all the lobster and steak had been eaten, a fight had broken out, the police had been called and all that was left was warm beer and chips.
[/quot
Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30133
United States


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: March 22, 2012, 02:05:58 am »
Ignore

A Republican state legislator in Arizona reportedly wrote an email to a constituent saying that women should witness an abortion before having an abortion.

The email published on a political blog on the Arizona Republic's website Tuesday is apparently from State Rep. Terri Proud (R-Tucson) and appears to have been sent from a state email, the paper said.

The email was in response to a constituent who said she emailed Proud and fellow lawmakers to let them know she opposed the bill pending in the Legislature that would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. The site reports that the email is unedited.

Quote
    "Personally I'd like to make a law that mandates a woman watch an abortion being performed prior to having a "surgical procedure". If it's not a life it shouldn't matter, if it doesn't harm a woman then she shouldn't care, and don't we want more transparency and education in the medical profession anyway? We demand it everywhere else.

    Until the dead child can tell me that she/he does not feel any pain - I have no intentions of clearing the conscience of the living - I will be voting YES."
Logged
Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30133
United States


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: April 18, 2012, 12:29:10 am »
Ignore

Fox News has detected at least a dozen liberal Wars on Culture, but a conservative War on Women?  *pfft*

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-16-2012/the-battle-for-the-war-on-women
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27758
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 18, 2012, 12:40:32 am »

Fox News has detected at least a dozen liberal Wars on Culture, but a conservative War on Women?  *pfft*

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-16-2012/the-battle-for-the-war-on-women

Women don't play a large role in the Fox News Culture unless they are pretty.
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
Simfan34
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9600
Ghana


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: April 18, 2012, 10:15:44 am »
Ignore

The Republican party just has this bizzare rapist mindset that just gets worse by the year. Its like that Yale battle song to them. "No means Yes and Yes means Fuck". Am I right?

What? That was some douches' drunken chant, not the goddam fight song.
Logged

Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30133
United States


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: April 19, 2012, 05:01:20 pm »
Ignore

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-17-2012/the-great-buffett-caper

Remember, $47,000,000,000 in extra revenue from millionaires is a barely significant sum of money.  But, $300,000,000 in spending for breast cancer screenings and birth control is waaaaay too much money.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12721


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2012, 11:44:07 pm »
Ignore

When they commission a memorial for the cause on the Mall in 40 years, what will it look like?
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4466
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: April 20, 2012, 01:10:08 am »
Ignore

I support making women see ultrasounds to try and guilt them out of having abortions.

So you support cases like the one I posted where a woman who had to have an abortion or give birth to a child who would require constant expensive medical care and have a miserable life? And are you willing to have the state pay for this constant medical care since you're forcing the issue?

Quote
I support parental notification/consent laws.

So you support treating teenage girls as the property of their parents, and forcing those girls to give birth and likely have to drop out of high school?

Quote
I support laws requiring a "waiting period"

So you support making a fetus even more developed before it gets terminated?

All of these are pretty obvious positions resulting from a fetus being a human life since they increase the chances the woman will not have an abortion. First you attack me for not really believing that abortion is murder and now you are asking about whether or not I support these things?! Isnít it completely obvious that murder outweighs any of these complaints by such a ridiculous margin that itís pointless to even ask them?

And yes (since this is the only one worth addressing) I would support having the state pay for healthcare for severely disabled people if their parents cannot afford it.

Quote
Quote
And yes, I would support defunding Planned Parenthood from other services as well because they are our nation's largest abortion provider and anything that hurts them is likely to make abortions more difficult to obtain.

So you support destroying programs that actually prevent abortions and allow low-income women to have healthy children, even though none of the funding you are taking away actually goes to abortions?

Planned Parenthood is not the only healthcare provider in existence. Less money for them means more money for other health clinics. If there were some remote local area where Planned Parenthood was the only local provider of other care then I would be fine granting them an exemption. But in most places the opposite is true, for example, there are five clinics in my hometown that offer mammograms but zero abortion clinics.

Quote
Quote
Yes, you caught me! I'm trying to legislate my religious morality! Murder is against my religious beliefs and yet, I still think it should be illegal!

I was speaking of the fact that you think this...



...is somehow a person, even though there's no evidence for that.

A human embryo is alive and contains the full capability of progressing into a full grown adult. The embryo is not a part of the motherís bodyó they have different DNA than the mother. The only coherent definition of when life begins that can be found is at fertilization because all others are arbitrary. If you say that life begins at birth, then the fetus just about to be born is not a person until it comes out, even though itís structure before and after that point are essentially identical. The same can be said of any other arbitrary point along fetal development, such as viability or when a heart rate is detected, etc. The only logical place to assign the beginning of a life to is to fertilization (or perhaps implantation but that doesnít make as much sense since the zygote is still around before then). If you try to trace a personís existence backward, the place where the existence begins is at fertilization. Before then, the individual person is an egg and a sperm, clearly neither component is a person (and only has half the DNA). As far as truly proving itís a person, you canít prove anyone is a person. I canít prove you are a person and you canít prove I am.

Quote
And honestly, if you think about it what's the problem? Your religion has heaven, right? If a fetus is killed it won't have sinned, so won't it go straight to heaven? There won't be any risk of it being raised by sinful parents who would have an abortion, so the soul's chances are much better this way. Or do you believe your deity is so monstrous that he condemns the unborn to hell?

I do not believe aborted babies go to hell. But taking the position that itís okay to kill anyone who would go to heaven isnít acceptable. Murder is not okay, regardless of whether or not the person who is killed is in a better place. That person has the right to go through life. This applies to persons in society at large beyond abortion. If we take this as a purely religious argument then the soul of the baby is not the only one we should be concerned about. What about the mother?

Quote
1. I would suggest states should put the maximum possible restrictions they are legally able to do now.
2. We should attempt to get "strict constructionist" aka pro-life judges on the Supreme Court by voting for presidents who agree to appoint them.
3. Return the issue to the states and begin outlawing abortion by the state. It is less important to charge the women and providers with murder as it is to make it generally illegal such that an abortion is much more difficult to get.
4. As abortion is increasingly forced under the radar and into back alleys, begin upping the sentences and charging the women and doctors with murder.

That is, in my opionion, the most likely route to achieving the minimum number of abortions. I am not saying it's likely, just that it's a more likely route than anything else. If you have any actual suggestions rather than snarky insults I would be glad to hear them.

So exactly how are these steps going to change the problems you mentioned earlier with incarcerating women en masse? Abortions are going to still happen in large numbers, just as it always has.

These steps would make abortion much harder to get, therefore drastically reducing the number that occur. You have admitted yourself that some girls would be forced not to have abortions here:
Quote
So you support treating teenage girls as the property of their parents, and forcing those girls to give birth and likely have to drop out of high school?
Would requiring parental consent stop girls from having an abortion or not? You canít have it both ways.

If you make abortions illegal, fewer doctors will perform them, if nothing else because they must be done in secret (and of course some people will not perform them out of fear of breaking the law), it would reduce the supply of abortions and make them more difficult to get.

By your logic, we should just let cancer progress to it's natural outcome - death of the host.
Logged
Lt. Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4664
United States


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: April 20, 2012, 10:10:42 am »
Ignore

I support making women see ultrasounds to try and guilt them out of having abortions.

So you support cases like the one I posted where a woman who had to have an abortion or give birth to a child who would require constant expensive medical care and have a miserable life? And are you willing to have the state pay for this constant medical care since you're forcing the issue?

Quote
I support parental notification/consent laws.

So you support treating teenage girls as the property of their parents, and forcing those girls to give birth and likely have to drop out of high school?

Quote
I support laws requiring a "waiting period"

So you support making a fetus even more developed before it gets terminated?

All of these are pretty obvious positions resulting from a fetus being a human life since they increase the chances the woman will not have an abortion. First you attack me for not really believing that abortion is murder and now you are asking about whether or not I support these things?! Isnít it completely obvious that murder outweighs any of these complaints by such a ridiculous margin that itís pointless to even ask them?

And yes (since this is the only one worth addressing) I would support having the state pay for healthcare for severely disabled people if their parents cannot afford it.

Quote
Quote
And yes, I would support defunding Planned Parenthood from other services as well because they are our nation's largest abortion provider and anything that hurts them is likely to make abortions more difficult to obtain.

So you support destroying programs that actually prevent abortions and allow low-income women to have healthy children, even though none of the funding you are taking away actually goes to abortions?

Planned Parenthood is not the only healthcare provider in existence. Less money for them means more money for other health clinics. If there were some remote local area where Planned Parenthood was the only local provider of other care then I would be fine granting them an exemption. But in most places the opposite is true, for example, there are five clinics in my hometown that offer mammograms but zero abortion clinics.

Quote
Quote
Yes, you caught me! I'm trying to legislate my religious morality! Murder is against my religious beliefs and yet, I still think it should be illegal!

I was speaking of the fact that you think this...



...is somehow a person, even though there's no evidence for that.

A human embryo is alive and contains the full capability of progressing into a full grown adult. The embryo is not a part of the motherís bodyó they have different DNA than the mother. The only coherent definition of when life begins that can be found is at fertilization because all others are arbitrary. If you say that life begins at birth, then the fetus just about to be born is not a person until it comes out, even though itís structure before and after that point are essentially identical. The same can be said of any other arbitrary point along fetal development, such as viability or when a heart rate is detected, etc. The only logical place to assign the beginning of a life to is to fertilization (or perhaps implantation but that doesnít make as much sense since the zygote is still around before then). If you try to trace a personís existence backward, the place where the existence begins is at fertilization. Before then, the individual person is an egg and a sperm, clearly neither component is a person (and only has half the DNA). As far as truly proving itís a person, you canít prove anyone is a person. I canít prove you are a person and you canít prove I am.

Quote
And honestly, if you think about it what's the problem? Your religion has heaven, right? If a fetus is killed it won't have sinned, so won't it go straight to heaven? There won't be any risk of it being raised by sinful parents who would have an abortion, so the soul's chances are much better this way. Or do you believe your deity is so monstrous that he condemns the unborn to hell?

I do not believe aborted babies go to hell. But taking the position that itís okay to kill anyone who would go to heaven isnít acceptable. Murder is not okay, regardless of whether or not the person who is killed is in a better place. That person has the right to go through life. This applies to persons in society at large beyond abortion. If we take this as a purely religious argument then the soul of the baby is not the only one we should be concerned about. What about the mother?

Quote
1. I would suggest states should put the maximum possible restrictions they are legally able to do now.
2. We should attempt to get "strict constructionist" aka pro-life judges on the Supreme Court by voting for presidents who agree to appoint them.
3. Return the issue to the states and begin outlawing abortion by the state. It is less important to charge the women and providers with murder as it is to make it generally illegal such that an abortion is much more difficult to get.
4. As abortion is increasingly forced under the radar and into back alleys, begin upping the sentences and charging the women and doctors with murder.

That is, in my opionion, the most likely route to achieving the minimum number of abortions. I am not saying it's likely, just that it's a more likely route than anything else. If you have any actual suggestions rather than snarky insults I would be glad to hear them.

So exactly how are these steps going to change the problems you mentioned earlier with incarcerating women en masse? Abortions are going to still happen in large numbers, just as it always has.

These steps would make abortion much harder to get, therefore drastically reducing the number that occur. You have admitted yourself that some girls would be forced not to have abortions here:
Quote
So you support treating teenage girls as the property of their parents, and forcing those girls to give birth and likely have to drop out of high school?
Would requiring parental consent stop girls from having an abortion or not? You canít have it both ways.

If you make abortions illegal, fewer doctors will perform them, if nothing else because they must be done in secret (and of course some people will not perform them out of fear of breaking the law), it would reduce the supply of abortions and make them more difficult to get.

By your logic, we should just let cancer progress to it's natural outcome - death of the host.

I guess that statement was a little too vague. Obviously cancer is not a separate person since it comes from a mutation rather than reproduction.
Logged
a real human being
Ghost_white
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3590


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: 5.91

View Profile
« Reply #63 on: April 20, 2012, 10:26:56 am »
Ignore

Fox News has detected at least a dozen liberal Wars on Culture, but a conservative War on Women?  *pfft*

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-16-2012/the-battle-for-the-war-on-women

Women don't play a large role in the Fox News Culture unless they are pretty.
Uh, have you seen some of these anchors...?
Logged


That has got to be one of the most retarded proposals I have read on this forum.

Don't worry, I'm sure more will crop up shortly.
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4466
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: April 20, 2012, 02:07:33 pm »
Ignore


I guess that statement was a little too vague. Obviously cancer is not a separate person since it comes from a mutation rather than reproduction.
Don't get caught up in the rhetoric Wink , or we might have some candidates for submission to The Atlas Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts thread.
Logged
Lt. Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4664
United States


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: April 20, 2012, 02:22:01 pm »
Ignore


I guess that statement was a little too vague. Obviously cancer is not a separate person since it comes from a mutation rather than reproduction.
Don't get caught up in the rhetoric Wink , or we might have some candidates for submission to The Atlas Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts thread.

I have a bit of bad habit of returning whatever style and tone the other person has when arguing. There wasn't a whole lot of subtlety from anyone in this thread right from the start.
Logged
X is Tywinning
jdb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8519
United States


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: April 21, 2012, 10:18:52 pm »
Ignore

This entire thread wants to make me run very hard head first against a brick wall...
Logged

Cool Grin Tongue Smiley Sad Huh Angry Wink Roll Eyes Undecided Cheesy
Shocked Lips sealed

Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12721


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: April 23, 2012, 11:41:33 am »
Ignore

Interestingly, there's a gay faction in the GOP Army.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mitt-romney-aide-history-snarky-comments-women-politics-zaps-hundreds-tweets-online-profile-article-1.1065790
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12721


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: April 26, 2012, 01:24:35 pm »
Ignore

After attacking Sandra Fluke as a slut, it was inevitable that the next slur would be that she's a lesbian.

https://twitter.com/#!/MonicaCrowley/status/195558620920954880
Logged
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2526


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #69 on: May 05, 2012, 09:40:24 pm »
Ignore

lol Kansas

Following more than two hours of emotional debate, the Republican-controlled Kansas House of Representatives passed a sweeping 69-page anti-abortion bill.

The passage sets the stage for Kansas to potentially enact one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the United States, coming a year after the state passed measures severely limiting the types of buildings that could house abortion clinics. The bill now heads to the state Senate for consideration. Gov. Sam Brownback (R) told HuffPost in February that he would sign the bill, which he said he had not read.

The bill contains provisions to prohibit tax deductions for abortion insurance coverage and abortion services; to provide for a sales tax on abortion; to establish a personhood stance for when life begins; to limit late-term abortions; to prohibit state employees from performing abortions during the workday; and to mandate that doctors tell women that abortion cause breast cancer along with other state-approved health issues.

The bill also allows doctors to withhold medical information from a woman if it might lead her to have an abortion. It prevents medical professionals from facing a medical malpractice suit in the event that withholding the information adversely affects the health of the mother or child. A wrongful death suit could be filed in the event of the mother's death.
Logged
R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21705
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.55, S: -7.91

View Profile
« Reply #70 on: May 05, 2012, 10:31:53 pm »
Ignore

Gov. Sam Brownback (R) told HuffPost in February that he would sign the bill, which he said he had not read.

lol Kansas
lol Sam Brownback
lol
Logged

FBF
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3940
United States


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: May 05, 2012, 10:32:13 pm »
Ignore

We should just define sperm cells as children and get it over with.  Tongue
Logged
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16693
United States


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: May 05, 2012, 10:37:18 pm »
Ignore

lol Kansas

Following more than two hours of emotional debate, the Republican-controlled Kansas House of Representatives passed a sweeping 69-page anti-abortion bill.

The passage sets the stage for Kansas to potentially enact one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the United States, coming a year after the state passed measures severely limiting the types of buildings that could house abortion clinics. The bill now heads to the state Senate for consideration. Gov. Sam Brownback (R) told HuffPost in February that he would sign the bill, which he said he had not read.

The bill contains provisions to prohibit tax deductions for abortion insurance coverage and abortion services; to provide for a sales tax on abortion; to establish a personhood stance for when life begins; to limit late-term abortions; to prohibit state employees from performing abortions during the workday; and to mandate that doctors tell women that abortion cause breast cancer along with other state-approved health issues.

The bill also allows doctors to withhold medical information from a woman if it might lead her to have an abortion. It prevents medical professionals from facing a medical malpractice suit in the event that withholding the information adversely affects the health of the mother or child. A wrongful death suit could be filed in the event of the mother's death.

It amazes me that in many states, Republicans are openly endorsing the notion of allowing doctors to lie to their female patients about medical information. That one little tidbit of the bill is almost more repulsive than anything else about this bill.

What kind of political party legislates in favor of allowing (and in some cases, just plain forcing) Doctors to lie and withhold medical information? Why is that not completely outrageous to every person ever?

How far Republicans have been willing to take anti-abortion measures in the states has really exposed what sick levels they're willing to drop to as long as it might, theoretically, prevent an abortion. Dildo rape, borderline-brainwashing, guilting, and just outright lying. The ends justify the means. It would be lol-worthy were it not so terrifying and under-reported.
Logged

○∙◄☻•tπ[╪AV┼cVÍ└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31118


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: May 05, 2012, 10:43:17 pm »
Ignore

lol Kansas

Following more than two hours of emotional debate, the Republican-controlled Kansas House of Representatives passed a sweeping 69-page anti-abortion bill.

The passage sets the stage for Kansas to potentially enact one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the United States, coming a year after the state passed measures severely limiting the types of buildings that could house abortion clinics. The bill now heads to the state Senate for consideration. Gov. Sam Brownback (R) told HuffPost in February that he would sign the bill, which he said he had not read.

The bill contains provisions to prohibit tax deductions for abortion insurance coverage and abortion services; to provide for a sales tax on abortion; to establish a personhood stance for when life begins; to limit late-term abortions; to prohibit state employees from performing abortions during the workday; and to mandate that doctors tell women that abortion cause breast cancer along with other state-approved health issues.

The bill also allows doctors to withhold medical information from a woman if it might lead her to have an abortion. It prevents medical professionals from facing a medical malpractice suit in the event that withholding the information adversely affects the health of the mother or child. A wrongful death suit could be filed in the event of the mother's death.

It amazes me that in many states, Republicans are openly endorsing the notion of allowing doctors to lie to their female patients about medical information. That one little tidbit of the bill is almost more repulsive than anything else about this bill.

What kind of political party legislates in favor of allowing (and in some cases, just plain forcing) Doctors to lie and withhold medical information? Why is that not completely outrageous to every person ever?

How far Republicans have been willing to take anti-abortion measures in the states has really exposed what sick levels they're willing to drop to as long as it might, theoretically, prevent an abortion. Dildo rape, borderline-brainwashing, guilting, and just outright lying. The ends justify the means. It would be lol-worthy were it not so terrifying and under-reported.

You mean that Republicans not only lie themselves but allow others to lie too? Amazing.
Logged
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16693
United States


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: May 05, 2012, 10:57:57 pm »
Ignore

You mean that Republicans not only lie themselves but allow others to lie too? Amazing.

Obviously on some level it's not surprising, but it's one of those things that I wish people would just stop and seriously think about for a moment. It's so completely crazy that not stopping everything and having a serious discussion about that specific part of these bills feels like it's being overlooked.

Moreover though, it just feels like a teaching moment in how Republicans do policy. In Indiana, a Democratic senator proposed an amendment to the bill that required doctors to read a ridiculous script to women seeking an abortion, an amendment that would require all information in the script to be "medically and scientifically accurate." The amendment was rejected.

I wish people would stop and consider things like that. A political party in this country will reject amendments to their ideological goals that require such pesky things as medical and scientific accuracy. It is one thing to accuse the other side of being wrong, of trying to lie, of being dishonest about their goals and methods to those goals. That's always existed and is to be expected. It's a very different thing for that to be an open admission from the accused.
Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines