• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bull Gator

GOP's war on women

596 posts in this topic

The bill's sponsor is a woman.

 

-1. Try again for partial credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the Republicans thought they could, after having thousands witness them voting after midnight, alter the records to say they got their vote in on time. Which party was it complaining about voter fraud again?

 

Though, I don't know why I'm surprised the GOP is pretending they voted on time. They also pretend they represent people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the Republicans thought they could, after having thousands witness them voting after midnight, alter the records to say they got their vote in on time. Which party was it complaining about voter fraud again?

 

Though, I don't know why I'm surprised the GOP is pretending they voted on time. They also pretend they represent people.

 

Last night, when I read that they altered the record to make it seem like they had, in fact, voted on time, it seemed like I was dreaming.

 

Turns out, I wasn't dreaming.

 

No doubt we will be treated to cries of outrage at the protesters who caused the ruckus.

 

Causing a disruption is bad. Sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the "war on fetus."

 

The ultimate showdown - Women vs. fetus who will win?

 

stay tuned.......... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would support an abortion bill that required DNA testing of the fetus after the abortion and identifying the male responsible. Then mandatory castration of the male. That would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. The abortion rate would drop to the point of only medically necessary ones would be observed. Men who wish to engage in casual sexual encounters will be encouraged to take the responsibility of birth control upon themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forced castration? hmmm. is that your idea of personal responsibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forced castration? hmmm. is that your idea of personal responsibility?

Really no more barbaric than forcing a girl to give birth to her rapists seed.

 

If it would make you more comfortable, we could provide these.

http://www.neuticles.com/faq.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this I will concur... However in most countries that do not allow abortions in general this is considered special circumstance and requires a police report. Just "fucking around" and after four months is not... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would support an abortion bill that required DNA testing of the fetus after the abortion and identifying the male responsible. Then mandatory castration of the male. That would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. The abortion rate would drop to the point of only medically necessary ones would be observed. Men who wish to engage in casual sexual encounters will be encouraged to take the responsibility of birth control upon themselves.

 

 

That's pretty sexist comment. It seems to me that the prevailing argument is that abortion is a woman's decision based on the woman's right to choose because it is her body and no one else (especially a man) should have any influence on her decision to abort. If that is the case, does it not make sense that the woman should accept the responsibility for protecting her body from pregnancy in the first place?

 

Please not that may comment/question is based on "casual sexual encounters".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut the nutz off a few baby daddies and you will see the sales of condoms go up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut the nutz off a few baby daddies and you will see the sales of condoms go up.

 

 

There are plenty of men out there who didn't want to be daddies after a casual encounter but they didn't have an equivalent choice that the woman did. A woman's choice is costing those men a big chunk of their incomes for 18 years to support a child they didn't want.

 

The deterrent for an unwanted pregnancy already exists --- for a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cut the nutz off a few baby daddies and you will see the sales of condoms go up.

 

 

There are plenty of men out there who didn't want to be daddies after a casual encounter but they didn't have an equivalent choice that the woman did. A woman's choice is costing those men a big chunk of their incomes for 18 years to support a child they didn't want.

 

The deterrent for an unwanted pregnancy already exists --- for a man.

If those men didn't want to have the responsibility of children, they should have put a jimmy hat on. If they choose not to support them, OFF WITH THEIR NUTS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes and make soup for the poor... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Cut the nutz off a few baby daddies and you will see the sales of condoms go up.

 

 

There are plenty of men out there who didn't want to be daddies after a casual encounter but they didn't have an equivalent choice that the woman did. A woman's choice is costing those men a big chunk of their incomes for 18 years to support a child they didn't want.

 

The deterrent for an unwanted pregnancy already exists --- for a man.

If those men didn't want to have the responsibility of children, they should have put a jimmy hat on. If they choose not to support them, OFF WITH THEIR NUTS!

 

If those women didn't want to have responsibility for children, they should have taken precautions. But, lucky for them - they get to take a Mulligan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Cut the nutz off a few baby daddies and you will see the sales of condoms go up.

 

 

There are plenty of men out there who didn't want to be daddies after a casual encounter but they didn't have an equivalent choice that the woman did. A woman's choice is costing those men a big chunk of their incomes for 18 years to support a child they didn't want.

 

The deterrent for an unwanted pregnancy already exists --- for a man.

If those men didn't want to have the responsibility of children, they should have put a jimmy hat on. If they choose not to support them, OFF WITH THEIR NUTS!

 

If those women didn't want to have responsibility for children, they should have taken precautions. But, lucky for them - they get to take a Mulligan.

Not If tea bagger regressives have their way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Cut the nutz off a few baby daddies and you will see the sales of condoms go up.

 

 

There are plenty of men out there who didn't want to be daddies after a casual encounter but they didn't have an equivalent choice that the woman did. A woman's choice is costing those men a big chunk of their incomes for 18 years to support a child they didn't want.

 

The deterrent for an unwanted pregnancy already exists --- for a man.

If those men didn't want to have the responsibility of children, they should have put a jimmy hat on. If they choose not to support them, OFF WITH THEIR NUTS!

 

If those women didn't want to have responsibility for children, they should have taken precautions. But, lucky for them - they get to take a Mulligan.

Not If tea bagger regressives have their way

 

 

As a progressive, would you support a man's right to walk away from all responsibility for a fetus he was half responsible for if the woman chose to have a baby - assuming he had up until the same date a woman has to get an abortion to file the paperwork?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no

 

Why not? Don't you support equal protection under the law? Why can't a man have an equivalent right to choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Cut the nutz off a few baby daddies and you will see the sales of condoms go up.

 

There are plenty of men out there who didn't want to be daddies after a casual encounter but they didn't have an equivalent choice that the woman did. A woman's choice is costing those men a big chunk of their incomes for 18 years to support a child they didn't want.

 

The deterrent for an unwanted pregnancy already exists --- for a man.

If those men didn't want to have the responsibility of children, they should have put a jimmy hat on. If they choose not to support them, OFF WITH THEIR NUTS!

Equal Abortion Rights!

 

Franks and Beans! No taking the beans!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Cut the nutz off a few baby daddies and you will see the sales of condoms go up.

 

There are plenty of men out there who didn't want to be daddies after a casual encounter but they didn't have an equivalent choice that the woman did. A woman's choice is costing those men a big chunk of their incomes for 18 years to support a child they didn't want.

 

The deterrent for an unwanted pregnancy already exists --- for a man.

If those men didn't want to have the responsibility of children, they should have put a jimmy hat on. If they choose not to support them, OFF WITH THEIR NUTS!

Equal Abortion Rights!

 

Franks and Beans! No taking the beans!

 

Equal right to choose. I'm not suggesting a future father should be able to force a woman to have an abortion, I'm just suggesting that equal protection should afford the sperm donor an equitable ability to bail out as the egg holder has.

 

BG has nothing more than a very strong opinion without any rationale. Are you on the same level, but using sarcasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any man who fathers an unwanted child should have his nuts cut off. He has complete control of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any man who fathers an unwanted child should have his nuts cut off. He has complete control of the situation.

 

Any woman who chooses to have a child should accept full responsibility for that child and the government should not be allowed to hold the paternal father responsible.

 

Is it a woman's choice or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give it a shot.

 

Any guy who wants to avoid a pregnancy knows what to do. If he decides to ride bareback and loses, he needs to own up to the life he helped create.

 

Women have exactly the same rights and responsibilities - the only difference is they have an "after the fact" option that men don't have - BUT - men do have the ability to choose not to knock up a gal.

 

So - both have the ability to choose - simple really.

 

 

50+ years of angst will hopefully die down as surgical procedures drop dramatically due to easy access to the morning-after pill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give it a shot.

 

Any guy who wants to avoid a pregnancy knows what to do. If he decides to ride bareback and loses, he needs to own up to the life he helped create.

 

Women have exactly the same rights and responsibilities - the only difference is they have an "after the fact" option that men don't have - BUT - men do have the ability to choose not to knock up a gal.

 

So - both have the ability to choose - simple really.

 

 

50+ years of angst will hopefully die down as surgical procedures drop dramatically due to easy access to the morning-after pill.

 

 

Do you not see how those two arguments are diametrically opposed?

 

Can anyone else do better? Bueller?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how are they opposed? Give it a shot.

 

A man wears a condom

a woman takes a pill

 

Diametrically opposed?

A woman just has one more option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean the option to "kill"? I guess this is true, after all if the man was to kill the fetus he'd be sent to prison for life.... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean the option to "kill"? I guess this is true, after all if the man was to kill the fetus he'd be sent to prison for life.... :ph34r:

 

My understanding is he would go to jail for what he did to the woman. As the foetus is not legally a person, it wouldn't be murder. Which law/case are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give it a shot.

 

Any guy person with a womb who wants to avoid a pregnancy knows what to do. If he decides she allows him to ride bareback and loses, he needs to own up to the life he helped create she needs to accept responsibility for allowing the natural reproductive process to take place within her own body, the one over which she demands total control: either become the mommy she knew she might become, give it up to adoption, or practice that hard fought-over "womens' health" that the abortion clinic offers.

 

So - both have the ability to choose - simple really though of the two, the one who can become pregnant needs to consider her right to decide under what conditions she is willing to get laid - as much as a matter of socioeconomic survival as anything. Given that she has ultimate ("ultimate", not sole) power over whether to become pregnant or not, and ultimate power over whether to remain pregnant or not, it's stupid in this day and age to attach legal responsibility to those who have no legitimate control over another person's uterus (the Tea Party's agenda not withstanding).

 

Modified for practical accuracy.

 

To add: in a co-ed softball game where all have fun with each other, when someone beans the other player by accident, society doesn't attach 18 years of indentured servitude to the person who threw the ball. Wear (or require) a helmet, or get beaned.

 

Medical practice gave up on the use of leeches long ago, to "cure" people. It's about time the family courts did the same once affordable b/c becomes the norm. For the time being, a guy (or gal) can get rubbers at Wawa, for Christ's same.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be silly, the fetus is magically granted life or "babyhood" upon exiting the birth canal by a little fairy. Until then it does not have a life... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Do you mean the option to "kill"? I guess this is true, after all if the man was to kill the fetus he'd be sent to prison for life.... :ph34r:

My understanding is he would go to jail for what he did to the woman. As the foetus is not legally a person, it wouldn't be murder. Which law/case are you talking about?

Practising medicine without a license, may be....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be silly, the fetus is magically granted life or "babyhood" upon exiting the birth canal by a little fairy. Until then it does not have a life... :lol:

 

Doesn't answer the question. What crime is it that the man is convicted of in your example that results in him being "sent to prison for life"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how are they opposed? Give it a shot.

 

A man wears a condom

a woman takes a pill

 

Diametrically opposed?

 

A woman just has one more option.

 

So, the male should be able to demand she have an abortion and if she refuses, it's all her responsibility to raise the little bastard.

 

It's an equality of outcome thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team Red has been busy this week!

 

Rubio to Introduce Bill to Ban Abortions

 

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/07/03/rubio_to_introduce_bill_to_ban_abortions.html

 

North Carolina Lawmakers Push Surprise Abortion Bill

 

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/07/03/north_carolina_lawmakers_push_surprise_abortion_bill.html

 

Ironically, the NC law is tacked onto an anti-Sharia Law. And who says Team Red doesn't have a sense of humor?

 

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/because_why_not_2.php

 

And the One Star State passed its anti-abortion law through the Senate.

 

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/latest_from_texas.php

Jesus loves you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, nothing to punish men for their involvement. Seems like the American Taliban are earning their name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, nothing to punish men for their involvement. Seems like the American Taliban are earning their name.

 

"Punish" is a pretty loaded word. Texas passed a law that says a woman has 20 weeks to choose. That seems reasonable to me, and the majority of Americans agree that there should be a restriction on late term abortions.

 

Here's the punishment men face if a woman chooses to have a baby he doesn't want -- Texas child support laws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hmmm, nothing to punish men for their involvement. Seems like the American Taliban are earning their name.

 

"Punish" is a pretty loaded word. Texas passed a law that says a woman has 20 weeks to choose. That seems reasonable to me, and the majority of Americans agree that there should be a restriction on late term abortions.

 

Here's the punishment men face if a woman chooses to have a baby he doesn't want -- Texas child support laws

After 20 weeks, is it punishment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team Red has been busy this week!

 

Rubio to Introduce Bill to Ban Abortions

 

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/07/03/rubio_to_introduce_bill_to_ban_abortions.html

 

North Carolina Lawmakers Push Surprise Abortion Bill

 

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/07/03/north_carolina_lawmakers_push_surprise_abortion_bill.html

 

Ironically, the NC law is tacked onto an anti-Sharia Law. And who says Team Red doesn't have a sense of humor?

 

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/because_why_not_2.php

 

And the One Star State passed its anti-abortion law through the Senate.

 

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/latest_from_texas.php

Jesus loves you!

 

Jesus loves fetuses. Once they are up and around, the R's don't care if they starve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hmmm, nothing to punish men for their involvement. Seems like the American Taliban are earning their name.

 

"Punish" is a pretty loaded word. Texas passed a law that says a woman has 20 weeks to choose. That seems reasonable to me, and the majority of Americans agree that there should be a restriction on late term abortions.

 

Here's the punishment men face if a woman chooses to have a baby he doesn't want -- Texas child support laws

After 20 weeks, is it punishment?

 

Punishment is your word, not mine. When a woman is 5 months pregnant, she might have a clue that she is pregnant and even have had a couple minutes to make her choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Team Red has been busy this week!

 

Rubio to Introduce Bill to Ban Abortions

 

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/07/03/rubio_to_introduce_bill_to_ban_abortions.html

 

North Carolina Lawmakers Push Surprise Abortion Bill

 

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/07/03/north_carolina_lawmakers_push_surprise_abortion_bill.html

 

Ironically, the NC law is tacked onto an anti-Sharia Law. And who says Team Red doesn't have a sense of humor?

 

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/because_why_not_2.php

 

And the One Star State passed its anti-abortion law through the Senate.

 

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/latest_from_texas.php

Jesus loves you!

 

Jesus loves fetuses. Once they are up and around, the R's don't care if they starve.

 

Really? Show us a pile of dead babies due to GOP neglect that is 1% the size of aborted fetuses.

 

Cheers, Mate. Got nothing to do tomorrow except a bit of drywall work. What are you up to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Hmmm, nothing to punish men for their involvement. Seems like the American Taliban are earning their name.

 

"Punish" is a pretty loaded word. Texas passed a law that says a woman has 20 weeks to choose. That seems reasonable to me, and the majority of Americans agree that there should be a restriction on late term abortions.

 

Here's the punishment men face if a woman chooses to have a baby he doesn't want -- Texas child support laws

After 20 weeks, is it punishment?

 

Punishment is your word, not mine. When a woman is 5 months pregnant, she might have a clue that she is pregnant and even have had a couple minutes to make her choice.

If she can find a clinic to extract the unviable tissue mass. Not in these states. How about some GOP love for the baby batter donors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the GOP proposes a castration law to deal with unwanted pregnancies, it will no longer be just a war on women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the GOP proposes a castration law to deal with unwanted pregnancies, it will no longer be just a war on women.

 

 

Never happen. These are the same people who wanted medical privacy so nobody knows which of them uses boner pills...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team GOP seems to think unwanted pregnancy is a woman's health issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team GOP seems to think unwanted pregnancy is a woman's health issue.

 

And poor mothers and their children should not be helped, nor seen, nor heard. What would Jesus say about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how are they opposed? Give it a shot.

 

A man wears a condom

a woman takes a pill

 

Diametrically opposed?

 

A woman just has one more option.

That's not fair. It is SO Unfair. A man following the ways of a higher power (after being temporarily lured off of that righteous path by a demonsluttywhore), should have the equal abortion rights to demand that the loaf be fully cooked before leaving the oven, in the name of the Baby Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Hmmm, nothing to punish men for their involvement. Seems like the American Taliban are earning their name.

 

"Punish" is a pretty loaded word. Texas passed a law that says a woman has 20 weeks to choose. That seems reasonable to me, and the majority of Americans agree that there should be a restriction on late term abortions.

 

Here's the punishment men face if a woman chooses to have a baby he doesn't want -- Texas child support laws

After 20 weeks, is it punishment?

 

Punishment is your word, not mine. When a woman is 5 months pregnant, she might have a clue that she is pregnant and even have had a couple minutes to make her choice.

If she can find a clinic to extract the unviable tissue mass. Not in these states. How about some GOP love for the baby batter donors?

 

A woman has a right to choose her contraception or even ......not to have sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A woman has a right to choose her contraception or even ......not to have sex.

And that differs from the man? Why no laws to control the man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team GOP seems to think unwanted pregnancy is a woman's health issue.

 

 

Simple concept. We have a woman, we have a man, and we have a fetus. All three of them have a heartbeat, but only one has a choice.

 

Limiting her choice so we don't have someone snipping the back of a baby's neck as it enters the world is supported by almost everyone - including the women in their bunkers.

 

Texas says 20 weeks. How many weeks would you like to give a woman to choose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Team GOP seems to think unwanted pregnancy is a woman's health issue.

 

 

Simple concept. We have a woman, we have a man, and we have a fetus. All three of them have a heartbeat, but only one has a choice.

 

Limiting her choice so we don't have someone snipping the back of a baby's neck as it enters the world is supported by almost everyone - including the women in their bunkers.

 

Texas says 20 weeks. How many weeks would you like to give a woman to choose?

Prevention would be a conservative position and more effective than dealing with the outflow. Why are there no laws to keep men from causing these abortions? Like a bad marksman, the GOP just keeps missing the target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A woman has a right to choose her contraception or even ......not to have sex.

And that differs from the man? Why no laws to control the man?

 

Indeed it does. Please see the above link to the Texas Child Support laws. All things being equal at the time of conception, the man has no choice whatever. Many feminists and abortion rights advocates have supported equal rights, for women only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Team GOP seems to think unwanted pregnancy is a woman's health issue.

 

Simple concept. We have a woman, we have a man, and we have a fetus. All three of them have a heartbeat, but only one has a choice.

 

Limiting her choice so we don't have someone snipping the back of a baby's neck as it enters the world is supported by almost everyone - including the women in their bunkers.

 

Texas says 20 weeks. How many weeks would you like to give a woman to choose?

26

I would also not require doctors to have privileges at nearby hospitals which is the real issue in Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Child support is after the fact. How about GOP law to keep men from impregnating women who might seek an abortion?

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of weeks is irrelevant. It isn't a human until its born. Until then its an unviable tissue mass. Even if it masturbates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of weeks is irrelevant. It isn't a human until its born. Until then its an unviable tissue mass. Even if it masturbates.

Ya got a pretty good point there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Team GOP seems to think unwanted pregnancy is a woman's health issue.

 

Simple concept. We have a woman, we have a man, and we have a fetus. All three of them have a heartbeat, but only one has a choice.

 

Limiting her choice so we don't have someone snipping the back of a baby's neck as it enters the world is supported by almost everyone - including the women in their bunkers.

 

Texas says 20 weeks. How many weeks would you like to give a woman to choose?

26

I would also not require doctors to have privileges at nearby hospitals which is the real issue in Texas.

 

 

One issue at a time, please. I would expect that at least 95% of people who support a woman's right to choose would not favor pithing a baby on the way out of the birth canal at 8.5 months.

 

I don't have a problem with the Texas restriction. It is not a war against women - it is protecting the rights of what some consider a human.

 

Access to abortions is another argument and as long as the SCOTUS does not rule otherwise, those decisions are left to the states. Roe v. Wade does not guarantee access to abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of weeks is irrelevant. It isn't a human until its born. Until then its an unviable tissue mass. Even if it masturbates.

 

That is your opinion, but your opinion is the opposite of the SCOTUS. "Viability" is now the law of the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose viability improves year by year. So next year, we should enforce something like 19 weeks.

 

Progress marches on.

 

This%20Way%20to%20Progress%20-%20Flickr%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose viability improves year by year. So next year, we should enforce something like 19 weeks.

 

Progress marches on.

 

This%20Way%20to%20Progress%20-%20Flickr%

 

 

Same logic - infanticide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the GOP proposes a castration law to deal with unwanted pregnancies, it will no longer be just a war on women.

 

Also, once there are women in the GOP, it will no longer be a just a war on women.

 

I would like anyone touting the "war on women" bullshit line to not respond to that statement above, until they read it three times, then take at least 10 minutes to formulate a thought.

 

I know. A flaming hoop. But bear with me here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Ben? They've got women!! Palin and Bachman, and whats-her-name who beleives that a rape kit prevents pregnancy!! ; - )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever heard of the term self hating Jews?

 

That generally applies to women in the GOP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Ben? They've got women!! Palin and Bachman, and whats-her-name who beleives that a rape kit prevents pregnancy!! ; - )

 

You didn't follow the rule and count to three, douche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever heard of the term self hating Jews?

 

That generally applies to women in the GOP.

 

Another in a long line of posts that convince me you must to be a plant for conservatives.

 

No one else could make a progressive look so fucking stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team GOP seems to think unwanted pregnancy is a woman's health issue.

If only abortion would have been an option when you were a fetus. ..;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you retarded?

 

I am a political centrist. Though I despise regressives slightly more than far leftists - I despise them both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you retarded?

 

I am a political centrist. Though I despise regressives slightly more than far leftists - I despise them both.

 

 

When have you ever suggested a tip-of-the-hat to anyone in the middle of the political spectrum, like Lieberman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warmonger Lieberman? You must be joking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Once the GOP proposes a castration law to deal with unwanted pregnancies, it will no longer be just a war on women.

Also, once there are women in the GOP, it will no longer be a just a war on women.

 

I would like anyone touting the "war on women" bullshit line to not respond to that statement above, until they read it three times, then take at least 10 minutes to formulate a thought.

 

I know. A flaming hoop. But bear with me here.

Just let women control their own bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you retarded?

I am a political centrist. Though I despise regressives slightly more than far leftists - I despise them both.

 

When have you ever suggested a tip-of-the-hat to anyone in the middle of the political spectrum, like Lieberman?

 

Are you retarded?

I am a political centrist. Though I despise regressives slightly more than far leftists - I despise them both.

When have you ever suggested a tip-of-the-hat to anyone in the middle of the political spectrum, like Lieberman?

Liarman is an Israeli Firster not a centrist. I could on the other hand support Christie...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be a war on women until the GOP makes it a war on Men's reproductive rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But Ben? They've got women!! Palin and Bachman, and whats-her-name who beleives that a rape kit prevents pregnancy!! ; - )

 

You didn't follow the rule and count to three, douche.

 

 

forgot to mention, that since what's her name beleives that rape kits prevent conception that she and Bachman and Palin are all co-sponsoring a bill outlawing rape kits......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warmonger Lieberman? You must be joking...

 

 

have to agree with my Regresive friend, RD on that one....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Hmmm, nothing to punish men for their involvement. Seems like the American Taliban are earning their name.

 

"Punish" is a pretty loaded word. Texas passed a law that says a woman has 20 weeks to choose. That seems reasonable to me, and the majority of Americans agree that there should be a restriction on late term abortions.

 

Here's the punishment men face if a woman chooses to have a baby he doesn't want -- Texas child support laws

After 20 weeks, is it punishment?

 

Punishment is your word, not mine. When a woman is 5 months pregnant, she might have a clue that she is pregnant and even have had a couple minutes to make her choice.

 

The way the Texas laws are written she might NEED all of that five months to actually procure an abortion now. If she's rich enough, the poor...not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Team GOP seems to think unwanted pregnancy is a woman's health issue.

 

 

Simple concept. We have a woman, we have a man, and we have a fetus. All three of them have a heartbeat, but only one has a choice.

 

Limiting her choice so we don't have someone snipping the back of a baby's neck as it enters the world is supported by almost everyone - including the women in their bunkers.

 

Texas says 20 weeks. How many weeks would you like to give a woman to choose?

 

20 weeks isn't the problem with Texas' new laws. Its ACCESS to the abortion, they will be shutting down all but a few of the abortion providers in the state. And many of those shut down places do a lot more than provide abortions, they provide breast and pelvic exams and other low cost women's health care to poor women. Of course Texas already took a lot of that away in 2011, but it's only getting worse.

 

Texas is going to find itself with a whole pack of Kermit Gosnells popping up in the next decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Team GOP seems to think unwanted pregnancy is a woman's health issue.

 

 

Simple concept. We have a woman, we have a man, and we have a fetus. All three of them have a heartbeat, but only one has a choice.

 

Limiting her choice so we don't have someone snipping the back of a baby's neck as it enters the world is supported by almost everyone - including the women in their bunkers.

 

Texas says 20 weeks. How many weeks would you like to give a woman to choose?

 

20 weeks isn't the problem with Texas' new laws. Its ACCESS to the abortion, they will be shutting down all but a few of the abortion providers in the state. And many of those shut down places do a lot more than provide abortions, they provide breast and pelvic exams and other low cost women's health care to poor women. Of course Texas already took a lot of that away in 2011, but it's only getting worse.

 

Texas is going to find itself with a whole pack of Kermit Gosnells popping up in the next decade.

 

Many states and municipalities have different laws on everything from gun sales/possession to limits on purchasing alcohol (there are still dry counties).

 

Constitutional legality does not guarantee convenient access.

 

Are Planned Parenthood clinics the only place for a poor woman to get pelvic and breast exams? Of course not, so lets not try and make this about access to those kinds of health services when this is about abortion. If it wasn't about abortion, the clinics in Texas would remain open to provide everything but abortion services to women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BJ steps in to point out what I have already pointed out earlier.

 

Sigh........

 

That must have been in your head, because you posted nothing even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ever heard of the term self hating Jews?

 

That generally applies to women in the GOP.

 

Another in a long line of posts that convince me you must to be a plant for conservatives.

 

No one else could make a progressive look so fucking stupid.

Sometimes I wonder the same thing, and about Happy as well. Speaking of, Happy 4th RD. And I mean that in the good Happy kind of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are Planned Parenthood clinics the only place for a poor woman to get pelvic and breast exams? Of course not, so lets not try and make this about access to those kinds of health services when this is about abortion. If it wasn't about abortion, the clinics in Texas would remain open to provide everything but abortion services to women.

 

No, but they are a huge provider of those services for poor, uninsured and underserved women. And Texas is doing everything to take these places down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BJ steps in to point out what I have already pointed out earlier.

 

Sigh........

 

That must have been in your head, because you posted nothing even close.

 

Maybe...I wouldn't really know. Though he's not on ignore or anything I rarely read what Gator posts unless I am actively involved in taunting him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

BJ steps in to point out what I have already pointed out earlier.

 

Sigh........

 

That must have been in your head, because you posted nothing even close.

 

I would also not require doctors to have privileges at nearby hospitals which is the real issue in Texas.

 

You were just too dim witted to understand the implications of that measure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Safe, legal, and rare. Major Democratic leaders reiterate this mantra again and again. When the Texas GOP tries to make the oft repeated mantra a reality, it's a war on women? Hopefully it won't be any more successful than any of our multitude of other recent 'wars'.

 

But what the hell, 75,000,000 Americans have died in the very successful war against the most defenseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Republican brethren cannot even provide employment for 11.8 million Americans still out of work, they have cut food stamps by $20,000,000,000, they have doubled school loan interest rates by inaction, they have moved to cut minimum wage laws, They have shown no ability, no interest, no desire, to provide for 75,000,000 more Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ever heard of the term self hating Jews?

 

That generally applies to women in the GOP.

 

Another in a long line of posts that convince me you must to be a plant for conservatives.

 

No one else could make a progressive look so fucking stupid.

Sometimes I wonder the same thing, and about Happy as well. Speaking of, Happy 4th RD. And I mean that in the good Happy kind of way.

 

Same to you and yours, d'ranger, and everyone else here as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a war on women. This is a war on a fetus.. If a woman can't make up her mind in 5 months to terminate a pregnancy , they shouldn't enlarge their gene pool. But liberals just love late abortions.ever heard of birth control methods besides abortion? OHHH that's right.. Those cost money. When is the monument going up for Dr. Gosnell? Now the big question is.., where would you be today if your mother aborted YOU? And what is this scare tactic that all of these abortion clinics will close up if this bill went through? BS. But typical liberal tactics... We have so far the name calling, and an attempt to belittling, so when is that last ditch effort going to be pulled out of the liberal bag ? The race card. Then there are a few that don't want anything but liberalism... They had that in the USSR.. It didnt work.. And in North Korea, funny it's not working there either, or Cuba, working so well that people are starving. And if this type of government works so well, why were people escaping from the USSR, and still today from North Korea and Cuba. But... But ... It just has to work here..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites