Rick Perry does it again....

[Darth]

They're trying to 'save lives', they thinks each bundle of cells is a full human being with a soul and everything.

Casting their motives as 'misogynistic patriarchial bullshit designed to increase the oppression of wymen, delivered by a mansplaining hatemonger' or some rot does not seem to me to be at all productive.

[Anomalocaris]

There is probably nothing wrong with Texas.

Oh, there must be something in the water.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

The idea that they are trying to save lives doesn't hold up because pro-lifers typically support things like the war in ______ (pick any country we are at war with) and the death penalty, so it doesn't seem like they hold life to be especially sacred.

So that means we are left with the component of their attitudes which calls for controlling women. Since the values they claim to have don't hold up, this must be what it's all really about. Some of these abortion bills which conservatives are trying to get passed on the state level would have women do jail time for miscarriages or abortions. This is some seriously anti-woman legislation.

[Zen Badger]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...picks=true

The Texas governor who drew national attention for his "oops" moment during the last GOP presidential primary has been thrust back into the national spotlight, thanks to the 11-hour filibuster of Texas State Senator Wendy Davis. And so has his awkward way with language.
The fact is, who are we to say that children born into the worst of circumstances can't grow to live successful lives?" Perry asked Thursday in a speech before the 43rd annual National Right to Life Convention in Dallas. "In fact, even the woman who filibustered the Senate the other day was born into difficult circumstances.
She was the daughter of a single woman. She was a teenage mother herself. She managed to eventually graduate from Harvard Law School and serve in the Texas senate," Perry continued. "It's just unfortunate that she hasn't learned from her own example that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and that every life matters."

It was classic mansplaining -- as Elyse Fradkin pithily summarized it on Twitter, "when a man explains to a woman how she should view the meaning of her own life experience."
"The louder they scream, the more we know we are getting something done," he said of the abortion-rights supporters.

Help me out here guys, I'm trying very hard to figure something out here.
Once again Capt. Oops! has stuck his foot in his mouth so deep as to tickle
his tonsils. This is the part I cannot figure out:
How does a man who goes through life with his head so firmly planted
up his ass stick his foot in his mouth over and over again?

I would agree with his sentiment entirely if the GOP didn't go to great lengths to ensure that those potential lives were denied every opportunity in life except to be cannon fodder for the US war machine.

[Ryantology]

Did you even read what he said? He explained why he cared about it quite succinctly:

every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and that every life matters

I don't care if you disagree with his views, but the fact is, he explained why he opposed the bill, and he wasn't being misogynistic when doing it.

Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock demonstrated the dangers awaiting Republicans who make the mistake of being candid on this topic.

[Tiberius]

You don't find the fact that he's trying to take away the rights of women to have abortions a bit misogynistic?

No, because in his mind, he isn't trying to take away rights from women. He is trying to protect the rights of unborn children. To be a misogynist, you must actively hate women. If his reason for supporting this law was because he hated women and he wanted to take away their rights, then I'd agree, he'd be a misogynist. However, his (given) reason doesn't match up with this at all.

Calling Perry a misogynist because of this is like calling someone an anti-theist because they support the separation of church and state. Protecting the rights of non-religious people does not mean a person is taking away rights from theists, or that they are anti-theists.

The idea that they are trying to save lives doesn't hold up because pro-lifers typically support things like the war in ______ (pick any country we are at war with) and the death penalty, so it doesn't seem like they hold life to be especially sacred.

Oh come on now, that's a ridiculous comparison to make for one very good reason:

People volunteer for the army. They know what kind of danger they are getting themselves into. Likewise with the death penalty; people aren't given the death penalty for random reasons out of their control. It is usually for committing murder or other heinous crimes multiple times.

I don't agree with the death penalty, but I can at least understand justifications for it, and they don't mean supporters are "anti-life".

So that means we are left with the component of their attitudes which calls for controlling women. Since the values they claim to have don't hold up, this must be what it's all really about. Some of these abortion bills which conservatives are trying to get passed on the state level would have women do jail time for miscarriages or abortions. This is some seriously anti-woman legislation.

I reject the notion that you have somehow disproved the "pro-life" values. We are talking about completely different forms of life. I agree that jail terms for miscarriages is ridiculous, however the pro-lifers see abortion as equal to murder, so I can understand the justification for a jail term for that.

[Minimalist]

[Tiberius]

[Autumnlicious]

How does the unborn have rights when there isn't even a semblance of intelligence to approach even a shallow comprehension of the world around it?

If I recall, cognitive development on the very young requires forgetting of instinctive reactions (grasping reflex, et al) to even allow new information to be ingested.

For fuck's sake, a newborn is closer to a blank slate than every other newbirnd mammal.

This whole abortion nonsense is not even over a partially cogniscent person - it's over potential.

I support the vessel over the "potential" life any day, until it becomes possible to transfer the potential life to a willing host or artificial vessel.

Restricting liberty, all on the basis if "what if" a human personality develops after birth...

[Tiberius]

How does the unborn have rights when there isn't even a semblance of intelligence to approach even a shallow comprehension of the world around it?

So, severely mentally handicapped people also have no rights?

What about babies that are born blind and deaf? They don't have the ability to comprehend the world very well either. In fact it takes a remarkable amount of effort to teach them how to speak and interact with other people. Yet these aren't seen as potential humans.

At what point does a baby in the womb stop being a "potential human" and actually become one? Any point you pick during pregnancy is completely arbitrary, and I have no problems with that. I just believe the most logical arbitrary point is right at the moment of conception.