CNN Analyst Says ‘Women’s March Isn’t About Women, It’s About Liberalism’

Actually, I do "get" that there were many abortions prior to Roe--perhaps just as many as afterwards--but I would not wish to place our national imprimatur upon the killing of unborn children. (Note: Prior to the discovery of DNA--about the early 1990s, I believe--it could reasonably be argued that the unborn child--dismissed as a mere "fetus" by pro-choicers--was merely a part of the mother's own body. But we now know that the unborn child has a separate DNA--and therefore, is a separate being, merely attached to the mother, but not a part of her.)

(By the way, it is really not a good debate tactic to use terms that the other side would not choose, to describe them--such as, for instance, "anti-choice," instead of pro-life.)

Just how often, do you suppose, that doctors were "performing abortions [and] writing down something else on the charts"?

And can you prove that percentage (preferably, with a neutral source)?

 

Yes I did miss that. Please show me millions of Right of Center people taking to the streets in protest. Show me the rioting and the violence. Why didn't the pro-Obama Mainstream Media talk about this when it happened? You'd think that it would be something that they would have plastered on screens across this nation.

 

Guy, I knew a young lady who was brought up the 'Right" way according to you. Good Catholic family, strict Asian-American home, all the 'right' morals according to you guys.

And then she got pregnant because she was trying to manipulate her boyfriend into marrying her. When that didn't work, she got an abortion. Why/ She didn't want her parents to know she wasn't still a virgin at 22.

so the idea that you are going to "teach them abstinence" is just silly. It's a bunch of old people who've forgotten what it was like to be young.

 

Did you forget about the whole Tea Party thing? You know, when your side burned Obama in ephigy and made racist posters about him?

 

People knew that fetuses were genetically unique long before the 1990's.. But they aren't :"children" until they are actually viable.

Well, when you all stop trying to yank food stamps and school lunches out of the mouths of hungry children in order to give tax cuts to rich people, then you can call yourself 'Pro-Life". when you stop advocating executing poor people because they had bad lawyers, you can call yourself pro-life.

When you just want to stop women from controling their own lady-parts, then you are anti-choice.

Sure. Happy to.

Here's the birth rate tables by year.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

Please note that in 1972 (the last year before roe), the number of live births was 3.258 Million and the birth rate was 15.6 per thousand. In 1973, that dropped to 3.136 million and the birth rate was 14.9 per. It stays about the same in 1974 (a year after Roe when those abortion clinics were all up and running) and then actually started to climb again in throughout the 1970's.

In short, the birth rate did not drop because abortion became legal. (It did drop after 1964, when birth control pills became available and the baby boom ended.)

So what conclusion can a reasonable person draw?

 

The same place they were showing what OWS left behind and showing pictures of a 10 yr old Trayvon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yep, liberals always know a "victim" and ready to pull out that victim card. We're talking about killing human lives, not someone's hurt feelings. Get real. Being young is exactly the time to learn about life and responsibility. Being young doesn't mean having irresponsible sex without responsibility. This type of attitude is exactly why society is so sick.

 

Who made up that rule, anyway?

And now let me ask you a question:

Suppose that the parents of a four-month-old child were to decide that it was really too great of a burden to continue with the status quo. (Perhaps it was even a considerable financial burden upon a family that was already struggling.)

Another question: Should the law be changed--perhaps through a Supreme Court edict--so as to allow those parents to euthanize the child?

And if not, then why not?

This is a good example of the logical fallacy known as Playing on Emotions--perhaps combined with another logical fallacy, known as Language Control.

I do not wish to prevent women from "controlling their own lady-parts"--unless their doing so would result in the killing of another full-fledged human being.

Does that make sense to you?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

The classic example of that fallacy is this: The rooster crows, and then the sun rises; therefore, the rooster's crowing must have caused the sun to rise.

 

There was no violence; no looting, no rapine, no arson of either businesses or private property. That in fact was a textbook example of peaceful protests. Hell, they even obeyed the laws and cleaned up after themselves. In contrast we have the typical, average leftist reaction to Trump's win:








as noted, these are the typical average examples of leftist protests which normally include rioting, violence, looting, and arson; the destruction of private property and businesses. Wanna see some videos of it as well?

 

That child can live outside the womb, and someone else could take responsibility for it. What you anti-choice types want is to appropriate the wombs of women and force them to have babies they never wanted to start with.

You need to stop reading the fallacy files until you understand them.

A fetus the size of a kidney bean (where most abortions take place) is not a "full fledged human being". That said, people on your side want to ban morning after pills that end the pregnancy when it's the size of the period at the end of this sentence.

Meanwhile, of course, you keep going out trying to end Head Start, School Lunches and other programs meant to help children who are actually outside the womb and indisputably children.

Um. No. It seems you are bad at something called math.

If a certain number of women get pregnant a year, and they aren't able to terminate the unwanted ones, then the birth rate would be much higher than if they are...

Unless you think a whole bunch of women after 1973 just went out and got pregnant just so they could have abortions.

 

Define viable.

 

No, this society is sick because we think it's okay to not provide health coverage for the poor while rich people get tax breaks to buy dancing horses.

I didn't consider this girl a victim. She made bad decisions and I let her know she made bad decisions. (I also stopped being friends with both of them after this.) But I also realized that she lived in a real world where being pregnant and unmarried wasn't an option for her. That would have meant not finishing college and putting her at an economic disadvantage.

Women are going to get abortions no matter what the laws is. They always have. All the way back to the time of Jesus.

Now, I do think a bit of craziness in our society is that we expect women to put career before family. We tell her she has to get a degree, and she has to get established in her career before she starts thinking about the baby thing. And then we are surprised when we see these 35+ year old women desperately trying to get pregnant before their biological clocks run out.

- - - Updated - - -

able to survive without being attached to someone else's body.

 

Define survive in the context of viable unless a you think a being can "survive" alone the moment its not "attached".

 

Don't play word games...

TEll you what, you don't like abortion, don't have one.

 

You are the one playing word games and then when called upon it claim i am? Dont repeat talking points if you cant comprehend the words in them.

 

I understand the words perfectly fine. the Supreme Court did a pretty good job defining "Viable" in Roe v. Wade.

 

"potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

Pretty much goes against its not a person until its born myth but ok.

 

It is Conservative and Democrat species with Liberalism, reality of course.

 

Since almost nobody has abortions that late in the game, and the ones who do usually do so for solid medical reasons, it's a moot point.

Obviously, you missed the part about Doe v. Boland (sp), issued the same day as Roe v. Wade, that allowed for medical exceptions after the point of viability.

 

Of course it's not about women. What about the 42% of women who voted Trump? Where's the representation of any but the 53% who voted for Clinton?

It's a c*** March is what it is.

 

Walking back from your statements already?

Can you admit there has been scientific advancements since 1973?

 

Okay. We also tell her beginning at a very young age to save sex for marriage or how to use birth control for herself and her partner.

 

This is like saying that tea party protests weren't about people but conservatism. A protest can be about both people and a political stance--in fact, it would be hard to protest about just one.

How is it news that these women are upset about a variety of liberal issues, especially those facing women?

 

Of course, there is not always "someone else" who wishes to "take responsibility for it."

And why should we wish to make the ability to "live outside the womb" the definition of a child, anyway? (True, Roe did so; but we are discussing whether Roe should be upheld or overturned; so, to appeal to it would be the logical fallacy known as begging the question.

Also known as circular reasoning.

Or (perhaps more properly) as the petitio principii fallacy.

You seem to wish to divvy up all of us into either This Team or That Team.

Well, I do not have any desire to be on a "team," when it comes to any philosophical/political matter--including this one.

So could we please just discuss the matter, without reference to what others believe?

Perhaps this is the fallacy known as an appeal to pity (together with a non sequitur).

And this particular fallacy is known as an ad hominem argument.

Do you suppose that it just might be possible that the difference in birth rates could be because of another factor--one that does not immediately come to mine--or are you simply wedded to the belief that it must be because of Roe?

And, in any case, do you believe that a slightly higher birth rate would spell disaster for this country?

 

Not any that are relevant to this discussion... Thanks for playing.

- - - Updated - - -

How about we put a chastity belt on her ass. Silly women, rights are for men!