Wow, tacky!

[shesulsa]

Not sure that one's much better. It's as though women's sexual freedom automatically makes women who exercise this freedom stupid and backwards. Where's the forward thinking in that?

*vomits over both videos*

 

[Tgace]

I dont get that from that video at all....what I see is one side making the "political women" ALL about her reproductive organs. Thats where I see her going with this.

 

[shesulsa]

I dont get that from that video at all....what I see is one side making the "political women" ALL about her reproductive organs. Thats where I see her going with this.

Not really defending the video here, but trying to pry your mind open a little more: focusing on one topic in one video? is NOT making politics ALL about reproductive organs ... though this human rights freedom still seems to escape many.

 

[shesulsa]

Frankly, it's ridiculous that we should even have to argue it anymore.

 

[Tgace]

Ill let my wife's writing speak for me...she wrote this on FB about this meme she saw going around:

Warning, this is going to be a long one! As a woman, and the mother of three bright, beautiful young women, I should and would be very concerned if I felt any candidate had an intention to take away women's rights. Therefore, after two or three of my FB friends posted this I really thought about it.

I even (insert gasp here) went to www.barackobama.com to see how this claim was being backed up. May I remind all, that women's rights are about so much more than birth control and abortion! http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0875901.html

My daughters and I (and every other woman I know) are much, much more than the sum of estrogen, ovaries and wombs.

Romney will not take away our right to vote, to engage in the legislation that involves everything about our lives. Romney will not take away our right to own property. Romney will not take away our rights to stand independent of fathers and husbands. Romney will not take away our right to earn wages, nor will he take away our right to redress grievances through our courts if we find we are being treated unfairly by our employers. Romney will not even take away our "right" to limit and reverse our own fertility. Lets face it, only a constitutional amendment will ever truly end legal abortion in the U.S, and NO president has the ability to unilaterally amend the constitution. Romney has never stated, to my knowledge, that he feels women should not have access to birth control. The question that Obama and company are hanging their hats on here is who should PAY for our birth control. That is VERY different than weather you should have a "right" to GET birth control.

Barackobama.com backs this argument up by pointing out legislation or attempted legislation in 14 out of 50 states...less than a third of the country. Most of these items had little to nothing to do with Romney other than the fact that they were sponsored by Republicans. Most of these had to do with who would pay for abortions or birth control, or how late into a pregnancy an abortion could legally be done.

Ladies, vote with your brain, not your pelvis. Vote for the person you feel will be best for your life, your family and your nation. Vote your conscience...who ever that may lead you to vote for. But do not let weak, one sided, half baked arguments like this one form your decision for you. Aprons will not be handed out when you vote for Romney, and even if birth control pills and free abortion coupons are handed out if you vote for Obama, will that really improve your life and the lives of the women of every age you know that much?

It's always been about abortion...this "war on women" and womans "health care" is politspeak to disguise the fact..is a one dimensional tactic that attempts to secure the female vote based on one aspect of their lives.

 

[shesulsa]

Nope, sorry.

Research the world. Countries that outlaw abortions and diminish the availability of birth control ultimately drive up the demand for abortion which then gets pushed to illegal abortions and the deaths of women.

Women who have access to birth control and abortion contribute to the economy far more markedly and abortion rates are driven down - especially in countries where birth control is free and unrestricted.

It is a domino in the chain and this absolutely IS a war on women. It's too bad your wife buys that it's not.

 

[granfire]

Nope, sorry.

Research the world. Countries that outlaw abortions and diminish the availability of birth control ultimately drive up the demand for abortion which then gets pushed to illegal abortions and the deaths of women.

Women who have access to birth control and abortion contribute to the economy far more markedly and abortion rates are driven down - especially in countries where birth control is free and unrestricted.

It is a domino in the chain and this absolutely IS a war on women. It's too bad your wife buys that it's not.

Pregnancy is one of the leading causes of poverty in females...
(and being female is obviously a pre-existing condition that insures can choose not to cover)

 

[billc]

Hmmm...I don't remember seeing or hearing Romney say he wants to stop either birth control or abortion...anywhere...so where does the madness come from over cheap birth control and the ability to get an abortion. Even if he does the right thing and gets two justices on the Supreme court to overturn Roe v. Wade, it just goes back to each state to make the decision on abortion according to what the citizens of that state want...perish the thought of people voting on that important an issue...

 

[crushing]

Pregnancy is one of the leading causes of poverty in females...
(and being female is obviously a pre-existing condition that insures can choose not to cover)

I can assure you that pregnancy isn't necessarily cheap for men either, and men have fewer legal options than women. I don't see men ever having equal rights in regards to reproduction. Not in our lifetimes. Maybe that's the way it should be?

 

[arnisador]

I don't want the states voting on a rights issue like this. What's their record on that sort of thing?

 

[shesulsa]

I don't want the states voting on a rights issue like this. What's their record on that sort of thing?

Some states will make it illegal, some will keep it legal and where women can't afford to travel to another state to get a legal abortion, they will attempt the good ol' Do It Yourself. Crochet hooks, knitting needles, ingesting poisons, inviting abdominal violence, etcetera.

THAT's the record on that sort of thing.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Again, I think we're losing focus and perspective here.

First of all, Romney wasn't and isn't part of the Tea Party or the ultra-right. As a moderate Republican, most of the GOP hated him; he ended up getting the GOP nomination by moving hugely to the right during the preliminaries, and now the far-right is holding their noses and pretending they love him. He is not an anti-abortion candidate, and would not be an anti-abortion President.

Second, for any president to make abortion back into an individual state issue, he'd have to overturn Roe v Wade, and that's in the hands of the Supreme Court, not the Executive or Legislative branches.

Third, there are very few states which would make abortion illegal, even given the chance.

Fourth, what we're arguing over is not abortion rights, but rather who pays for it. Whether one is of the believe that abortions should always be free to the woman who has one, or the opposite, that does not make either side 'against abortion' for the purposes of that discussion.

And frankly, if a person has a problem with the laws of the state they live in, they're free to move elsewhere. I'm from Illinois, but Illinois has anti-gun laws, and I will never live there of my own free will again. Ditto living in California. They're free to have such laws, and I'm free to not live there. See how that works?

 

[shesulsa]

Romney and Ryan have both corroborated their pro-life stance many times. And maybe you forgot this but the Executive office appoints Supreme Court judges.

How many states would make abortion illegal doesn't really matter... it's like saying only a few states still want to fly a Confederate flag and lynch black people. If they don't want that they can just move.

I've heard that "they should move" argument before. For people who can plan that and get another job in their field and don't have financial or legal restrictions that's great but it's not a reality for women who, say, aren't working and get abortions in secret so their husbands who would have them give birth won't know. Just one example.

See how THAT works?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Romney and Ryan have both corroborated their pro-life stance many times. And maybe you forgot this but the Executive office appoints Supreme Court judges.

Not true. Romney's abortion stance is pure flip-flop.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/us/politics/romney-clarifies-abortion-stance.html?_r=0

Romney Clarifies Abortion Stance
By JEREMY W. PETERS
Published: October 17, 2012
Abortion has long been a vexing issue for Mitt Romney. He expressed outright support for reproductive rights when he was governor of Massachusetts. He reversed himself as a candidate for president, saying that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life was in jeopardy. With Democrats exploiting this inconsistency, he tries to clarify his position in a new ad.

And no, the President does not appoint Supreme Court Justices. He nominates them. The Senate confirms them - or not.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6694744.../guide-supreme-court-nomination/#.UJPB-aqFlZo

How many Supreme Court nominees has the Senate rejected?
Since 1789, the Senate has rejected 12 out of the 144 nominees, the most recent being Robert Bork in 1987.

Abortion rights are not even a burning issue that would likely be taken up by any Supreme Court in any expected future date - it's settled law, so there is nothing to be taken to the SCOTUS, no existing anti-abortion law that requires scrutiny. All that is in question is whether or not states have the right to regulate or otherwise choose whether or not to fund abortions with taxpayer money, which is a very different topic.

How many states would make abortion illegal doesn't really matter... it's like saying only a few states still want to fly a Confederate flag and lynch black people. If they don't want that they can just move.

Several states still fly the Confederate flag, or a version of it. While I'm not in favor of that, it is indeed a state's right, not the federal government's right to regulate. No state has tried to legalize lynching black people, but I believe about the same number would try to outlaw abortion entirely; that is to say, none of them.

I've heard that "they should move" argument before. For people who can plan that and get another job in their field and don't have financial or legal restrictions that's great but it's not a reality for women who, say, aren't working and get abortions in secret so their husbands who would have them give birth won't know. Just one example.

See how THAT works?

No, quite frankly. You create an argument for a political move that DOES NOT EXIST and then use that as a defense for something entirely different. No one is talking about outlawing abortions. Even if they were, the President can't make abortions illegal, Roe v Wade prevents the legislature from doing it, and no state has indicated that they want to do it. And Romney himself was a strong supporter of abortion rights when in office; there is no reason to believe he would not be again. He's pandered to the Right in this campaign and he's been shown as the hypocrite that he is by the Democrats for it.

I don't want him as President, but no matter whether he wins or Obama wins, abortion rights themselves are in no jeopardy. Period.

Pretending otherwise is horse manure.

 

[Tgace]

Bingo!

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[shesulsa]

I really can't see how anyone can listen to the discussions on life, abortion and rape and think the GOP/Teabaggers will not pursue making forced birth a national issue.

The comparison I made is to illustrate the rights issue and freedom to "just move" Bill. Sorry if it was insufficient for you.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

 

[shesulsa]

And it still annoys me that many "pro-life"rs don't want to talk about the women's lives who would be lost should abortion become illegal again - on a state OR federal level.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

it's not a reality for women who, say, aren't working and get abortions in secret so their husbands who would have them give birth won't know. Just one example.

Men who have no say in if their child can survive or not and also have no say in if they have to pay support for it or not? Those men?

If its really "your body your choice" than perhaps the father should be completely off the child support hook if he doesn't want a child and the woman does....since he has no say the other way.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[shesulsa]

Yep. Those men whose lives are not put in danger from pregnancy and who can release their paternal rights to children they father. What was that thing you said about being responsible with one's behavior?

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I really can't see how anyone can listen to the discussions on life, abortion and rape and think the GOP/Teabaggers will not pursue making forced birth a national issue.

Because the law doesn't support it and the nation's majority don't support it. It's a non-issue.

The comparison I made is to illustrate the rights issue and freedom to "just move" Bill. Sorry if it was insufficient for you.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

It's not just insufficient, it's distracting nonsense. It's not part of the national discussion and it's not going to happen. There is no point in pretending it will.