Republican Party Approves Strict Anti-abortion Platform - No Exceptions

Click here for more information.

reply to post by bjax9er


Can I ask you a question?

Who is responsible for taking care of a child that a woman cannot properly raise but is required to give birth to?

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by bjax9er

 

Can I ask you a question?

Who is responsible for taking care of a child that a woman cannot properly raise but is required to give birth to?

she, and the father.
same way it's been for thousands of years.

there is also adoption.

don't mean to sound harsh but, nobody required said woman to have sex, except in the case of rape,as mentioned here many times in the last two days.
which she then should not be required to give birth.
i don't think god himself would torture a woman's soul in that scenario.

there are consequences for every action.

i'am sure there are many examples where a woman can not properly care for a child.
in fact i know there are, i see it everyday on the news.
but does that mean we should abort the child?

and aborting a child for financial reasons is just a lame excuse, and selfish.

Well need all those cute little soldiers for the ........
..........wait for it.....
REPUBLICAN GUARD!

Abortion is the quintessential example of how our society has become one of account-less victims. Literally it assumes women are victims of the ramifications of intercourse and are unaccountable for that choice.

Here is something I coined in an essay I compiled for a graduate paper on perception:

GUNMAN PARADOX

You drove into a big city for a function of sorts and park in a free public parking lot a few blocks away from your destination. After the function you are walking back to your vehicle and remember an alley that would cut your walk by 75%, (unfortunately the alley way was blocked by a garbage truck earlier in the day.) You decide to cut through the alley to shorten your journey. However, I lie in waiting. Whether I have a gun, knife or bare hands is irrelevant. I say to you “do this or die”. If the alternative I provide to you is less satisfactory than death and you choice to die, then I realizing my threat has no power over you, will let you pass or chose to kill you. Or even if you do what I say I may stay chose to kill you if I am still at advantage. Most people will perceive only the two choices provided by the ‘gunman’ but in reality they themselves made the choice to put themselves in a particular situation and the gunman simply took advantage of that choice.

This is the reason abortion is a logical fallacy (begging the question) and unconstitutional on the most fundamental levels. How backwardly disgusting and idiotic has the society become?

I say f*ck Plato. If that doesn’t make sense... then I am very sorry for you!

reply to post by bjax9er


You may want to do a little research before making such ignorant comments. The GOP's official platform says no abortions even in the case of rape or incest.

GOP Platform Anti-Abortion Language Includes No Exceptions For Rape, Incest

With little discussion, the committee on Tuesday adopted the same anti-abortion language it included in GOP platforms in 2004 and 2008. It seeks passage of a constitutional amendment that would extend legal rights to the unborn, essentially banning abortion. The language in the platform includes no exceptions for rape or incest.

reply to post by buster2010


Not only that, but the GOP also employs the agenda of "Personhood" that, if adopted, would ban the use of many hormonal based birth control, making unwanted pregnancies even more prevalent!

The single most important goal for any personhood law is to restrict, if not make totally illegal, the right to access abortions. If the zygote is a legal person, then Roe v. Wade was found on false grounds and no longer applies. Also, the idea of "viability" as a test no longer applies. A zygote or fetus must therefore be protected from being killed, just like any other person is.
Following that, most forms of hormonal birth control can potentially be attacked. Birth control works in two ways. First, it regulates the body so an egg is normally not released. No egg, no baby. However, sometimes an egg is released, but the hormones make the uterus a hostile environment for the zygote, causing it to pass out of the body with the woman's next cycle. If you assume a "person" begins at conception, birth control would necessarily be harmful to that person. Murder, if you will. The Virgina and Oklahoma State Legislators which are pushing personhood bills, were asked by those in opposition to put a basic rider protecting a woman's right to access hormonal birth control. In both cases, they gave a resounding "no", despite claims that they are not trying to make birth control illegal.

rationalwiki.org...

The one thing that has always amazed me about Pro-Lifer's is the fact that they're all for the right of that unborn child.

That is upto it's birth. Then, they want no part of it. No help for the mother to raise it, no food stamps, and they keep wanting to cut the very programs that would help sustain it

I guess I'm confused!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If Romney gets elected, we will see Roe v Wade overturned.

Not a chance. It's the rule of law. No one president sitting in office can overturn this.
No matter who he/she is .. no matter what they personally believe. They don't have the power.

I don't understand people who vote for a POTUS based upon their Pro-Life/Pro-Choice position.
It's not like the POTUS can change the law one way or another. It's just a personal opinion
and/or a personal belief. No matter how much rhetoric the candidate spews either way on the
issue ... there isn't anything he/she can do about it either way.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
No one is going to notice much of a difference between Obama or Romney.

That's because there isn't much of a difference. Not really.
40 points that prove Obama and Romney are the same person

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Since this is their official policy, why are they so bent out of shape for Akin supporting it???

That's not what they are upset with Akin about. They are upset with Akin for saying that a woman who has been raped will not get pregnant because her body will automatically some how 'shut down' and not allow pregnancy. UGH. And also because he forced the change in terminology from 'rape' to 'forceful rape'. The guy is a total nutter.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Not a chance. It's the rule of law. No one president sitting in office can overturn this.

The Supreme Court (yeah, the Citizens United one) can rule again. I don't think the president can do it on his own. And I'm certainly not voting for Obama for his pro-choice stance. It just hardens my resolve against current-day Republican candidates.

40 points that prove Obama and Romney are the same person

And I could list 50 things that make them different. I wouldn't waste the time doing it, though. I can see the differences.

Given men have basically making the decision of law direction for decades, isn't it time to let women decide this issue.

Supporters don't give a flying whatever about the kid, they just want it born to make them feel OK with some religious belief.

The GOP are hypocrites in approving anti-abortion measures in its platform when its platform also includes nominating Romney who apparently made $50M from disposing of aborted fetuses:

Romney may not want people to know that Bain owned a company called Stericycle that disposed of aborted fetuses. Although some say that Romney severed ties with Bain in 2002, Bain went on to haul in huge profits from Stericycle's disposal of aborted babies from 2002-2004 while Romney was governor. I speculate that at least some of the paperwork that Romney destroyed while he was governor may have documented Romney's involvement in coordinating state funded abortions in Romneycare. Did Bain-owned Stericycle profit in any way from any legislation that Romney may have enacted or coordinated between 2002-2004?

"Another SEC document filed November 30, 1999, by Stericycle also names Romney as an individual who holds "voting and dispositive power" with respect to the stock owned by Bain. If Romney had fully retired from the private equity firm he founded, why would he be the only Bain executive named as the person in control of this large amount of Stericycle stock?...

In 2001, the Bain-Madison Dearborn partnership that had invested in the company sold 40 percent of its holdings in Stericycle for about $88 million—marking a hefty profit on its original investment of $75 million. The Bain-related group sold the rest of its holdings by 2004. By that point it had earned $49.5 million. link"

ATS

I congratule the GOP, good job!! You already ensured that you won't ever get the support of black people, latinos, and homosexuals...and soon you'll lose the majority of women too.

I guess they really only want wealthy old white Christian fundamentalist men to vote for them

Originally posted by bjax9er

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by bjax9er

 

Can I ask you a question?

Who is responsible for taking care of a child that a woman cannot properly raise but is required to give birth to?

she, and the father.
same way it's been for thousands of years.

edit on 21-8-2012 by bjax9er because: add

For thousands of years, huh? It's always been done this way...for thousands of years...everywhere. Are you sure about that?

Middle 20th Century Americana has not existed for "thousands of years." Even in the "good ol' days" you couldn't apply this concept of family across the board.

You and people like you are living on the extreme edges of reality.

I would also like to know what kind of language would be involved in "strict" anti-abortion legislation. Are they going to start questioning women who have "natural abortions" by way of a miscarriage?

I just find this whole topic quite odd. This just feels like it should be a personal decision--it doesn't feel like something the state should be involved in.

reply to post by lucid eyes


A zygote is not a child.

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by lucid eyes

 

A zygote is not a child.

The GOP tried to introduce legislation that would protect that "life" even before conception

The second they outlaw killing sperm I'm screwed...as are 99.99999999999999999999% of all males

reply to post by seeker1963

If people who live in a state votes to legalize abortion, then so be it

So if the people of a State vote to legalize slavery, so be it?

If they vote to deny mixed race couples a marriage liscense, so be it?

If they vote deny a woman the right to vote, so be it?

If they vote to legalize a lynching, so be it?

If they vote to outlaw a mosque, so be it?

Get the gist?

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by seeker1963

 

If people who live in a state votes to legalize abortion, then so be it

So if the people of a State vote to legalize slavery, so be it?

If they vote to deny mixed race couples a marriage liscense, so be it?

If they vote deny a woman the right to vote, so be it?

If they vote to legalize a lynching, so be it?

If they vote to outlaw a mosque, so be it?

Get the gist?

Read your constitution. Some of those things absolutely SHOULD be left up to the state. Others are STRICTLY forbidden in the constitution.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by lucid eyes

 

A zygote is not a child.

The GOP tried to introduce legislation that would protect that "life" even before conception

The second they outlaw killing sperm I'm screwed...as are 99.99999999999999999999% of all males

Exactly. What type of wording is involved and how far is the reach of such legislation?

I feel like a Libertarian or real Conservative by asking these questions. I feel like I should be yelling "smaller government.....you'll have my sperm when you scrape it off my cold dead..uh...keyboard? Paper towel?"