Just How Truly ‘Pro-Choice’ Is The Democratic Party?

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by wascurious

 

never said i was

however, her insurance was RELIGIOUSLY funded and that does involve me and a whole bunch of others (known as taxpayers).

keep thinking it ... one day you'll realize the truth of the situation.
perhaps you don't pay because you don't earn, but hopefully, that will change too.
fyi, every payment you make toward taxation or health insurance pays for someone's viagra, yes it does.

Sorry, you are still wrong. She was not even talking about birth control for herself. She was talking about a friend that needed to take it for the hormone therapy aspect of it. Who was her friend employed by again?

And yes, I know. But you seem ok with that for some reason.

edit on 8-9-2012 by wascurious because: (no reason given)

look, i cannot view the posted video so i don't know for sure what you are rambling about. i saw the congressional hearings and heard her testimony 1st hand ... not so surprisingly, her testimony isn't what this topic is about.

since you started the topic, any chance you could stay focused on it ??
as for the "friend", she was already getting contraceptives, what's your problem ??
who cares who the friend's employer was ... clearly, she had met a "medical necessity" aspect of the treatment protocol.
Sandra Fluke ?? not so much.

reply to post by wascurious

so, what happened ??

Have one single case for me? No? OK, moving on then.

i provide 2+million cases from a decade ago and you don't even respond ?

do you think these cases of male rape just disappeared over the last decade or what exactly ?
do you think those who were raped might be court-ordered to pay child support ?
do you even consider the possibility that your understanding is far too limited to voice an objective opinion in this matter ??

of those who were Democrats, how many have a "choice" in their misery ??

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
No you're not. You're making a fetus have more rights than a born person or an adult argument.

Which is the same tired old piece of crap argument that's been going around for decades.

No, he and people that actually believe in human rights want human fetuses to have the same rights as a born person. The "tired argument" is one that keeps being dodged by the pro-abortion crowd.

/TOA

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof
reply to post by wascurious

 

Educate yourself.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.springerlink.com...

www.malesurvivor.org...

www.bmj.com...

Rape of men by women doesn't have to be vaginal penetration with the penis. It can be forced oral, anal, or digital sex i.e. fondling, groping.

Oh no. You educate me. How a woman gets pregnant by forcibly felating a man, I have to hear. How does it get the man pregnant? I really want to hear that.

Oh please explain this to me.

Maybe look up the word impregnate first though.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Perhaps it is you who needs to catch up if you only heard her at the DNC and not in her testimony before Congress. She did lump certain other female needs in with the contraception because that is the only way she can legitimize her demands.

I did not see her speak at the DNC. Yes, she lumped lots of women's health issues together because they are real and matter. You think the pill is just about not having babies. Viagara was invented to help children with respiratory problems.. Not everything is black and white.

Now if you truly feel you know more about her demands than I do, why don't you go ahead and explain it in detail. If I disagree, I will let you know. Let's hear it in your own words now.

I said more than I need to about it so far. If you have something contradictory, YOU BRING IT.

Perhaps you could explain to me just what you think she was testifying before Congress for? If she and her friends in college didn't want insurance to cover the cost of their contraceptives, then what was the issue?

That was the issue. Why do you think I think it was not the issue? I said it was the issue. The issue is that pill that treats more things that one night stands.

In her own words she says she wants the contraceptives provided without co pays and without a deductible. In other words, she wants the insurance companies to cover the cost of contraceptives.

The insurance that she pays for? So when I ask for extra salt on my fries at BK, I am asking every other BK customer to eat my salt cost?

I do not even know how to apply real world logic to your massive distortion of reality.

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof
When it comes to women, any sexual act that they did not consent to is considered rape. Why is this standard not the same for male rape victims?

Probably because we were talking about impregnation through rape.
How many men have had that issue again?

And yes, an erection is an involuntary physical reaction.

Yes it is but it is not like the heart and lungs. If you get hard just because your penis touches ANYTHING, including animals, furniture, a light breeze, then there is something wrong with you. That is not how most men work.

Or are you trying to tell me that all men enjoy all oral stimulation any time, regardless of the source.
Is that a statement you want to make? Stand by? Any other men want to back you up on the idea that pretty girl, ugly guy, porpoise, as long as it is sucking you will enjoy it. And yes I said enjoy because I understand how erections work.

I guess by your responses you are one of the many who think men are brainless raping machines who are incapable of being victims of anything.

You are the one trying to tell me that all men get erect all the time that anything stimulates their penis. That sounds pretty rapy to me.

That is the epitome of ignorance.

That is what I thought as I was reading it too.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by wascurious

 

To highlight the controversy, here is an article discussing the Obama admin's attacks on religious freedom, and of course, the fact that Sandra was invited to the DNC to speak shows that they are only too happy to continue this attack under the guise of feminine issues.
the-american-catholic.com... ork/

I am pretty sure you would not want to admit that relilgious freedom has anything to do with what the Obama admin is doing here, but if one takes into account Obama's insistance on covering religious statues, one simply cannot brush it off as accident.

Now here is her testimony before Congress. If you feel that I have insufficiently analyzed it for this forum, then you certainly may have a crack at it.

Who's religious freedom was being attacked by covered statues?
Cry me a river all about your religious freedom right after the repeal of all blue laws.
I am not sure why you feel the need to explain to anyone what someone meant with their own words when you have their own words right there.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by wascurious

 

Here is another article for those who don't understand the issues.

www.christianpost.com...

An opinion from a Christian magazine. Gosh, I wonder where it will fall.

You can save that.

reply to post by wascurious


You told me I had no clue what she was talking about. It appears you also did not as you now tell me you did not hear her talk at the DNC.
Something tells me that you just listened to some talking points on Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz.

You said more than you need to? Being you said little more than that I didn't know what she was talking about, that is certainly enough for me to forget having a discussion with you.

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by wascurious

 

Here is another article for those who don't understand the issues.

www.christianpost.com...

An opinion from a Christian magazine. Gosh, I wonder where it will fall.

You can save that.

Yes, at least it discussed the issues involved clearly, those issues being Sandra's insistence that govt should force private insurers pay for contraception and the Catholic Bishops' opposition to it for the reason that it interferes with the Catholics' rights not to fund something they are spiritually against. It is clearly about religious freedom vs the nanny state.

reply to post by wascurious


The Nanny State forcing a religious institution to pay for something it considers wrong, yes going against religious freedom of every practicing Catholic who adheres to the teaching. Covering the statues, Obama's sick petulance and intolerance.

Cry me a river all about your religious freedom right after the repeal of all blue laws.

Cry me a river about Sandra fluke's petulant demand to have other people pay for her contraception just because.

See how that works?

reply to post by wascurious

No, there is something very, very wrong with you.

The links I provided showed women who, by deception, get pregnant by men.

The other links showed how men can be raped also.

I never once said that men get pregnant.

You are obviously either very stupid, or you are intentionally acting dense to avoid the topics (with subsequent proof to back them up), I have talked about.

I'm leaning toward the former.

In case you don't know what 'former' and 'latter' mean, I'm saying you are stupid. F.Y.I.

(FYI= For Your Information. Just to clarify. Don't want to confuse you too much.)

Now, thanks to your ridiculous posts, the important topics I, and others bring up and show proof of will be drowned out by your incessant obfuscation.

Congratulations.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by wascurious

 

ohhhh, i'd really enjoy you educating me on this difference you think exists.

Then see if you can spot the difference between rape, and taking advantage of someone. There is a difference.

remember now, you're speaking to someone with personal experience so do tell, what is this difference ??

are you really too lame to search that one on your own ??
it wasn't that difficult ... it would seem that 2 million isn't such a small number at all.

www.rainn.org...
Men
About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.

In 2003, 1 in every ten rape victims were male.
2.78 million men in the U.S. have been victims of sexual assault or rape.

ETA: given the above statistic, are you even aware that in 2003, more men [nearly 3 times as many] were raped/sexually assaulted than total abortions performed ??
need a reference ??

www.cdc.gov...
A total of 848,163 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2003 from 49 reporting areas, representing a 0.7% decline from the 854,122 legal induced abortions reported by 49 reporting areas for 2002.

so, which is a bigger dilemma ??
rape, abortion or the Pro-Choice stance that is anything but a choice?
care to interject a real argument or are straws all you can reach ??

edit on 8-9-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA

edit on 8-9-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt

2 million?
Are you paying any attention here at all?????


I NEVER SAID MEN CANNOT BE RAPED. If you need me to hold your hand while you read my posts, let me know. I guess now you need to learn what impregnate means because nothing you posted shows even 1 single man ever having been raped and impregnated.

What do you think you just proved?

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof
WOW... You are ridiculous.

You are akin to the right wing saying women who wear short skirts deserve being raped for the way they dress.

ALL OF THOSE MEN CHOSE TO HAVE SEX.

You are ridiculous. Condoms and the pill are not 100% effective. If you do not know that, you should not be having sex. So even if she is on the pill and you are wearing a condom, a baby might get made. So if you CHOOSE TO HAVE SEX, YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE THAT RISK.

What grade are you in? It is usually somewhere around high school that you learn these things are not 100% apparently and you need to be educated quite fast.

Obviously your blind hatred of penises is clouding your higher cognitive abilities. Or perhaps, unfortunately, this is just how diminished it is at all times. If that indeed is the case, you have my sympathies.

But I do not have a fondness for talking to furniture, and this conversation has been equally stimulating.

Good day.

I have no hatred for penises but you would be amazed at how little your personal opinion of me matters; especially considering the ignorance spewed above by you.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by wascurious

 

You told me I had no clue what she was talking about. It appears you also did not as you now tell me you did not hear her talk at the DNC.
Something tells me that you just listened to some talking points on Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz.

You said more than you need to? Being you said little more than that I didn't know what she was talking about, that is certainly enough for me to forget having a discussion with you.

edit on 9-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Um...we were talking about her testifying before congress. THAT I SAW. I do not care what she said at the DNC as it was not relevant to the conversation at the time I responded.

Want to discuss her speech at the DNC? Then let's do that.

Originally posted by Honor93
look, i cannot view the posted video so i don't know for sure what you are rambling about. i saw the congressional hearings and heard her testimony 1st hand ... not so surprisingly, her testimony isn't what this topic is about.

I did not post any videos.

No, her testimony is not the topic of the thread. Just what we were discussing. Apparently it upsets some of you that her speech at the DNC was different and you guys really want both events to be the same thing.

since you started the topic, any chance you could stay focused on it ??

What topic did I start? I did not bring up Fluke and what she was asking for when she testified.
Why blame that on me? And how do I get more on that topic than I already am?

as for the "friend", she was already getting contraceptives, what's your problem ??
who cares who the friend's employer was ... clearly, she had met a "medical necessity" aspect of the treatment protocol.
Sandra Fluke ?? not so much.

Apparently we watched two different hearings.
Funny though how it seems like all you are talking about is her freedom to not get pregnant against her will not being a valid freedom though, considering what the topic actually is.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by wascurious

 

so, what happened ??

I have a life outside ATS.

i provide 2+million cases from a decade ago and you don't even respond ?

You never showed me a single one.
Where in that post are all these pregnant men?

do you think these cases of male rape just disappeared over the last decade or what exactly ?
do you think those who were raped might be court-ordered to pay child support ?
do you even consider the possibility that your understanding is far too limited to voice an objective opinion in this matter ??

Then you should have given me a list of the men that have been raped and court ordered to pay child support if that is what you wanted me to see. You cannot go "men get raped, see I proved men have to pay for kids they did not want." You are skipping a big step there.

of those who were Democrats, how many have a "choice" in their misery ??

edit on 8-9-2012 by Honor93 because: typo

Please tell me there is a support group so these men can learn to get through their pregnancies ok.

Originally posted by The Old American
No, he and people that actually believe in human rights want human fetuses to have the same rights as a born person. The "tired argument" is one that keeps being dodged by the pro-abortion crowd.

/TOA

edit on 8-9-2012 by The Old American because: (no reason given)

Then that fetus needs to be able to live outside of the mother.
Why is simple biology so hard for people in these threads? If that babies needs to be inside me to live, it is subject to my rights not the other way around. I am certain you right wing men would not support the idea of anyone being able to invade your body and then trump your rights, would you?

reply to post by wascurious

No, her testimony is not the topic of the thread. Just what we were discussing. Apparently it upsets some of you that her speech at the DNC was different and you guys really want both events to be the same thing.

Though they were two different situations and different audiences, the essence and the message are the same. It is the same socialist outlook, and simply a modern version of Betty Friedan.

Friedan was a radical feminist, and a communist
www.discoverthenetworks.org...

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
just like you are more concerned about a clump of cells then the fully formed person.

This is not a clump of cells

This is a preborn baby .. sucking his or her thumb.
The baby is FULLY FORMED and has brain waves at three months in the womb.
After that, it just gains weight and finished 'cooking'.

It's strange that many on the left keep referring to FULLY FORMED preborn children as just 'clumps of cells'. That simply isn't true.