Over 900 anti-abortion laws

Post Reply New Topic

If one considers a fetus a human, and roughly half of them are female, then restricting abortion protects the rights of the youngest women.
It always comes back to one's definition of human life.

some of us judge a being on it's conscoiusness with no regard for what dna is behind, to us a humanfetus might be human life but it isnt a person till it develops.
boy i promised i wouldnt get sucked into the abortion hysteria once again, it is an american problem not many european countries want to follow suit, even less do.

Conservatives - by definition - resist change. I will not even insist on specifying "unnecessary" or "inadequately considered" change. Take it straight as resisting change.

Resisting change does not equate to opposing women's rights except in Big Brother's demon izing and rabble rousing rhetoric.

You SAY the tea party "wants to return to a past that never was." I do not know enough about the Tea Party - with which I have no contact and little in common - to know if that is a fair statement. But say it is. "return to a past that never wa" says nothing that my command of Englush can see about ANYBODY'S rights.

*raises hand* As a woman, can I say I'm fricking terrified to be in the U.S. now? Its not just anti-abortion laws, there are more and more men telling me my 'place is at home', telling me I'm inferior because 'men are smarter' and such - often while mispelling much of what they say. Its incredibly scary.

I'm going to go hug something soft until people stop treating me like I'm an idiot because I don't have testicles... Its that, or draw on a beard again.

Completely false. The Democrats did not need any Republican votes to pass Obamacare, and they didn't get a single Republican vote in the senate, and few or none in the house. The Obamacare prohibition on abortion coverage was there to get the substantial number of Democrat, not Republican, antiabortion votes they needed for passage.


The Republicans, as a party, are focused on the economy. The antiabortion folks, as a single issue group, are of course continuing to push to limit and prohibit abortion. However, the antiabortion laws are not a Republican initiative; the antiabortion folks are willing to work with whichever party helps them, as Obamacare proved.

Unfortunately, the prochoice folks seem more than willing to, as you put it, sell women's rights out just in order to indulge their prejudices against Republicans. Heck, even Planned Parenthood supported Obamacare, Stupak amendment and all, selling out their own supposed prochoice mission.

That, by the way, lost Planned Parenthood my annual contribution. Now I'm looking for a group that will actually support abortion choice even against Democrats. I haven't yet been able to find any such groups.

Anyone really worried about women's rights needs to recognize the truth: they are threatened at least as much by Democrats as by Republicans. They have to get rid of their other prejudices, and start being willing to work with Republicans to support women's issues, and not just Democrats.


I think you're confused. One wacko legislator in, I think, Georgia, has indeed proposed such a law, but it hasn't even been put up for a vote, let alone passed or enforced. Yes, that one legislator was Republican, but he hasn't succeeded and is unlikely to. Contrast that with Obamacare's huge effect against abortions on the entire nation, passed by every Democrat in the senate and the vast majority of the Democrats in the house.

a right has a right giver and a right protector

you think taxpayer funded abortion is a womens rights but if right givers (society) thinks otherwise, then they don't

you are not born with any inherent right unless you believe in a right-giver who transcends all human institutions and grants rights that are inalienable - only they can giveth and only they can taketh

So if the Tea party takes away something you think is a right, then it is only a right in your mind (and other like-minded individuals), and not an actual right that is 1.) granted and then 2.) protected. Otherwise... it's not a right.

You, like the rest of us, are biased, not open-minded.

the human being is sacred from conception

Nice contortions.

Edit: That was glib of me, and an unworthy response to your sincere post. I don't believe in forcing women to be incubators, and I believe their rights outweigh the rights of their parasites, however self-inflicted. Society alone decides who gets the rights, at least we only know that much with certainty, and American society used to give women only slightly more rights than slaves. If god gives rights then let him protect them. I'll work toward protecting the actual viable people.

@psychohist What about NARAL? They also have local chapters in many states.

Last edited by jrjones9933 on 06 Jul 2011, 9:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Oh good now I can rest in peace knowing that I have no inherent rights.
Or at least if your folks take them away they were not rights to begin with.
Listen up folks no sense fighting for rights if they are real they can't be taken away.

Problem is, human rights will not stop a bullet.

That has been tested in controlled experiments, and the scientific consensus is you got a better chance if you have super powers or kevlar than if you trust in right alone.

Which is why a lot of people have transferred "right" to the limited license a state or warlord grants some of its clients. Which leads to talking about demanding or abolishing "rights".

Inalienable rights - since we are still near July 4th. The writers knew better than me do how easy it is for any government or brigand to ignore those rights.

\\

God-given rights are only ably protected by people. If the Genesis account has anything to say about God and the role of humanity, it is to be in partnership with him in advancing, enforcing, and protecting ethics and morality, with his chosen people, the Jews, being the initial vehicle for that purpose. It is that we are all accountable to God, so a God believing society (not too long ago in most of the western world) is a necessary requirement. that is how christian kingdom can war on christian kingdom (morally or not) or wage war unjustly against a non-christian one, by saying that God (therefore ethics, morality, and rights/right-giving authority) is on their side. God is no longer taken seriously anyways, so it's not an issue anymore. Since people don't think they are accountable to God, but only to human institutions which differ in who and how they grant coverage, so, at least in most of the west, it's not something to worry about. Just hope (the "collective) you have the bigger guns and/or can talk others into valuing the things you do or talk them out of their crooked, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic ways.


That is the God issue. The, to use your term: "parasite" at conception has more value then an living animal, or the living criminal on death row. And... if (the "collective") we say it 1.) has a right to life, and 2.) that right precedes a womens right to terminate it, then, in fact, the women does not have a higher right then the "parasite" Where we differ I think is the morality of the right-givers(I think your immoral and the opposite is true). But - from my reading - at least we both agree that there are not inherent rights.

Either way, someone is hurt in the process, so you are no more compassionate then those you oppose. We side with the innocent unborn, you side with "often" immoral. As we are to be accountable to the young mother on death row for her miscarriage, you and the opposition are accountable for every botched abortion, immoral third trimester abortions, and abortions at convenience because it conflicts with "family planning" or career advancement.

Rights themselves may not be inherent but the need for social cohesion and functioning which is what sets the precedent for them definitely is.

But in a BIG society "social cohesion" is best served by right-destroying uniformity.

Come again?

Not sure how to say it differently without expansion.

In a small society, social cohesion comes from shared environment > shared lifestyle AND relationship. The chief and the herb doctor both have to catch their food and build their own huts just like their cousin the arrowmaker.

In a big society - Medieval city and larger - you do not have that. You get separation - unless you go full statist with everybody in the same uniform working in the factory and watching the same propaganda.

It's lonely being an agnostic pro-lifer.

I do not live in the US, and I am not fully up-to-date on the politics of Democrats and Republicans, but I agree fully with psychohist. And I would expand it further and say that women's rights can be threatened by anyone, regardless of their political leanings. Or religious views. Or sex, for that matter.

And while I am glad that I live in Canada, and not the US, I do hope that we don't follow any of these trends up here in the great white north.