Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27
  1. #1 Does "abortion on demand and without apology" describe your approach to the issue? 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,123
    LINK

    redqueen (103,715 posts)

    Does "abortion on demand and without apology" describe your approach to the issue?

    Because the unnecessary, pandering language which further stigmatizes abortion is helping to erode women's rights.


    The reversal of abortion and birth control rights must stop now!

    Abortion is an issue that divides this country. This is no accident. How one thinks and feels about abortion flows fundamentally from how one views women.

    We recognize that women are full human beings who must have the right – through unrestricted and unstigmatized access to birth control and abortion – to decide for themselves when and whether they will have children. We reject the view that a woman's highest purpose and fundamental “duty” is to bear children, even those she does not want or cannot care for.

    ...

    Over 80% of abortion clinics have experienced violence, threats, or harassment; eight doctors and staff have been murdered. Today, 97% of rural counties have no abortion provider. One in four poor women who seeks an abortion cannot afford it and is forced to have a child she does not want. Five states have only one abortion clinic left.

    This assault has intensified, not slowed, under the Presidency of Obama. 2011 and 2012 saw record new legal restrictions on abortion. Already this year, 278 bills have been introduced to further restrict abortion, including laws set to go into effect that would shut down the last clinic in North Dakota on August 1. Added to this, the Obama administration fought relentlessly to keep emergency contraception ("Morning After Pill") off the shelves and out of the hands of the women and girls who desperately need it.

    Reproductive rights are in a state of emergency.

    ...

    For too long, millions have watched in alarm as yesterday's outrageous and unthinkable attack has become today's “compromise position” and tomorrow's limit of what can be imagined. This dynamic must be broken. The political leaders of the Democratic Party cannot be relied on to do this. While posing as the last bastion of defense against these attacks, these “leaders” have in fact seriously undermined reproductive rights by seeking “common ground” with fascists and religious fanatics, by ceding the moral high ground, by severing abortion from women's emancipation and by refusing to stand up when abortion providers are murdered.

    ...

    http://www.stoppatriarchy.org/aborti...statement.html
    Star Member etherealtruth (9,214 posts)
    11. My position: It is none of my damned business

    It is not my business what decisions an other woman makes regarding her health and reproduction. What I consider to be my business is making sure a woman (every woman) has the right to choose what is best for her ... as long as she can exercise her rights, my interest has ended.
    MY POSITION:

    We know stress has a huge impact on physical health, emotional health and quality of life.

    Therefore It is not my business what decisions a man makes regarding how he relieves stress. If he wants to knock a woman around to relieve stress what business is it of mine....or for that matter, the law. What I consider to be my business is making sure every man has the right to relieve his stress in whatever manner is best for him ... as long as he can exercise his rights, my interest has ended.

    Right liberals? It's the same argument, with even less loss of life than abortion.

    What abortion really comes down to is irresponsible women who are selfish from the first act of sex (the desire for HER PLEASURE over making responsible decisions based on possible outcomes) to the abortion because a child would be "inconvenient".

    Liberals who espouse "abortion on demand", "it's just a reproductive health decision between a woman and her doctor" have made abortion to be their god. (When they themselves are not claiming to be God with the right to determine who lives and who dies.)

    It is ironic. Liberal men have made women to be nothing more than sex objects and then they sold it to women as "freedom". And abortion on demand - the wanton killing of unborn babies - is one result of this.


    Star Member truebluegreen (3,656 posts)
    82. My question is why should "many people" or ANY people

    other than a woman and her doctor have any say WHATSOEVER?

    We need politicians to butt out of this and the sooner they realize that the better.
    And why should "many people" or ANY people other than a man have ANY say WHATSOEVER if he chooses to knock around his wife or girlfriend to relieve stress? We need politicians to butt out of this and the sooner they realize that the better. Hmmmmm.....

    Somehow for the left it's quite OK to kill unborn babies....but it's not OK to harm women. They're irrational.....because they are selfish. The responsible way is if you choose to have sex, then you accept the responsibility to use birth control, and if that fails you take responsibility to either raise the child or give the child up for adoption. Not kill it.

    BrotherIvan (1,050 posts)
    56. I've been floating around posting that same thing this last week

    When we add in the catch phrase that it's a "tragic" or "heartbreaking" decision, we are buying into the crap that abortion somehow equals the murdering of a baby. That somehow, a child was hurt or lost.

    It's a baby once the mother carries the fetus to term and the baby is born. Until then, it's not.

    There is so much guilt and shame that have been put on women who are only making the right decisions for their own lives and health. Our country has unconsciously bought into the pictures of a 30 week-old fetus being murdered. Women reinforce it to each other. If women weren't led to believe that every miscarriage or abortion was the death of an actual child, perhaps some of that guilt and shame could be lifted and people would then be able to understand that it is a medical procedure and necessary for health.
    BlueJazz (19,076 posts)
    67. When I say "Fight for Women's rights" I also mean Fight as in "fists-a-flying"

    There is no "Compromise"

    There is no "Well, meet us half way" (as spoken by the Repugs)

    No...My thing is "Keep your laws off of innocent people that you are trying to SUPER-CONTROL because
    of some sick-ass-insecurity-bullshit-god-knows-what"

    Shut up, stick your repressive laws up your ass and sit down on them or I'll punch your fucking lights out.

    (Ahh..can you tell I'm rather tired of their crap?)
    They want EVERYTHING to be regulated...except abortion. For abortion they reject even common sense regulations that are there for the woman's health. Regulations that are expected (and enforced) on every other health care and surgical center. Liberals: BUT NOT OUR GOD, ABORTION.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,159
    Why does every right to them have "restrictions" (especially RKBA) but when it comes to abortion there should be no restrictions. I mean if the baby is old enough to survive outside of the mother shouldn't abortions be illegal?
    We're from Philadelphia, We Fight- Chip Kelly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Good points, Carol.

    Now, I have a question for everybody.

    Should the right for a man to beat his wife to relieve stress be left up to the states? (stir pot).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    Good points, Carol.

    Now, I have a question for everybody.

    Should the right for a man to beat his wife to relieve stress be left up to the states? (stir pot).
    No but every man should be able to use a belt against the women who are lippy
    We're from Philadelphia, We Fight- Chip Kelly
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,123
    Should the right for a man to beat his wife to relieve stress be left up to the states? (stir pot).
    Naaaa; Like the abortionist crowd wants it, it ought to be federally mandated that men can relieve their stress by knocking around a woman whenever and wherever they want. After all it is their "choice" and "healthcare" decision to make.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Resident Grandpa marv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Shell Knob, MO
    Posts
    3,035
    The muzzies have a partial solution to both ends of the problem.....

    http://members.socket.net/~mcruzan/images/allen-west.jpg

    Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

    THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    No but every man should be able to use a belt against the women who are lippy
    Do you really want the federal government being invasive and pushing their ideas on the states? Let every state decide if lippy women can be hit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carol View Post
    Naaaa; Like the abortionist crowd wants it, it ought to be federally mandated that men can relieve their stress by knocking around a woman whenever and wherever they want. After all it is their "choice" and "healthcare" decision to make.
    And make sure a separate payment is made to the health insurance company for those who receive a stimulus. We don't want our tax money to go toward keeping a women in a DV relationship healthy, even if it is legal. A right to beat doesn't mean our tax money should go toward it.

    Okay, that was a stretch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    604
    There is so much guilt and shame on slave owners who are only making the right decisions for their own lives and wealth. Our country has unconsciously bought into the pictures of a poor slaves being murdered. Non-slave owners reinforce it to each other. If non-slave owners weren't led to believe that every Slave was the enslavement of an actual human, perhaps some of that guilt and shame could be lifted and people would then be able to understand that it is a right and necessary for a slave owner's prosperity.

    Democrats have ALWAYS used the "non-personhood" argument, they used it with blacks during slavery, and now they use it for unborn children, they will continue to use it because they love ignoring science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Drive-by Poster ABC in Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,893
    Originally Posted by Bailey
    No but every man should be able to use a belt against the women who are lippy
    Originally Posted by Lanie
    Let every state decide if lippy women can be hit.
    A right to beat doesn't mean our tax money should go toward it.

    Okay, that was a stretch.
    Oh Lanie ... Why don't you libs have a sense of humor?

    Bailey was just kidding. And yes, your reply was indeed a stretch!!!
    American By Choice ~ 1980
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by ABC in Georgia View Post
    Oh Lanie ... Why don't you libs have a sense of humor?

    Bailey was just kidding. And yes, your reply was indeed a stretch!!!
    Actually, my participation in this thread was my attempt at humor. People would know if I took Bailey's comments seriously.

    Bailey: Sexist comment.

    Me: Two pages of rants and ravings about why he's wrong.

    Other CUers: Question whether they'd rather finish reading my post or read Breaking Dawn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •