Attempted Voter Manipulation By The Democrats

[Jaysyn]

What he said.

If you don't oppose womens' health issues, why do you support a party that does? Republicans have recently, in one 4-month period, tried to introduce a total of 916 bills that are effectively anti-women. Add to that the GOP's proposed new human life laws, which would make abortion murder, you kind of get the gist that the Republican party wants to ban abortion.

The sad part is Tobie, who resides in the UK, has a better understanding of the Republican party than most Republicans on this forum.

[Ryantology]

I think being a sane Republican is like being a sane Christian: it's only possible if you ignore the vast amounts of terrible things you're supposed to believe in.

If you're a Republican based largely on the principle that fiscal responsibility is a good thing, you should weigh that against the rest of the party's platform and ask yourself if you're really okay with actually voting for these people.

[A Theist]

I would say that unrestricted abortions on demand, late term abortions, and partial birth abortions beyond the scope of cases that involve saving the life of the mother and cases involving rape and incest need defending.

Yes, but I asked why they need defending? The providence of the moether over her own body is my starting point and you have yet to respond with a reason.

I would also like to see Planned Parenthood defunded as long as they continue abortion proceedures

That seems completely contradictory compared to what you say before and after it, you are decrying abortion because it promotes reckless behaviour yet planned parenthood provides access to contraception and guidance, the exact opposite of recklessness.

....and I don't think that taxpayers should be held accountable for all the reckless behavior and irresponsible choices made by the Sandra Flukes.

Well perhaps they aren't all reckless or irresponsible, contraception fails sometimes and the individual isn't at fault, furthermore, then you better remove welfare, medical facilities and other common sense utilities otherwise people might be tempted to be poor and diseased.

"Yes, but I asked why they need defending? The providence of the moether over her own body is my starting point and you have yet to respond with a reason."....
What's to defend? I'm opposing unrestricted and unlimited access to abortion for any reason beyond the scope of saving the life of the mother and in the cases of rape and incest. I think it's wrong for a woman to decide to kill an unborn child for the sake of convenience.

".... you are decrying abortion because it promotes reckless behaviour yet planned parenthood provides access to contraception and guidance, the exact opposite of recklessness."....
No. I'm not saying that abortion promotes reckless behavior and I'm not opposed to Planned Parenthood helping to provide healthcare to women, contraception, and counselling. I am opposed to Planned Parenthood providing unrestricted abortions on demand for any reason beyond the scope of saving the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest. I would defund Planned Parenthood of all Federal money and let it stand on private contributions.

"Well perhaps they aren't all reckless or irresponsible, contraception fails sometimes and the individual isn't at fault,..."
Yes, sometimes they fail, and it's known that contraceptives aren't fully reliable. But still the individuals knowing that risk is responsible for their own, ( both the mother and the father), actions and has the responsibilty of providing for a baby.

You and other supporters of unrestricted access to abortions need to defend your positions.

[festive1]

"Well perhaps they aren't all reckless or irresponsible, contraception fails sometimes and the individual isn't at fault,..."
Yes, sometimes they fail, and it's known that contraceptives aren't fully reliable. But still the individuals knowing that risk is responsible for their own, ( both the mother and the father), actions and has the responsibilty of providing for a baby.

You and other supporters of unrestricted access to abortions need to defend your positions.

In an ideal world perhaps. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, and in most cases the care of unplanned and unwanted children falls disproportionately on the mother. I'm not just talking about financial support of the child, but actual, physical care. If a woman has a child, the father leaves, but still financially supports the child, that's still a lot of pressure on the mother (or vice versa). If this child was unplanned and unwanted in the first place, and the custodial parent feels resentment, this can lead to harm (both physical and psychological) to the child.

[A Theist]

"Well perhaps they aren't all reckless or irresponsible, contraception fails sometimes and the individual isn't at fault,..."
Yes, sometimes they fail, and it's known that contraceptives aren't fully reliable. But still the individuals knowing that risk is responsible for their own, ( both the mother and the father), actions and has the responsibilty of providing for a baby.

You and other supporters of unrestricted access to abortions need to defend your positions.

In an ideal world perhaps. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, and in most cases the care of unplanned and unwanted children falls disproportionately on the mother. I'm not just talking about financial support of the child, but actual, physical care. If a woman has a child, the father leaves, but still financially supports the child, that's still a lot of pressure on the mother (or vice versa). If this child was unplanned and unwanted in the first place, and the custodial parent feels resentment, this can lead to harm (both physical and psychological) to the child.

I understand what you're saying but that still doesn't justify abortion, especially when there's loving couples waiting on a long list to adopt a child into a loving home.

[TaraJo]

You and other supporters of unrestricted access to abortions need to defend your positions.

Short answer is that I believe in what conservatives always preach: a less invasive government.

I have a friend who got pregnant. It was an intentional pregnancy, but she found out the baby had a genetic condition. It was going to live a short life filled with pain and suffering. Yes, she aborted. If we had things your way, would the law force her to give birth to a child who would know nothing but pain?

I've also met a lot of people at a half way house for single mothers. One of the stories they gave was about a woman whose husband kept her on a VERY short leash. He didn't want a baby but he refused to use a condom and when she came up pregnant, he just beat her until she miscarried. So, do the beatings continue for her?

I also don't like how we're looking at a pregnancy as a punishment. I mean, what kind of emotional trauma is going to come with that? Kid turns 13 or so and realizes that mom would have aborted him if she had the chance.

Not to mention, the world is over populated as is and anything that can curb that trend is a good thing. I'm not saying we need to do a China and force people to only have one child, but I am saying that we should encourage people to make their own choices even if we might not agree with them.

[festive1]

[quote='festive1' pid='335605' dateline='1347455171']
I understand what you're saying but that still doesn't justify abortion, especially when there's loving couples waiting on a long list to adopt a child into a loving home.

Adoption isn't cheap, and a lot of people on those waiting lists are waiting because they want a newborn, often a white newborn. Plus, women who carry to term and plan on giving up the child, sometimes experience a change of heart upon birth. Why? In part, oxytocin, the hormone that contributes to mother/infant bonding and feelings of love, and contractions during labor. In fact, the single largest dose of oxytocin that males ever receive happens during their birth, females experience this at their birth as well as the birth of their children. Not to mention the mother/child bonding that occurs during pregnancy. If a woman doesn't want to go through that emotional turmoil and would rather abort the fetus, far be it for me to judge her.

[liam]

What's to defend?...I think it's wrong for a woman to decide to kill an unborn child for the sake of convenience.

You're making a statement about the moral permissibility of an action, you have to defend that standpoint and 'I think it is wrong' is not a valid defence of advocacy of anything that should be thrust onto others. It's not convenience, its often a genuine financial and lifestyle choice, better than bringing a baby into a poor family which is unable to support it.

I am opposed to Planned Parenthood providing unrestricted abortions on demand for any reason beyond the scope of saving the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest. I would defund Planned Parenthood of all Federal money and let it stand on private contributions.

Oh really? a conservative republican would advocate privatisation?

Yes, sometimes they fail, and it's known that contraceptives aren't fully reliable. But still the individuals knowing that risk is responsible for their own, ( both the mother and the father), actions and has the responsibilty of providing for a baby.

Accidents happen and to claim that individuals are responsible for things beyond their control such as the failure of a contraceptive pill is absolutely absurd (also, you can't use a comma before and after a bracketed sentence, only within it, because bracketed text is separate from the body by definition). I accept that there is some level of responsibility involved but they acted responsibly when they chose contraception (if they did, but that will be addressed in a minute). There is a conscious choice involved, yes, but it is not an immoral one and your own prejudice is no reason to blindly advocate a civil policy which is completely impractical and without resonable justification (thus far)

You and other supporters of unrestricted access to abortions need to defend your positions.

I never claimed to be a supporter of unrestricted abortion, I have made no claim other than that your claims are wrong and I have just defended that claim. You are assuming too much about my view without receiving it, that is never a wise policy to adopt. My position, while I do not advocate it entirely, but only as a starting point for debate, is that the choice to act in a safe, protected way is enough. There needs to be contingency and you are assuming that an unborn child is completely deserving of ethical consideration, you need to defend this also.

[Ryantology]

What's to defend? I'm opposing unrestricted and unlimited access to abortion for any reason beyond the scope of saving the life of the mother and in the cases of rape and incest. I think it's wrong for a woman to decide to kill an unborn child for the sake of convenience.

Then, don't choose to get an abortion for the sake of convenience. Nobody else's business in this affair is yours.

No. I'm not saying that abortion promotes reckless behavior and I'm not opposed to Planned Parenthood helping to provide healthcare to women, contraception, and counselling. I am opposed to Planned Parenthood providing unrestricted abortions on demand for any reason beyond the scope of saving the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest. I would defund Planned Parenthood of all Federal money and let it stand on private contributions.

Fine. I propose a compromise:

Since you would force women to carry children to term against their will, it must be up to your government to provide 100% of all medical expenses, lost wages, psychiatric care, incidental costs, and a generous stipend to the mother for the duration of the child's infancy and adolescence. This is only fair, because you're the one who wants all these babies to be born and you are imposing your will based on your Christian morals, so follow up with more Christian morals and pour on the charity.

If we can't tax the shit out of churches and religious organizations for useful causes like science, we can do it to support the fascism these churches and religious organizations want to shove down everyone's throats. I wonder how sacred unborn life will be when religious organizations all across America go broke supporting all these unwanted babies they forced into the world. Unfortunately, it would not even be a drop in the bucket, but that's only one of many reasons why this is a horrible idea.

Yes, sometimes they fail, and it's known that contraceptives aren't fully reliable. But still the individuals knowing that risk is responsible for their own, ( both the mother and the father), actions and has the responsibilty of providing for a baby.

They don't need to take on that responsibility. You want to force them to, because you aren't satisfied to live by your own morals. So, you and your kind should be responsible for them. Put your money where your mouth is.

[cratehorus]

you guys know that "A Theist, and "puddleglum" here........... are just saying this crap to piss you guys off? They're not asking questions, they're not interested in your opinion, or trying to teach you anything.

They're posting the most offensive shit they can think of, and then they sit back and giggle like schoolgirls at how mad all the liberals are getting

HA HA STUPID LIBERALS!!!!!!