Why This Lawmaker Opposes Abortion For Everyone Except His Own Wife And Mistress

a reply to: enlightenedservant

See that's the thing. Those attacks on abortion are probably more aimed at riling up the pro-choice crowd and appeasing these politicians' constituents for voting reasons then to actually be passed and implemented into law. This creates the polarity. Generally, if you notice, most of the very EXTREME anti-abortion bills come through the pipeline when we are closing in on an election or when the Republicans don't have a snowball's chance in hell of it going through.

It's a big shell game to distract you long enough to make you think they care about your issues so you vote for them again. Sometimes we get a behind the scenes peek at what they really believe when issues like your OP happen though. Also, don't get me wrong, Democrats are JUST as guilty of doing this as well for their own pet issues.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh I agree with you on almost everything you said. The only difference is I didn't think they'd actually do anything to prevent abortions, just as they didn't during Bush's terms. Abortion wasn't even an issue because of the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars, and the constant terror warnings from the Dept of homeland Security.

So when they actually started passing laws against it recently, it surprised me. And that's why I'm asking why they're ignoring the guy in the OP. Because if they're going to start passing local & state legislation against abortions & try to close down abortion clinics, wouldn't this guy be an easy target for them? Instead, they ignore him though.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh I agree with you on almost everything you said. The only difference is I didn't think they'd actually do anything to prevent abortions, just as they didn't during Bush's terms. Abortion wasn't even an issue because of the Iraq & Afghanistan Wars, and the constant terror warnings from the Dept of homeland Security.

So when they actually started passing laws against it recently, it surprised me. And that's why I'm asking why they're ignoring the guy in the OP. Because if they're going to start passing local & state legislation against abortions & try to close down abortion clinics, wouldn't this guy be an easy target for them? Instead, they ignore him though.

See that's the point I'm making. When the Republicans controlled the government, abortion wasn't an issue to them. Only when they are the minority party do we start seeing all this anti-abortion legislation. This aligns PERFECTLY with what I'm getting at that this issue is just a distraction to create an illusion of partisan division.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
[img]He pressured the 24-yr old to have an abortion, no matter which side of the abortion debate he was on, he still did not let a woman make up her own mind on what to do with her body.

At 24 years old, you're fully capable of making your own decisions. She made the call to have the abortion, not him. I'm not defending his actions at all (I'm neither a fan of adultery nor elective abortion), but let's not attempt to completely remove the reality of personal responsibility from the woman.

I think you're wrong about that part. And we don't know what all threats he used against her either. I've seen people where I live who've threatened to kill women if they didn't have an abortion. And other incidents where the man had beat the woman in the stomachs to try to force a miscarriage.

Many times, people will try to ignore this or tell the woman to shut up so as not to make it worse. There's a reason why there are so many abuse shelters for women. And what is a woman supposed to do in that situation? Women in America are most likely to be killed by a husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend. So it can literally be a matter of life or death for her if she doesn't comply.

Sure, there's the small chance that this happened. But my point is that I'm quite certain the abortion clinic didn't allow De Jarlais to walk in with the woman and tell the abortion "doctor" to perform the procedure at the reluctance and objection of the woman. But, if so, that's another issue altogether and that clinic needs to be shut down.

The reality is that she walked into an abortion clinic and approved the procedure to be done to her. If she was forcefully coerced or paid off or threatened was not the point argued by me. Neither of us know the details, so the default at this point must be that the woman agreed to the abortion--this is the personal responsibility that I was talking about.

We can play the what-if game all day, but without the details, I refuse to do that and instead will go with the most probably scenario at this point--that she approved the procedure for herself.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And that's a spot-on assessment. Issues like this rarely matter enough for someone in the majority party to do anything about--it's always about whining about what the other party is trying to do and making them look like demons in order to keep your party in power at the next election.

Politics is just a living chessboard, where the players who control the pieces of...the game...are always thinking 3 or 4 elections ahead. Things rarely get done in the 'now.'

He voted against abortions for babies after five months which any sane person should. That is not the same as voting against all abortions. I don't see a conflict here, but I do see the political spin.

I'm confused. Is it not the job of a political figure to put aside his feelings on a particular issue and execute the will of the people he represents?

originally posted by: damwel
More hypocritical republicans. These guys don't mind passing laws that control how you live as long as it doesn't apply to them.

REPUBLICANS ONLY?? Why calling out just one party here? I understand this doucher is just that, but come on!! You don't need to pinpoint Republicans here....Just say more hypocritical elected officials....That is more suited for truth IMHO of course!

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Because topic of abortion is apparently ONLY issue they care about...

That and second amendment... not to forget...

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Because topic of abortion is apparently ONLY issue they care about...

That and second amendment... not to forget...

Why would any American not care about the 2nd amendment? I don't think this is a partisan issue and in fact you will see many 'liberals' who also care about the Bill of Rights...including the 2nd amendment.

As far as pressuring the woman goes, I see no problem there. Maybe it's because I'm not a woman but I've always felt it wrong that the current trend is that it's the womans body so it's her choice, the father gets no say in the fate of his child. That seems like a ridiculous notion to me.

Anyways this is just another example of the type of politician who commits behavior that they campaign for as being wrong. Like the anti gay guy who likes to spend his days gay dating websites. It's actually pretty common for people to campaign against their own behavior for some reason.

In the end, this guy will be destroyed in his next primary.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
[img]He pressured the 24-yr old to have an abortion, no matter which side of the abortion debate he was on, he still did not let a woman make up her own mind on what to do with her body.

At 24 years old, you're fully capable of making your own decisions. She made the call to have the abortion, not him. I'm not defending his actions at all (I'm neither a fan of adultery nor elective abortion), but let's not attempt to completely remove the reality of personal responsibility from the woman.

I think you're wrong about that part. And we don't know what all threats he used against her either. I've seen people where I live who've threatened to kill women if they didn't have an abortion. And other incidents where the man had beat the woman in the stomachs to try to force a miscarriage.

Many times, people will try to ignore this or tell the woman to shut up so as not to make it worse. There's a reason why there are so many abuse shelters for women. And what is a woman supposed to do in that situation? Women in America are most likely to be killed by a husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend. So it can literally be a matter of life or death for her if she doesn't comply.

Sure, there's the small chance that this happened. But my point is that I'm quite certain the abortion clinic didn't allow De Jarlais to walk in with the woman and tell the abortion "doctor" to perform the procedure at the reluctance and objection of the woman. But, if so, that's another issue altogether and that clinic needs to be shut down.

The reality is that she walked into an abortion clinic and approved the procedure to be done to her. If she was forcefully coerced or paid off or threatened was not the point argued by me. Neither of us know the details, so the default at this point must be that the woman agreed to the abortion--this is the personal responsibility that I was talking about.

We can play the what-if game all day, but without the details, I refuse to do that and instead will go with the most probably scenario at this point--that she approved the procedure for herself.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming for someone who doesn't want to play the "what if game". The simple fact is that you don't know whether she was threatened or not, therefore you defaulted to the assumption that she wasn't. If we're having an honest conversation, we have to look at all possible scenarios, not just the ones that are convenient to us.

That's the whole reason I pointed out that women are most likely to be murdered by men they're in relationships with or were formerly in relationships with. That's a fact. And women all over the world & in this very country have to live with that threat everyday. Just because you want to dismiss that as "not probable" or "not likely" doesn't make it so. Those are your own assumptions.

originally posted by: Aazadan
As far as pressuring the woman goes, I see no problem there. Maybe it's because I'm not a woman but I've always felt it wrong that the current trend is that it's the womans body so it's her choice, the father gets no say in the fate of his child. That seems like a ridiculous notion to me.

Anyways this is just another example of the type of politician who commits behavior that they campaign for as being wrong. Like the anti gay guy who likes to spend his days gay dating websites. It's actually pretty common for people to campaign against their own behavior for some reason.

In the end, this guy will be destroyed in his next primary.

Huh? So you have no problem with men pressuring a woman to end their pregnancy/kill their unborn children against their will? Why should it only be the man's choice?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Huh? So you have no problem with men pressuring a woman to end their pregnancy/kill their unborn children against their will? Why should it only be the man's choice?

I didn't say it should be only the mans choice, but I think it's wrong that in our current system the father has next to no say in what happens to his future child. I support abortion, including late term ones but at the same time I think it should only happen when both parents agree.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Huh? So you have no problem with men pressuring a woman to end their pregnancy/kill their unborn children against their will? Why should it only be the man's choice?

I didn't say it should be only the mans choice, but I think it's wrong that in our current system the father has next to no say in what happens to his future child. I support abortion, including late term ones but at the same time I think it should only happen when both parents agree.

I was talking about a man possibly pressuring a woman to have an abortion, and gave examples of threats & beatings women have received to force the abortion. Then you responded that you saw no problem with the man pressuring the woman. So what exactly are you saying? Nobody said the man couldn't have a say in the decision. I also believe both people should have a say in it (their support groups as well if they'd be helping raise the child). But when people are threatening the woman, it nullifies her choice, which is the opposite of both people getting to decide on the matter.

The legal arguments favor the female's side because she's the one having to carry the child during pregnancy. She's the one who has to have the regular checkups, has to take the vitamins & other treatments, gains weight while gradually losing the ability to fend for herself, may have to sacrifice her career & curves to have that child, and has to have all medical procedures done on her. Oh yeah, and she's the one literally risking her life during every childbirth. All us guys have to do is get her pregnant. Women have far more to worry about with a pregnancy & thus should have more of a say in it.

Imagine if men were the ones who got pregnant. If our testicles grew to the size of watermelons during pregnancy. If we cramped, got random puking fits, and hurt all over at random times. And then if we had to risk our lives having to flush that mass of wiggling flesh out of our bodies. I guarantee you the legal argument would focus on our side more than the people who only had to be sperm or egg donors.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Because topic of abortion is apparently ONLY issue they care about...

That and second amendment... not to forget...

Why would any American not care about the 2nd amendment? I don't think this is a partisan issue and in fact you will see many 'liberals' who also care about the Bill of Rights...including the 2nd amendment.

The original Black Panthers were incredibly vocal about guaranteeing 2nd Amendment rights to American minorities. They used to do armed marches & armed protests just like today's open carry protests. It was legal to openly carry guns in California at the time, but minorities would still get arrested for it. So the Black Panthers did an armed march on the Sate Capitol & sat in on a session.

This was when Reagan was Governor of California, and Reagan & the California State legislators would pass gun restrictions shortly after that. Here's an archived newspaper article about the event. It's funny how the article both says they were peaceful & simultaneously describes them as a threat or menace. news.google.com...,5010951&hl=en

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
I was talking about a man possibly pressuring a woman to have an abortion, and gave examples of threats & beatings women have received to force the abortion. Then you responded that you saw no problem with the man pressuring the woman. So what exactly are you saying?

Beatings to make sure a woman gets an abortion is wrong, but one person trying to convince the other? I don't see the problem there. Like I said, the man should have equal say. In these articles a man simply standing up to the woman is often times portrayed as a negative because "her body, her choice". It's ridiculous.

The legal arguments favor the female's side because she's the one having to carry the child during pregnancy. She's the one who has to have the regular checkups, has to take the vitamins & other treatments, gains weight while gradually losing the ability to fend for herself, may have to sacrifice her career & curves to have that child, and has to have all medical procedures done on her. Oh yeah, and she's the one literally risking her life during every childbirth. All us guys have to do is get her pregnant. Women have far more to worry about with a pregnancy & thus should have more of a say in it.

I understand all of that, but think about it this way. In a two person "vote" unless both sides have an equal vote, the one with more will always have a majority. If the woman gets 51% of the say while the man gets 49% she wins every single time, it might as well be 100% and 0% in that case, because that's what it effectively is. The types of cases I'm talking about, lets say the man is willing to take custody of the kid, be a single parent, raise it, and so on. The woman says there's no way she wants a child and goes to get an abortion. Is that right? From his perspective his child was just murdered.

All I'm saying is that the law would be more equitable if to get an abortion the consent of both parents to be (not counting rape cases) were required. If one gives consent and the other doesn't, the one not giving consent should be legally responsible for the child. And I know a woman who actually did this. She got pregnant by a guy, decided she didn't really like him and wanted to hurt him, and had the child aborted just to spite him. It screwed the guy up bad enough that he killed himself as a result.

Then again maybe this approach is too reliant on both people acting like adults.

originally posted by: damwel
More hypocritical republicans. These guys don't mind passing laws that control how you live as long as it doesn't apply to them.

Really....

Obamacare anyone, I do agree there is some crazy Hippocrates, but there is nothing like the old liberal that dictates to the whole country on how things will be. I would not be so upset if they would get it at least right 1 out of 10 times...I'm I asking for too much? This age old "oh the abortion thing" is rather old and about the only thing you diehards hold on to with clenched fists, as the liberal party destroys the Constitution and the country...lol

I was once against abortions because it has been turned into a cash cow event for abortions clinics and is used as first choice most of the time as a form a birth control because of inconvenience, and so does lower the morality of society as we suggest that a person is an "it" until the head pops out, but hey I can't argue much now since it has lower crime rates for the past 25 years.

Bottom line is it is not going to change in our life time no matter what a small percentage of people like this guy tries to do, so maybe we should focus on the issues that ARE affecting us today, tomorrow and the day after...

I think there is a term for someone like this ..

Oh right, it's called Politician.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Google books source

We cannot settle the problem, and i venture the prophecy that perhaps a century from now this same question may be brought before some future society and discussed very much as it is tonight.

That was written on the subject of abortion in 1914.

If history is any indication the debate isn't going to end in our lifetimes. Perhaps some things just don't have a definitive answer and it should be up to the individuals involved to make a choice they can live with.

...then again I suppose that answer of mine is pretty pro choice.