W
WinterBorn
Guest
Apparently.
Indiana GOP Rep Thinks Women Will Fake Rape Or Incest To Get An Abortion
- Thread starter christiefan915
- Start date
Apparently.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Its a canned response from those on the left that cannot think for themselves.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Does anyone actually want to screw Indiana women?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
SmarterthanYou
rebel
women fake domestic violence and child sexual abuse claims all the frickin time against husbands/partners in order to defame them in court for custody, why not fake rape and incest claims too?
Sorry sonny....like I said, Schumer was caught on an open mike saying exactly that..he admitted it....its done as a matter of course...
THATS WHAT THE CAUCUS INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO.......and if you watch, you'll see it by practically the entire democrat party.
You can't be naive enough to think ONLY HE WAS INSTRUCTED TO DO THIS.....
That said, I don't doubt that some Republican hasn't done the same thing on occasion...
Its sad that you pinheads can hear your party admit to unethical, and yes, extreme behavior and lying, and you still can't bring yourselves to condemn it without dragging your opposition into the same sewer your party wallows in ...
Its always ,"well, you did it too"....."well, you did it first"...."well, he did it 50 years ago"....
anything to play the apologist....and blame the other side.....
Bfgrn
New member
The Religious Right...how can people that have no regard for the crawling the walking have such a passion for the unborn?
Easy...they DON'T...they're a bunch of racists that USED Roe v. Wade as a political wedge issue...
Book Excerpt: 'Thy Kingdom Come'
by Randall Balmer
In the 1980s, in order to solidify their shift from divorce to abortion, the Religious Right constructed an abortion myth, one accepted by most Americans as true. Simply put, the abortion myth is this: Leaders of the Religious Right would have us believe that their movement began in direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
---
In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let's remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies.
Evangelical: Religious Right Has Distorted the Faith
Randall Balmer (born October 22, 1954) is an American author, professor of American religious history at Barnard College, Columbia University, an editor for Christianity Today and an Episcopal priest. He earned the Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1985. He has been a visiting professor at Dartmouth College and at Rutgers, Princeton, Drew University, Emory University, Yale and Northwestern universities and at Union Theological Seminary, where he is also adjunct professor of church history. He has also taught in the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. wiki
Last edited:
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Okay, now you're just being homosexual.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Ok, so where did any of that say that the people who are against abortion don't care about those who crawl or walk?
Bfgrn
New member
That is my observation...I see and hear it every day from you right wingers. There is never a single penny of human capital in any of the right's solutions.
Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems.
Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Since you are using the phrase "...you right wingers" allow me to educate you on my own beliefs. I am not in favor of cutting all social programs, denying care for those who cannot help themselves, nor do I not care about those who crawl or walk. So you might want to observe more than the few details you get from when I argue with you, and actually try and figure out the truth.
This is absolute bullshit. There is plenty of human capital in conservative solutions. The difference between my views and your views is that I do not believe the gov't is the solution to all problems, nor am I willing to tell the majority of people that they are incapable of managing their own lives without interference from the gov't. I believe in the freedom to make our own choices. If those choices pay off, then we enjoy the fruits of our labors. If they fail we take the consequences and move on. In your version, we all get the same thing so why work hard?
You continually make the claim that conservatives do not trust people, think people are evil, or whatever. And yet, you continually brand conservatives as evil people unworthy of trust and in need to strict controls by the gov't. Can you see the hypocrisy?
Liberalism is certainly not faith in human beings. Liberalism, at least your version, shows a complete lack of faith in many people. Your trust is that the gov't can fix problems created by people on their own, and relieve people of being responsible for their own mistakes. You want to tell the population that you (and other liberals) know what is best for them and their lives will be fine if they just relinquish control over their lives and their freedoms.
Gov't controls do not equal freedom. No matter how much you try and demonize conservatives, freedom is not a gov't program to do what is best for the "unfortunates" in our society.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Bfgrn, do you think there should be any limits on abortions? If so, what would some of them be?
apple0154
MEOW
The only thing that has changed is we know the process. Is it really a surprise? DNA tells us it's human material. Did anyone ever think differently?
As for the fetus being a human being in the earliest stages of development how can something be developing and be the thing it's developing into at the same time? It doesn't make sense.
The DNA tells us it a complete and unique individual human being with its own heart, brain, circulatory system and finger prints.
The same way an infant develops into a toddler and a toddler into a child and a child into an adolescent and an adolescent into an adult............
apple0154
MEOW
It's not a point of being "imbued with humanity". The point is human beings are individual creatures with bodies separate from other human beings. Fetuses depend on the biological processes of another human being in order to survive. The laws that apply to human beings can not be applied to fetuses as they are inside the body of another human being.
As I mentioned before if the fetus requires an in-utero operation it involves operating on the mother, as well. Who decides? While the mother, like every other human being, is entitled to decide what medical procedures they will accept do we, as a society, allow a woman to refuse a life-saving operation for the fetus?
Furthermore, as science progresses more operations will become feasible. Will pregnant women lose more and more rights to their body or will we watch more and more newly classified human beings denied medical treatment?
apple0154
MEOW
If I were you I wouldn’t talk about the ignorance of anyone else. A liver, a kidney, a flake of skin has “the COMPLETE genetic code of an ENTIRELY UNIQUE human life.” Such basic lack of knowledge is evident throughout your post(s).
I wrote, “and even then it's absurd to kill a healthy, innocent human being so a defective one may live.”
You replied, “So a 'defective one' may live? It is absurdity to claim that the fetus is defective.”
Hello??? We’re discussing the reasons to allow abortion and anti-abortionists say a woman should have the right to abort if her life is in danger. It is the woman’s body which is defective, not that of the fetus. However, those who go on about the sanctity of life have no problem killing an innocent, healthy human being (the fetus) in order to save the life of the defective human being (the mother). That is the absurdity. Completely illogical, nonsensical, whacky thinking.
It’s readily apparent you have neither the knowledge nor comprehensive ability to be discussing this matter.
apple0154
MEOW
YES! YES! And, YES, again.
apple0154
MEOW
Educate yourself, Bravo. All you know are DNA talking points without understanding what you're talking about.
apple0154
MEOW
I don't believe abortion is harmless. However, in many cases, I believe abortion is the moral and desirable thing to do.
Children require nurturing, a solid commitment from an adult.
As for women experiencing emotional harm a great part of that is due to the actions of anti-abortionists. Having groups of people claiming one murdered a human being would affect anyone's mental well-being. Also, while it's not uncommon for some women to think "I could have bore a child and looked after it" they forget that the circumstances in which they later find themselves (having a good job, a partner, a decent life) does not mean they would have obtained those results had they bore the child.
In all likelihood they would have stopped their education, worked at a low level job and found themselves battling poverty on a day to day basis. Especially in the case of young women they would have had to deal with resentment which would have invariably affected the child.
In my view, there is nothing moral or beneficial about bringing a child into a situation like that.