Paul Ryan and Todd Akin co-sponsored 8 anti-abortion bills in 112th Congress

reply to post by SunnyDee


That's the point the left scream 'more abortion freedom' and the right scream 'no welfare'. And neither side are making birth control more accessible. Both sides are so busy making sure they win for 'their cause' (obviously it's more important to win) that both sides have lost their humanity. You do realize that you are supporting the killing of the weakest of humans who have no voice and most are trying damn hard to make sure no one ever even sees. It must be harder to kill your defensless child when you have to actually hear their heartbeat and see their face.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Why do you think it's okay to kill defenseless humans?

Freedom and equality for everyone we have to look at and listen to! All others are SOL.

Originally posted by EndlessFire
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Why do you think it's okay to kill defenseless humans?

Freedom and equality for everyone we have to look at and listen to! All others are SOL.

edit on 22-8-2012 by EndlessFire because: (no reason given)

Oh goody, another person trying to drag this off topic and turn it into a "abortion is wrong" thread.

I am not okay with killing defenseless humans. I am okay with aborting a pregnancy. Semantics dont change the facts.

Why are you okay with taking your opinion, and forcing it on all women?

Originally posted by EndlessFire
reply to post by windword

 

So you leave the door open with a welcome sign and then claim trespassing? If you're having sex and let a man put his penis inside you without at least two forms of birth control (because no one form is 100%) then you are in fact inviting the possiblity of pregnancy.

And? This has WHAT to do with the topic at hand?

countries with strict abortion laws usually end up with stories like this one...

latino.foxnews.com...

it's easy to say that the rights of one ends when it interfers with the rights of another, but in the case of pregnancy, it's not really that feasible, is it???
there are may people out there that are dependent on drugs that enables them to live a normal life, or at least a live that is more rewarding. and unfortunately, many of these drugs are very unhealthy to a developing fetus. there are women in NY who have been ordered by the courts to abort because of this by what I've been told..

so, here's a question...
which right should take precedence. the case in ny I personally know about in ny, the girls had mental issues, serious mental issues and the drug she was on was enabling her to live a semi-dependant life with her parents, whereas, without it, she would have been institutionalized.
she really didn'jt have the intelligence level i believe, to know what it took to get pregnant even /I don't think...

so, what about those who are like this?? do we instutionalize them, deprive them of their right to medication that would make such a big difference in their lifestyle?? which right should take precedence??

when I was pregant with my youngest.....I had a very hard time walking and almost ended up on bed rest because of it....I had two other young children that were depending on me to take care of them and that would mean walking. so who's right is more valid? my right to be able to take care of myselfl and kids? the kid's rights to have someone taking care of them? or the unborn baby's right??

in my opinion, the mother's rights should always be held higher than the unborn child's. some women find birth control as not so effective.. some women didn't have a choice and couldn't say no, and some women have willingly given up that right because of a belief that is taught in most of the churches in the country!!! and it seems that ones fighting so hard for the unborn rights also in many cases the same ones that would tend to work to reform the country in an attempt to make women more dependent and subserivent to men....
ya know,,,, a women shouldn't work unless the husband wants her to....
women should be obedient in all things....
husband can't rape the wife....ect....

kind of seems like they are wanting to take all the power away from the women, even the ability to say no....
and I don't see giving birth as an oblligation for all women. I see it as a sacrifice that she choses to take on herself...although too often kind of stupidly walks into....it's her sacrifice, her choice to make, not her husband's, although I belief his voice should be heard and considered, not societies, and not yours or mine. if she finds those sacrifices to be too big, I don't think anyone should force her to make them....especially in the extreme cases lilke the ones I pointed ouf. if a women decides that the reward is worth the chance of sacrificing her life, well, that is her choice, if she dies, well, she has choses to sacrifice her life for her child...
but if she is forced to carry it, with full knowledge of that chance, well, I would consider that negligent homocide on the part of the society that withheld a medical proceedure that would have prevented such an event.

Originally posted by EndlessFire
reply to post by SunnyDee

 

That's the point the left scream 'more abortion freedom' and the right scream 'no welfare'. And neither side are making birth control more accessible. Both sides are so busy making sure they win for 'their cause' (obviously it's more important to win) that both sides have lost their humanity. You do realize that you are supporting the killing of the weakest of humans who have no voice and most are trying damn hard to make sure no one ever even sees. It must be harder to kill your defensless child when you have to actually hear their heartbeat and see their face.

All true things you have said. I don't deny it. In the first month of the fetus, it really is just a bunch of cells, and the easiest time for a miscarriage. They happen sometimes and the woman doesn't even know she was pregnant. I think many may rationalize this as easier to abort at this stage.

I don't like to mince words. It is an ugly horrible thing, abortion. I don't think of it as murder, but the ending of a process. You obviously see it different, but it's not your body doing the processing. I do think very rationally about it without bringing God into it. I think there are too many people on earth. I think women who have abortions obviously did not want a child, or it was endangering them, and I think with over 7 billion people on earth projecting to hit 8 in the next 20 years, so much suffering, such poverty, and a deteriorating ecosystem, we should not be forcing every baby to be born that is conceived.

I've heard many stories of people that do not alter their pets, let the animals breed and then drown the babies, just to let it happen again. These people are christians. I don't hold humans to such a standard that we are above doing things that are not ugly. We do. I guess I am putting the earth before the breeding masses, and in regard to our nation, I put personal freedoms as a standard to live by, unless it hurts other humans, discounting fetuses.

There it is. Let's hope we become an enlightened world where everyone does the right thing all the time, keep our populations in check, and don not absolutely destroy the earth for the children to follow.

reply to post by beezzer

Originally posted by beezzer
"My rights end where others begin"

Pity that thought process doesn't extend to abortion.

But it DOES! Here's what I'm talking about Beez. If I were to use your phrase, I'd say the clump of cells' (or "pre-born human") rights end where mine begin. I have the rights to my PERSON. The Constitution is CLEAR on that. That clump of cells is infringing on my rights and I can CHOOSE to allow it or stop it.

reply to post by beezzer

Originally posted by beezzer
But if you are not born yet, they get to kill you.

If that "pre-born human" infringes on my rights, what is my recourse? If another human being infringes on my rights, I have recourse. But if I don't want this thing in my body, what is my option? Why does its supposed rights outweigh mine?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer

 

Originally posted by beezzer
But if you are not born yet, they get to kill you.

If that "pre-born human" infringes on my rights, what is my recourse? If another human being infringes on my rights, I have recourse. But if I don't want this thing in my body, what is my option? Why does its supposed rights outweigh mine?

An infringement is a deliberate act. So that doesn't hold water.

Then there is the issue of personal responsibility. Which is a sore topic to any liberal since they don't like it because it interferes with the "victim card". If you don't want the "thing" in your body, then don't do the "thing" that'll place the "thing" in your body.

What is it with some people? Do you honestly think sex is an invouluntary act?

(hint, it isn't like sneezing)

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by primus2012

 

Your entire post is a insane rant of generalizations. I started going point by point, but decided..well, whats the point. Your just a parrot off the most fringe right wing nutjob mindsets anyhow.

Evil indeed.

So, whats your thoughts on medicare and social security?
Against it?
Oh...right...ya..because only evil people want to make sure grandpa isn't begging for food on a streetcorner.

Insane about life, indeed! How about you? If I need be deemed a pro-life Parrot Nutjob because I abhor the murder of unborn children, then I will wear that as a badge of honor, print me up some t-shirts. Better than "I Like Dead Babies" don't you think?

Medicare and Social Security are benefits that we earn at retirement or disability by paying into during our working years. Why would I have an issue with them, and where are you drawing the correlation?

I'm sure instead of calling me crazy to generalize how you felt about my post, you were quite capable of an intelligible point by point response. Like "This is who really created Planned Parenthood and why they are worthy of our praise _________".

reply to post by beezzer


and yet, we have a pastor young encouraging his flock to have sex, lots of sex, claiming that it stregthens marriages....
so, well, which is it???
married couples should abstain from sex if they don't want any more babies till after menopause??

or is more intimancy in a marriage good for the relationship???

and....if the two parties involved in the marriage disagrees concerning this....is it worth blowing a marriage over???

by the way, a person could find out they have cancer after the conception of a child, should we withhold chemotherapy and let her die, to preserve the child's right to live???

This has to be one of the foulest, most disgusting Republican tickets in ages. If not ever.

I'm sick of listening to Paul Ryan backpedal away from Todd Akin. He had nothing but praises for him then, but now is throwing him under the bus. Ryan is on record singing Akin's praises. They worked together to pass/write 8 different bills on reproductive rights of women - that's a serious ideological partnership, there!

Paul Ryan you embraced Akin's position yourself the past few years, OWN up to it. Be a man, stand by your record, don't slither away from it now that we can all see what sort of nonsense you've been spewing over the years.

I love how a candidate for the VP office can tell another candidate running for office in Missouri to DROP OUT, so he can spare his own chances.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I couldn't agree with you more, they are two peas in a pod. These two congressmen have been conspiring together for years in an effort to completely outlaw abortions for any reason whatsoever. Anyone who believes that there is one inch of difference between these two congressmen, when it comes to their views on abortion and rape, is just lying to themselves.

F&S for the OP!

reply to post by oxykerfluffle

Originally posted by oxykerfluffle
I love how a candidate for the VP office can tell another candidate running for office in Missouri to DROP OUT, so he can spare his own chances.

And that's another interesting aspect of this issue. They aren't trying to get Akin to drop out because they disagree with his stance. He spouted their stance to the world and they're pissed! They just want the PEOPLE to think they disagree with Akin, so their chances improve, but when people look beneath the hood, we can see that there's NO daylight between Akin's and Ryan's beliefs on the matter.

reply to post by beezzer


While I agree with you about being responsible when it comes to having sex, what's the difference really?

It's not like some of the same people who are against abortion aren't perfectly happy sending troops off to die and kill others, hunt for sport or farm and kill animals for food. People don't really believe in the sanctity of life as much as they say they do, it's just something to argue about so they can feel like they are part of something (religion, political party, whatever gets acceptance from their peers) and maybe get the chance to interfere with someone elses business behind a mask of false self righteousness.

It's silly really, any other moment of the day people could really care less until they feel they have to defend something that they really don't even have any business sticking their nose into. The only real reason people argue about this stuff is so they can feel better than others in some twisted way that defies common sense and logic. If people cared so much about other peoples babies, then why don't they take care of them? They won't lift a finger because the only thing they really care about is themselves.

I have to side with the pro-choice people even though I don't like it, because there is no sound argument for preventing people from getting an abortion. Not to mention there's 7 billion people on the planet and counting and not enough jobs and food for them all.

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by beezzer

 

While I agree with you about being responsible when it comes to having sex, what's the difference really?

None really. It's a subject of personal responsibility.

It's not like some of the same people who are against abortion aren't perfectly happy sending troops off to die and kill others, hunt for sport or farm and kill animals for food. People don't really believe in the sanctity of life as much as they say they do, it's just something to argue about so they can feel like they are part of something (religion, political party, whatever gets acceptance from their peers) and maybe get the chance to interfere with someone elses business behind a mask of false self righteousness.

Fighting is a choice. What choice does the unborn infant have?

It's silly really, any other moment of the day people could really care less until they feel they have to defend something that they really don't even have any business sticking their nose into. The only real reason people argue about this stuff is so they can feel better than others in some twisted way that defies common sense and logic. If people cared so much about other peoples babies, then why don't they take care of them? They won't lift a finger because the only thing they really care about is themselves.

Why did caucasians support the civil rights movement? They weren't black.

I have to side with the pro-choice people even though I don't like it, because there is no sound argument for preventing people from getting an abortion. Not to mention there's 7 billion people on the planet and counting and not enough jobs and food for them all.

edit on 23-8-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

You are always welcome to your opinion.

The adoption agencies are full of unwanted kids. When the pro life people start adopting them; then their
argument might have some validity. Until then let women make their own reproductive decisions.
Even conservative women don't want MEN making their bodies properties of the state and regulated by governmental edicts and rules.

See the GOP hypocrisy here?

Freedom indeed......

reply to post by beezzer

Originally posted by beezzer
An infringement is a deliberate act.

infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Nothing about it having to be a deliberate act. If you're going to redefine words, maybe you should back it up with SOMETHING.

But instead of debating the meaning of words, how about you try to answer the questions, instead, eh? Here it is again: If a "pre-born human" infringes on my rights, what is my recourse? ... Why does its supposed rights outweigh mine?

reply to post by beezzer

Originally posted by beezzer
It's a subject of personal responsibility.

Many times, having and abortion IS the responsible thing to do. If a person can't afford a child or doesn't want one, having an abortion is an act of personal responsibility. And since when are you in favor of the government dictating personal responsibility to its citizens? You big-government types always puzzle me!

What choice does the unborn infant have?

An unborn infant cannot make a choice. And couldn't if one were offered. That's nonsense. And by that logic, YOU would make the choice for them. To be born into a world where they were not wanted. Way to advocate for the kid! Send him into a home where he's not wanted.

reply to post by beezzer


The sex drive is involuntary. Ovulation and pregnancy are involuntary.

For millions of years of biological programming and thousands of years of social programming, nature has been tricking us to fulfill it's agenda of mindless replenishing of the planet. It tricks birds into carrying seeds across long distances for the purpose of replenishing. It tricks bees in to pollination.

We are designed to crave physical comfort and relief. Nature has hidden it's agenda in our very psyche. There is nothing holy or sacred about it, and we have been fighting with nature since the beginning of time. We cloth ourselves, build shelter and find cures to natures imperfect diseases.

We find ways to trick nature into being our slaves as well, with dams, mining for natural resources and harnessing electricity. But, alas we have to deal with the natural backlash of doing so. Building a dam causes death to ecosystems below, mining often poison the environment and electric wires cause fires.

Birth control is new, but, abortion has been practiced since the dawn of time. Birth control still has problems. The pill can cause deadly blood clots, high blood pressure and can lead to cancer. An IUD can dislodge causing harm, even death to the mother, and if it fails birth defects to the child. Spermicide doesn't always work, and often causes rashes and infections. Condoms break and come with complaints from our lovers.

Plato talked about abortion, it was preformed by priests in the Old Testament and was practiced in ancient China.

We have to stop looking at a fertilized egg as being sacred, and gain some control and sanity over our self determination. Pregnancy looms over a woman, daily, for as much as 40 years. It can kill, and so can birth control. For the first time in our known history, woman have the right to say no to motherhood. And, they've only had that right for less than 100 years.

If these new scientific methods of birth control can't be used for one reason or another, or if they fail, for the sake of equity in society and self determination of the female population, abortion must remain legal, safe and accessible to all!

Look a the bad science that Todd Akin's doctor source is selling us, and how this same doctor has worked with Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. How many other people believed this guy? Is it any wonder that teen ages girls and boys could be confused about the "birds and bees?" I'm just glad that his line of thinking has been exposed, by Akin's stupid blurt, so that it can be dispelled.

What kind of myths and wives tales are teens learning from nuts?

"You can't get pregnant if it's a rape."
"You can't get pregnant on your first time."
"You can't get pregnant right after your period."
"You can't get pregnant if you're nursing."
"Doucing with Coca Cola before sex will prevent pregnancy."

Those are just of few that I know of. They are all false and can lead to an unwanted pregnancy.

Sorry if this post is somewhat disjointed. I was trying to hit on a number to ideas and points, coherently.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Waitaminute.

So an unborn child infringes on a womans rights by existing?

Please, pray tell, explain.