How does that make me big government ? It doesn't .Hello again, tom:

If abortion is illegal, then presumably there's some sort of police ACTION required to ENFORCE it. There's going to be jailtime. I don't know for who, though - the woman or the doctor - or even both...

So, it looks to ME, like you've extended the governments reach into every doctors office in the nation so that the result of EVERY pregnancy ends up like the GOVERNMENT wants it to..

I think that's pretty BIG! You? Not so much.

excon

Yeah well I kind of think that murder is one of those things that needs to be controlled . But I am not 'big government ' because big government applies to the Federal Government assuming powers that are reserved for the States.

Poor fellows... The Tea Party strikes again.. I'da thought you'da learned from Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell - Joe Buck and that guy in Alaska.. No, huh?

excon

Rubio, Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz seem to be doing OK.

Hello again, tom:

If abortion is illegal, then presumably there's some sort of police ACTION required to ENFORCE it. There's going to be jailtime. I dunno for who, though - the woman or the doctor - or even both...

So, it looks to ME, like you've extended the governments reach into each and every doctors office in the nation so that the result of EVERY pregnancy ends up like the GOVERNMENT wants it to..

I think that's pretty BIG! You? Not so much.

excon

As if there are no laws governing the medical field? One of our government's responsibilities is protecting us, you just don't think the most helpless among us deserve any sort of protections. You want women protected, you want gays protected, you want minorities protected, but you don't want babies protected? That just baffles me to no end.

...but you don't want babies protected? That just baffles me to no end.We do, but we expect the parents of the baby to protect them, not some nanny state.

Still waiting to hear the restrictions on abortions that the pro abortion crowd accepts ;and why wouldn't those restrictions violate the women's so called "right to choose" .

still waiting to hear the restrictions on abortions that the pro abortion crowd accepts ;and why wouldn't those restrictions violate the women's so called "right to choose" .Maybe there is a way to meet in the middle that would make both side content.

You want women protected, you want gays protected, you want minorities protected, but you don't want babies protected? That just baffles me to no end.Hello again, Steve:

It shouldn't baffle you... I'm a simple man. My reasoning is simple too.. I want to protect babies, but I want to preserve their mother's right NOT to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be... I'm conflicted, but if I have to choose, and I do, I choose to guard the mothers rights.

Protecting gays against the government is an EASY choice.. Protecting minorities against the government is EASY too. But, protecting a mothers rights against her baby's rights isn't easy at all.

Does that unbaffle you?

excon

Maybe there is a way to meet in the middle that would make both side content.

Can't really partially murder someone .

can't really partially murder someone .
But it isn't murder as you well know. We'll never get past a discussion if you keep redefining stuff.

still waiting to hear the restrictions on abortions that the pro abortion crowd accepts ;Hello tom:

I don't know who the pro abortion crowd is. Maybe you'll do better if you call them MURDERERS which is clearly what you think they are..

excon

It's you that changed the definition of premeditated killing a human.

It's you that changed the definition of premeditated killing a human.
Nope, that's already in the criminal code. When did I ever change that?

Hello again, Steve:

It shouldn't baffle you... I'm a simple man. My reasoning is simple too.. I want to protect babies, but I want to preserve their mother's right NOT to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be... I'm conflicted, but if I have to choose, and I do, I choose to guard the mothers rights.

Protecting gays against the government is an EASY choice.. Protecting minorities against the government is EASY too. But, protecting a mothers rights against her baby's rights isn't easy at all.

Does that unbaffle you?

excon

To me the easiest choice is protecting most vulnerable, but since your side doesn't even believe it's a human being I can see how you justify it. That is why the pro-abortion crowd is adamant about not granting personhood to a child - even if it survives a live-birth abortion. They just call it a "previable fetus," which is what Obama argued before voting present on Illinois' born alive bill.

They just call it a "previable fetus," which is what Obama argued before voting present on Illinois' born alive bill.Because medically that's what it is. Even your nurse you refer to says that many organs such as the lungs aren't developed enough to function.

Because medically that's what it is. Even your nurse you refer to says that many organs such as the lungs aren't developed enough to function.

All the more reason to intervene in the life of the child. I have a niece, who I believe is now 12, weighed less than a pound when she was born premature. She's doing great and I'm sure medical science has advanced in that time. In fact, this girl (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C253538%2C00.html)survived at less than 22 weeks and 10 ounces.

It is a child, it deserves a chance.

Ok, agreed.

Hello tom:

I dunno who the pro abortion crowd is. Maybe you'll do better if you call them MURDERERS which is clearly what you think they are..

excon

Feminist finally admits the obvious, "I Love Abortion" (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/feminist-finally-admits-obvious-love-abortion-643961.html)

Hello tom:

I dunno who the pro abortion crowd is. Maybe you'll do better if you call them MURDERERS which is clearly what you think they are..

excon
State sanctioned Mass Murder or infanticide is more accurate.

State sanctioned Mass Murder or infanticide is more accurate.
But it isn't. No doctors or women are charged for this. Do you live in a different country?

The 'State sanctioned' part of my comment covers your question.

But it isn't state sanctioned, the mother makes the decision.
No state has ever told a women she must get an abortion.

Hello again,

Your views that it's murder, and that women love abortion, and that they'll LIE about a rape just to get one, is FRINGE thinking. That's where it belongs. After this war you're conducting on women results in a landslide victory for Obama, the fringe is where it'll be remanded to.

We will NOT go back to 1950.

excon

Hello again,

Yes, I have MORE to say... Let me suggest JUST how fringe you guys are... If you had your way, a woman who was VICTIMIZED by rape, will be VICTIMIZED again by the state when she's FORCED to bear the rapist's child..

But, if that isn't VICTIMIZING her enough, the rapist will be able to VICTIMIZE her again, for the NEXT 18 years when he files for visitation, and it's GRANTED...

And, you have the BALLS to say you're NOT conducting a war on women... It's a good thing YOU'RE the only ones who think so.

excon

They just call it a "previable fetus," which is what Obama argued before voting present on Illinois' born alive bill.
Voting "present" in Illinois (as in a few other states) means such a vote provides a way for lawmakers to voice opposition to an issue without voting "no" and say, "Go back to the drawing board and work out the kinks in this bill. You don't have my pro or con vote yet."

Hello again,

Your views that it's murder, and that women love abortion, and that they'll LIE about a rape just to get one, is FRINGE thinking. That's where it belongs. After this war you're conducting on women results in a landslide victory for Obama, the fringe is where it'll be remanded to.

We will NOT go back to 1950.

excon

I don't want to go back to 1950, I don't know anyone who does. That's just a meaningless, straw man cliché. You're whole war on women meme is just a straw man... or is it straw woman?

Hello again,

Yes, I have MORE to say... Lemme suggest JUST how fringe you guys are... If you had your way, a woman who was VICTIMIZED by rape, will be VICTIMIZED again by the state when she's FORCED to bear the rapist's child..

But, if that isn't VICTIMIZING her enough, the rapist will be able to VICTIMIZE her again, for the NEXT 18 years when he files for visitation, and it's GRANTED...

And, you have the BALLS to say you're NOT conducting a war on women.... It's a good thing YOU'RE the only ones who think so.

excon

I have no idea who you're talking to. You ain't talkin' to me.

I have no idea who you're talking to. You ain't talkin' to me.Hello Steve:

Everybody's running away.. But, you can't hide anymore.. Todd Akin pulled back the curtains...

The Republican platform committee approved language on Tuesday seeking a constitutional amendment that would ban abortions with no exceptions for rape, incest, or danger to the life of a pregnant woman.

It's called the “Akin Plank,”.

How is the scenario I painted above, where the GOVERNMENT will VICTIMIZE a rape victim LOOOOOOONG after the rapist did, NOT going to happen under THIS plank??

excon

I guess victimizing the baby is a one off.

Hello Steve:

Everybody's running away.. But, you can't hide anymore.. Todd Akin pulled back the curtains...

The Republican platform committee approved language on Tuesday seeking a constitutional amendment that would ban abortions with no exceptions for rape, incest, or danger to the life of a pregnant woman.

If I recall that's nothing new, the third time in a row for this plank.


It's called the “Akin Plank,”.


No it isn't, Democrats labeled it as such. He didn't build that.

Fact is during the last four years you guys have pushed more bills to take away choice, that was granted by the courts YEARS ago, than jobs, and have obstucted all the ways to make jobs so far. Things we know have worked in the past.

The republican platform has always been repeal everything back to the New DEAL, nothing new there.

That why all the old fights still have to be fought. AGAIN. There is no difference between republicans and that idiot AKIN, except he said what you guys are scared to say in public.

I mean Ryan never ran from him when they were trying to redefine rape, just now since he is VP hopeful, and the cat is out of the bag.

Fact is during the last four years you guys have pushed more bills to take away choice, that was granted by the courts YEARS ago.

Fact is your side only likes "choice" when it fits in their little box. Much like hypocrisy of screaming equal pay while the White House and Democrats in congress themselves pay women less than men. You guys are fighting your own war on women by denying them equal pay and assuming all women fit your stereotypes and want you to speak for them.

You can try and define all of this as taking away choice all you want but that's an outright and you all know it. All of the efforts are an attempt to give the child who has no choice a chance. If you don't like the fact that we believe babies deserve a chance to live you're just going to have to get over it, because some of us will NEVER stop fighting for children.

some of us will NEVER stop fighting for children.
What happens after the child is born and needs some of those social services that were taken away? Who will pay for diapers and food?

What happens after the child is born and needs some of those social services that were taken away? Who will pay for diapers and food?

We've had this conversation dozens of times. Do you have a new question?

We've had this conversation dozens of times. Do you have a new question?
I don't recall ever seeing a satisfactory answer.

We've had this conversation dozens of times. Do you have a new question?And the abortion question hasn't been discussed ad nauseum??

I don't recall ever seeing a satisfactory answer.

I don't think any answer will satisfy you.

And the abortion question hasn't been discussed ad nauseum?????

I didn't start it, excon did (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/war-women-662145-20.html#post3242441).

I don't recall ever seeing a satisfactory answer.Hello Carol:

You're right. What's funny, is the right wingers support the fetus until its born, then the Democrats take over... It's a perfect hand off.

I also wonder how they can call themselves right to lifers when it's the Republicans who overwhelmingly support the death penalty... It makes no sense to me..

excon

What happens after the child is born and needs some of those social services that were taken away? Who will pay for diapers and food?

OK, what are these social services we're allegedly taking away that's going to deny a child food and diapers? I don't know of any.

Your question is just a trap intended end the discussion by reaching a preconceived conclusion that we don't care for the child after it's born. Sorry, I'm not falling for it.

OK, what are these social services we're allegedly taking away that's going to deny a child food and diapers? I don't know of any.Hello again, Steve:

In case you haven't noticed, Romney is going to give a huge tax break to the already wealthy, and pay for it by cutting services to the poor. If that's not denying poor children food and diapers, I don't know what is.

excon

I also wonder how they can call themselves right to lifers when it's the Republicans who overwhelmingly support the death penalty... It makes no sense to me..
Dear excon:

Don't they want assault rifles and other guns to be readily available too? Don't guns kill?

Carol

How about the trillions in cuts to medicaid, food stamps, or the growing number of kids who need those services that Romney, and Ryan has proposed. That's what you are voting for.

In addition you also by your vote you support deep cuts in pell grants and tuition for those young people who don't have rich daddies to pay for an education as a way to escape poverty. Your vote for Mitt makes sure HIS kids have an inheritance,as they already do, but you insure YOUR kids do NOT!

So while you tell a female what to do with her body, right or wrong, you also make sure she is poor, and her kids are even poorer, as you advocate for less safety net, that likely, you or your kids or grand kids will have to use.

If the business cycle is what you count on to help them, you are in trouble. As good as the church is, even they cannot help them all. So when the guy you want to be president says he and his buddies WILL get a raise, you better make sure you ask who pays for it, and how, and for how long because YOUR kids future depends on it.

If you only see things one way, you may miss that. Think before you give someone YOUR future, or that of YOUR kids. You support Worldvision, but not your own? Say it ain't so!

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/430231_343731599047883_513207222_n.jpg

Hello again, Steve:

In case you haven't noticed, Romney is going to give a huge tax break to the already wealthy, and pay for it by cutting services to the poor. If that's not denying poor children food and diapers, I don't know what is.

excon

I don't want clichés, I want specifics. What social services is he taking away that would deny children food and diapers?

If you only see things one way, you may miss that. Think before you give someone YOUR future, or that of YOUR kids. You support Worldvision, but not your own? Say it ain't so!

Straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/430231_343731599047883_513207222_n.jpg

Cute, didn't you call that sort of thing childish or something like that? Akin has been thoroughly denounced for his idiocy. Move along.

Akin has been thoroughly denounced for his idiocy. Move along.
Why is he still around?

Read Romney, or Ryans budget, (YOU HAVE LINKS) or better yet, who pays for Romneys tax cuts? We can quickly find out who makes the straw arguments if you do. I say its YOU!!

Can you answer the question or NOT? I also say you don't want to. You guys never do. Here is an easier question, who paid for Bushes tax cuts? Bet you have no clue!

Why is he still around?

Nearly everyone has asked him to step down, his funding has been cut off, what do you want us to do - kill him?

Read Romney, or Ryans budget, (YOU HAVE LINKS) or better yet, who pays for Romneys tax cuts? We can quickly find out who makes the straw arguments if you do. I say its YOU!!!

Can you answer the question or NOT? I also say you don't want to. You guys never do. Here is an easier question, who paid for Bushes tax cuts? Bet you have no clue!

You sir are making the argument, I don't have to prove a thing.

You sir are making the argument, I don't have to prove a thing.

Best non-answer yet. Bravo sir!

Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You sir are making the argument, I don't have to prove a thing.

Best non-answer yet. Bravo sir!

Saved me some typing, THANKS!

Really guys? You would make terrible prosecutors.


Prosecution: Guilty!

Defense: Prove it!

Prosecution: Uh, um, er...because I said so, that's why!

Judge: Case dismissed!

It's a debate of ideas, not a court of law. Interesting that you see yourself being prosecuted. Just because you seem to be outnumbered.

OK ;I'll chime in... I have seen no evidence that budget trimming proposed would deny babies food or diapers.

Its a debate of ideas, not a court of law. Interesting that you see yourself being prosecuted. Just because you seem to be outnumbered.

Court or not the rules work the same, if you make a charge the burden of proof is on you. There is no burden on me to disprove something you haven't provided any evidence for.

Wondergirl implied Romney would take away food and diapers from children, you and ex joined in. I asked (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/war-women-662145-30.html#post3245654), "OK, what are these social services we're allegedly taking away that's going to deny a child food and diapers? I don't know of any."

Well, what are they? Don't accuse me of not taking care of my own if you can't back it up.

what are these social services we're allegedly taking away that's going to deny a child food and diapers? I don't know of any.
Check Tal's post #293.

Well, what are they? Don't accuse me of not taking care of my own if you can't back it up.Hello again, Steve:

It's simple, really... Romney hasn't said HOW he's going to pay for the tax cuts he's going to give to the unbelievably rich. So, some really smart people just did some simple math and figured out that if his programs are implemented, cuts from programs the poor count on are the ONLY place the money can come from...

So, if Romney isn't specific about which programs he's going to cut, why should we be?? But, we CAN add.

excon

We have the Equal Rights Amendment. We have Title IX. We have all kinds of rules and laws in place pertaining to equal pay for equal work and fairness in the work place. It is presently illegal to practice discrimination in hiring, treatment and compensation for women and other protected classes such as the disabled and minorities. We don't need another law to do this. We do need greater access to the legal system so that it's accessible and affordable to disenfranchised people, so they can pursue their rights more vigorously.

It is admirable to want to take care of everyone as a society and I agree we should provide temporary safety nets such as unemployment and wellfare to help people in crisis. We should not have policies that make "crisis" a lifestyle, particularly not a generational lifestyle. In my home city of Chicago, we are seeing more murder than is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, all in poor, wellfare-dependent neighborhoods. Wellfare can be a hand up out of a temporary hardship or it can become a lifestyle and a trap which keeps people down. I don't know the answer, but somehow we need to shift people from wellfare to jobs.

Disability is also in trouble as a safety net. I know of people who are on disability but working manual labor jobs for cash. I also know a man who is over 60 and so seriously ill, he will never work again. He is sleeping on his brother's couch and has been turned down twice for disability benefits after working all his life as a truck driver. He has had a heart attack and a stroke and now has a brain tumor, but he can't get disability. The system is corrupt. Those who shouldn't get it, those who should can't get it. There needs to be a fairness and urgency to getting this benefit to those who legitimately need it, and a focus on shifting those who could be retrained for a job they are able to do into such training and jobs. For example, I have a relative who is in his early 20s and broke several bones in his foot so can no longer do a labor job he used to do - too much time standing and walking and putting undo pressure on the foot. But he can type. He can use a telephone. He can sell things. He can do all sorts of jobs that permit him to sit in a chair. He could go to college and learn an office job. He will probably be on disability all his life because he has no personal motivation, and the system will put up with him doing so. Is it hateful toward him for having an injury to say, "hey, you need some time to learn a new job - here's a program where you can get retrained for free - then you need to get a job you can reasonably do...we'll take care of you for a while but don't get too comfortable with this arrangement". I think he'd have a lot more esteem and live at a far higher standard of living if he worked. Disability keeps him at a poverty level, barely getting by.

I also hear shouting that Republican arguments against things like Obama's plan for free contraception is a "woman hating" policy. Well, this is the thing - his policy covers prescriptions only - not condoms. Prescription birth control is not innocuous. Read the package insert some time. It can cause blood clots which can in turn cause heart attacks, stroke and other complications. The hormones can exacerbate a variety of medical conditions. If someone is a smoker or has other pre-existing conditions it can be particularly dangerous, and if they aren't responsible about it and get pregnant but keep taking it, it can cause horrific birth defects. Pregnancy is 100% avoidable without contraception and it does not require a virginal, celibate lifestyle. Contraception has it's place, but it's not a panacea and is not the answer to unplanned pregnancy. People who get pregnant by accident have typically not chosen to use birth control, have misused it, or it has failed. This is not an economic issue - it's a personal responsibility issue. It's not a woman's issue exclusively, either. If I thought free contraception would even make a dent in the unplanned pregnancy problem I'd start doling it out myself. It won't - it's not the answer.

There are those among us who don't feel that every woman needs, wants or will be helped by free contraception. Poor people can already get it from a variety of non-profit organizations. Average or high income people can pay for it themselves. I'm more concerned about people like my parents who are too old to hope for improved income but pay hundreds of dollars a month from medically necessary prescriptions. Why am I contributing to free contraception for 20 something's instead of to the statin drugs that keep my parents alive and independent?

The "war on women" is a myth. The war is against fraudulent claims and political goofiness... the idea that governmenet is a big front-door for trick-or-treating to get whatever special interest populations want. It is the government's role to step in and help those unable to work and support themselves but not to provide for every need for every special group for free. Free pills for half the population? Ridiculous.

Check Tal's post #293.

#293 would be your post. No. 294 is rhetoric with no supporting evidence. No 297 is what I quoted of his that is the straw man implying I don't support my own. Prove it, any of it.

#293 would be your post. No. 294 is rhetoric with no supporting evidence. No 297 is what I quoted of his that is the straw man implying I don't support my own. Prove it, any of it.
Apparently the post numbers aren't standardized from computer to computer.

Hello again, Steve:

It's simple, really... Romney hasn't said HOW he's going to pay for the tax cuts he's going to give to the unbelievably rich. So, some really smart people just did some simple math and figured out that if his programs are implemented, cuts from programs the poor count on are the ONLY place the money can come from...

Thank you for proving my point, you have no evidence, you have assumptions.


So, if Romney isn't specific about which programs he's going to cut, why should we be?? But, we CAN add.


Dude, your side has real issues with math. Besides that, one of the quotes you guys just took out of context was his comment on the poor, to which he said if the safety net needs fixing he would do so. No one wants to hurt the poor and take away food and diapers from babies. If you really believe that you have worse issues than math.

Dude, your side has real issues with math.OK, let's see Romney's math. How are the tax cuts going to be paid for?

OK, let's see Romney's math. How are the tax cuts going to be payed for?

Romney will say --- by the tax revenues generated as the money gained by lower taxes is invested in the economy (thereby generating tax revenue).

This is the standard reply. Only problem is - nobody has ever proven the truth of this theory. It originated with a fellow by the name of Arthur Laffer (the Laffer curve) whose theories have been called voodoo economics. Even the Wall Street Journal, hardly an icon of the Left, dismissed Laffer's ideas during the Reagan administration.

OK, let's see Romney's math. How are the tax cuts going to be payed for?

Again, the issue at hand is whether Romney is going to take food and diapers away from babies. Someone make their case or withdraw the charge.

Again, the issue at hand is whether or not Romney is going to take food and diapers away from babies.
We don't know yet. The strong possibility is there. Should we vote him in and watch what happens?

We don't know yet.

Thank you. Then how about we discuss what's actually on the table instead of baseless, emotional arguments like Romney is going to take food and diapers from babies?

Thank you. Then how about we discuss what's actually on the table instead of baseless, emotional arguments like Romney is going to take food and diapers from babies?
I haven't seen anything on the table.

It's a figure of speech.

Thank you. Then how about we discuss what's actually on the table instead of baseless, emotional arguments like Romney is going to take food and diapers from babies?

Romney's budget is on the table, and on line. Why won't you read it so we can have a factual debate about what it says. Educate US!!

dontknownuthin... well said!!

Romney will say --- by the tax revenues generated as the money gained by lower taxes is invested in the economy (thereby generating tax revenue).

This is the standard reply. Only problem is - nobody has ever proven the truth of this theory. It originated with a fellow by the name of Arthur Laffer (the Laffer curve) whose theories have been called voodoo economics. Even the Wall Street Journal, hardly an icon of the Left, dismissed Laffer's ideas during the Reagan administration.

The only evidence I saw was 25 years of sustained growth with 2 minor recessions in the time between 1983 and 2008 . The 7 years of the 1980s when Laffer and Reagan policies kicked in saw expansions of over 6% .Compare that to the possible double dip we are likely to see before the end of the year ;and I'll put supply side theories against Keynesianism any day.

The only evidence I saw was 25 years of sustained growth with 2 minor recessions in the time between 1983 and 2008 . The 7 years of the 1980s when Laffer and Reagan policies kicked in saw expansions of over 6% .Compare that to the possible double dip we are likely to see before the end of the year ;and I'll put supply side theories against Keynesianism any day.

You're referring to GDP (GNP) - not always the best way to look at economics. For example, one million minimum wage jobs increase GDP. That's what Reagan "accomplished". Not a lot of tax revenue there.

After a big tax reduction when he entered office, he soon followed that by a big tax increase because the Laffer theory didn't work. (You could look it up).

It's amazing how the right-wing (Republicans) continue to promote failed economic policies. Very few of them seem to give any deep thought to important issues.

The latest example is Congressman Akin. Think, for a moment, just what this character said. It's medieval - women's bodies have an anti-rape mechanism. His apology, please note, did nothing to dispel this bizarre belief. Shall I throw in Herman Cain? Nice guy, but another piece of the Republican bizarro world.

Now Ryan. Another nice guy...

If I accept the min wage #s then that is in the context of 20 million job growth in Reagan's years.
The tax increases that he signed later were part of a budget deal with the majority Dem Congress ,that of course the Dems renaged on regarding budget reductions. Also you fail to mention that his initial marginal tax rate cuts were huge compared to the modest increases later . Reagan left office with Americans dramatically paying less in net taxes than when he entered office.When Reagan took office there were 16 tax brackets ranging from 0% to 70% When Reagan left office there were 2 brackets: 15% and 28% .He flattend the tax code and s a result revenues increased from $517.1 billion to $909.2 billion.
The Laffer theory worked because marginal tax rates were slashed... combined with sound monetary policy ,which resulted in growth ;and increased tax revenues .( I bet Obama would love to boast of a 6-7% growth as opposed to the sluggish so called recovery we've experienced in his term)

.( I bet Obama would love to boast of a 6-7% growth as opposed to the sluggish so called recovery we've experienced in his term)

Are you still blaming Obama for the lack of recovery. You can't do anything when your hands are tied behind your back by a regressive congress.

You mean you can see republican obstructionism all the way in Aussieland?


Originally Posted by tomder55
.( I bet Obama would love to boast of a 6-7% growth as opposed to the sluggish so called recovery we've experienced in his term)

All of us would.

are you still blaming Obama for the lack of recovery. You can't do anything when your hands are tied behind your back by a regressive congress.

That is the only excuse the Obots have for their poor performance. What you are seeing from them is nothing new. Roosevelt blamed the rich that his recovery program was not taking the country out of the Depression.Truman blamed Congress for his lackluster domestic performance. Both won ,so the President has a template for victory if this year's electorate is simularily gullible .

You mean you can see republican obstructionism all the way in Aussieland?

All of us would.

Oh yes Tal we have excellent news services here and I watch PBS and even NBC often as well as logging into various US news services. You see we are better informed about you than you are about us, we always keep an eye out for developing threats. We have a broadcasting service called the Special Broadcasting Service which airs programs from all over the world, it's what you do in a truly multicultural society, you should try Al Jazerria some time or Deuche Vella or even the Chinese News

PBS and even NBC = Al Jazerria

That is the only excuse the Obots have for their poor performance. What you are seeing from them is nothing new. Roosevelt blamed the rich that his recovery program was not taking the country out of the Depression.Truman blamed Congress for his lackluster domestic performance. Both won ,so the President has a template for victory if this year's electorate is simularily gullible .

As much as you guys hate to admit it, blaming the congress works because its TRUE. Reagan was a deficit spending supply sider who was also flexible, and fast acting. He brought down unemployment by growing government, and was not adverse to cutting taxes, or raising them when needed. He worked with his congress and they worked with him. He still ran up some debts, but on a whole, he always had a responsive plan, and we still have that Iran hostage thing that helped him, and the Iran/Contra thing that hurt him.

Today, and I have no doubt Hillary or any democrat would have faced the same thing, we have a republican party that decided they would say no to EVERYTHING, filibuster EVERYTHING, and blame the president. Indeed the repubs have been masterful about pushing there agenda, while blaming Obama for anything but a full recover that they themselves are standing in the way of.

You can deny all you want, but this is what THEY (republican politicians) are saying. To bad you need the far right loonies for this to succeed, because they have already put the main stream republican party on notice, if they get power, they will tell ROMNEY what to do, and he better do it!!

Ask Boehner how that works.

we have a republican party that decided they would say no to EVERYTHING, filibuster EVERYTHING, and blame the president.

The only thing I have to add to this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/filibuster-696283.html#post3246942) is this:

Madeleine Albright: Dems should blame George W. Bush ‘forever’ (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79937.html)

So how long do you think Americans will fall for that?

He was to blame, but now it's the other republicans being blamed, and rightfully so! Forever?? As long as it takes!!

I can say that, as a woman born and raised in Texas, the Republican Party has alienated me. If left to there own divices people do use prejudice when making decisions, like pay, etc.. We NEED civil rights in this country. It is sad but true that they are not just understood. Look at other countries that do not have the same rights outlined for the historically oppressed... Like Saudi Arabia, India and Indonesia, countries who gave rights to women (the fact we have to be given them in any country including the US is ridiculous) but still can not drive a car, vote and can be beaten by their husbands. So, YES, we need it.
Republicans would like to take my rights to my body away from making abortions illegal or very limited... and would like to make it so I can't get assistance for the child I was forced not to abort. Catch 22... all against the woman... because the man.. lets face it, can just walk away.
The Republican Party has turned me away. I am a Libertarian for the most part and I must vote democratic just for sake of avoiding the misguided religious zealots that plague the republican party. John Adams would roll over in his grave.
Yeah I would like a smaller government, and a balanced budget, and a lot of the things the party stands for... but I don't want it at the cost of my rights.
Besides regulating a woman's womb IS big government.

Yours Truly,
A woman who'd like the choice of abortion in the case of legitimate rape or not.

John Adams rolled over in his grave when he learned abortion was available on demand in the country he helped form .
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (John Adams )

Adams was wrong. Well half wrong, religion is encompassing all religions, or did he intend it to mean just Christian religion? Or just colonial Christian morality? We sure knew he wasn't talking freedom for ALL men, and forget it for woman.

Poor guy has probably turned over in his grave many times over the centuries. Who cares? Its his grave ain't it? He has a right to turn over in it whenever he wants!

The thing that bugs me to death, is all the laws apply only to woman not endowed with the means to pay for safe responsible abortions since those that can afford it have a private doctor to rely on to not only prevent pregnancy, but handle it early enough as to not have to inform any one.

Why do rich and poor play by different rules? Have different rights?

John Adams rolled over in his grave when he learned abortion was available on demand in the country he helped form .
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (John Adams )

Guess he was wrong. People are slowly waking up and realizing they either don't need religion or they don't need the bastardized way that religion is used as a tool in the US. People can be both religious and have an abortion, it's not mutually exclusive.

John adams and Thomas Jefferson were for separation of church and state for specifically this reason. It's a religious people. There are a gazillion religions. And who says abortion is immoral? Last I checked science had not proven a soul exists let alone when it forms. I for one like to believe it does exist... but I humbly admit it can not be proven. So, who knows. The fact that every child isn't wanted is something no one wants to admit in this country. If it weren't a fact that they are not, we wouldn't be over run with foster children and state raised teenagers. And what of all the folks going to get IVF? They destroy all the unused embryos.. is that too immoral? Dang. It is arrogant for anyone to believe they have some natural right to make decisions regarding a woman's body. Its ours. Period.
Why don't we have discussions like this about Rape (another violation of the body that happens to be illegal)... Oh but wait... we have to decide first if it is legitimate or not. LOL.

He was to blame, but now its the other republicans being blamed, and rightfully so! Forever??? As long as it takes!!!

As long as it takes for what?? A complete takeover??

Magpie95 please... Since Roe v Wade there have been over 50 million babies murdered . We are at Stalin and Mao levels of genocide . Is killing babies what 'moral people' do ?

A fetus is not a baby. Go back to science class or grow a uterus. Your argument is invalid.

Magpie95 please ... Since Roe v Wade there have been over 50 million babies murdered . No there haven't. Stop lying dude.

No there haven't. Stop lying dude.

Stop calling people liars.


Number of abortions in United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Number_of_abortions_ in_United_States)

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973, roughly 50 million legal induced abortions have been performed in the United States.[37 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)] World wide, there have been over 1,260,000,000 abortions performed.

If they are murders who has been criminally procecuted?

Look at all that money we saved on welfare! Woohoo!

When a lady says NO! She means NO! Now back off you right wing socialist chauvinistic, name calling, bad mouthing, chauvinistic PIGS!

So now we're conservative socialists?

Fun fact, besides being married to one and having a daughter, did you know that the overwhelming majority of my closest friends are women? That would be tough if I were as evil as you guys say I am.

Who said you were evil? But to your point, many women make bad choices in partners. Simply being married and having a child does not qualify you as good or evil, if things were even that black and white. However, that is getting off topic.

I, for one, am actually a libertarian. (Economically conservative and socially liberal) And a fellow Texan!. if labels are needed. Howdy!

I bet you act nicer around them too. I do, the females around me hate to be told what to do about anything, let alone what to do with their bodies.

Bet you already knew that.

Who said you were evil? But to your point, many women make bad choices in partners. Simply being married and having a child does not qualify you as good or evil, if things were even that black and white. However, that is getting off topic.

I, for one, am actually a libertarian. (Economically conservative and socially liberal) And a fellow Texan! ...if labels are needed. Howdy!

Howdy!

I bet you act nicer around them too.

Depends on who it is, I work mostly with women so they tend to get rather uninhibited around me. Prim and proper goes out the window. They let out a good ol' belch I'll give 'em a high five.


I do, the females around me hate to be told what to do about anything, let alone what to do with their bodies.

Bet you already knew that.

Duh.

OK, so I got to let go of Capuano, who's been struggling or Billingsley who hasn't - so Sabathia can join my rotation and boost my pitching numbers. Which one is going to do better down the stretch?

Cliff Lee would be a better choice to drop.

A fetus is not a baby. Go back to science class or grow a uterus. Your arguement is invalid.

At what point is that 'fetus' a living human (we already know it is alive quite early in the process)?

I'll ask you this because no one answered this earlier when I asked... are there any restrictions you would put on abortions?. late term ? Murder immediately prior to delivery ? And if you would put restrictions on abortions then why don't those restrictions violate the women's right to control her body ? Do you really think this use of abortion as contraception is moral ?

Rich women with insurance can get a D&C as soon as they suspect a pregnancy. Why can't poor women be so educated, and accommodated?

D&C (Dilation and Curettage) Procedure: Surgery and Recovery (http://women.webmd.com/guide/d-and-c-dilation-and-curettage)

Free contraceptives is a moral thing to do.

At what point is that 'fetus' a living human (we already know it is alive quite early in the process)?
The sperm and egg were alive. Maybe potential human being would be more accurate?

At what point is that 'fetus' a living human (we already know it is alive quite early in the process)?

I'll ask you this because no one answered this earlier when I asked ... are there any restrictions you would put on abortions ? ...late term ? murder immediately prior to delivery ? And if you would put restrictions on abortions then why don't those restrictions violate the women's right to control her body ? Do you really think this use of abortion as contraception is moral ?

First, the word murder is curious. My personal view is that a woman ought know that she is not capable or doesn't desire to be a mother long before her late term. Do I judge those who have? No. Simply because I don't know the circumstances. For example, did she just change her mind or did her health become in danger? It's a slipper slope when you start trying to define when life begins and when its just a clump of cells dividing with the "potential" of being a person. Most the people I know that have had them, it was a deeply difficult decision and not something they entered into lightly. They did not use it as a birth control. However, people will have sex.. no matter what. To bring a child in the world they no one is either mature enough of financially prepared to take care of is an abuse of its own. Because fathers can bail at will, yes, I think a woman should be able to make this choice. I don't think abortion is immoral at all, so I can't answer your last question. Are the clump of cells in a dish at a fertility clinic a person? Perhaps we should assign them a social security number.

First, the word murder is curious. My personal view is that a woman ought know that she is not capable or doesn't desire to be a mother long before her late term. Do I judge those who have? No. Simply because I don't know the circumstances. For example, did she just change her mind or did her health become in danger? Its a slipper slope when you start trying to define when life begins and when its just a clump of cells dividing with the "potential" of being a person. Most the people I know that have had them, it was a deeply difficult decision and not something they entered into lightly. They did not use it as a birth control. However, people will have sex..no matter what. To bring a child in the world they no one is either mature enough of financially prepared to take care of is an abuse of its own. Because fathers can bail at will, yes, I think a woman should be able to make this choice. I don't think abortion is immoral at all, so I can't answer your last question. Are the clump of cells in a dish at a fertility clinic a person? Perhaps we should assign them a social security number.


Im a bit at a loss here. You don't seem very solid in your position regarding abortion. On the one hand you seem to believe that a late term abortion is OK because they baby is not a living being Then you say you can't judge because of circumstance.

Which is it? Is abortion OK anytime prebirth or not?

Im a bit at a loss here. You dont seem very solid in your position regaurding abortion. On the one hand you seem to believe that a late term abortion is ok because they baby is not a living being Then you say you can't judge because of circumstance.

Which is it? Is abortion ok anytime prebirth or not? .

Allow me to clarify. I think abortion should be legal at any time. Aren't they all. Prebirth? I was merely explaining why I have that stance. Ultimately, its her body.

The sperm and egg were alive. Maybe potential human being would be more accurate?

Excellent point, therefore, masturbation is murder too! Start locking up those young boys! Lol!

Excellent point, therefore, masterbation is murder too! Start locking up those young boys! Lol!!
OMG! I wonder if Rep. Todd Akin has realized this yet.

Ummmm there is no HUMAN life until the egg is ferilized by the spem... I bet even Todd Akins knows that.

Free contraceptives is a moral thing to do. so much for libertarianism . A libertarian case to be made against forcing anyone to pay for someone else's medical care, or birth control.Free contraception is more in line with progressive liberalism.

B/S Tom

Allow me to clarify. I think abortion should be legal at any time. Aren't they all. Prebirth? I was merely explaining why I have that stance. Ultimately, its her body.

The way the laws are written and where they vary is in the timing of an abortion. As in the using the saying "late term abortion" which is outlawed in many states that do allow abortion during the first trimester.

There is a huge difference as to what is going on biologicaly at those 2 points of gestation.

Indeed . The truth is that it ceases being 'a mass of cells ' very early in the process .
Fetal development: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm)

The way the laws are written and where they vary is in the timing of an abortion. As in the using the saying "late term abortion" which is outlawed in many states that do allow abortion during the first trimester.

There is a huge difference as to what is going on biologicaly at those 2 points of gestation.



In biological terms I think it can be summed up in this way.

Science would try and tell us that at the early stage of development the fetus is not conscious. In other words, it's brain hasn't develop to a stage whereby we can satisfy the scientific definition of consciousness.
Non-consciousness would also satisfy the requirement of not being able to feel pain.

Science also claims to be able to tell us what consciousness actually is. On this basis it wants to claim that a fetus is conscious after 'x' number of months. Before this 'X' number of months the fetus is a living organism that lacks humanness because it lacks consciousness.

As far as I am concerned I have real problems with a scientific definition of consciousness, let alone when this consciousness actually manifests itself in a living organism.

We don't know what consciousness actually is so how can we say at what stage consciousness occurs. It may well be there at even the earliest stage of development.

Tut

Cliff Lee would be a better choice to drop.

Been trying for a while, I just noticed they finally made him droppable.

The sperm and egg were alive. Maybe potential human being would be more accurate?

There's no potential if it's aborted.

In biological terms I think it can be summed up in this way.

Science would try and tell us that at the early stage of development the fetus is not conscious. In other words, it's brain hasn't develop to a stage whereby we can satisfy the scientific definition of consciousness.
Non-consciousness would also satisfy the requirement of not being able to feel pain.

Science also claims to be able to tell us what consciousness actually is. On this basis it wants to claim that a fetus is conscious after 'x' number of months. Before this 'X' number of months the fetus is a living organism that lacks humanness because it lacks consciousness.

As far as I am concerned I have real problems with a scientific definition of consciousness, let alone when this consciousness actually manifests itself in a living organism.

We don't know what consciousness actually is so how can we say at what stage consciousness occurs. It may well be there at even the earliest stage of development.

Tut

All the more reason to err on the side of life.

Hello again,

Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater said (http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Goldwater.html):



"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."

"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,"

"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right."

"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's a$$"

"A woman has a right to an abortion."

That's a long way from the busybody party they've turned into.

Excon

And yet you have no problem imposing your will on us. You want to impose gay marriage, single payer healthcare, open borders, gun control. You're fine with scrapping the first amendment and forcing the church to violate their beliefs via executive fiat.

When you stop imposing your will on us we can talk. Until then your complaints don't move me in the least.

And yet you have no problem imposing your will on us. You want to impose gay marriage.. When you stop imposing your will on us we can talk.Hello again, Steve:

When you stop saying that spreading FREEDOM to more and more people, is imposing my views on you, we can talk..

excon

It is really a question of how you define freedom Ex if you define it as freedom to carry weapons and intimidate and kill your fellows, this is not freedom but tyranny, if you define it as the ability to benefit yourself above the interests of others, this is not freedom but averice, if you define freedom as the right to watch your fellows die without lifting a hand to prevent it, this is caliousness, I define freeom as everone sharing equally in the wealth of the nation, it is a lofty objective not yet reached, but it can be achieved. Talk is cheap, aside from labour the only thing cheap in a capitalist society, everything else comes at a price''There are those here who say give me more irrespective of social injustice and I say this is not freedom, this is greed

And he went through a large bit of transformation as he got older. He favored a Constitutional ban on abortion until his final term in the Senate .
Goldwater was a conservative in 1964 when one of his major postions was for religious morality in society .Later when he abandoned those positions ,not so much . Liberals who love to quote Goldwater from his later years love to make it sound that those words were uttered when Goldwater was the leader of the conservative movement . Not so. He wrote those words in an editorial in 1994 . It is not the conservative movement that changed... it was Goldwater .

Hello again, Steve:

When you stop saying that spreading FREEDOM to more and more people, is imposing my views on you, we can talk..

excon

Dude, interesting how you can define all of those as "expanding freedom," even denying my constitutional rights.

He wrote those words in an editorial in 1994 . It is not the conservative movement that changed ...it was Goldwater .Hello again, tom:

So, what you're saying is this: When you're young and have a heart, you're a liberal... When you grow up and get a brain, you become a conservative... But, when you acquire real WISDOM you become a liberal again..

Sounds right to me.

excon

Got to say guys all 34 pages make for interesting reading.

When you're young and have a heart, you're a liberal... When you grow up and get a brain, you become a conservative... But, when you acquire real WISDOM you become a liberal again.
EXCON! I like your style. You're my kind of dude.
I'm 85 and I guess I forgot to turn conservative when I reached retirement age because for the next 13 years I was on the front line for a woman's right to choose.
I used to drive by the local abortion clinic and toot my horn and wave a coathanger at the protesters. One day I stopped to listen. 5 old men were ganging up on a young girl attempting to enter the clinic. Slutt! Murderess! Baby Killer! Were some of the nicest I heard. I was outraged. I volunteered as a escort the next day. Three years later vI was put con staff as head of security, chief escort and clinic spokesman.
I loved it! I got to go heads up against the protester and keep them in line. And if they got too frisky I got to bust and take them to court.
I was attacked 4 times, shot at twice, had two bomb scares and opened a phony Anthrax letter in our office. It was three days before HazMat got back with the report that it was flour. Three days of not knowing if you would live or die. It was a learning experience!
I've walked the walk and paid my dues for woman's rights. The clinic closed in 02 and I came on board here in 03. But bumping heads with a bunch of religious wackos will always remain the most fun job I ever had.
Excon, You haven't changed since the old days at AskMe.com. Don't ever change. I like you just the way you are. Cheers, Tom

Thank you, Tom, for all your contribution. It is refreshing to know people like you exist. What freedoms I have now, I know I owe to you and other brave folks like yourself. You are a true American patriot!

Excon, You haven't changed since the old days at AskMe.com. Don't ever change. I like you just the way you are. Cheers, Tom

He's a little more crotchety.

P.S. We all despise right-wing wackos. You won't find the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers using any of those despicable tactics.

You haven't changed since the old days at AskMe.com. Don't ever change. I like you just the way you are. Cheers, TomHello Tom:

You and me...

excon

We all despise right-wing wackos. You won't find the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers using any of those despicable tactics.
Yeah! That's what all you lifers say when you want to distance yourselves from the violence
Spawned by he Pro-Life Movement. But when the report of the doctor that was shot and killed I could hear them cheering outside the clinic.
So don 't attempt to tap-dance away from responsibility. Hey! It's your movement, you got to accept the bad with the good.
By the way, When that doctor was killed it was my doctor who flew up there every week and did procedures until the doctor was replaced. I know because I went along for security, Regards, Tom

Yeah! That's what all you lifers say when you want to distance yourselves from the violence
spawned by he Pro-Life Movement. But when the report of the doctor that was shot and killed I could hear them cheering outside the clinic.
So don 't attempt to tap-dance away from responsibility. Hey! It's your movement, ya gotta accept the bad with the good.
By the way, When that doctor was killed it was my doctor who flew up there every week and did procedures until the doctor was replaced. I know because I went along for security, Regards, Tom

Seems there are all kinds when you reach the end of the spectrum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread434396/pg1

Yeah! That's what all you lifers say when you want to distance yourselves from the violence
spawned by he Pro-Life Movement. But when the report of the doctor that was shot and killed I could hear them cheering outside the clinic.
So don 't attempt to tap-dance away from responsibility. Hey! It's your movement, ya gotta accept the bad with the good.
By the way, When that doctor was killed it was my doctor who flew up there every week and did procedures until the doctor was replaced. I know because I went along for security, Regards, Tom

As opposed to the majority of mainstream Democrats who aligned themselves with the filth and violence of the occupiers? Gimme a break.

I don't have to tap dance, I condemn such bullsh*t in the strongest of terms. Feel free to find someone else to spread that drivel to, it won't fly with me.

The way the laws are written and where they vary is in the timing of an abortion. As in the using the saying "late term abortion" which is outlawed in many states that do allow abortion during the first trimester.

There is a huge difference as to what is going on biologicaly at those 2 points of gestation.

Yes, there is a big difference with what is going on biologically through out my whole life. However, I am not inside someone's uterus eating what she eats.. breathing what she breathes, etc. I think pregnancy is a beautiful thing and I wouldn't wish the decision on anyone. However, you better believe my uterus and anything in it doesn't belong to law makers, you, or joe bob. Its mine and what happens to it is up to me to decide. The consequences of that decision one way or another is also mine. If I am religious its between me and god. Pro-lifers want to save life... but they aren't stepping up to help pay for your kid or offering to endure your labor pains for you. I guess the next thing is a law that would charge me with child endangerment if I drive too fast while pregnant. Perhaps, it's child abuse if I am one of those mothers who smoke? I can see the court cases now.

As opposed to the majority of mainstream Democrats who aligned themselves with the filth and violence of the occupiers? And that ties in with a woman's right to choose how? Gee! I must have missed that on the evening news. Those nasty Democrats who aligned themselves with the filth and violence. (Your words. Don't suppose you'd care to back up your words with a few facts.

Feel free to find someone else to spread that drivel to It's not drivel. I lived it! I walked the walk while all people like you simply talked the talk. Every lifer I've talked to had the same line of crap. I hate violence! I denounce the killings and bombings! Yet when they occur I've heard you people say. " Well, there's one doctor that will never perform abortions any more" and smile when they said it.
No Tinkerbell, If you call yourself a Pro-Lifer you MUST accept the violence and take the responsibility that go with it. And don't attempt to cloud up the issue by bringing politics into it. We're talking Women's Rights not the upcoming RNC in Tampa.

Hello again, wingers:

So, if you'd FORCE a rape victim to carry her baby to term, would you consider PAYING for her pregnancy? My guess is no. Would it make a difference if she's a crack addict on the street?

So, if the Constitution says the government cannot force you to quarter soldiers in your home, how can it force you to quarter an unwanted baby in your womb?

What is "forcible" rape as opposed to say, your regular kind of rape?

excon

What is "forcible" rape as opposed to say, your regular kind of rape?

excon

Here is how I would define it.

Forcible type would be an act where both parties are aware of the act as it is happening and one party objects. It encompasses a huge array of actions and not just the act of sex itself.

The other type would be where one party is unaware of the act as it occurs. Either because of consent issues as in being under age or reduced mental capacity to being passed out from drugs or drinking.

There is no difference in the seriousness of either crime they are at the same level its just a line for the purpose of definition.

There is no difference in the seriousness of either crime they are at the same level its just a line for the purpose of definition.Hello dad:

Really?? I don't think you even believe that yourself... But, if there's no material/legal difference, why would a LAWMAKER be making the distinction??

In my view, it's because the right wing wants to FORCE women who can't PROVE they were FORCIBLY raped, to carry their baby to term.

excon

And that ties in with a woman's right to choose how? Gee! I must have missed that on the evening news. Those nasty Democrats who aligned themselves with the filth and violence. (Your words. Don't suppose you'd care to back up your words with a few facts.

Nope, doesn't tie with a mythical war on women at all. It ties perfectly into the fact that conservatives as a whole condemn violence and intimidation while liberals align with it (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-occupy-wall-street-we-are-their-side_598251.html). As for facts, we've discussed ad nauseum here so feel to find all you want. You might start with the nice little summary someone put to this thread (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/occupiers-1-percent-608878.html).


It's not drivel. I lived it!

I did not deny you lived it, I said we don't condone it. Pretty simple really.


I walked the walk while all people like you simply talked the talk.

And we live with the fact that our only grandchild was aborted. My daughter regrets it every day. I've given support to women traumatized by their 'choice' and give financially to our local, non-violent crisis pregnancy center (http://www.thehopechoice.com/) that deals with the fallout from having an abortion and supports women through their pregnancy. Don't preach to me about walking the walk.



Every lifer I've talked to had the same line of crap. I hate violence! I denounce the killings and bombings! Yet when they occur I've heard you people say. " Well, there's one doctor that will never perform abortions any more" and smile when they said it.

Have I said that? What prominent conservative politicians, evangelical leaders or women's advocates say that? Hmmm??


No Tinkerbell, If you call yourself a Pro-Lifer you MUST accept the violence and take the responsibility that go with it.

Sorry Goober, that's a straw man and typical hypocrisy on your side of the aisle as already demonstrated. In your delusional world we MUST take responsibility for acts we consistently deplore and have NOTHING to do with but you get a pass for aligning yourselves with your own kooks? No way, dude. You can fling your crap all you want but it's not going to stick.


And don't attempt to cloud up the issue by bringing politics into it. We're talking Women's Rights not the upcoming RNC in Tampa.

As if you can separate the two. Bwa ha ha ha!!

Hello dad:

Really??? I don't think you even believe that yourself... But, if there's no material/legal difference, why would a LAWMAKER be making the distinction???

In my view, it's because the right wing wants to FORCE women who can't PROVE they were FORCIBLY raped, to carry their baby to term.

excon

I can't answer for what a lawmaker says. I only was trying to define where a line may be drawn as far as descriptive definition. As you well know the law is defined by its terms and usage of definitions.

Its like the broadened term of abortion. Many people that may be on the fence about it may not take offence to the morning after pill or first term abortions but also may be repelled by those involving infantacide.

It's a persons right to choose where the line is drawn and that is why it is such a hot button topic. It deserves debate in an open fashion.

In my world any rape is forcible The second she says "NO" and the man continues it becomes forcible. Now if you want to look at the fine points, but wait! There are no fine points to rape. Or would you like to go back to the old days where, " the woman was asking for it?" Let's take a look at "forcible Rape."
Forcible rape has been in the lexicon for some time since it has routinely been used by those opposed to abortion. In 2011, Mr. Akin and Paul Ryan were among 227 co-sponsors of H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act." As introduced, that act said abortions could be funded by the federal government if the pregnancy was the result of "forcible rape." [B](The word "forcible" was removed from the legislation before it passed the House and the legislation was not considered in the Senate.[/B}) The addition of "forcible" adds emphasis to the fact that force is part of the rape I That is why it comes up in discussions about abortions. Regards, Tom

Can rape ever be not forcible? Seems like the two terms are mutually exclusive. Rape IS force.

If she has allowed some physical intimacy and he decides to head to the goal but then she blocks him and says no, yet he struggles past her objections and continues on for a touchdown, is that rape (since she "set him up" and allowed him to travel x number of yards)?

Was it a trap play or back field in motion ?

Is a touchdown valid no matter how it was gained, what fouls were committed, and who on the other team got hurt along the way?

Sex after withdrawal of consent is rape. Happy?

I'll say it again, a woman's vagina is hers. What goes on in it, who goes in it, what have you. She can be the biggest tease ever. If she doesn't want to go all the way, then she doesn't. End of story. Same thing with any sexual act. Perhaps she let's you fondle her buttocks, doesn't necessarily mean she is asking for anal. Most teenage girls are teases at some point. Experimenting until they are ready for intercourse. They don't deserve rape. No means no at any point. If a lady likes to take guys to the edge and then leave them hanging, then she is just mean. She deserves to not be called for a second date, not forced sex. No one "has it coming."

Can rape ever be not forcible? Seems like the two terms are mutually exclusive. Rape IS force.


Rape can also occur by mutual consent when one of the parties is outside the legal limits of consent either by knowing or unknowing.

That is why there are laws in place to protect those that can't protect themselves.

Sex after withdrawal of consent is rape. Happy?
Why the "happy"? Patronizing? So far in all the political discussions, it has not been mentioned about a woman going along with intimacy but then suddenly changing her mind and wanting out and saying no, but then her objections are not taken seriously ("she really wants it and is just being coy"), and she later claims she was raped.

No Tinkerbell, If you call yourself a Pro-Lifer you MUST accept the violence and take the responsibility that go with it.
So enviromentalists need to own eco-terrorism .And the Anti-war movement needs to own the violence of the Weather underground?. and anyone anti-corporation needs to own the violence of the anarchists at the WTO gatherings... and I suppose that every abolitionist in the 19th century owned John Brown's decade of terrorism in Kansas. Yeah makes complete sense.

Yeah Tom that's it, go civil war, just take your gun and commit mayhem

It isn't me making the absurd claim that those who oppose abortions are responsible for the violence of a few kooks.

Why the "happy"? Patronizing?

Not patronizing, I'm conceding a point so can move on.


So far in all the political discussions, it has not been mentioned about a woman going along with intimacy but then suddenly changing her mind and wanting out and saying no, but then her objections are not taken seriously ("she really wants it and is just being coy"), and she later claims she was raped.

Um, that was my point. Sex after withdrawal of consent is rape. I don't buy into any of that "she really wants it / she had it coming / she shouldn't have teased me" nonsense. If she says no at any point it means no.

The Obama campaign is milking this mythical war on women meme... using fake Republican women (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/republican-women-for-obama.php).


Posted on August 25, 2012 by John Hinderaker in 2012 Presidential Election, Democrats

Republican Women For Obama? [UPDATED: Another Fake "Republican" Exposed]

It happens all the time in talk radio: a caller will say that he is a lifelong Republican, and will recall fondly how he voted for Ronald Reagan. Then he says that today’s Republicans have gone too far, and for the first time ever he is voting for a Democrat! These callers are nearly always lying. If you look them up, you likely will find that they are Democratic Party precinct chairmen.

The Obama campaign is trying to perpetrate the same deception. It has just released a video called Republican Women For Obama, which features four or five women who claim to be Republicans, or to have been Republicans until recently. But, of course, they are appalled by Mitt Romney–it is hard to say why, apart from a couple of discreet references to abortion, but did they really just now figure out that the Republican Party is pro-life? The ad is surprisingly ineffective, but it is also dishonest. At least one of the women who pose as “Republican women for Obama” is a long-time Democrat.

Her name is Maria Ciano, and BuzzFeed finds that she has been a registered Democrat in Colorado at least since 2006. Here she is in the Obama ad. She is easy to spot in the ad because she wears braces...

Her Facebook page is here; some of her friends congratulate her on appearing in the Obama ad. In addition to the fact that she is a registered Democrat, check out her Facebook “likes.” They make it obvious that Ms. Ciano is a devoted Democrat and a left-wing activist. Here are some of her “likes,” beginning with the earliest in time:

* Democracy For America
* Tar Sands Action
* Amy Goodman
* Barack Obama
* Costoftaxcuts.com
* Being Liberal
* MoveOn.org
* Bernie Sanders Tells You A Secret the GOP Would Rather You Didn’t Know
* Miss Piggy Delivers the Best Takedown of Fox News We’ve Seen All Month
* Think Progress
* The Best Quote From Barack Obama We’ve Seen This Week
* Dow and Monsanto Join Forces to Poison America’s Heartland
* Climate Reality
* Grist.org
* The Amazing Victory Scored With Obama That More People Should Be Talking About
* The Sierra Club
* The Buffett Rule
* Obama For America–Colorado
* UniteWomen.org
* Denver Young Democrats
* Obamacare
* Latinos For Obama
* Michelle Obama
* Veterans For Obama
* I Love It When I Wake Up In the Morning and Obama Is President
* Obama Truth Team
* Democratic Party

But the Obama campaign describes Ms. Ciano as a “Republican Woman!” Right. There are liars; there are compulsive liars; and then there is the Obama campaign. If someone took the trouble to track the down the other women in the ad, they would probably find something similar. If you do that, please record your findings in the comments.

Yeah, some "Republican" woman. Once again the blogoshpere doing the job the media won't do.

The Obama campaign is milking this mythical war on women meme...using fake Republican womenHello again, Steve:

OMG! I'm shocked...

No, not at the fact that Obama is doing it.. At the fact that you're (1) surprised about it, (2) even outraged about it, and (3) you appear to believe that Romney isn't ALSO doing it as well...

Do you REALLY believe that you're the GOOD guys here- innocent of ALL wrongdoing?? I think you DO.. Dude!

excon

Hello again, Steve:

OMG! I'm shocked...

No, not at the fact that Obama is doing it.. At the fact that you're (1) surprised about it, (2) even outraged about it, and (3) you appear to believe that Romney isn't ALSO doing it as well...

Surprised? No sir, this is SOP for Obama.

Shocked? LOL, I have said for years Obama's number one priority was Obama staying in power - I don't believe there is level too low for him to go.


Do you REALLY believe that you're the GOOD guys here- innocent of ALL wrongdoing?? I think you DO.. Dude!

What does surprise me is you still play that silly game event though you know better.

Really though, I could see that PAC that blamed Romney for killing a lady doing this but one would think the Obama campaign itself wouldn't be so shoddy as to put such an obvious shill front and center. That was an amateurish maneuver. The campaign's incompetence lately should worry you.

You mean like Romneys lies about removing the job requirements from welfare? That lie wasn't from his superpac, he actually said it, NUMEROUS times.

Hello again,

Need more evidence that the right wing has NO CLUE about women? Here's a right winger (http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/tom-smith-gop-senate-candidate-says-no-abortions-in-rape-incest-1.3931912)who's running to be a US Senator, and thinks having a baby out of wedlock is the same as being impregnated by RAPE...
Asked by a reporter how he would counsel a daughter or granddaughter who had been impregnated by rape, Smith said: "I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. . . . Don't get me wrong; it wasn't rape."

Pressed as to what he was talking about, Smith responded: "Having a baby out of wedlock." After that, he seemed to struggle to articulate what he meant.

"That's similar to rape?" a reporter asked.

"No, no, no," said Smith, who was referring to a daughter's decision to have a child outside marriage. Then he added, "But, well, put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean, it is similar."

What does Steve say? You can't make this stuff up..

Excon

Hello again,

Need more evidence that the right wing has NO CLUE about women?? Here's a right winger (http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/tom-smith-gop-senate-candidate-says-no-abortions-in-rape-incest-1.3931912)who's running to be a US Senator, and thinks having a baby out of wedlock is the same as being impregnated by RAPE...

What does Steve say? You can't make this stuff up..

excon

"But, well, put yourself in a father's position..."

You want some horny scumbag knocking up your teen daughter? I'm sure dad felt violated, just as I feel violated by the scumbag that gave my daughter HIV. Any more questions?

Hello again,

Need more evidence that the right wing has NO CLUE about women?? Here's a right winger (http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/tom-smith-gop-senate-candidate-says-no-abortions-in-rape-incest-1.3931912)who's running to be a US Senator, and thinks having a baby out of wedlock is the same as being impregnated by RAPE...

What does Steve say? You can't make this stuff up..

excon


Ha! Priceless! Texas just decided to quit providing funding to Planned Parenthood. 90% of that funding comes from the Federal Government anyway.

I hope they don't start blaming all the poverty stricken women who start putting even more kids into our welfare system. Seems ridiculous to not provide access to inexpensive birth control. I would rather my tax money go to that than the cost of an unwanted child over the course of its life. I suppose if you are poor and a woman, you should just not have sex... and be sure to take extreme rape pervention methods. Whatever, that would be.

The fact remains, both parties are petty and underhanded in their use of the media. Both are guilty. The masses have to do their own research and figure it out. The fact that we get to is what makes this country great.

"But, well, put yourself in a father's position..."

You want some horny scumbag knocking up your teen daughter? I'm sure dad felt violated, just as I feel violated by the scumbag that gave my daughter HIV. Any more questions?

A horny scumbag you willing have sex with is NOT the same as a horny scumbag that rapes you. UGH! How could you even defend such a notion? Absurd!

It's simple! You're either Pro-Choice or No- Choice. If you're Pro-Choice a woman makes her own medical decisions, If you're No-Choice then you hijack that choice and make her medical decisions for her and force her to term. As I said, Pro-Choice or No-Chouce,
Regards. Tom

A horny scumbag you willing have sex with is NOT the same as a horny scumbag that rapes you. UGH! How could you even defend such a notion? Absurd!
Small correction: "A horny scumbag your daughter is willing to have sex with...."

You give the lifers too much credit Tom, it's their way or NO WAY! NO EXCEPTIONS.

None of us is perfect, and sincerely sorry for your experience. As a father I have shared the pains and joys of my own kids successes and failures. Pretty helpless to change their choices though, and all I have is love and support. And talking until you are blue in the face. No matter how old they get, or what they do.

Control though?? NONE! Frustrating? You better believe it.

Small correction: "A horny scumbag your daughter is willing to have sex with...."

Thanks. I meant "you" in a global sense. Haha. Although, now, it seems funny.

Thanks. I meant "you" in a global sense. Haha. Although, now, it seems funny.
Yup. I got that part, but I'm wondering where are the parents if a daughter is having sex with a horny, scumbag? And then equate that with rape?

A horny scumbag you willing have sex with is NOT the same as a horny scumbag that rapes you. UGH! How could you even defend such a notion? Absurd!

So my daughter ASKED for it and DESERVED to be infected with HIV and ABUSED and NEGLECTED to the point of near death from AIDS.

And you think we're the sick ones?

So my daughter ASKED for it and DESERVED to be infected with HIV and ABUSED and NEGLECTED to the point of near death from AIDS.
He forced her to have sex, or she was willing?

Yup. I got that part, but I'm wondering where are the parents if a daughter is having sex with a horny, scumbag? And then equate that with rape?

First of all he didn't equate the two, he spoke that as a father it's similar to HIM. I can relate to that feeling as a dad who loves his daughter.

But apparently you guys are perfect parents or don't give a rat's a$$ if your daughter is sleeping around

But apparently you guys are perfect parents or don't give a rat's a$$ if your daughter is sleeping around
I don't have a daughter, and she wouldn't have slept around if I did have one. And neither of my sons slept (sleep) around.

"But, well, put yourself in a father's position..." You want some horny scumbag knocking up your teen daughter? I'm sure dad felt violated... Any more questions?Hello again, Steve:

I don't know... The horny scumbag who, my daughter willingly slept with, and IS going to be IN my grandchild's life FOREVER, is WAYYYY different than than a VIOLENT RAPIST who TOOK what he wanted...

If anything, you confirmed my belief that the right wing has NO CLUE about women. You MIRRORED what this right wing kook said, and you MIRROR what Todd Akin BELIEVES about rape.

excon

He forced her to have sex, or she was willing?

Really? So even if she had consensual sex with him the first time it's ok that he abused, nearly killed her and has left her permanently scarred emotionally and physically?

You people make no sense. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. True liberal empathy on grand display. War on women my a$$, you don't care about women at all.

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno... The horny scumbag who, my daughter willingly slept with, and IS going to be IN my grandchild's life FOREVER, is WAYYYY different than than a VIOLENT RAPIST who TOOK what he wanted...

If anything, you confirmed my belief that the right wing has NO CLUE about women. You MIRRORED what this right wing kook said, and you MIRROR what Todd Akin BELIEVES about rape.

excon

Again, you also believe my daughter ASKED for it and DESERVED to be infected with HIV and ABUSED and NEGLECTED to the point of near death from AIDS.

Unbelievable.

Really? So even if she had consensual sex with him the first time it's ok that he abused, nearly killed her and has left her permanently scarred emotionally and physically?

You people make no sense. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. True liberal empathy on grand display. War on women my a$$, you don't care about women at all.
Um, I am a woman. And you said the sex was not a rape situation; therefore, she was willing. "The first time"?

Again, you also believe my daughter ASKED for it Hello again, Steve:

Unless your daughter was raped, YES she asked for it. That you are unable to come to grips with that speaks LOUDLY about how CLUELESS the right wing is about women..

That you believe we think what happened to her, as a result of her consent, is FINE, is further evidence of your hysteria about this issue.

excon

Um, I am a woman. And you said the sex was not a rape situation; therefore, she was willing. "The first time"?

Are you really that obtuse? To be honest I never asked her, it doesn't cure her of AIDS.

But OK, I'll just come right out and say it - I have no problem equating domestic abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_abuse) with rape, in fact it just may be worse. At least with the victim of rape she usually doesn't have to live with the guy in fear every day -day after day after day. And as a dad I can relate how this man felt at the thought of someone violating his daughter, her willingness is irrelevant to him... it still hurts.

But trust me, I won't count on any of you to have empathy for my daughter or the slightest clue about how it feels to her dad. I just hope none of you have to go through a similar experience because it's hell.

Hello again, Steve:

Unless your daughter was raped, YES she asked for it. That you are unable to come to grips with that speaks LOUDLY about how CLUELESS the right wing is about women..

That you believe we think what happened to her, as a result of her consent, is FINE, is further evidence of your hysteria about this issue.

excon

I'm done, I am sitting here not believing what I'm reading from you. After all those pages of saying the woman didn't deserve it you're all arguing that my daughter did in your phony war on women meme.

You know nothing.

But trust me, I won't count on any of you to have empathy for my daughter or the slightest clue about how it feels to her dad. Hello again, Steve:

Quit playing the victim card... You KNOW us.. You KNOW we care.

You talk about straw men... What happened to your daughter is NOT the subject of this thread. She's a straw girl. This is about Republicans, and RAPE and their need to victimize the woman AGAIN by FORCING her to carry a rapists baby to term...

excon

I'm done, I am sitting here not believing what I'm reading from you. After all those pages of saying the woman didn't deserve it you're all arguing that my daughter did in your phony war on women meme.

You know nothing.
No one said she deserved it. We are wondering why she chose to have sex with this person.

Hello again, Steve:

Yes, your daughter ASKED for sex. No, she doesn't deserve what happened as a result, and nobody said she does.. Why didn't she make him wear a condom? Did you TEACH her about condoms? Or did you teach her about abstinence??

excon

First of all he didn't equate the two, he spoke that as a father it's similar to HIM. I can relate to that feeling as a dad who loves his daughter.

But apparently you guys are perfect parents or don't give a rat's a$$ if your daughter is sleeping around

Wow. That was a big leap. They aren't similar at all. Rape is a violent act unasked for by the victim.
Have casual sex is not a sin in my book. So, long as you are educated and take precautions. A persons decisions are their own. That being said no one deserves HIV. I don't see that anyone has said that. The point we are discussing is rape or not. Premartial sex is not similar to rape... if it was, it would put all the fault on the man every time.. even though the woman was a willing participate. That isn't right. Or maybe saying they are similar is to say the woman is equally responsible for having been raped as if she just had willing premaritial sex... which is more absurd.

This is the craziest thing I've ever heard. Perhaps, I need to purchase a burka.

Hello again, Steve:

Yes, your daughter ASKED for sex. No, she doesn't deserve what happened as a result, and nobody said she does.. Why didn't she make him wear a condom? Did you TEACH her about condoms? Or did you teach her about abstinence???

excon

So years of physical and psychological abuse and neglect is nothing like rape when the parent is a conservative? My daughter ASKED for sex, I must have been absent or a bad parent. There's no way that guy posing as a knight in shining armor might have used fear, shame, and guilt to intimidate and control my daughter - it's our fault.

You know nothing.

Hello again, Steve:

Quit playing the victim card... You KNOW us.. You KNOW we care.

You talk about straw men... What happened to your daughter is NOT the subject of this thread. She's a straw girl. This is about Republicans, and RAPE and their need to victimize the woman AGAIN by FORCING her to carry a rapists baby to term...

excon

No sir, I am not a victim, my daughter was. It may not have been literal, physical rape, I don't really know. I'd certainly say she was psychologically and emotionally raped for years. But it was you who brought up the issue of a man expressing how he felt "as a father" even as he denied the equation you want to make. I know how he feels, someone violated his daughter just like someone violated my daughter.

Wow. That was a big leap. They aren't similar at all. Rape is a violent act unasked for by the victim..

And again, my daughter asked to be abused for years? What the hell are you people not getting here?

And again, my daughter asked to be abused for years? What the hell are you people not getting here?
Well one of the differences is that in a case of abuse you have the option to get away from it, you don't have that option during rape. How long was she together with him?

And again, my daughter asked to be abused for years? What the hell are you people not getting here?Hello again, Steve:

My mom was abused by her second husband ONE time... I paid him a visit.. He never touched her again.. Where were you?

excon

And again, my daughter asked to be abused for years? What the hell are you people not getting here?

No one said she deserved it. Its just not the topic of the thread. I can't imagine what you are going through. But you initially didn't mention the abuse. Yes, that is a big problem. Not what we were discussing, but a huge problem that again involves violence upon women. If your daughter was pregnant due to this domestic violence, I would support her right to decide what to do about it.
As for HIV, it's a separate issue. Albeit, terrible still.
You are obivously too angry to think clearly, if you think anyone on here has suggested she deserved it!

Hello again, Steve:

My mom was abused by her second husband ONE time... I paid him a visit.. He never touched her again.. Where were you?

excon

Oh, back to my fault again. I was 2000 miles away. Do you understand domestic abuse at all?

It's no ones fault but the perp's but we can't equal domestic abuse to rape.

Why are we on domestic violence? And how does it relate to the war on women? Has there been any policy changes/attempts that effect the topic?
Has a politician came out and said that domestic violence is also the same as premaritial sex? If so, speechlesstx, I am with you in being dumbfounded by that too.

It's no ones fault but the perp's but we can't equal domestic abuse to rape.

Well, unless as part of the domestic abuse, the daughter was raped by her husband. You can still be raped by your spouse. Not sure if that is what happened in this case.

And again, my daughter asked to be abused for years? What the hell are you people not getting here?

I get what you are saying. Empathy goes a long way, and we all would have been hurt by such an experience. Calm down guy, you are hardly the first father to be devastated by the mistakes of a child, and I have much empathy for you. I get that, completely, but please expand your empathy to the many other victims and feel their pain and help them with their choices, and recognize their need to heal as well. Not subject them to more abuse, and being victimized in the name of helping them.

Love and support cannot come in the form of control. Nor guided by FEAR, or guilt.


Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It's no ones fault but the perp's but we can't equal domestic abuse to rape.

Sure you can, as often domestic abuse is facillitated by sex without consent. It's a control tool by the perpetrators that blurrs the lines of love, and bad behavior.

Well, unless as part of the domestic abuse, the daughter was raped by her husband. You can still be raped by your spouse. Agreed.

No one said she deserved it. Its just not the topic of the thread.

Since it was ex who started this and asked what I would say (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/war-women-662145-41.html#post3251975) (I am the Steve he's talking about), you'll just have to deal the direction I took it. Again, the guy said "no, no, no" he wasn't equating having a child out of wedlock with rape, but speaking as a father it was similar.

I thought it was pretty simple, as a dad he feels someone violated his daughter... I can relate.


I can't imagine what you are going through. But you initially didn't mention the abuse.

I'm sorry, I thought "I'm sure dad felt violated, just as I feel violated by the scumbag that gave my daughter HIV" was explanatory enough.


Yes, that is a big problem. Not what we were discussing, but a huge problem that again involves violence upon women. If your daughter was pregnant due to this domestic violence, I would support her right to decide what to do about it.

So ol' scumbag, who's controlling her in every other area of her life doesn't want the kid. She doesn't want to abort it because it's a child, maybe something good can come out of this otherwise hell on earth. Now what?


As for HIV, it's a separate issue. Albeit, terrible still.
You are obivously too angry to think clearly, if you think anyone on here has suggested she deserved it!

BS, you, Wondergirl and ex implied she deserved it because of her "assumed" willingness. Only now are you backtracking. I think plenty clearly.

It's no ones fault but the perp's but we can't equal domestic abuse to rape.

Ask the victim.

BS, you, Wondergirl and ex implied she deserved it because of her "assumed" willingness. Only now are you backtracking. I think plenty clearly.
No, I never thought she deserved it, but wondered why she felt like she did and put up with it.

I'm sorry, I thought "I'm sure dad felt violated, just as I feel violated by the scumbag that gave my daughter HIV" was explanatory enough.Well no, since one sexual session could get one infected.

I get what you are saying. Empathy goes a long way, and we all would have been hurt by such an experience. Calm down guy, you are hardly the first father to be devastated by the mistakes of a child, and I have much empathy for you.

Thank you, and that's all I was saying about this other guy, I know how he feels as a dad. He's not waging a war on women, he said as a father it hurts.


I get that, completely, but please expand your empathy to the many other victims and feel their pain and help them with their choices, and recognize their need to heal as well. Not subject them to more abuse, and being victimized in the name of helping them.

Come on Tal, part of the reason I even post about my daughter is to show I've been there, done that. Of course I have empathy for others, do you think we condemn women for having abortions? Do you really think we don't care about what women are going through?


Love and support cannot come in the form of control. Nor guided by FEAR, or guilt.

Yep, so stop this phony war on women narrative.

do you think we condemn women for having abortions?
Why don't you? They are the ones you should be targeting.

I'm sorry, I thought "I'm sure dad felt violated, [B][I]just as I feel violated by the scumbag that gave my daughter HIV[B][I]" was explanatory enough.

Not really. I didn't know how she had gotten HIV. Just that it was from a scumbag. I wouldn't have assumed it was domestic violence.




So ol' scumbag, who's controlling her in every other area of her life doesn't want the kid. She doesn't want to abort it because it's a child, maybe something good can come out of this otherwise hell on earth. Now what?

Sure. If that is her choice. I support that. I am sure it would be difficult no matter what she decided. The point is, it would be her choice to do so.




BS, you, Wondergirl and ex implied she deserved it because of her "assumed" willingness. Only now are you backtracking. I think plenty clearly.

Backtracking? No one said she deserved it. Everyone was asking if it was willing or not.

I realize this is a personal subject for you. I am just wondering if a politician has stated something that down plays the severity of domestic violence to the level of premarital sex? I don't recall one myself.

Why don't you? They are the ones you should be targeting.

Ah, so Tal says we should have empathy and you say we should be harassing them. You people are confusing.

Ah, so Tal says we should have empathy and you say we should be harassing them. You people are confusing.Not confusing at all:
- the pro-choice people have empathy and so allow the women to make the choice
- the anti-abortion people for some reason target the policy/law, not the women who get the abortions

I ask: why aren't you targeting the actual people doing the act you want to ban?

Ah, so Tal says we should have empathy and you say we should be harassing them. You people are confusing.


Ultimately it doesn't matter. Empathy for them or not, as long as the decision is theirs alone.

Ultimately it doesn't matter. Empathy for them or not, as long as the decision is theirs alone.

So the dad never has a say?

QUOTE by speechlesstx;Thank you, and that's all I was saying about this other guy, I know how he feels as a dad. He's not waging a war on women, he said as a father it hurts.

He supports legislation to drastically curtail a woman's choice through proper education. I feel his pain but do not accept his judgment as to best help woman, or children.


Come on Tal, part of the reason I even post about my daughter is to show I've been there, done that. Of course I have empathy for others, do you think we condemn women for having abortions? Do you really think we don't care about what women are going through?

So your empathy is what motivates you to take away their ability to chose through proper education? Can't agree with that one either since that's what a woman wants. You have empathy, but no ears, or refuse to listen. Educated females make better choices when they have more options and don't have to wait for social services to explain things when they can see a doctor. Or live in fear of abuse and subjigation. Or make a confusing time of their lives a legal hell!


Yep, so stop this phony war on women narrative.

Its not phony when you make laws that have dire consequences on woman and children or subjugate them to what YOU think is right and proper without their input.

Not confusing at all:
- the pro-choice people have empathy and so allow the women to make the choice
- the anti-abortion people for some reason target the policy/law, not the women who get the abortions

I ask: why aren't you targeting the actual people doing the act you want to ban?

Being a legal decision targeting the law is obvious. Unborn children deserve legal protection and even Roe granted that to an extent. As for targeting women having an abortion, well that's just downright mean. I'm not mean.

So the dad never has a say?

He has a say, but NOT the final decision. Sorry that's part of the helpless feeling of being a dad! You can feel, but not force.

So the dad never has a say?
No, it isn't his body.

Obviously, good relationship tools would have us consider our partners' feelings and what they say with any subject that effects us. Frankly, couples don't discuss having kids enough before they have them in most cases. The government does not need to regulate relationships to this degree.

He supports legislation to drastically curtail a woman's choice through proper education. I feel his pain but do not accept his judgment as to best help woman, or children.

He doesn't equate rape with an out of wedlock birth, which is the phony part of the narrative ex promoted.


So your empathy is what motivates you to take away their ability to chose through proper education? Can't agree with that one either since that's what a woman wants.

What is "proper education?"


You have empathy, but no ears, or refuse to listen. Educated females make better choices when they have more options and don't have to wait for social services to explain things when they can see a doctor. Or live in fear of abuse and subjigation. Or make a confusing time of their lives a legal hell!

Dude, who do you think is that ear after the abortion she came to regret? Who do you think helped her overcome the guilt and shame she silently endured for years, Planned Parenthood?


Its not phony when you make laws that have dire consequences on woman and children or subjugate them to what YOU think is right and proper without their input.

I didn't want Obamacare forced on me, and he had plenty of our input. He chose to willfully ignore the will of the people.

No, it isn't his body.

It's his child.

I didn't want Obamacare forced on me,How has it changed your life?

It's his child.

So, we regulate her body, so he can have his child? No way! I know it is unfair that women happen to be the ones that "get" to develop a fetus to a child. But it is what it is. Nature has it that way.. and nothing is going to change the fact, that all that is going on.. is going on in HER body and not his. The good and the bad... the labor pains, nausea, etc... also hers. The decision then, gets to be hers. Period. How she uses that choice is up to her own value system and what she can live with or not. I Know plent of women who have had them because their boyfriends demanded it. I think this is equally wrong. If they wanted to have the child, they should have.

So, if she is pregnant through domestic violence (to use your example), you would force her to term with regulation? Against her will. Force her to have a child she doesn't want in the face of trauma? Cruel.

What you will have sir, is back alley abortions again.

So, we regulate her body, so he can have his child? No way! I know it is unfair that women happen to be the ones that "get" to develop a fetus to a child. But it is what it is. Nature has it that way.. and nothing is going to change the fact, that all that is going on.. is going on in HER body and not his. The good and the bad... the labor pains, nausea, etc... also hers. The decision then, gets to be hers. Period. How she uses that choice is up to her own value system and what she can live with or not. I Know plent of women who have had them because their boyfriends demanded it. I think this is equally wrong. If they wanted to have the child, they should have.

So the baby has no choice and the dad - no matter how much she may have done to persuade him to have another kid - has no choice. Got it.


So, if she is pregnant through domestic violence (to use your example), you would force her to term with regulation? Against her will. Force her to have a child she doesn't want in the face of trauma? Cruel.

I never said I would force anyone to do such a thing.


What you will have sir, is back alley abortions again.

Oh please, abortion is never going to be illegal in this country, that's just an attempt to end the debate with an old leftist cliché. Yawwwnnn.

Oh please, abortion is never going to be illegal in this country, that's just an attempt to end the debate with an old leftist cliche. Really?
"Romney does not oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest or if it will save the mother's life, while Ryan does oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest."
So what does that mean about any other instances of abortions?

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
He doesn't equate rape with an out of wedlock birth, which is the phony part of the narrative ex promoted.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/pa-senate-candidate-backs-off-unplanned-pregnancy-rape-comparison/


Faced with a question about fellow Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin’s inflammatory remarks about “legitimate rape,” Pennsylvania’s Tom Smith today likened his own daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy to conception through rape.

Smith quickly backed off the statement, The (Harrisburg) Patriot-News reported, when pressed by reporters about whether he meant to conflate the two.

“No, no, no,” Smith said, before seeming to qualify his defense: “Put yourself in a father’s position,” he said. “Yes, I mean it is similar.”

No they are NOT!!!!!


What is "proper education?"

The consequences of unprotected sex, and the procedure to not get pregnant. How/when to use an HPT, and having a family doctor for regular check ups, and have procedures available to prevent pregnancy, not just with contraceptives.*

*See my posts about a routine D&C.


Dude, who do you think is that ear after the abortion she came to regret? Who do you think helped her overcome the guilt and shame she silently endured for years, Planned Parenthood?

PP does counsel females and gives them referals to other professionals. Yeah some need more help, love, and support and guidance than others, and it should be done by a professional,not some right wing religious organization. Even you can see that, and what of the ones whomake choices and have NO REGRETS about their decision?

Are they forced to seek counceling too?


I didn't want Obamacare forced on me, and he had plenty of our input. He chose to willfully ignore the will of the people.

Then don't take the tax credit,and don't change doctors. Pay what your insurance company says to pay. And help your cherished granny pay for her medicine when she falls into the donut hole. YOU have not had anything forced on YOU! And the American people like the benefits THEY got from ACA/Obamacare better than they do the vouchers you guys are pushing. I like my insurance (most times,LOL),
So I stay.

You don't speak for all Americans, just those that think like you. Stop pretending you do!

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/pa-senate-candidate-backs-off-unplanned-pregnancy-rape-comparison/



No they are NOT!!!!!

Um, we've more than covered that.


PP does counsel females and gives them referals to other professionals. Yeah some need more help, love, and support and guidance than others, and it should be done by a professional,not some right wing religious organization. Even you can see that, and what of the ones whomake choices and have NO REGRETS about their decision?

Are they forced to seek counceling too?

I'm not forcing anything on anyone.


Then don't take the tax credit,and don't change doctors. Pay what your insurance company says to pay. And help your cherished granny pay for her medicine when she falls into the donut hole. YOU have not had anything forced on YOU! And the American people like the benefits THEY got from ACA/Obamacare better than they do the vouchers you guys are pushing. I like my insurance (most times,LOL),
So I stay.

So I guess MANDATE means something different to you?


You don't speak for all Americans, just those that think like you. Stop pretending you do!

Stop pretending that I'm trying to. I keep thinking mistakenly that we're just having a discussion only to learn I'm speaking for everyone and forcing my will on people. Did I force you to come here or draft Isaac Redman?

So the baby has no choice and the dad - no matter how much she may have done to persuade him to have another kid - has no choice. Got it.

Good. Im glad we can see eye to eye. Although, babies have rights.. they have been born.





Oh please, abortion is never going to be illegal in this country, that's just an attempt to end the debate with an old leftist cliché. Yawwwnnn.

Awesome. I got your word on that?

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Um, we've more than covered that.

To your satisfaction not mine, sorry but he said what he said,and sympathy or not he would pass an anti abortion billin a second and deprive others of their educated choice. Thats not fair using his position of power to stroke his own guilt, or whatever his motives!



I'm not forcing anything on anyone.

No but you give permisssion by voting for those that will force others to obey their draconian laws.


So I guess MANDATE means something different to you?

Doesn't affect me, or YOU we are responsible by buying insurance. The mandate is only for those that are NOT responsible for their own health,and pass the COSTS onto us. You knew that, and like your fellow dissenters have twisted it to make it about YOUR rights.


Stop pretending that I'm trying to. I keep thinking mistakenly that we're just having a discussion only to learn I'm speaking for everyone and forcing my will on people.

I never take it personal, I just have strong opinions and a proclivity to express them, as do you. I know that sometimes others don't agree. That's not my problem.


Did I force you to come here or draft Isaac Redman?

I never shy away from debate or discussion, but have been known to screw up some draft picks. SUE me or make a trade.

Ball in your court. (I know I will never hear the end of it!! )

Good. Im glad we can see eye to eye. Although, babies have rights.. they have been born.

So women are no longer "with child," she's not carrying offspring in her womb, it's not actually alive, it's just an unviable tissue mass.


Awesome. I got your word on that?

Do you really believe it will ever be outlawed again? I don't see that happening.

I never shy away from debate or discussion, but have been known to screw up some draft picks. SUE me or make a trade.

Ball in your court. (I know I will never hear the end of it!!!!)

Why trade? Bernard Scott is available.

So women are no longer "with child," she's not carrying offspring in her womb, it's not actually alive, it's just an unviable tissue mass.
Woman with child is just an expression. It comes from a history of our language and a society's habit of calling a fetus a baby. A woman who is choosing to have a child and caresses her belly and refers to it as a baby, yes I understand. She has decided to have a baby. She is already preparing to rear a child, be a mother and has already begun bonding with the life growing inside her. Yes, a fetus, an embryo and a zygote are alive. Who said it is not? So is sperm. So are the squash in my garden. I think what you are implying by "alive" is a person. I don't want to put words in your mouth but if that is what you mean, the point that we become a person has never been defined by science. What it means to even be a person can be debated for that matter.

Do you really believe it will ever be outlawed again? I don't see that happening.
Yes, I think it could be. Probably not out right. It will begin by restrictions and increase. For example, here in Texas they passed a law requiring a sonogram and playing of the fetal heart beat before an abortion is performed unless it is due to rape, incest, or fetal abnormality. It's a slippery slope. Gov. Rick Perry even tried making it a requirement that all girls get the HPV vaccination. The government should keep its hands out of my uterus. And be grateful for all the women who lovingly and willingly bring children into the world. What good does it do anyone to force someone to have a child they do not want? It's stupid and arrogant at best and oppressive at worst.

Woman with child is just an expression. It comes from a history of our language and a society's habit of calling a fetus a baby.

That's because it is a child.


A woman who is choosing to have a child and caresses her belly and refers to it as a baby, yes I understand. She has decided to have a baby. She is already preparing to rear a child, be a mother and has already begun bonding with the life growing inside her.


And all too often they regret aborting their child because they know it's a child. I've witnessed this personally you know, I've lived it.


Yes, a fetus, an embryo and a zygote are alive. Who said it is not? So is sperm. So are the squash in my garden. I think what you are implying by "alive" is a person. I don't want to put words in your mouth but if that is what you mean, the point that we become a person has never been defined by science. What it means to even be a person can be debated for that matter.

And that's the difference between you and I, I would rather err on the side of life.


Yes, I think it could be. Probably not out right. It will begin by restrictions and increase. For example, here in Texas they passed a law requiring a sonogram and playing of the fetal heart beat before an abortion is performed unless it is due to rape, incest, or fetal abnormality.

I'm in Texas.


It's a slippery slope.

Oh please, you don't buy that cliché from our side, I don't buy it from yours.


Gov. Rick Perry even tried making it a requirement that all girls get the HPV vaccination.

Perry's an idiot.


The government should keep its hands out of my uterus. And be grateful for all the women who lovingly and willingly bring children into the world. What good does it do anyone to force someone to have a child they do not want? It's stupid and arrogant at best and oppressive at worst.

And that's the myth that we want them to have the baby then leave them to fend for themselves. Simply untrue.

That's because it is a child.

No, expressions don't make it so. That's silly. Ladies at work call me sister, doesn't mean I am.


And all too often they regret aborting their child because they know it's a child. I've witnessed this personally you know, I've lived it. Of course. That is why it's an important decision and they should be educated well. In the end, they bare the consequences of their decision. I've had one. I have never regretted it. Nor, do I think of it as a child. I know several women that have had one and not one that has regretted it. There are stories at every spectrum. Wouldn't it be nice if the government could just outlaw regret in every area of our lives?


And that's the difference between you and I, I would rather err on the side of life. Agreed. I err on the side of women's rights. There is no argument regarding if she is a person or not.


I'm in Texas. And?


Oh please, you don't buy that cliché from our side, I don't buy it from yours.
At the very least, they are already restricting them in many states. Whatever you want to call it.


Perry's an idiot. Agreed!


And that's the myth that we want them to have the baby then leave them to fend for themselves. Simply untrue.
What's the solution?
And you can't do anything for the physical part of carrying the child and delivering it. She just has to go through with it, regardless? She has no control over her own body?

No, expressions don't make it so. That's silly. Ladies at work call me sister, doesn't mean I am.

If nature takes it's course it's a child. That's not an expression, it's fact.


Of course. That is why it's an important decision and they should be educated well. In the end, they bare the consequences of their decision. I've had one. I have never regretted it. Nor, do I think of it as a child. I know several women that have had one and not one that has regretted it. There are stories at every spectrum. Wouldn't it be nice if the government could just outlaw regret in every area of our lives?

Nope, regret is not subject to legislation. The problem, and I believe I asked this of Tal, is what is education? Your side says it isn't a child, it's just a choice you make so no big deal. I say it's human life, and it's a very big deal. I do not ever want to take the chance that I've encouraged taking an innocent life that had no choice. The fetus/baby or whatever you want to call it doesn't deserve for someone to choose whether it should live or die, it's the innocent bystander in all of this.


Agreed. I err on the side of women's rights. There is no argument regarding if she is a person or not.

So how often is a woman's life at stake in a pregnancy?


And?

And I'm quite aware of what happens here.



At the very least, they are already restricting them in many states. Whatever you want to call it.

The court justified restrictions in Roe v Wade at viability, what restrictions are OK with you?



What's the solution?
And you can't do anything for the physical part of carrying the child and delivering it. She just has to go through with it, regardless? She has no control over her own body?

She can say no, she can use contraceptives, she can abstain. Are those not choices? Are women so stupid as to not know what happens if you have intercourse? I think that in most cases they aren't,and abortion for convenience sake is just an excuse for making a bad choice. The child shouldn't pay the price for that bad choice.

If nature takes it's course it's a child. That's not an expression, it's fact.
Exactly, once nature has taken its course.




Nope, regret is not subject to legislation. The problem, and I believe I asked this of Tal, is what is education? Your side says it isn't a child, it's just a choice you make so no big deal. I say it's human life, and it's a very big deal. I do not ever want to take the chance that I've encouraged taking an innocent life that had no choice. The fetus/baby or whatever you want to call it doesn't deserve for someone to choose whether it should live or die, it's the innocent bystander in all of this. It's the potiental of being a child. And that is where our sides come to a head. Regardless, if you have to legislate a person's body in order to get to another "life", the means does not justify the end.






So how often is a woman's life at stake in a pregnancy? What percentage would make a difference to you?



And I'm quite aware of what happens here.
You aren't the only one that reads this.






The court justified restrictions in Roe v Wade at viability, what restrictions are OK with you? Restrictions? On what a person does with their body? I can't think of an absolute.. perhaps using it as a bomb.





She can say no, she can use contraceptives, she can abstain. Are those not choices? Are women so stupid as to not know what happens if you have intercourse? I think that in most cases they aren't,and abortion for convenience sake is just an excuse for making a bad choice. The child shouldn't pay the price for that bad choice.

I shutter to respond...
People have sex. Contraceptives fail. A man makes the same mistake and he walks a way if he wants. But don't give a woman a choice... typical.

I shutter to respond...
People have sex. Contraceptives fail. A man makes the same mistake and he walks a way if he wants. But don't give a woman a choice...typical.


Ok Ive had enough of this phrase. Do you care to explain it? In the real world a man can not just walk away.

Also any fertile woman that consents to sex is knowinly at risk for getting pregnant. Maybe its just the attitudes of today's times but being loose has its consequences. You keep preaching about responsibility etc. Why do you constantly run away? I find it amazing that you can't seem to find any women that have regreted having an abortion. In the ones that I have known that made the decision to do so have all regretted it in the long run.

Ok Ive had enough of this phrase. Do you care to explain it? In the real world a man can not just walk away.

Also any fertile woman that consents to sex is knowinly at risk for getting pregnant. Maybe its just the attitudes of todays times but being loose has its consequences. You keep preaching about responsibility etc. Why do you constantly run away? I find it amazing that you can't seem to find any women that have regreted having an abortion. In the ones that I have known that made the decision to do so have all regretted it in the long run.
I know 5 women who have had them. None of them regretted it. Two have children now. That's just from who I know. I'm not saying that no one regrets it.. I just don't know any. It doesn't matter to the point anyway. It was their choice. Running away from what? I'm not running from anything. Guys CAN walk away. I have friends with fatherless kids too. Guys don't get pregnant. End of story. Its not the guys body that gets stretched apart. Having sex can get you pregnant.. it can also get you an STD. Does the person deserve a kid they don't want? Do they deserve an STD? Stuff happens.. this is life. Grow up. Women aren't all mother theresa's... men aren't saints. And things happen, sometimes even when we have good intentions. Once again, arrogance is the only thing that makes a person think they have a right to an opinion of someone else's body.

I know 5 women who have had them. None of them regretted it. Two have children now. That's just from who I know. I'm not saying that no one regrets it..I just don't know any. It doesn't matter to the point anyway. It was their choice. Running away from what? I'm not running from anything. Guys CAN walk away. I have friends with fatherless kids too. Guys don't get pregnant. End of story. Its not the guys body that gets stretched apart. Having sex can get you pregnant..it can also get you an STD. Does the person deserve a kid they don't want? Do they deserve an STD? Stuff happens..this is life. Grow up. Women aren't all mother theresa's...men aren't saints. And things happen, sometimes even when we have good intentions. Once again, arrogance is the only thing that makes a person think they have a right to an opinion of someone else's body.

What you seem to fail at understanding is that you can't preach this all knowing attitude then pretend it doesn't exist. Since a woman knows what can happen then she is knowingly putting herself at risk. You don't have to be a Mother Tereasa because I have known many woman that had a timed pregnancy. As far as fatherless children (those would be from sperm donors) that again was a choice. If the dynamics of a relationship resulted in an absent father then I would have to question what was going on from all sides. Its not just men that are the bad guys. I have seen how women drive men away so they have something to complain about. In the end the children are the losers and its very sad to see.

This is an argument that goes nowhere, Women must exercise responsibility and so must men. This requires that they do not conceive an unwanted child. A lot less of the blame game here and a lot more reality is needed. Women are not unaware of the consequences of sex and therefore they have to show greater restraint since their consent is needed..
It is just not good enough that a few moments of pleasure will be followed by abortion and in most cases life long regret

This is an argument that goes nowhere, Women must exercise responsibility and so must men.
So we need to teach our daughters how to find and secure love (and not through sex). And we need to teach our sons not to use the promise of love to get sex.

So we need to teach our daughters how to find and secure love (and not through sex). And we need to teach our sons not to use the promise of love to get sex.

Something like that. There are still societies on this planet where sex outside of marriage is unacceptable. In these societies responsibility is taken seriously particularly to the family not to dishonour the family name. It is only in godless western societies there is this anything goes philosophy

something like that. There are still societies on this planet where sex outside of marriage is unacceptable. In these societies responsibility is taken seriously particularly to the family not to dishonour the family name. It is only in godless western societies there is this anything goes philosophy
I was going to add no sex until marriage and that can happen only after the successful completion of an intensive 10-week training program, but figured that wouldn't go over well.

I was going to add no sex until marriage and that can happen only after the successful completion of an intensive 10-week training program, but figured that wouldn't go over well.

No sex police please. You don't need a 10 week intensive training program to avoid sex or to participate in it. Nor is such a program desirable before marriage. What is needed is to go beyond mechanical sex education, which does nothing more than encourage experimentation and deal with moral and ethical matters so that both understand that personal gratification has very undesirable outcomes outside of a long term relationship. In other words less focus on biology and more focus on the importance of personal integrity and self discipline

No sex police please. You don't need a 10 week intensive training program to avoid sex or to participate in it. Nor is such a program desirable before marriage. What is needed is to go beyond mechanical sex education, which does nothing more than encourage experimentation and deal with moral and ethical matters so that both understand that personal gratification has very undesirable outcomes outside of a long term relationship. In other words less focus on biology and more focus on the importance of personal integrity and self discipline
Hmmm, like good sex ed and mentoring and modeling by parents?

Less sex ed and more mentoring and modelling by all authority figures. It goes beyond the family, everything in western society is allowed to drag morals down to the lowest denominator. There should be greater censorship of media in all forms but particularly film to reduce presentation of casual sex for entertainment and profiteering. The whole society fails to deal with prostitution, deviance and depravity, with pornography and moral issues.

More sex ed, for parents.

less sex ed and more mentoring and modelling by all authority figures. It goes beyond the family, everything in western society is allowed to drag morals down to the lowest denominator. There should be greater censorship of media in all forms but particularly film to reduce presentation of casual sex for entertainment and profiteering. The whole society fails to deal with prostitution, deviance and depravity, with pornography and moral issues.
Now with cable TV, any time of day there is swearing (*beep*) and references to sex even in family sitcoms. That used to be only in the late evening, if then.

Now with cable tv, any time of day there is swearing (*beep*) and references to sex even in family sitcoms. That used to be only in the late evening, if then.

As I said, more censorship of media

I guess half the marriages ending in divorce and parents return to working and dating has nothing to do with the morality thing.

I shutter to respond...
People have sex. Contraceptives fail. A man makes the same mistake and he walks a way if he wants. But don't give a woman a choice...typical.

Oh yes, the horror of having to take responsibility for the risk you took. Anything for an excuse. That should make one 'shudder.'

I guess half the marriages ending in divorce Hey! I have the answer to that. Simple! DON'T GET MARRIED!
My roomie, companion and best friend, Teresa Marie, and I have been hooked up for over 18 years and we love each other just as much now as when we first hooked up. In fact,
More!
One of my proudest boasts is that in all the years we've been together we have NEVER had a screaming fight where one of us said, " That's it! I'm done!"
So there's the secret, Hey! Works for us. Just thought I'd share. Tom

Hey! I have the answer to that. Simple!! DON'T GET MARRIED!
My roomie, companion and best friend, Teresa Marie, and I have been hooked up for over 18 years and we love each other just as much now as when we first hooked up. In fact,
more!!
One of my proudest boasts is that in all the years we've been together we have NEVER had a screaming fight where one of us said, " That's it! I'm done!"
So there's the secret, Hey! Works for us. Just thought I'd share. Tom

Buddy wait till 25 years

I guess half the marriages ending in divorce and parents return to working and dating has nothing to do with the morality thing.

Divorce is part of the morality thing, people not will to go through with the commitment they made, they model this for children and what do you get, a society that can't make commitment, and when did this get worse, right about the time women were liberated to abort their babies

Oh yes, the horror of having to take responsibility for the risk you took. Anything for an excuse. That should make one 'shudder.'

Contracepetives, and proper sex education on how to use them both man, and women, is the responsible way to explore, and experiment. This isn't 1960.

divorce is part of the morality thing, people not will to go through with the commitment they made, they model this for children and what do you get, a society that can't make committment, and when did this get worse, right about the time women were liberated to abort their babies

Abortion has been in practice for thousands of years, its just not something that was just invented.

Contracepetives, and proper sex education on how to use them both man, and women, is the responsible way to explore, and experiment. This isn't 1960.

For the third time now, what is "proper" education? But thanks for repeating my response to her that using contraceptives is a choice. It's still a risk, so accept responsibility for taking that risk - don't punish the natural result, the child.

Buddy wait till 25 years
And then it gets better?

Abortion has been in practice for thousands of years, its just not something that was just invented.

No it is something that recently became legal

And then it gets better?

Yeah buddy they leave

yeah buddy they leave Perhaps yours but not mine. We're joined at the hip. You should be sop fortunate, everybody should! Regards, Tom

For the third time now, what is "proper" education? But thanks for repeating my response to her that using contraceptives is a choice. It's still a risk, so accept responsibility for taking that risk - don't punish the natural result, the child.

Guess you missed it,


The consequences of unprotected sex, and the procedure to not get pregnant. How/when to use an HPT, and having a family doctor for regular check ups, and have procedures available to prevent pregnancy, not just with contraceptives.*

*See my posts about a routine D&C.

Of course it helps to have insurance and most educated females do, even so, its especially important for financially challenged females to know where to go. The only problem is you religious types keep pushing for laws that make that really hard and don't seem to be interested in making sure a female is properly educated to protect herself.

Of course your position of responsibility doesn't cover a guy stepping up, and
Creates a helluva dilemma for females that do it your way, let things take a natural course. The problem with that is when they don't fit into YOUR idea of proper behavior, you make things hard by denying love a support.

On one hand you make them fit your mold, but on the other hand you take away choice and options. In reality this only happens when females are dependent and have no resources, or support, and then both mother and child suffers while you self righteously remove logical choices for unrealistic ones.

Even the ones who do the right things by YOUR standards are subject to the same hardships after a divorce. I get you lobby for unborn children, a noble endeavor, but unless YOU take responsibility for YOUR positions, by giving that love and support, you should mind your own business and take care of your own.