Why are the GOP kooks in government trying to mandate limits on a woman's right to choice? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/20/1066559/-Not-Pro-Choice-On-Anti-Choice-Terms
Blah blah blah. More empty rhetoric. This has nothing to do with women's rights. Real women support these things. It's only the infanticidal feminazi psychos that try to turn themselves into victims over it. Real women don't kill their children. Only monsters do that. Real women are pro-life.
These women aren't killing children, either. They're aborting fetuses. Nothing can die if it hasn't started living yet.
A heartbeat denotes life, a 6wk old fetus(baby) has a heartbeat. Only liberals choose such a nice word like pro choice to convince women to murder their babies. It is more pro murder, then forcing citizens to pay for it as an entitlement!
Breathing denotes life. Life doesn't begin until the first breath is drawn. That's what my priest told me, anyway. Since it's a spiritual question, I figured that was a good place to get some advice.
Active denial does not change reality. You are using an absurdly arbitrary definition of life. If you'd like to fully understand how arbitrary your definition is, there is an interesting thread right now in the abortion section that you should check out. It is about some Australian "ethicists" who are pushing for post-birth abortions, claiming that newborns are still only "potential people." Here's the link. http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/235538-up-next-after-birth-abortions.html You don't realize it, but you are engaging in the very same dehumanization that allowed for the legalization of slavery. You never stop to consider the parallels between, "It's not a person, it's a fetus" and "It's not a person, it's a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)."
But I'm not the one telling people what they can do with their own bodies, so how am I the one dehumanizing anyone? The only person qualified to decide whether or not a pregnancy should be brought to term is the person that is pregnant. Period.
This is the other side of the mandate debate. Obviously the status of the fetus is the root of the debate. If the fetus has a right to live, you shouldn't kill it. The question is, if it does have such a right, what is the source of the right?
There is a silver bullet for poverty, and it is taking women off of the animal cycle of reproduction. If you give women the rights to their own body, poverty will suffer, and we will all be better for it. No one is convincing women to get abortions, but i suppose it is a convenient straw man to attack. Their is also no known consensus on when life begins, these arguments are fruitless and without merit. Abortion is a necessary evil for a modern society to stay equal and free. Taking away this procedure would force women to incubate a fetus till maturity and introduce another unwanted child into the world. Men do not have to endure such things, which is why their is a debate in the first place. Women are discriminated against the minute they become pregnant. Their health is put at risk, they must aquire expensive vitamins as well as change their diet and habits. Their careers are put in jeapordy and all too often they lose them because it is an inconvenience. How does a women make up for that gap in their employment or education? Until all of thiS is changed, abortion should of course be left alone. If it is changed, women should recieve atleast a years paid maturnity leave. Their meds and vitamins and healthcare should all be free. They should be allowed to return to their positions at atleast the level they had left, or higher, much like our armed forces members. And they should also recieve free day care for a number of years following their return to work. The cost could be split between employer and tax payer. Or we could allow this women to do what they want with their bodies and stop trying to make people practice your religion/morals vicariously through the law. Child birth is perhaps the most important part of society, i think we owe it to our women to respect their bodies and freedoms, and allow them to make some choices for a change.
As a women, I would never judge a women who decides to abort her BABY. Society has created an environment where killing babies a multi billion dollar business, and an easy solutions for a reckless action. Many women making this easy choice live with regret forever, and severe scaring preventing future pregnancies. I do vehemently disagree that responsible individuals and those opposed to abortion be forced to enable this procedure through our Government. If it is such a private decision, why should all citizens be forced to partcipate in the act. Our government getting involved in this debate has forced it out of the closet (private) and hoisted upon the public through condoning and implimenting laws upon unwilling individuals.
Translation: "Women can have abortions; however, they should have to be back-alley abortions that are incredibly dangerous and illegal so I can pretend it's not happening."
The right to choice? Do you mean to have a right to have a choice on whether join or not to join a union? The GOP thinks women should have that choice but the Democrats don't. How about a right to choose to use vouchers to send your children to a decent school? The GOP thinks women should have tht choice but the liberals don't. How about the right of future women to not be aborted because they're female? No choice for them with the liberals. How about a woman having a right to choose whether or not she wants to sell her house and not just have it taken because the person who wants it will pay more taxes? Liberals don't want you to have that choice, either. Why is it the only "choice" the liberals recognize is the choice to kill a child? Wait, they also support giving everyone a choice on whether or not they want to work. I almost forgot that one. This "woman's choice" bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from the liberals is as dishonest as calling abortion "reproductive freedom".
Lies are the only thing they're interested in keeping alive. Abortion and euthanasia will take care of the rest.
It's not lunacy. It's just a demonstration that you have absolutely no idea how the Constitution was set up to operate. You haven't the slightest clue on the differences between Individualism and Collectivism. Once these groups are recognized as legal entities, when you give the government the power to legislate positive rights to groups of people, you also give the government an equal amount of power take away rights, and to legislate tyranny and oppress those groups. What's funny is that you don't even recognize the hypocrisy in your Collectivist mindset. It's the same mindset that neo-cons use to make corporations legally people. And look at how much tyranny that has brought us. Yet you are perpetuating the same mindset. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that women should have rights. It says that the government must not discriminate against individuals based on sex. The former is a Collectivist mentality, the latter is an individualist mentality. The difference is on the massive ramifications that occur when government is given the power to legislate rights, rather than restricting government from violating inherently endowed rights that all individuals have. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people. It only declares individuals to be people. By declaring corporations to people, you're opening the door for allowing CEOs to get away with polluting the environment and robbing shareholders through massive fraud, and blame can be legally placed on "the corporation" rather than the individuals responsible for the crimes. Yes, that's Collectivism that you support. It just applies to a different group than what you were originally talking about. But according to you, saying that corporations shouldnt have rights and that only individuals should is "libertarian lunacy".
LOL...The constitution is not meant to be taken word for word, and it certainly does not have to spell out every single issue. Its a 200 year old document written in a time that was much simpler. Not to say most of the amendments are outdated but interpretations must change with the times. Otherwise we would be stuck ion the 1700's. I seriously dislike constitutional fundamentalists.
A better formulation: There is no such thing as 'women's' rights, there are only individual rights, rights that each individual has regardless of sex.
A better question would be, Why are some posters allowed to post B.S.. The GOP is not trying to mandate limits on a woman's right to have an abortion and to say it is, is a bald faced lie. Educating women as to what they are aborting and what the abortion process entails is not denying them the right to an abortion.
The parallel to this on another issue is the requirement to take a gun safery course before you can obtain a hunting license: Firearms Safety Certification for Youth (Minnesota) But then this is aimed at the underage so it's not really a fair comparison although, if I understand correctly, the 'pro choice' crowd does not make a distinction between adult and the underage on the abortion issue.
