PDA

View Full Version : The Democrats War on Women



mikesilvia
05-24-2012, 05:28 PM
Oh, those clueless Democrat politicians. :rolleyes:


A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.

Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.

http://freebeacon.com/senate-dems-betray-lilly/

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 05:41 PM
Oh boy....

As hypocritical it may be for those senators to introduce a bill wanting more money and then they themselves are paying females lower than males...

It's NOT the same as the REAL GOP war on women.

Democrats have NOT been shoveling out bills making it tougher on women to get contraceptives and abortions the way the GOP has.

This is a very misleading and not to mention SPIN filled thread to say the very least.

habsheaven
05-24-2012, 05:42 PM
We have had this discussion before. All staffers are not created equal. Unless that difference in pay is between a male and female staffer that do the same job, the numbers are irrelevant.

duane1969
05-24-2012, 05:52 PM
Oh boy....

As hypocritical it may be for those senators to introduce a bill wanting more money and then they themselves are paying females lower than males...

It's NOT the same as the REAL GOP war on women.

Democrats have NOT been shoveling out bills making it tougher on women to get contraceptives and abortions the way the GOP has.

This is a very misleading and not to mention SPIN filled thread to say the very least.

This is becoming a habit. Please explain what war on women the GOP is waging.

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 05:57 PM
We have had this discussion before. All staffers are not created equal. Unless that difference in pay is between a male and female staffer that do the same job, the numbers are irrelevant.

Hmm, I didn't even think of that....and unless they are paying females lower than males who do the same exact job then I agree the numbers are completely irrelevant.


This is becoming a habit. Please explain what war on women the GOP is waging.

Yeah, I ALREADY did that.

I'm NOT going to post a wall of text again, here it is:

http://www.sportscardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1661405&page=2

duane1969
05-24-2012, 06:39 PM
Ok, well I am not going to bother pointing out the fallacy in all of the liberal claims that the GOP is waging a war on women either then. The Dems are kings of the slimeball tactic of putting an anti-rape clause on some random bill they know the GOP will fight and then holding a press conference claiming that the GOP is fighting anti-rape legislation. If you can not look at what those pieces of legislation were really about and come to a logical conclusion then there is no point in me wasting my time pointing it out. Your mind is made up and it is a waste of time to try and show you the reality.

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 06:56 PM
Really now....

The GOP is so obsessed with Abortion it's so ridiculous how they keep trying to suppress it!

Are you going to pretend that all those Anti-abortion bills aren't real?

Are you going to pretend that the GOP wouldn't LOVE to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies?

OH NOES!!!

Let's protect a Fetus that is NOT a viable human being!


You gotta love the mass hypocrisy of the GOP!

They want to protect rape and incest fetuses (E.g. Rick Santorum) but they are PRO-WAR and PRO-Executions.


GOP---The party of protecting UNBORN fetuses but completely no regard for life of fully grown adults.

What a great party!

AUTaxMan
05-24-2012, 07:33 PM
Ok, well I am not going to bother pointing out the fallacy in all of the liberal claims that the GOP is waging a war on women either then. The Dems are kings of the slimeball tactic of putting an anti-rape clause on some random bill they know the GOP will fight and then holding a press conference claiming that the GOP is fighting anti-rape legislation. If you can not look at what those pieces of legislation were really about and come to a logical conclusion then there is no point in me wasting my time pointing it out. Your mind is made up and it is a waste of time to try and show you the reality.

You're right. No point in arguing with him. He buys into all of the liberal talking points.

ensbergcollector
05-24-2012, 07:40 PM
Really now....

The GOP is so obsessed with Abortion it's so ridiculous how they keep trying to suppress it!

Are you going to pretend that all those Anti-abortion bills aren't real?

Are you going to pretend that the GOP wouldn't LOVE to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies?

OH NOES!!!

Let's protect a Fetus that is NOT a viable human being!


You gotta love the mass hypocrisy of the GOP!

They want to protect rape and incest fetuses (E.g. Rick Santorum) but they are PRO-WAR and PRO-Executions.


GOP---The party of protecting UNBORN fetuses but completely no regard for life of fully grown adults.

What a great party!

and what gives you the right to decide when a child becomes viable?

i love the democratic stance of "how dare anyone tell a woman what she can do with her body" as if that is such a horrible injustice, all the while being completely ok with killing a very VIABLE innocent child.

ensbergcollector
05-24-2012, 07:41 PM
We have had this discussion before. All staffers are not created equal. Unless that difference in pay is between a male and female staffer that do the same job, the numbers are irrelevant.

i think what you meant to say is "unless we are bad mouthing the republicans, the numbers are irrelevant"

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 07:44 PM
You're right. No point in arguing with him. He buys into all of the liberal talking points.

Yes, and You don't buy all the conservative talking points?

Because everything you say is nothing but Fox News/GOP/Conservative talking points!

Instead of circumnavigating me, why not attack my points?

Do you see me EVER backing down from anything you guys say?.....NO!

And as Long as I'm here, I will be a voice of REASON, LOGIC, and Liberal principles!


I'm actually NOT a democrat.....Democrats are COWARDS, they back down!

The GOP are worse though, they are bullies who literally take your money, beat you up and funny enough they then expect you to vote for them.

Even funnier, millions of people actually vote for them.

AUTaxMan
05-24-2012, 07:55 PM
Yes, and You don't buy all the conservative talking points?

Because everything you say is nothing but Fox News/GOP/Conservative talking points!

Instead of circumnavigating me, why not attack my points?

Do you see me EVER backing down from anything you guys say?.....NO!

And as Long as I'm here, I will be a voice of REASON, LOGIC, and Liberal principles!


I'm actually NOT a democrat.....Democrats are COWARDS, they back down!

The GOP are worse though, they are bullies who literally take your money, beat you up and funny enough they then expect you to vote for them.

Even funnier, millions of people actually vote for them.

Make a point, and I will respond to it.

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 07:57 PM
and what gives you the right to decide when a child becomes viable?

i love the democratic stance of "how dare anyone tell a woman what she can do with her body" as if that is such a horrible injustice, all the while being completely ok with killing a very VIABLE innocent child.
Good....this is what I like to see, an argument!

OK, I'll explain myself:

Basically your question comes down to why is abortion legal?

You believe that once there is a fetus growing in a woman's body, that is a human life.

Unfortunately....you are WRONG!

"In 1973 (Roe v. Wade), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state, legalizing abortion throughout the United States."

Why is abortion Unconstitutional?

"In the case of Roe v. Wade, the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus legitimate government interests. The government has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of an embryo or fetus, but embryos and fetuses do not have rights themselves unless and until it can be determined that they are human persons."

What gives a person "human right's"?

"Human persons have rights that an embryo or fetus does not have until its personhood can be established. For various reasons, the personhood of a fetus is generally understood to commence between 22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the neocortex develops, and it is also the earliest known point of viability--the point at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and, given the proper medical care, still have a meaningful chance of long-term survival."

Conclusion:

"So the central thrust of Roe v. Wade is this: Women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not have rights. Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of its own, the woman's decision to have an abortion takes precedence over the interests of the fetus."


Source: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/abortion_legal.htm

theonedru
05-24-2012, 08:00 PM
The entire Government is anti-woman, just look at the military to see this....

ensbergcollector
05-24-2012, 08:03 PM
Good....this is what I like to see, an argument!

OK, I'll explain myself:

Basically your question comes down to why is abortion legal?

You believe that once there is a fetus growing in a woman's body, that is a human life.

Unfortunately....you are WRONG!

"In 1973 (Roe v. Wade), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state, legalizing abortion throughout the United States."

Why is abortion Unconstitutional?

"In the case of Roe v. Wade, the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus legitimate government interests. The government has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of an embryo or fetus, but embryos and fetuses do not have rights themselves unless and until it can be determined that they are human persons."

What gives a person "human right's"?

"Human persons have rights that an embryo or fetus does not have until its personhood can be established. For various reasons, the personhood of a fetus is generally understood to commence between 22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the neocortex develops, and it is also the earliest known point of viability--the point at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and, given the proper medical care, still have a meaningful chance of long-term survival."

Conclusion:

"So the central thrust of Roe v. Wade is this: Women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not have rights. Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of its own, the woman's decision to have an abortion takes precedence over the interests of the fetus."


Source: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/abortion_legal.htm

oh i'm sorry, you must be under the false assumption that because something is legal or illegal then there is no debate. well, since the legality of abortion is all the matters, then i assume you agree that since gay marriage is illegal that is all the matters as well?

or, do you only care about the law when it agrees with you?

i could care less if roe v. wade made abortion legal. to think that having an abortion, especially after the fetus is old enough to survive is ok but denying a woman the right to abort that same fetus is wrong is simply messed up thinking.

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 08:07 PM
oh i'm sorry, you must be under the false assumption that because something is legal or illegal then there is no debate. well, since the legality of abortion is all the matters, then i assume you agree that since gay marriage is illegal that is all the matters as well?

or, do you only care about the law when it agrees with you?

i could care less if roe v. wade made abortion legal. to think that having an abortion, especially after the fetus is old enough to survive is ok but denying a woman the right to abort that same fetus is wrong is simply messed up thinking.

INCORRECT!

Gay marriage has NEVER been brought to the supreme court!

At the moment it remains a STATE issue, NOT a federal issue.

Besides that, Roe v. Wade isn't just about a federal issue, it deals with SCIENCE and BIOLOGY!

Both of which are in agreement that prior to week 22-24, a fetus is NOT a viable human life....thus it does NOT have rights!

And since it's NOT a viable human life, a woman has the choice to abort it for ANY reason she deems!

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 08:10 PM
Also.....despite the fact that Science and Biology is in the side of Pro-choice.

What GOOD arguments do you have for making abortion illegal?

I would really want to hear them.

boba
05-24-2012, 08:14 PM
Good....this is what I like to see, an argument!

OK, I'll explain myself:

Basically your question comes down to why is abortion legal?

You believe that once there is a fetus growing in a woman's body, that is a human life.

Unfortunately....you are WRONG!

"In 1973 (Roe v. Wade), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state, legalizing abortion throughout the United States."

Why is abortion Unconstitutional?

"In the case of Roe v. Wade, the answer boils down to one of personal rights versus legitimate government interests. The government has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of an embryo or fetus, but embryos and fetuses do not have rights themselves unless and until it can be determined that they are human persons."

What gives a person "human right's"?

"Human persons have rights that an embryo or fetus does not have until its personhood can be established. For various reasons, the personhood of a fetus is generally understood to commence between 22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the neocortex develops, and it is also the earliest known point of viability--the point at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and, given the proper medical care, still have a meaningful chance of long-term survival."

Conclusion:

"So the central thrust of Roe v. Wade is this: Women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Fetuses, prior to viability, do not have rights. Therefore, until the fetus is old enough to have rights of its own, the woman's decision to have an abortion takes precedence over the interests of the fetus."


Source: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/abortion_legal.htm


So your answer is the U.S. Supreme Court has the right to decide when a fetus is a viable life?

So your ok with abortion up to 22 or 24 weeks? So when you start developing a neocortex your a human? Would it be ok to stick a needle in the babies head a day before it starts developing a neocortex?

boba
05-24-2012, 08:16 PM
Also.....despite the fact that Science and Biology is in the side of Pro-choice.

What GOOD arguments do you have for making abortion illegal?

I would really want to hear them.


Millions murdered every year :confused0024:

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 08:23 PM
So your answer is the U.S. Supreme Court has the right to decide when a fetus is a viable life?

No, the supreme court heard SCIENTIFIC and BIOLOGICAL evidence to determine when a human life has viability.

That's what I agree with.


Millions murdered every year :confused0024:

That's NOT a good argument.

Millions of non-humans are also "murdered" every year yet we don't really care.

And before you start thinking that I'm saying that fetuses are the same as animals....that's NOT what I'm saying.

Again, if you read my statement, it comes down to a woman having the right to have control of her own body.


Science proves that until week 22-24 a fetus is NOT a viable human life and thus has NO rights whatsoever.

boba
05-24-2012, 08:33 PM
You didn't answer my other questions.

So your ok with abortion up to 22 or 24 weeks? So when you start developing a neocortex your a human? Would it be ok to stick a needle in the babies head a day before it starts developing a neocortex?


Lets use common since, would you stick a needle in this fetus's head?

http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq190/bobafett94/photos/20week-1.jpg


^ That fetus is 20 weeks.

ensbergcollector
05-24-2012, 08:33 PM
INCORRECT!

Gay marriage has NEVER been brought to the supreme court!

At the moment it remains a STATE issue, NOT a federal issue.

Besides that, Roe v. Wade isn't just about a federal issue, it deals with SCIENCE and BIOLOGY!

Both of which are in agreement that prior to week 22-24, a fetus is NOT a viable human life....thus it does NOT have rights!

And since it's NOT a viable human life, a woman has the choice to abort it for ANY reason she deems!



ok, so anything the supreme court has said is fact, but anything decided by lower courts is fair game. ok

so, how would you defend abortions that take place after week 24?

and seeing as how children that are born prior to week 24 can still survive, i'm not sure how you can argue that science has proven that under 22-24 weeks is not viable. it would seem that if a child can survive then science has proven it is a viable life.

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 08:43 PM
You didn't answer my other questions.

So your ok with abortion up to 22 or 24 weeks? So when you start developing a neocortex your a human? Would it be ok to stick a needle in the babies head a day before it starts developing a neocortex?


Lets use common since, would you stick a needle in this fetus's head?

http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq190/bobafett94/photos/20week-1.jpg


^ That fetus is 20 weeks.
Typical anti-abortion tactic by putting up pictures such as this.

Again....as long as it's NOT a viable human being....it has NO right!


so, how would you defend abortions that take place after week 24?

I Don't!


and seeing as how children that are born prior to week 24 can still survive, i'm not sure how you can argue that science has proven that under 22-24 weeks is not viable. it would seem that if a child can survive then science has proven it is a viable life.

OK, 22-24 weeks is NOT the final say...

Although, it is usually the MOST a fetus can go without viability.

If by any reason it does become viable at 22 weeks, then obviously I would be against it.


But just so that we're clear.....most abortions happen WAY BEFORE 22-24 weeks!

boba
05-24-2012, 08:47 PM
Typical anti-abortion tactic by putting up pictures such as this.

Again....as long as it's NOT a viable human being....it has NO right!





Still haven't answered my question, so here it is again


So your ok with abortion up to 22 or 24 weeks? So when you start developing a neocortex your a human? Would it be ok to stick a needle in the babies head a day before it starts developing a neocortex?


Lets use common since, would you stick a needle in this fetus's head?

http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq190/bobafett94/photos/20week-1.jpg


^ That fetus is 20 weeks.

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 08:48 PM
Question for you Anti-Abortion people:

Do you consider a Zygote a human life?

What about an embryo?

What about a Fetus at 12 weeks or 15 weeks....is that a human life?


You guys think life begins at conception....it does NOT!

boba
05-24-2012, 08:49 PM
Question for you Anti-Abortion people:

Do you consider a Zygote a human life?

What about an embryo?

What about a Fetus at 12 weeks or 15 weeks....is that a human life?


You guys think life begins at conception....it does NOT!


Answer mine first

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 08:49 PM
Still haven't answered my question, so here it is again


So your ok with abortion up to 22 or 24 weeks? So when you start developing a neocortex your a human? Would it be ok to stick a needle in the babies head a day before it starts developing a neocortex?


Lets use common since, would you stick a needle in this fetus's head?

YES, I would stick a needle in the fetus head!

And if the mother wishes to abort a NON viable human....that's HER choice regardless of what you say.

Now answer me!

boba
05-24-2012, 08:54 PM
Question for you Anti-Abortion people:

Do you consider a Zygote a human life?

What about an embryo?

What about a Fetus at 12 weeks or 15 weeks....is that a human life?


You guys think life begins at conception....it does NOT!


Yes

The bolded part is your opinion, doesn't make it a fact.

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 08:56 PM
Yes

The bolded part is your opinion, doesn't make it a fact.

Correct, it is my opinion, however, it's backed up by science.

What backs up your opinions?

boba
05-24-2012, 09:00 PM
Correct, it is my opinion, however, it's backed up by science.

What backs up your opinions?

Common sense, science, and something I won't mention because it seems to escalate your use of caps and bolds.

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 09:05 PM
Common sense, science, and something I won't mention because it seems to escalate your use of caps and bolds.

No, Science is on MY side, not yours....sorry.

As for Common sense, do you think it's common sense to believe a Zygote is a human life?

Do you think it's common sense to belief a human life is at conception when there is no sign of it?


Finally your last claim......I'm assuming your belief in your religion.

That also has no facts or evidence.

ensbergcollector
05-24-2012, 09:06 PM
Correct, it is my opinion, however, it's backed up by science.

What backs up your opinions?

again, i'm not sure how you say it is backed up by science. according to you, science says a child is not viable until after 24 weeks. if a child can survive at 20 weeks, then apparently science is wrong.

you want to call out the picture that was posted but you don't want to address the fact that it is a real picture and according to you, simply because it is not 24 weeks it is not viable life. you are clinging very hard to your "science" information but i think with any common sense you would realize that if science claims a child is not viable until after 24 weeks then science is wrong.

boba
05-24-2012, 09:09 PM
No, Science is on MY side, not yours....sorry.

As for Common sense, do you think it's common sense to believe a Zygote is a human life?

Do you think it's common sense to belief a human life is at conception when there is no sign of it?


Finally your last claim......I'm assuming your belief in your religion.

That also has no facts or evidence.


When does a fetus start growing?

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 09:13 PM
again, i'm not sure how you say it is backed up by science. according to you, science says a child is not viable until after 24 weeks. if a child can survive at 20 weeks, then apparently science is wrong.

No, it says that the MOST a fetus can go without viability is 22-24 weeks.

It doesn't say that's 100% every time.

It's like with puberty.

That usually happens at around 13-14 years, however there are times when it can happen BEFORE or even AFTER 13-14 years.


When does a fetus start growing?

"In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization."

boba
05-24-2012, 09:19 PM
No, it says that the MOST a fetus can go without viability is 22-24 weeks.

It doesn't say that's 100% every time.

It's like with puberty.

That usually happens at around 13-14 years, however there are times when it can happen BEFORE or even AFTER 13-14 years.



"In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization."

Did I ask when prenatal development starts? Come on man.

A fetus starts growing at fertilization, you know this.

shrewsbury
05-24-2012, 09:20 PM
you believe in evolution but don't believe a life starts at conception?

and you don't believe the egg and sperm evolve into a fetus that evolves into a baby?

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 09:28 PM
Did I ask when prenatal development starts? Come on man.

A fetus starts growing at fertilization, you know this.

No it doesn't!

First we have a Zygote then an embryo and finally a fetus....how do you not know this?

boba
05-24-2012, 09:31 PM
No it doesn't!

First we have a Zygote then an embryo and finally a fetus....how do you not know this?

Wow, do you not consider dividing into a multicelled embryo growth?

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 09:35 PM
Wow, do you not consider dividing into a multicelled embryo growth?

What does any of this have to do with abortion?!?!?

You still have not given ANY good reasons why we should say that NON Viable humans deserve rights.

You haven't given anything at all.


BTW, do you want the U.S to turn into Brazil and other third world countries?

Where women have to go to "back alley" Doctors to preform illegal abortions?

The overwhelming majority of women support the right to choose and I support it to.

Why should MEN tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies, this is nonsense!

shrewsbury
05-24-2012, 09:40 PM
i am not completely against abortions, but i do not understand how you can say life doesn't start at conception. is this not how evolution works?

boba
05-24-2012, 09:51 PM
What does any of this have to do with abortion?!?!?

You still have not given ANY good reasons why we should say that #1. NON Viable humans deserve rights.

You haven't given anything at all.


#2. BTW, do you want the U.S to turn into Brazil and other third world countries?

Where women have to go to "back alley" Doctors to preform illegal abortions?

The overwhelming majority of women support the right to choose and I support it to.

Why should MEN tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies, this is nonsense!

#1. This is such odd thinking, the fetus is growing and growing getting up to 24 weeks. In the past, when we didn't have as good of heath technology and a baby wouldn't survive at 22 weeks does that mean at that time they weren't humans, but now they are? What about if in the future we have technology where 17 week fetuses can survive, are they humans at 17 weeks then?

#2 None of this is relevant if abortion is killing a human.

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 09:53 PM
i am not completely against abortions, but i do not understand how you can say life doesn't start at conception. is this not how evolution works?
It may be that we have some sort of "life" at conception but it's NOT human life.

Why?

Because it's not a viable human life, it can NOT survive outside the uterus.

Viability usually happens at the 22-24 week period.

So once again....up to that point, abortion is legal.

boba
05-24-2012, 09:56 PM
It may be that we have some sort of "life" at conception but it's NOT human life.

Why?

Because it's not a viable human life, it can NOT survive outside the uterus.

Viability usually happens at the 22-24 week period.

So once again....up to that point, abortion is legal.

:pound:

I think aliens control us before 24 weeks.

Seriously though, what kind of life would you define it as?

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 09:57 PM
#1. This is such odd thinking, the fetus is growing and growing getting up to 24 weeks. In the past, when we didn't have as good of heath technology and a baby wouldn't survive at 22 weeks does that mean at that time they weren't humans, but now they are? What about if in the future we have technology where 17 week fetuses can survive, are they humans at 17 weeks then?

Huh?

It's not because of "technology" that a fetus can survive after the 22-24 week period.

It's because up to that point it's not developed enough.

Unless in the future we somehow BREED humans outside a woman's body, then I don't think so.

boba
05-24-2012, 10:02 PM
Huh?

It's not because of "technology" that a fetus can survive after the 22-24 week period.

It's because up to that point it's not developed enough.

Unless in the future we somehow BREED humans outside a woman's body, then I don't think so.

Technology that would allow them to develop enough out of the womb after 17 weeks, would 17 weeks be the age of life then?

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 10:11 PM
Technology that would allow them to develop enough after 17 weeks, would 17 weeks be the age of life then?

I guess if it were Plausible then yes...

Ok, I want to reiterate my position.


The last thing I would wish for is for a woman to have an abortion, in a perfect world NO ONE would get an abortion and NO ONE would argue for it.

But this is NOT a perfect world, there are numerous of reasons why an abortion is necessary and thus why it's legal.

In the end my position is simply that women should have the right to choose to abort a fetus that is not a viable human life.

Once viability becomes evident then that is a human life with rights.

habsheaven
05-24-2012, 10:16 PM
i think what you meant to say is "unless we are bad mouthing the republicans, the numbers are irrelevant"

My point is valid. Your response is pointless AGAIN.

ensbergcollector
05-24-2012, 10:41 PM
No, it says that the MOST a fetus can go without viability is 22-24 weeks.

It doesn't say that's 100% every time.

It's like with puberty.

That usually happens at around 13-14 years, however there are times when it can happen BEFORE or even AFTER 13-14 years.



"In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age, which is the 9th week after fertilization."

so as long as most children aren't viable till 24 weeks it's ok to abort the ones that are viable? This is my problem with taking the "scientific" approach. People are comfortable saying "well, most children are not viable until after 24 weeks so the science supports aborting children less than 24 weeks." I'm sorry, that is just crap and the science does not support that idea any more. Medical capabilities are increased dramatically since roe v. wade so to claim the science supports abortion is just wrong.

if you want to say i support abortion because of the supreme court decision i will disagree but i will understand where you are coming from. when you say it is the science that backs it up, but you are choosing to use decades old science that is no longer viable and that loses you a lot of credibility.

ensbergcollector
05-24-2012, 10:44 PM
My point is valid. Your response is pointless AGAIN.

if you say so my friend. your point stops being valid when you only make "valid" points when it attacks one side and defends the other. i think it is probably best if I don't respond to your posts any more because my posts are becoming more combative because i feel like your posts are becoming more one sided and condescending. I will do us both a favor and stop replying.

tpeichel
05-24-2012, 11:13 PM
Yes

The bolded part is your opinion, doesn't make it a fact.

It's kind of interesting how scientists exploring other planets get so excited when they find the tiniest signs of micorbial "life", yet other scientists argue that fetus can be exterminated before the age of 22-24 weeks because they aren't "life".

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 11:13 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Prenatal_development_table.svg/799px-Prenatal_development_table.svg.png

"There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable. According to studies between 2003 and 2005, ONLY 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[2] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500g (17.6 ounces) to survive."

AUTaxMan
05-24-2012, 11:18 PM
What about living persons who are not viable without the support of other persons or artificial means? Should we kill them too?

JustAlex
05-24-2012, 11:28 PM
What about living persons who are not viable without the support of other persons or artificial means? Should we kill them too?

That's NOT what the term "viability" means.

Besides that, please understand that we (Pro-choicers) are not necessarily "Pro-abortion".

I'll explain what I mean by that:

Do you know how many rapes, cases of incest, and fetuses that threaten the mother are born every year?

How would you like for your wife/gf/sister/daughter to be one of these cases?

Would you still be opposed to having the choice of abortion?


Guys....I'm NOT a monster.....I don't like the idea of abortion either!

But I don't want to live in a country where women don't have a say on their own bodies.

If a woman is raped and gets impregnated she should have a right to abort something she does not want.



Remember just yesterday when we were talking about how welfare people have kids just so they can "cheat the system"?

Well guess what, sometimes there are woman that get pregnant but don't have the money to support the child.....this is where abortion is a good way to alleviate the BURDEN of tax payers.


It's funny, I thought Republicans would agree with this situation.

ensbergcollector
05-24-2012, 11:52 PM
That's NOT what the term "viability" means.

Besides that, please understand that we (Pro-choicers) are not necessarily "Pro-abortion".

I'll explain what I mean by that:

Do you know how many rapes, cases of incest, and fetuses that threaten the mother are born every year?

How would you like for your wife/gf/sister/daughter to be one of these cases?

Would you still be opposed to having the choice of abortion?


Guys....I'm NOT a monster.....I don't like the idea of abortion either!

But I don't want to live in a country where women don't have a say on their own bodies.

If a woman is raped and gets impregnated she should have a right to abort something she does not want.



Remember just yesterday when we were talking about how welfare people have kids just so they can "cheat the system"?

Well guess what, sometimes there are woman that get pregnant but don't have the money to support the child.....this is where abortion is a good way to alleviate the BURDEN of tax payers.


It's funny, I thought Republicans would agree with this situation.

do you? democrats always use that as prove that abortion should stay available. however, i have never seen any stats and I would venture to safely say less than 5% of all abortions are the result of rape, incest, or risk to the mother.

JustAlex
05-25-2012, 12:11 AM
do you? democrats always use that as prove that abortion should stay available. however, i have never seen any stats and I would venture to safely say less than 5% of all abortions are the result of rape, incest, or risk to the mother.

Yes I have the stats, and just like you said they are LOW.

But that is NOT the issue, I don't care if it's 0.0001%, the point is that the choice should be available LEGALLY.

Here are the stats:

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

"1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).".

In my opinion the 93% stat shows that many people don't want the child because they don't have the money or it's an inconvenience.

What is better?

To abort a non-viable human or to have the baby born to a mother that does NOT love it and will probably abuse it and will suffer in this world...it's better to abort!


Here are some very telling stats:

"Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S"

"18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical"."

^ HYPOCRISY at it's BEST!


Stats on low income women
"Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%."

^This is a direct correlation that most abortions occur with women who are in lower family incomes....it makes sense, they simply don't have the money to provide to the kids....it's very sad, but a HARSH reality.

ensbergcollector
05-25-2012, 12:26 AM
see, and that is where i have issue. 93% of abortions are used as birth control. I also take offense at the term non-viable because we have already shown that the decades old logic that a 22-24 week old fetus is not viable.

you say it is better to abort then have a child born into poverty. how about you ask a child who was raised poor if they would have rather been killed before birth. i think you will find their answer differs from yours.

JustAlex
05-25-2012, 12:30 AM
see, and that is where i have issue. 93% of abortions are used as birth control. I also take offense at the term non-viable because we have already shown that the decades old logic that a 22-24 week old fetus is not viable.

you say it is better to abort then have a child born into poverty. how about you ask a child who was raised poor if they would have rather been killed before birth. i think you will find their answer differs from yours.

Um....did you see when I posted this:

"According to studies between 2003 and 2005, ONLY 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive"

That's a low percentage!


Also, did you READ the stats in the link I provided, here I'll show you:

52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week


ONLY 1% of all abortions happen after the 20th week of pregnancy


LET ME REPEAT THAT!!!!


ONLY 1% of all abortions happen after the 20th week of pregnancy

theonedru
05-25-2012, 12:41 AM
Ok can we argue something besides abortion and women in this thread ..

Zimbow
05-25-2012, 01:33 AM
How did this get on abortions? Went from the democrats war on women to abortions. It's been a long night so far, confusion is not wanted.

JustAlex
05-25-2012, 01:52 AM
How did this get on abortions? Went from the democrats war on women to abortions. It's been a long night so far, confusion is not wanted.

The OP made a title that is baseless and a somewhat parody of the "GOP war on women".

Another member then wanted proof that a "war on women" was real.

So I gave him a link where I documented many instances where the GOP was trying to push legislation against women.....most of which were Anti-abortion bills.

And from there we got into a HUGE discussion on abortion.



BTW, I still remain as one of the VERY FEW individuals that bothers to post Sources, references, links, stats, graphs, videos, etc. to support my points, opinions and positions.


That's how I do things....I love facts, evidence, and being able to "show my work".

theonedru
05-25-2012, 02:36 AM
The fact that the gov't/military has not allowed women to fight along side men on the front lines is an irrefutable fact that they are sexist. There is absolutely zero reason they could not do so

And this is all gov't not just a single party

11chaos
05-25-2012, 06:43 AM
The entire Government is anti-woman, just look at the military to see this....

I didn't know you were in the military. Since when?

11chaos
05-25-2012, 06:43 AM
The fact that the gov't/military has not allowed women to fight along side men on the front lines is an irrefutable fact that they are sexist. There is absolutely zero reason they could not do so

And this is all gov't not just a single party

Wow, I guess the women serving outside the wire with me, were really men. Who knew?

Star_Cards
05-25-2012, 08:09 AM
That is ironic, but how were these numbers calculated? From what I read it sounds like they may have just calculated the average wage for the men and the women and that's how they got their difference. I don't disagree that in some companies that women make less for the same job, but even in the same job their are variations of pay, even if you are just looking at men in those same jobs. There are so many variables that come into play when calculating salary for a person.

As for the senators and the Act, I'm all for non discrimination of pay in the work place, but will this require a company to pay a female the exact same as the highest paid male in the same position? I'm not sure how you can really legislate pay like this. there are just so many variable that come into play. experience, seniority, economical environment at the time of hire, on the job performance, and so on. There's more than likely a difference in pay even among men within the same company doing the same job. It's probably not 25% but it's still there.

Star_Cards
05-25-2012, 08:13 AM
i think what you meant to say is "unless we are bad mouthing the republicans, the numbers are irrelevant"

I don't see how you can say that they are relevant if these politicians have a bunch of top level men and more entry level women on their staff. I'd need more info on how the numbers were calculated for each specific staff to see if they are relevant. if they are comparing top level men with entry level women they aren't relevant. If they are comparing top level men and women doing the same job then they are... unless maybe the man has been doing that job for 15 years and the women just started a year ago.

Star_Cards
05-25-2012, 08:27 AM
if you say so my friend. your point stops being valid when you only make "valid" points when it attacks one side and defends the other. i think it is probably best if I don't respond to your posts any more because my posts are becoming more combative because i feel like your posts are becoming more one sided and condescending. I will do us both a favor and stop replying.

I completely disagree with this. if the numbers are all of the staffers average salary based on sex please explain how that is relevant? it has nothing to do with the political stance of Habs. as for me, I'd be arguing relevance even if this were a reb group.

also, I'm not saying that there isn't a potential hypocritical discrepancy within these women's staff either. There could be, but if the numbers are just averages of salaries of men and women being compared it's irrelevant. You may have a top male staffers making $250,000 and a few entry level women making $40,000 or whatever they make. Now if you tell me that there are two staffers of the same experience and are mainly separated solely by their sex and the man is making more than the women then that number would be relevant.

habsheaven
05-25-2012, 08:38 AM
Star Cards: ensbergcollector has become what I assume he detests and just instinctively attacks my posts now rather than reading them and debating their merit. Leave him be to stew in his own misery.

Star_Cards
05-25-2012, 08:52 AM
I'd also like to add... Can we please stop with the WAR on everything??? It's so over exaggerated, on both sides. Just because someone wants to change legislation doesn't mean that they are warring against the entity that it effects. I get that WAR brings up a certain sensationalism, but geez. Not everything that is being brought to the table is a war against something.

ensbergcollector
05-25-2012, 09:16 AM
Star Cards: ensbergcollector has become what I assume he detests and just instinctively attacks my posts now rather than reading them and debating their merit. Leave him be to stew in his own misery.

i do read your posts. again, i apologize for the way that i have conducted myself. my overall disgust is at where this forum has ended up after being involved with it for years, not at you. again, i apologize.

AUTaxMan
05-25-2012, 09:41 AM
Stats on low income women
"Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%."

^This is a direct correlation that most abortions occur with women who are in lower family incomes....it makes sense, they simply don't have the money to provide to the kids....it's very sad, but a HARSH reality.

There are countless people in this country who want to adopt.

shrewsbury
05-25-2012, 10:16 AM
women can't be drafted and everybody, including woman libs are fine with this, the proof is, have you ever heard ANYONE complain?

this isn't a bad thing it just shows how our roles are defined and accepted by the masses, this is one reason i am against gay marriage.

what is two males ages 23 and 24 were married and adopted a kid, then a draft came along and both were drafted?

now one of them gets special rights?

Star_Cards
05-25-2012, 10:37 AM
women can't be drafted and everybody, including woman libs are fine with this, the proof is, have you ever heard ANYONE complain?

this isn't a bad thing it just shows how our roles are defined and accepted by the masses, this is one reason i am against gay marriage.

what is two males ages 23 and 24 were married and adopted a kid, then a draft came along and both were drafted?

now one of them gets special rights?

There will always be double standards when it comes to the sexes. I'm not sure where I stand on the draftability of women. Never really gave it a lot of thought as I really doubt we will ever have another draft with the military technology that we have these days. I still don't agree with the opinion of using traditional gender roles to legitimize banning same sex marriage.

shrewsbury
05-25-2012, 10:44 AM
I still don't agree with the opinion of using traditional gender roles to legitimize banning same sex marriage.

i can respect that but disagree

historically women have proven they will volunteer more when needed, this was seen by people like my grandmother, who was a volunteer nurse in ww2.
don't get me wrong, men have volunteered and technically still do, but the few times we considered drafting females they have stepped up and the draft wasn't needed.

i guess you can call me a bit old fashioned, but i like the idea of roles of men and women, though lines will be crossed from time to time.

JustAlex
05-25-2012, 10:51 AM
There are countless people in this country who want to adopt.

Yes, this is always the argument I hear.

Instead of aborting, why not put the child up for adoption.

Well, there are two big problems with this:

#1 The woman still has to go through the inconvenience of being pregnant for 9 months and the agonizing PAIN of Child birth.....again, if she doesn't want the child, what makes you think she's going to go through this so willingly.


#2 If there really are "countless" people who want to adopt, then WHY are there so many orphanages in the United States?

And we all know the tragic stories of some of these kids who are abused and only live lives of suffering with no parents and no love.

My point goes back to a question I already posed....why would you want to bring a child into the world, if you DON'T love him, if you DON'T want him?


Adoption is not the clear solution, imagine if the 1.5 million abortions each year were placed into orphanages, how bad do you think it would get for these kids.

I personally would not want to see that.

DunkingDurant35
05-25-2012, 11:07 AM
i'd also like to add... Can we please stop with the war on everything??? It's so over exaggerated, on both sides. Just because someone wants to change legislation doesn't mean that they are warring against the entity that it effects. I get that war brings up a certain sensationalism, but geez. Not everything that is being brought to the table is a war against something.

+1.

Star_Cards
05-25-2012, 11:08 AM
i can respect that but disagree

historically women have proven they will volunteer more when needed, this was seen by people like my grandmother, who was a volunteer nurse in ww2.
don't get me wrong, men have volunteered and technically still do, but the few times we considered drafting females they have stepped up and the draft wasn't needed.

i guess you can call me a bit old fashioned, but i like the idea of roles of men and women, though lines will be crossed from time to time.

I absolutely get that there are gender roles and would agree that women have stepped up to support war efforts in the past even if not drafted. I assume many would step up if needed today or in the future. Roles exist and I have no problem with that but not a reason to say they can't cross as our society progresses. I just don't see the correlation to same sex marriage, but that's okay, we have differing opinions. :)

shrewsbury
05-25-2012, 11:56 AM
i have no issue accepting other peoples personal choices but rather than changing what is already there can't we just add something on?

AUTaxMan
05-25-2012, 01:36 PM
Yes, this is always the argument I hear.

Instead of aborting, why not put the child up for adoption.

Well, there are two big problems with this:

#1 The woman still has to go through the inconvenience of being pregnant for 9 months and the agonizing PAIN of Child birth.....again, if she doesn't want the child, what makes you think she's going to go through this so willingly.


#2 If there really are "countless" people who want to adopt, then WHY are there so many orphanages in the United States?

And we all know the tragic stories of some of these kids who are abused and only live lives of suffering with no parents and no love.

My point goes back to a question I already posed....why would you want to bring a child into the world, if you DON'T love him, if you DON'T want him?


Adoption is not the clear solution, imagine if the 1.5 million abortions each year were placed into orphanages, how bad do you think it would get for these kids.

I personally would not want to see that.

I agree. I'm sure the children would much rather be dead than live in an orphanage.

theonedru
05-25-2012, 01:54 PM
I didn't know you were in the military. Since when?

Umm ok, worst response ever, or the worst attempt at a jab ever....

theonedru
05-25-2012, 01:57 PM
Wow, I guess the women serving outside the wire with me, were really men. Who knew?

rules keep in place a ban on women serving in the infantry, in combat tank units and in Special Operations commando units.

They struggled at times to articulate the rationale for the current policy.

There is no logic to this except some antiquated sexist idealism

pghin08
05-25-2012, 01:59 PM
Play nice boys, take it back to the issue at hand. And on that note, I'm with Star_Cards, does there REALLY have to be a "war" on everything? Do women get paid less than men? Statistically, yes, and that's a problem that should be addressed. Is it a partisan issue? No. And perhaps if we stopped looking at legitimate problems through the funhouse mirror that is media sensationalism, we could make more progress.

Zimbow
05-25-2012, 04:06 PM
The OP made a title that is baseless and a somewhat parody of the "GOP war on women".

Another member then wanted proof that a "war on women" was real.

So I gave him a link where I documented many instances where the GOP was trying to push legislation against women.....most of which were Anti-abortion bills.

And from there we got into a HUGE discussion on abortion.



BTW, I still remain as one of the VERY FEW individuals that bothers to post Sources, references, links, stats, graphs, videos, etc. to support my points, opinions and positions.


That's how I do things....I love facts, evidence, and being able to "show my work".

Yeah, I've noticed that. I've enjoyed reading your posts as well. I usually just stay in the background unnoticed on issues such as these. Rarely do I comment on anything unless its 0300 at work and I'm bored out of the mind :spy::):

tutall
05-26-2012, 10:08 AM
Yes, this is always the argument I hear.

Instead of aborting, why not put the child up for adoption.

Well, there are two big problems with this:

#1 The woman still has to go through the inconvenience of being pregnant for 9 months and the agonizing PAIN of Child birth.....again, if she doesn't want the child, what makes you think she's going to go through this so willingly.

#2 If there really are "countless" people who want to adopt, then WHY are there so many orphanages in the United States?

And we all know the tragic stories of some of these kids who are abused and only live lives of suffering with no parents and no love.

My point goes back to a question I already posed....why would you want to bring a child into the world, if you DON'T love him, if you DON'T want him?


Adoption is not the clear solution, imagine if the 1.5 million abortions each year were placed into orphanages, how bad do you think it would get for these kids.

I personally would not want to see that.

Im sorry you decided to make a grown up decision and have unprotected sex and werent grown up enough to handle the consequences... Sorry another life that you chose to make is so much of an inconvenience to you, that you may have to be strapped with this responsibility for the next 9 months. The reason lower income people have the most abortions is these are the same people who generally use less protection as there are fewer means to pay for it... I have an idea... find a new activity or be a little more careful. Abortion is usually used as a free (to them) form of birth control

tpeichel
05-26-2012, 02:19 PM
Yes, this is always the argument I hear.

Instead of aborting, why not put the child up for adoption.

Well, there are two big problems with this:

#1 The woman still has to go through the inconvenience of being pregnant for 9 months and the agonizing PAIN of Child birth.....again, if she doesn't want the child, what makes you think she's going to go through this so willingly.


#2 If there really are "countless" people who want to adopt, then WHY are there so many orphanages in the United States?

And we all know the tragic stories of some of these kids who are abused and only live lives of suffering with no parents and no love.

My point goes back to a question I already posed....why would you want to bring a child into the world, if you DON'T love him, if you DON'T want him?


Adoption is not the clear solution, imagine if the 1.5 million abortions each year were placed into orphanages, how bad do you think it would get for these kids.

I personally would not want to see that.

I agree with the other responses that you received for this post. Inconveniencing the mother and children being better off dead aren't very strong pro-abortion arguments.

tpeichel
05-26-2012, 02:26 PM
I wonder what feminists are going to do when they realize that baby girls are being aborted at a much higher rate than baby boys? Are they going to be okay with killing off more girls? Isn't that discrimination?

As a follow up, if science ever proves that people are born gay and we develop a way to identify a "gay" gene, will the pro-abortion crowd be okay with allowing women to abort children with the "gay" gene or is that discrimination as well?

JustAlex
05-26-2012, 02:29 PM
*sigh*

You know, I really don't understand how some people can say:

"Poor people exploit the government by having kids so they can get 'handouts'"

But when we (Pro-choicers) tell them:

"Well, some lower income families have abortions because they simply can't pay for the kid, or because of their poor lifestyle a child would be a burden".


Then you people (Anti-abortion) say:

"IT DOESN'T MATTER, ABORTION IS MURDER, ABORTION IS WRONG, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!"


Then we'll say:

"OK, but if you want to bring another human to a low income family, as a tax payer, be prepared to have your taxes help that family raise that child"


NOW, here is where the biggest problem results.

You don't want government helping poor people ("Handouts")

But you don't want Poor people having abortions....


GUESS WHAT, you can't have your cake and eat it too!!!

Either support MORE help for lower income families with kids, or BACK OFF from abortions!

I fully support that if a low income family does not have the will power, money, or "love" for an upcoming child, then abortion is perfectly fine.

JustAlex
05-26-2012, 02:34 PM
I wonder what feminists are going to do when they realize that baby girls are being aborted at a much higher rate than baby boys? Are they going to be okay with killing off more girls? Isn't that discrimination?

As a follow up, if science ever proves that people are born gay and we develop a way to identify a "gay" gene, will the pro-abortion crowd be okay with allowing women to abort children with the "gay" gene or is that discrimination as well?
All of these are baseless questions my friend...

EVERY SINGLE ONE!

You make the assumption that the "babies" being aborted are viable human beings....when they are NOT!

Feminists fully support a women's right to choose and gay people are not going to cry discrimination.....especially since an aborted fetus/embryo is NOT a viable human being.

tutall
05-26-2012, 11:56 PM
*sigh*

You know, I really don't understand how some people can say:

"Poor people exploit the government by having kids so they can get 'handouts'"

But when we (Pro-choicers) tell them:

"Well, some lower income families have abortions because they simply can't pay for the kid, or because of their poor lifestyle a child would be a burden".


Then you people (Anti-abortion) say:

"IT DOESN'T MATTER, ABORTION IS MURDER, ABORTION IS WRONG, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!"


Then we'll say:

"OK, but if you want to bring another human to a low income family, as a tax payer, be prepared to have your taxes help that family raise that child"


NOW, here is where the biggest problem results.

You don't want government helping poor people ("Handouts")

But you don't want Poor people having abortions....


GUESS WHAT, you can't have your cake and eat it too!!!

Either support MORE help for lower income families with kids, or BACK OFF from abortions!

I fully support that if a low income family does not have the will power, money, or "love" for an upcoming child, then abortion is perfectly fine.

This is where you are wrong... I am fine with the government helping poor people.. I am not fine with it helping lazy people... If you genuinely need the help I am all for it... I am not for the guy who works for cash while collecting SS also.

tpeichel
05-27-2012, 07:51 AM
All of these are baseless questions my friend...

EVERY SINGLE ONE!

You make the assumption that the "babies" being aborted are viable human beings....when they are NOT!

Feminists fully support a women's right to choose and gay people are not going to cry discrimination.....especially since an aborted fetus/embryo is NOT a viable human being.

You can try to dehumanize it with clever wording and semantics, but life is life. You cannot deny that taking babies to full term will produce a baby that will learn to smile, crawl, laugh, walk, think, grow, and develop into a unique person. It's no different than a birds egg that falls out of the nest before it is fully developed. A new life was destroyed.

Since we've gained the technology to learn gender in the womb, many cultures are getting a huge male/female in balance.

Gender bias can broadly impact a society, and it is estimated that by 2020 there could be more than 35 million young "surplus males" in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) and 25 million in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India).

Feminists and others are putting pressure on gender bias abortion but the practice continues. A doctor in India was recently caught feeding aborted females to dogs to destroy the evidence.

In this country, there hasn't been a huge outcry because the targets of abortion are often the poor or mentally challenged. As we learn more and more about babies in the womb though, as a society we're going to have to think about the consequences of "choice" in gender bias, IQ bias, athletic bias, gay bias, musical bias and any other trait we learn to test for.

Would the pro-choice group be okay with a women aborting any children until they got one identified as a male that is genetically predisposed to a high IQ, athletically talented, non-gay, and musically gifted?

tpeichel
05-30-2012, 02:43 PM
Right on cue, a video is out showing Planned Parenthood advising a woman on how to use the system to abort a child if it is a girl and keep it if it is a boy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U2H3ZDnBtuw

theonedru
05-30-2012, 02:55 PM
This whole thread has turned into an abortion debate and if thats all you can ague about in the governments war on women then that's pretty narrow minded, what other issues would beat hand we can debate on this issue...

JustAlex
05-30-2012, 03:08 PM
Right on cue, a video is out showing Planned Parenthood advising a woman on how to use the system to abort a child if it is a girl and keep it if it is a boy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U2H3ZDnBtuw

Oh yeah.....you gotta love the SCARY music, the terrible edits, and how utterly STUPID this video really is.

FACT! Only 1% of Abortion in the U.S is done after the 20th week when the gender of the child is supposedly determined.

99% of abortions are done WAY BEFORE the "third trimester".


Try again Bob....

tpeichel
05-30-2012, 03:53 PM
Funny how the White House tried to attack conservatives with the whole War on Women theme until conservatives turned it around on them and showed many examples of misogynistic liberals. (Cue Bill Maher and his $1 million donation to Obama as he viciously attacked conservative women.)

Now we have an example of Planned Parenthood showing women how to game the system to abort baby girls, and all we hear from liberals is, move along, nothing to see hear. Let's talk about something else.

theonedru
05-30-2012, 10:09 PM
Funny how the White House tried to attack conservatives with the whole War on Women theme until conservatives turned it around on them and showed many examples of misogynistic liberals. (Cue Bill Maher and his $1 million donation to Obama as he viciously attacked conservative women.)

Now we have an example of Planned Parenthood showing women how to game the system to abort baby girls, and all we hear from liberals is, move along, nothing to see hear. Let's talk about something else.

How about the outcry women get when breastfeeding in public, something natural and nurturing being put down by the masses as being dirty and having sexual overtones to it.....

JustAlex
05-31-2012, 01:39 AM
You know what I'm NOT letting that "LiveAction" FRAUDULENT video go by lightly!

This is why I have such CONTEMPT for conservatives.

That video was so unbelievably stupid it has really gotten to my nerves.

I agree with this response to LiveAction:

RnNuJny47yk

And OF COURSE....this made it's way to FAUX NEWS and the MORON Bill O'Reily ate it up, thankfully we have RATIONAL people on our side, fighting the good fight:

tTE1ou5ANjk


BTW....this is the SAME Bill O'Reilly that is RESPONSIBLE for the DEATH of an abortion doctor (George Tiller) from Kansas.

Bill O'Reilly constantly called him "Tiller the Baby Killer" and eventually this made a FANATICAL christian assassinate Dr. George Tiller.

Bravo Bill.....I hope you have NIGHTMARES that this man's death is on YOUR hands.

AUTaxMan
05-31-2012, 07:19 AM
FACT - There was NO condemnation of the woman choosing to terminate on the basis of gender. Not even a negative reaction. Then she explains how to go through with the abortion process even after explaining that it's probably too late to get an abortion. There was no reaction of "no you can't abort a baby just because it's a girl!" It was "you're going to be cutting it really close for the termination deadline if you wait to determine the sex, but if you can find out in time, we'll certainly help you have that abortion. i hope you get your boy."

The ones who come across as idiots are the Young Turks who can't even make a salient point and rely on nothing but straw man arguments.

By the way, O'Reilly did not kill that doctor. He just called him a baby killer, which is what he was.

tpeichel
05-31-2012, 12:11 PM
There is a bill that is currently being debated that would ban sex-selective abortions to protect girls. If you oppose this bill, aren't you anti-woman?

AUTaxMan
05-31-2012, 12:14 PM
There is a bill that is currently being debated that would ban sex-selective abortions to protect girls. If you oppose this bill, aren't you anti-woman?

The libs say you are anti-woman for supporting it.

theonedru
05-31-2012, 12:22 PM
How about you open an abortion thread so we can move on to other aspects of various discrimination towards women, we are forgetting what this thread may have been originally intended for

mrveggieman
05-31-2012, 12:24 PM
How about you open an abortion thread so we can move on to other aspects of various discrimination towards women, we are forgetting what this thread may have been originally intended for


I know that my sig says that I am getting out of P&R but I can't resist a good abortion debate. Who wants to get this one started? :ref:

AUTaxMan
05-31-2012, 12:25 PM
How about you open an abortion thread so we can move on to other aspects of various discrimination towards women, we are forgetting what this thread may have been originally intended for

Well, the abortion thing is the latest incarnation of this faux "war" that the libs won't stop spouting off about. I think the discussion is directly on point.

JustAlex
05-31-2012, 12:30 PM
There is a bill that is currently being debated that would ban sex-selective abortions to protect girls. If you oppose this bill, aren't you anti-woman?

Are you kidding me??

There is NO such practice going on in the U.S.......absolutely NONE!

If you want to pass a redundant bill....then GO AHEAD, I won't be opposed to it, because "sex-selective" abortions DO NOT HAPPEN!


And once again, I HAVE FACTS ON MY SIDE!

Only 1% of abortions in the U.S happen after the 20th week.

In other words, 99% of abortions occur BEFORE the gender of the child is known.

tpeichel
05-31-2012, 12:32 PM
Yes, targeting baby girls for extermination seems a little more relevant than some people complaining about public breastfeeding. It's kind of like Christians moping about the "war on christmas", while Christians in Africa and the Middle East are routinely murdered for their beliefs.

tpeichel
05-31-2012, 12:45 PM
Are you kidding me??

There is NO such practice going on in the U.S.......absolutely NONE!

If you want to pass a redundant bill....then GO AHEAD, I won't be opposed to it, because "sex-selective" abortions DO NOT HAPPEN!


And once again, I HAVE FACTS ON MY SIDE!

Only 1% of abortions in the U.S happen after the 20th week.

In other words, 99% of abortions occur BEFORE the gender of the child is known.

So if there is a little over one million abortions in the U.S. per year and 50 million overall, do you have evidence that the 10,000 abortions per year or 500,000 abortions overall performed after the 20th week were not sex selected?

mrveggieman
05-31-2012, 12:46 PM
Hey ya'll check out my latest thread on abortion and sex ed. Plenty of things to go around that will offend both the pro life and pro abortion crowd.

http://www.sportscardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1667786

JustAlex
05-31-2012, 12:50 PM
So if there is a little over one million abortions in the U.S. per year and 50 million overall, do you have evidence that the 10,000 abortions per year or 500,000 abortions overall performed after the 20th week were not sex selected?

No, I don't have any proof that the 10,000 abortions each year after the 20th week were "sex selected".

However, if this really were an issue why UNTIL NOW are we hearing about it?

Abortions have been legal in the U.S for more than 40 years...

Why until now that there is pressure on the GOP and their anti-abortion bills are we hearing about this?

tpeichel
05-31-2012, 12:53 PM
No, I don't have any proof that the 10,000 abortions each year after the 20th week were "sex selected".

However, if this really were an issue why UNTIL NOW are we hearing about it?

Abortions have been legal in the U.S for more than 40 years...

Why until now that there is pressure on the GOP and their anti-abortion bills are we hearing about this?

Maybe because groups like Planned Parent will publicly say that they are against sex selection while privately supporting and encouraging sex selection as was shown in the video.