GOP betrays innocent fetuses on Roe v. Wade anniversary

[rudeguy]

Perhaps a ban on vaginal sex until marriage would work, only anal or oral sex is accepable. Start by teaching them this in the schools. If high schoolers are only having anal and oral, it would be step in the right direction...... right?

:hmm:

I like your way of thinking.

 

[DrDoug]

What exactly is so hard about it?

I can go to any store and buy condoms. I can go to about 11 different government places and get them for free.

Simple minds think simple answers trump everything else, even reality. Condoms are the answer! What a genius.

Be happy that you're not a woman because you would have to deal with stupid men who want to stick their noses into their lives and say stupid shit that they think is brilliant.

 

[rudeguy]

Simple minds think simple answers trump everything else, even reality. Condoms are the answer! What a genius.

Be happy that you're not a woman because you would have to deal with stupid men who want to stick their noses into their lives and say stupid shit that they think is brilliant.

You've already talked yourself in circles and proven just how stupid you really are.

You initial argument was rape and failed condoms were the reason abortion was needed. Then you changed it to lack of access to birth control. Now birth control isn't the answer, its keeping men out of the issue.

Your problem is you don't have an answer to why you think its ok. You think its ok because you are told to think that way.

 

[Sonikku]

Why 20 weeks? Life starts at erection.

 

[Jhhnn]

What exactly is so hard about it?

I can go to any store and buy condoms. I can go to about 11 different government places and get them for free.

All true, and all utterly immaterial to the issue of women's rights over their own bodies. You want to control them in ways that men can't be controlled, ways that are sexist authoritarian at their core.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Why 20 weeks? Life starts at erection.

Let's go back even further:

And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

Next up, if you are NOT having children, you will be imprisoned.

 

[rudeguy]

All true, and all utterly immaterial to the issue of women's rights over their own bodies. You want to control them in ways that men can't be controlled, ways that are sexist authoritarian at their core.

I would 100% agree that its only a women's issue if it didn't require a penis to make this an issue.

 

[Jhhnn]

I would 100% agree that its only a women's issue if it didn't require a penis to make this an issue.

Puh-leeze. You either seek to control women's choices or you don't. Dancing around the edges of that is fundamentally dishonest.

 

[rudeguy]

Puh-leeze. You either seek to control women's choices or you don't. Dancing around the edges of that is fundamentally dishonest.

I don't seek to control women's choices but I think killing a baby is wrong.

Deal with it shill.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Conservatives, still pissed women can vote.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't seek to control women's choices but I think killing a baby is wrong.

Deal with it shill.

If you don't seek to control women's choices then you favor abortion on demand as a matter of principle regardless of concerns for the unborn.

It's really just that simple.

 

[Vic]

I don't seek to control women's choices but I think killing a baby is wrong.

Deal with it shill.

The issue is not about whether 'killing a baby' is wrong or not.

The issue is about whether the government has the legal authority to force someone to do something with their own body against that person's will and without due process.

How do you expect to ever be able to reverse Roe v Wade if you don't understand the legal basis behind it? Seriously.

 

[rudeguy]

The issue is not about whether 'killing a baby' is wrong or not.

The issue is about whether the government has the legal authority to force someone to do something with their own body against that person's will and without due process.

How do you expect to ever be able to reverse Roe v Wade if you don't understand the legal basis behind it? Seriously.

I must have missed the part where I said I was trying to reverse Roe v Wade.

Could you please show me where I said that?

 

[alzan]

How does the baby's viability have any bearing whatsoever on its rights as a human being? Since when were human rights predicated on such conditions?

Rights, at least of the Constitutional variety, are granted to persons. Persons are born.

Are you just as concerned for conceived eggs that don't successfully implant to the uterine wall and get flushed out during a woman's monthly cycle? According to your "logic" that's a human being as well.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Why are you having kids if you can't provide for them?

Why are you having unprotected sex if you don't want kids?

Oh right...you'd rather murder a baby than wear a condom.

You believe that birth control, like a condom, is 100% effective?

http://youngwomenshealth.org/2009/11/03/success-and-failure-rates-of-contraceptives/

 

[rudeguy]

You believe that birth control, like a condom, is 100% effective?

http://youngwomenshealth.org/2009/11/03/success-and-failure-rates-of-contraceptives/

you believe the majority of people who have abortions used condoms?

 

[Victorian Gray]

you believe the majority of people who have abortions used condoms?

You're the one who raised the issue of contraception.

Personally, I don't care if women having abortions used or did not use contraceptives. It's none of my business.

 

[Atreus21]

Let me see if I get this right:

Late term abortions = rare = we must do something to stop them! Abortions should be outlawed!

Voter ID fraud = super rare = we must do something!! We will make it harder for legit people to vote while ignoring where the majority of voter fraud occurs.

Mass shootings = rare = can't do anything sorry. You can address the underlying cause though.

Righty retard logic strikes again!

In case you missed it, the bill wasn't to outlaw abortion. It was to restrict abortion past 20 weeks.

 

[Atreus21]

It is a dark/ugly horrible position that I take. I believe the solution is to prevent abortion by encouraging condom use, birth control, morning after pills, and workable prevention.

Sure, if that suffices. If it doesn't?

Any woman who wants an abortion should try to get one much earlier as well.

In any case, Im not talking about discomfort, I am talking about ownership of self. Assuming the woman is of the age of consent, and a she undergoes a psychiatric evaluation to insure she is of sound mind, the decision should be hers to make, and hers to live with.

Psychiatric evaluation? Heh. If only. We can't even make it mandatory for the woman to see her own child before an abortion without Planned Parenthood and NARAL raising hell.

No one says the woman doesn't own her body. We say that ownership of her body doesn't extend to killing her unborn child. If the child is an innocent human being, then killing it without a very good reason (such as being a threat to the mother's life) is a greater wrong than tasking the mother with carrying it to term.

 

[werepossum]

Why 20 weeks? Life starts at erection.

lol +1

I'd just like to take issue with the OP using the term "innocent fetuses". I have it on good authority that none of these little blood-sucking parasites have ever worked a day in their lives.

 

[Atreus21]

Rights, at least of the Constitutional variety, are granted to persons. Persons are born.

Apparently they're not. Fetal Homicide laws.

In practicality, rights are granted to unborn humans on the whim of their mother.

Are you just as concerned for conceived eggs that don't successfully implant to the uterine wall and get flushed out during a woman's monthly cycle? According to your "logic" that's a human being as well.

How about you address the point, which was that a child at 20 weeks gestation is clearly a human being?

 

[werepossum]

Apparently they're not. Fetal Homicide laws.

In practicality, rights are granted to unborn humans on the whim of their mother.

How about you address the point, which was that a child at 20 weeks gestation is clearly a human being?

I don't think it's quite fair to say that rights are granted to unborn humans on the whim of their mother. Clearly a child at 20 weeks gestation is a human being. The issue is that the mother also has rights, so that correctly determining abortion rights becomes an issue of balancing the mother's rights and the fetus' rights. Those who say a fetus only becomes a person at birth (which has some historical backing; I believe Jewish dogma is that a person receives his or her soul at birth) are either not smart enough to debate the question or else looking for a convenient point to maximize the mother's rights.

 

[theeedude]

Innocent fetuses are as good as dead because GOP did nothing. 🙁

 

[Fern]

A couple of things I learned to day that make this fuss a head scratcher:

1. The House already passed this in 2013. Harry Reid filibu... uh, sat on it in the Senate.

2. We're one of the very few countries that DON'T have time limits on abortion. Almost every other developed country outlaws late term abortions (subject to some exceptions such as the mother's health). Here's a list: http://www.pewforum.org/2008/09/30/abortion-laws-around-the-world/#westerneurope

With ample help from the media the GOP shoots itself in the foot.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

In case you missed it, the bill wasn't to outlaw abortion. It was to restrict abortion past 20 weeks.

Yes along with a dozen other measures republicans have already passed and implemented at the state level.

None of that changes my point.