Over 900 anti-abortion laws

Post Reply New Topic

Republicans are succeeding in making US abortion legal in name only: http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejus ... age=entire

possible underlying assumptions:

"Republicans" have no actual convictions or principles.

Only conservative extremists have issues with abortion.

Restrictions an abortion are anti-woman.

There are others, but I do not want to assume too much.

Do you believe restrictions on abortions are not anti-woman?

Anyway, well done reps!

reps? representatives? republicans? Whom are you applauding?

Do you assume unrestricted abortion is necessarily pro-woman?

No. I don't (In case you haven't noticed, P-->Q is not the same as Q-->P ) Answering your other question seems unnecessary as I'll guess that most other people in this forum are aware of the word context.

An nope, I am not letting you avoid the question this time. Do you think that further restriction of a bortion is not detrimental to women rights and therefore anti.-women?

Oh, we are so big.

Passing lightly over the question of why I ought to answer your question when you will not bother to explain what you mean,,,,

YOU are not letting ME?

As for what is detrimental to human rights [last I heard, women were human] until we come to an agreement on what rights are in the first place and what rights people have in the second place, neither of us can answer that question.

The fact is, you are one of the people for whom anything other than complete agreement with what you found on the web marks an enemy - and nothing an enemy says can be right.

Want an anecdote? They are fun and a great way to illustrate a point. Professor X identufied Professor Y as an enemy. That meant anything Y said HAD to be wrong. So X came up with an incredibly stupid theory simply because it was the exact opposite of what Y said.

I will tell my views to anyone who treats me as an equal. You are not on the list. If you ever grow up [reaching 21 will do] ask again.

You just implied that I think being against women rights makes you my enemy. I am not sure if I am supposed to feel good about it, but I do.

So, you just answered that you don't think restricting abortion rights is against women rights, ok, good for you.

Do not tell me what I said until you have understood what I said. Which has not happened yet.

"You just implied that I think being against women rights makes you my enemy"

I did not. I said that my failure to bow to your sources leads you to think I am your enemy. I think it is true that you assume your enemy will be against human rights.

"you just answered that you don't think restricting abortion rights is against women rights,"

Go read. I said no such thing. I said nothing even close to it. You will note - if yoiu are capable of reading with attention - that I responded REFUSING to answer.

I strongly urge you to watch A Man for All Seasons. It is an excellent film and makes some important and relevant points.

You may, in the depth of your mind try to say something completely different to what you say, but the stuff we end up reading is usually utter bull. Maybe you are not a looncalf but you are not showing it.

"My source", you would think that I stick to a single source which is ridiculous, somehow I keep posting different sites. Do you want to argue that no such thing as those 900 republican anti-abortion laws? That it is a fabrication of the source? Unfortunately, that's not the case. So, since you are not mentioning any facts that are malfabricated by my evil source, what's left?

You are the one who started by mentioning "restrictions on abortion are anti-women" in the list of conclusions you took and by the tone of your post, it was clear that you disagreed with the propositions you posted. Since I, personally really think that restricting abortion rights is anti-women rights I really disagree strongly with that. I asked you about that, and it turns out that indeed you somehow chose to believe that restricting abortion rights is not anti-women.

Well, I guess that since you are a straight conservative male you should really know about what sort of thing is against women' rights and what isn't. But that's another topic. What I can tell right now is that my awareness of the opinion that you yourself stated to have does not come from the evil "source" I posted but from your own mouth.

Your non-sense reaches 90 centibecks, when you assume that I am taking you as an "enemy". A word I did not mention myself nor I remember mentioning ever in the latest posts. And to think you are the guy who complains about people putting statements on your mouth.

I'll say it: a pre-viable baby is no more than a parasite. Restrictions on abortion, traditional conservatives, and tea-party republicans are all anti-women's rights, by definition. Attempts to portray them as otherwise require extreme contortions and appear silly to all openminded people.

Vexcalibur:

So I am not in your eyesy your enemy?

Not in your eyes your opponent?

Just "different" from you?

You say that I am "straight conservative male".

Well, I am in the sense you probably mean - and some others - straight.

And I am male.

I am not conservative:

People who consider themselves conservative and people you would likely see as conservative would find my views - if I revealed them - just as unacceptable as you would find them if you knew them.

I am conservative only in my use of language.

Maybe you do not see me as enemy or opponent. But then why do you assume that if I say something different from what you say I must mean things I never said?????????????????

Looncalf - an invention, I prefer to use previously extant terms, but coinings are fine - much better than the non-euphonious and not really meaningful "Bushcalf"

PLEASE - learn that not everybody has to be on one of two sides!

Ridiculous. The Democrat sponsored Stupak amendment is a bigger restriction on abortion than anything the Republicans in Congress have ever passed. The biggest restriction of all on abortion is Obamacare, which will essentially ban not only public funding of abortion, but private insurance coverage of abortion as well. If there's a party that's antiwoman, it's the Democrats, not the Republicans.

You missed the key words.

"anti-women's rights BY DEFINITION". That means, THAT is the definition of "anti-women's rights" that he uses.

I agree that it was pretty bad. But note that the abortion defunding of abortion in ObamaCare was a move by Democrats to do as suggested by republicans in an attempt to make ObamaCare pass and be approved by Republicans.




900 laws. I'll concede you that most likely both are anti-woman as Democrats did not think it twice before selling women rights out in exchange of being able to pass Obamacare. But let's not pretend the active republican push (all over this year) to restrict and restrict AND restrict abortion as if it was the nation's priority (I thought it was the economy, but apparently not) did not happen.

The other day a girl was sentenced to death for having a miscarriage, and it was caused by republican laws intended to ban abortion.

Not all Democrats support women's rights. A few conservative catholics and fundamentalist christians keep the label of Democrat. Not all women support women's rights, ffs.

Conservatives oppose change and the tea party wants to return to a past that never was. Go ahead, keep digging.