That's the hate against women part. Or else the stupidity (there is no other word) of the Republican party and those who vote for them.
Originally Posted by fish
32,000 women in the US get pregnant from rape each year. Probably much higher since most rapes are never reported. Therefore, since those tens of thousands of women's bodies did not shut down and prevent the rape, it was not a legitimate rape.
How, how, HOW can any of you support this party? How can you possibly do it? This medieval attitude and glory in uneducated stupidity goes far beyond other issues.
If the GOP is so incredibly stupid & uniformed about basic 7th grade biology, how uneducated and simplistic are they about anything else? Doesn't that scare you? Doesn't it bother you that Romney actually supports these men?
sorry, my quote function does not seem to be working.
fooler: i asked you what your comment about dr. paul's belief had to do with anything bc it does not address my original comment: that i still have not seen a sound, reasonable, scientific reason for outlawing abortion, at least early term abortion. one right winger's comment based on medical science from 50 years ago does not scientific, reasonable, well founded evidence make.
what would be a good reason to outlaw abortion, you ask?
perhaps if they could find a way to definitively let the fetus live outside the mother from the moment of conception. they could transfer the embryo and it would live. til then...til it can live outside the mother...it IS a part of her. it does not have individual status or rights; it is 100% dependent on her to survive. how can it be murder if the what you're "killing" is not alive? (alive meaning, surviving on its own)
and where do you draw the line? is ovulating every month a murder, since the egg is a potential life? why isn't IT alive? what about the sperm? should masturbation be murder? they're killing millions of potential people with one shot.
so, in view of that, do you have any reasonable arguments against abortion? anybody? bueller?
This argument is just going back and forth at this point and it isn't addressing the most simple solution.
Simply geld the 99.9% of the men and keep the .1% most perfect of them in plush stalls like stallions, bring the selected one out that would be a good nick with yourself have a quickie and toss them back in the stall when we are done.
They don't like it - Too bad, 10,000 years of subjugation is long enough.
It is our turn.
I hate to say it but I think that issue is actually somewhere in the thinking.
They have to be able to send someone to war right??
Originally Posted by mswillie
Just food for thought.
The world population IS a problem. The discussion goes so far as to suggest that fertile women should be pregnant. How can this be sustained??? I cannot fathom the consequences.
I do believe that wars and plagues, diseases, famines and natural disasters all play a part in population reduction control. Isn't that awful. But it's the truth. So when the religious zealots can tame this beast first then let them solve the rest of the world's problems. When all the religions quit fighting religious wars and all of their atrocities and come together in peace and harmony ...
Infantcide has been practiced thruout history and in all cultures and it was forced by men and religions too. http://infanticide.org/history.htm So the agrument about what happens to women is just as old.
Beliefs can be preached, but no one can dictate an individual's decision. That is a dictatorship not a democracy. Our country was founded on religious and individual freedoms. I have to draw the line here.
I am pro-choice in that safe abortions should be available for any woman.
I am pro-human in that:
Rape is a crime, period. No male or female should ever have to experience rape
Incest is a crime period. Same as above - no one should be the victim of incest
Unfortunately it happens and women must have access to abortion
Some women's body is all wrong for pregancy, my late sister was one.
Some women have an illness or disease that makes pregancy difficult to deadly. One of my cousins had children in spite of the illness that eventually killed her.
Both of these women wanted children more than anything, in spite of the obvious dangers.
Women are different in that some never want children, myself, and others will endanger their own life to have a child and then everyone in between.
Abortion must be legal and safe. IMO - 'we' should be as responsible as possible. Yes the only way to prevent pregancy is to abstain, which.is.not.realistic. However we should be conscious in our sexual actions, male and female. Speaking from experience here.
You have made me think and I thank you.
There are doctors who were taught the same as Dr. Paul, there are current doctors being taught a different perspective and everyone in between.
So you are correct, my statement about the medical community was incomplete.
However you are incorrect, as we can not clearly state that the medical community has a single policy.
I believe the medical community does not have a consistent policy regarding when life begins, whether pregancy indicates one or two patients, how they personally feel about a woman risking her life to bear a child or abortion.
I guess "We want to de-fund Planned Parenthood because it's all about the baaaabiesss" sounds better than "We want to de-fund Planned Parenthood because we want a steady stream of desperate cannon fodder and minimum wage workers".
Originally Posted by JGHIRETIRE
Just saw this article:
What this woman had to deal with thanks to "pro-life" (really, "pro-conception") crazies who want to legislate what a woman can do with her own body is truly abominable. It will never be a simple, black and white issue, and therefore abortion must remain LEGAL and SAFE.
Oh God. That last sentence undid me. That poor woman.
Originally Posted by Natalie
FRIZZLE, in reply to your quote on page 10.
With all due respect to your right to your version of a god ( there are so many versions of gods out there). There is only one true God and that is the God of the Bible. He created this world and He put His laws in the heart of every person, whether people acknowledge them or not.
In your opinion.
Originally Posted by candyappy
or there is no God, only people who want to believe there is and use that as a club to beat others to their will.
Originally Posted by candyappy
This is a wonderful example of putting your trust and faith into the hands of the true and only living God. That you can trust in Him in all circumstances and know He will give you the strength to get through it no matter the outcome.
Originally Posted by Freebird!
And there ya have it.
I'm not sure that idea is actually there in the forefront but yes I do believe it's in there somewhere - they are just trying to disguise it and feel better about themselves.
Originally Posted by mswillie
You aren't winning any friends to your side. In fact, it's narrow, alienating views like this that turn people away from "your" god every day.
But this thread isn't about my interpretation of god or candyappy's or anyone else's for that matter. Let's get back to the OP and away from the preaching.
With all due respect, you are free to believe that – You are not free to impose your religious beliefs upon others, including their bodies.
Originally Posted by candyappy
In the United States of America, we have freedom of religion, and freedom FROM religion.
Its a right I will not allow others to impose upon.
Poverty & fine start= money, right?
Originally Posted by mvp
Having money doesn't mean a better life for anyone. Does it make it easier? Yes. I am from a family who lived way below the poverty level many, many times. We shopped in thrift stores, ate very simple meals. My parents never owned anything new at all until we were out of the house. My parents both worked ( and worked hard)and they loved us. If I had gotten pregnant we would have never thought of abortion because we were poor.
Adoption, yes, because it is an option and it seems that many never give it a thought. Why?
The value of life isn't based on our financial or personal circumstances.
This is something that I hear a lot and it's a bit confusing for me.
Originally Posted by DieBlaueReiterin
A full term baby is 40 weeks. As medicine progresses we are able to properly care for premature babies at a younger and younger age. These babies require weeks to months of care in the NICU. Are they only "alive" once they leave the hospital and can survive on their own without medical intervention or are they "alive" once they are stabilized and in the hospital or "alive" once they are born and the parent decides to try and save them?
50 years ago a preemie at 26 weeks would have been swaddled and given to the parents to hold for a short while before it passed. Now 26 weekers are growing up to be healthy, normal, happy children.
If the definition of "alive" is tied to the ability to survive outside of a women's body, does "life" start earlier and earlier depending on our medical advances?
I understand that this is a widely held belief but I guess I am having a hard time understanding the foundation of the argument.
It's not that these fundamentalist men hate women, it's that they fear them and their sexuality. Think about how a sexually confident woman must appear to these kinds of men.