DescentBB

CUDA wrote:But her "OPINION" doesn't mean that he hated women, it just means that she doesn't like his stance. that is her right. but it doesn't mean she IS right.

'Hate' is generally an overused word, IMO. That said, I hate cauliflower.

Heretic wrote:What's more medically invasive than reaching up there and dragging a baby out?

were it not the decision of the mother, I would agree. The ultrasounds were by order of the government.

tunnelcat wrote:[She's really getting under Rand Paul's skin with his speech plagiarisms too.

and based upon his thin-skinned, childish reaction to those revelations, can we not all agree that Rand Paul has no business even being CONSIDERED for the job of President??

CUDA wrote:AGAIN it is your right to feel that way, but it doesn't make you right and millions of women disagree with you.

And as one of those other more numerous women with an opposing view, I have to say to all those social moral conservatives at large either in office or running for office; "Screw you and the horse you rode in on. You ain't gonna get elected with such a repressive platform against women's health rights. If you do get elected, I and my sisters will fight you until you're thrown out."

you go Girl!!! And, it is EXACTLY that line of thought that will, I am nearly certain, bring us President Hillary Rodham Clinton, in 2016. And, for those that haven't known me for all that long, I am no fanboi of Hillary(hence my money and time given to Obama in 2008).

Oh GAWD! Stale rehash! Clinton has soooo much of her husband's baggage on her back, and will certainly bring along a lot of the same people Bill used, many of which Obama relied on as well. We've seen how well that worked out. We'd have more of the same BS that we got during Clinton and Obama. The Dems MUST have someone else in mind besides her if they don't want to lose to someone like Chris Christie, and I think he's going to run. Of course, if Ted Cruz runs, she'd be a shoe in.

Once folks look closely at Christie, they will see he holds the usual positions re: abortion, contraception etc.

Getting an Abortion is still and will always be controversial. We have allowed it in this country, but there should be qualifications, education and seriousness. Not like a McDonalds drive-thru. I see nothing at all wrong withholding no information, then if the individual decides to pursue it, it is her right. Since we have decided to allow them. It is still a taking of life no matter how you slice it, semantics aside. Something to carefully consider.

flip wrote:Getting an Abortion is still and will always be controversial. We have allowed it in this country, but there should be qualifications, education and seriousness. Not like a McDonalds drive-thru. I see nothing at all wrong withholding no information, then if the individual decides to pursue it, it is her right. Since we have decided to allow them. It is still a taking of life no matter how you slice it, semantics aside. Something to carefully consider.

were it that simply maintained(with no forcible 'information seeking', nor a thousand other restrictions to access), I think most Americans would find it both refreshing and final. Alas, a part of the populace wishes no such clarity, nor choice, for women.

There's ways to get that information across without it being 'forcible.' A sonogram is as minimally invasive as you can get and also makes nothing but good sense if a surgery is fixing to be performed. It should not be an easy decision made in willful denial.

few pro-choice people that I know of would object to anything you say, Flip. That's the thing that most 'pro-life'(quotes, as Wendy Davis recently put the lie to that moniker) backers refuse to acknowledge.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:Getting an Abortion is still and will always be controversial. We have allowed it in this country, but there should be qualifications, education and seriousness. Not like a McDonalds drive-thru. I see nothing at all wrong withholding no information, then if the individual decides to pursue it, it is her right. Since we have decided to allow them. It is still a taking of life no matter how you slice it, semantics aside. Something to carefully consider.

were it that simply maintained(with no forcible 'information seeking', nor a thousand other restrictions to access), I think most Americans would find it both refreshing and final. Alas, a part of the populace wishes no such clarity, nor choice, for women.

and a part of the population wishes unfettered choice for women. Goes both ways

CUDA wrote:and a part of the population wishes unfettered choice for women. Goes both ways

I know no one who has any real objection to the position Flip holds. Not completely unfettered, but free choice nonetheless. So, NO, it doesn't 'go both ways'. One side wishes to impose their moral judgement on others, the other wishes to allow for individual free choice. Pretty clear cut, IMHO.

I feel like people are forcing their morality on me when I hear things like the unborn are not human.

What would be “refreshing” for me would be the admission, short and simple that women kill their unborn because they don’t want them…pure and simple…without all of the irrelevant justifications.

Women don’t kill their offspring because they are just undeveloped blobs of cells.

Honesty…that’s all I’m asking for.

Another perfect example is calling an elective surgery...health care.

Pleaaassse!

Well, just so everyone is sure, I am not in the least pro-choice. I think it's abhorrent that someone would kill their own offspring instead of sucking it up. Hell, I'm sitting here now regretting some of the missed time with my children, and I raised all 4. People change and I think it should be deterred on an intellectual and emotional level. I also have to be pragmatic about it.

I’m not pro life, or pro choice…I’m pro…stop insulting my intelligence!

CobGobbler wrote:

Woodchip, I have no idea what you mean by "Tea Party". None of these people you talk about have anything but an R after their name. When someone runs, and WINS, with a T next to their name, there could be talk about a different party. But please, right now it's just a waste of my time to even talk about them.

They may have a R after their name for now but once the IRS approves all the non-profits that do have a T in their listing we may very well see something happen. Just remember, they are not listed as the conservative wing of the Republican Party, they are called the Tea Party. Half the battle of getting any product recognized is name recognition. Thanks to everyone in the news business, the term Tea Party is now a common name. Only one more step to making it a separate party.

Here is a question I have to ask all of you who think abortions are a necessary right of women. Since the big hulabaloo a while back about womens birth control and how it should be supplied free and considering we have a morning after pill as a product all women have access to... why do we need abortions as a "Final Solution" (notice how I cleverly crafted this sentence)?

Go ask a politician.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:and a part of the population wishes unfettered choice for women. Goes both ways

I know no one who has any real objection to the position Flip holds. Not completely unfettered, but free choice nonetheless. So, NO, it doesn't 'go both ways'. One side wishes to impose their moral judgement on others, the other wishes to allow for individual free choice. Pretty clear cut, IMHO.

Then you neex to get out more. Because you are clearly only seeing what you wish to see

woodchip wrote:...considering we have a morning after pill as a product all women have access to... why do we need abortions...

I think the morning after pill is a fantastic step in the right direction. I think abortions should only be used as a last resort, but I believe they should be legal without restriction because it's not for me, a man, to decide what a woman should do. Rather than making abortions illegal, ideally we have a future medical (and socioeconomic) situation where abortions are simply unnecessary. Then we can all just move on to another topic. Of course, there will always be situations where a later pregnancy puts the mother in danger, in which case the mother should always be saved.

Spidey wrote:I’m pro…stop insulting my intelligence!

+1

it would be hard to both insult or underestimate the intelligence of anyone who would find a pro-choice legal status is 'forcing' a moral decision upon them, IMO.

vision wrote: ...because it's not for me, a man, to decide what a woman should do.

No...not “any man” or “men in general” but what about the man who has his DNA in the game.

That “blob of cells” may be located in a women’s body, but it’s definitely not her property.

This is why marriage was invented so very long ago…to equalize the reproductive rights and responsibilities of both sexes, because without reproductive rights, there is no reproductive responsibility.

And we are seeing the results of men being reduced to “sperm donors” and I’m not talking only about abortion, I’m speaking about the abdication of men’s responsibility, we now see as a severe problem.

You can’t give one sex all of the reproductive rights, and expect things to go well.

It just sounds strange to claim that marriage was purposed with regard to reproductive right or responsibilities. Marriage is first a recognition and then a certification of an exclusive union between a man and a woman. Reproductive responsibilities, IMO, derive necessarily from involvement. Rights, as usual, come from the creator, who's sole "right" it is to grant or restrict the same.

Marriage has existed since before the beginning of recorded human history, and exists in virtually every society, including all of the ones that never even heard of the god of Abraham.

I’m pretty sure the purpose of marriage had to be something more profound then “personal happiness” to have endured all of these centuries.

As I have pointed out before…without marriage we humans would be just another society where one sex has all of the reproductive rights such as the bonobo’s or chimps.

segue to gay marriage in 3,2,1..............

Back to the VA elections.......priceless GOP manuevering!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/0 ... b=facebook

Spidey wrote:Marriage has existed since before the beginning of recorded human history, and exists in virtually every society, including all of the ones that never even heard of the god of Abraham.

I’m pretty sure the purpose of marriage had to be something more profound then “personal happiness” to have endured all of these centuries.

As I have pointed out before…without marriage we humans would be just another society where one sex has all of the reproductive rights such as the bonobo’s or chimps.

Sounds pretty vague/shakey, to me, Spidey. What I'm saying is that marriage is a necessity because it is both necessary to make a statement of personal intent with something so significant, as well as a public certification of union--this is my wife, and I am her husband.

Well, I know discussing human evolution is wasted on you Thorne, but for us non believers, we accept that there must have been some significant events in history that separated us from the other primates.

And one of those events was the invention of marriage, regardless of what form it takes or purpose it might serve in modern times.

Monogamy doesn’t exactly come easily to humans, without some kind of help, such as ceremony and/or legal sanctioning. In other words….commitment with consequences.

This is my wife…this is my girlfriend…this is my lover…SO WHAT…who cares, your love affair has no consequence…the real question must be…To What Ends?

So you're assuming that marriage meant something else to someone else millions of years ago, and you're basing this whole thing on the assumption that we descend from primates? I totally take it back, that isn't shakey at all.

Marriage in the formal sense was "invented" for ownership purposes. Now in our modern era (in some places only) do we have marriage for love. Men have always had reproductive control over women. You marry them, impregnate them (often through rape), and if you don't get what you want, you kill them and get another wife. That's what we see in history and throughout the world currently. I'm more than happy to give total reproductive control to women. They deserve it after thousands of years of oppressive patriarchy.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So you're assuming that marriage meant something else to someone else millions of years ago, and you're basing this whole thing on the assumption that we descend from primates? I totally take it back, that isn't shakey at all.

Millions of years ago…lol, if you’re going to make fun of science…at least get a clue.

vision wrote:Marriage in the formal sense was "invented" for ownership purposes. Mow in our modern era (in some places only) do we have marriage for love. Men have always had reproductive control over women. You marry them, impregnate them (often through rape), and if you don't get what you want, you kill them and get another wife. That's what we see in history and throughout the world currently. I'm more than happy to give total reproductive control to women. They deserve it after thousands of years of oppressive patriarchy.

What you describe is the “Chimpanzee” side of the equation marriage was designed to avoid.

I’m not going to sit here and say marriage made everything perfect, there are always assholes who will ruin everything if given half a chance. I would have to say it was probably religion that messed up the original concept, giving the male back “paternal” rights. (usage in the pejorative)

Marriage is a union meant to equalize…anything else is a bastardization.

Marriage exists because of emotion and function. "This looks like it goes there" is a given, but "if you put that anywhere else I'm gonna be pissed" only exists in humans

Spidey wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So you're assuming that marriage meant something else to someone else millions of years ago, and you're basing this whole thing on the assumption that we descend from primates? I totally take it back, that isn't shakey at all.

Millions of years ago…lol, if you’re going to make fun of science…at least get a clue.

What difference does a few zeros make?

The difference between physical evolution and social evolution.

(of course there is some overlap)

CUDA wrote:and a part of the population wishes unfettered choice for women. Goes both ways

The FREEDOM for every woman to make that choice, NOT the state, NOT a church. And outlawing birth control, which some Republican lawmakers have tried to do as well, will certainly be counterproductive reducing the total numbers of abortions.

The freedom for an abortion late term? That's what I mean by unfettered. And don't deny that there is a portion of the populace that is in favor of it.
And I agree with spidey. Don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that abortion is anything but women wanting to kill their unborn child because they don't want it. And that its much easier to call it a fetus tgen what it really is. An unborn child. Just be honest about it. I can respect that. I might not agree but I can respect the honesty of it.

find me, CUDA, a significant part of the population that supports late term abortion in ANY case not DIRECTLY tied to the survival/viability of the mother. You are creating a strawman, for what purpose I don't know.