Romney vs Perry

[Vagitarian]

Really?? I disagree, did you read the latest poverty increases leading to homelessness? Where are all those "public and private charities"? Dont see them running to the rescue.
The problem with your, and the GOPPPERS, arguement- is you all love to preach no abortions, but are not around to pick up the pieces when these out of wedlock, poor mothers give birth to yet another unwanted child. The GOP preaches no abortions, yet they want to cut all the "entitlement programs" that will help support these poor, women with their baby, can't have it both ways.

Exactly ! Letting them be born and accept life in a compromised state-of-being, then abandoning them is just another way of killing and torturing conscious, living beings - not to mention weakening our country and society.

 

[Vagitarian]

Women have, and will always have, greater understanding of when life begins. You can downplay it all you want but yet so many conservatives freely say women are more nurturing, should have primary responsibility for childrearing and housekeeping, yet you want to not give them the choices and responsibilities that come with that. As long as that baby is not really a separate entity, able to live outside the mother's body on its own, it will and should remain the mother's decision. Do you even know why abortion became illegal in the first place? It had absolutely nothing to do with the sanctity of life.

And no, I will not support any legislation to restrict abortion. It is the mom's body, the mom's responsibility, and the mom;s choice.

Abortion has been around for ages, most likely longer than the churches who rail against it. Back then, with less mouths to feed, they probably preached against it to increase their numbers. That isn't necessary now.

 

[jasmin]

Abortion has been around for ages, most likely longer than the churches who rail against it. Back then, with less mouths to feed, they probably preached against it to increase their numbers. That isn't necessary now.

Yes it has. Depending on which version of history you read, it was made illegal to prevent infections and deaths from abortions in unsterile settings, or from such great techniques as punching the woman in the stomach. Or, there is the version that doctors passed the laws to prevent non physicians from providing the services.

 

[Bubble Burster]

His idea of fixing it is to give it to the state. So each state would be different? What if you have paid it all your life and want to move?

So you fucking move. You can't get checks from more than one state?

 

[Vagitarian]

So you fucking move. You can't get checks from more than one state?

Well swell Mr Answerman, so you're saying if I have lived and worked in 5 different states, I need to collect 5 different checks? And will the payments all be figured equally? Like one of the Texas opt outs Perry touts cut off after 20 years. Let's see, I've worked in 4 different states (Wash DC, Kansas, Missouri and California) and have lived in 4 (Maryland, Kansas, Missouri & California). And then if say I want to live in North Carolina after I retire, I just have all 5 states mail me the checks?

Sounds like a clusterfuck to me.

 

[I Love America]

Women have, and will always have, greater understanding of when life begins. You can downplay it all you want but yet so many conservatives freely say women are more nurturing, should have primary responsibility for childrearing and housekeeping, yet you want to not give them the choices and responsibilities that come with that. As long as that baby is not really a separate entity, able to live outside the mother's body on its own, it will and should remain the mother's decision. Do you even know why abortion became illegal in the first place? It had absolutely nothing to do with the sanctity of life.

And no, I will not support any legislation to restrict abortion. It is the mom's body, the mom's responsibility, and the mom;s choice.

Thanks for proving my point about you pro killing crowd. You merely use rape as a distraction.


Like I have said before, outside of rape if women could make the right choices and control their bodies there would be no need for abortion.

You just want an easy out for your poor choices. At least have the ovaries to admit what you support don't hide behind something as horrific as rape. You are a coward

 

[I Love America]

Well swell Mr Answerman, so you're saying if I have lived and worked in 5 different states, I need to collect 5 different checks? And will the payments all be figured equally? Like one of the Texas opt outs Perry touts cut off after 20 years. Let's see, I've worked in 4 different states (Wash DC, Kansas, Missouri and California) and have lived in 4 (Maryland, Kansas, Missouri & California). And then if say I want to live in North Carolina after I retire, I just have all 5 states mail me the checks?

Sounds like a clusterfuck to me.

Here is a novel idea, instead of giving your money to the gobblemnet and hoping that it will magically turn into a big pile why not just take care of your own retirement

As Ron Paul said that is what freedom is all about.

 

[Bubble Burster]

Well swell Mr Answerman, so you're saying if I have lived and worked in 5 different states, I need to collect 5 different checks? And will the payments all be figured equally? Like one of the Texas opt outs Perry touts cut off after 20 years. Let's see, I've worked in 4 different states (Wash DC, Kansas, Missouri and California) and have lived in 4 (Maryland, Kansas, Missouri & California). And then if say I want to live in North Carolina after I retire, I just have all 5 states mail me the checks?

Sounds like a clusterfuck to me.

There is another alternative...no checks at all.

 

[I Love America]

Really?? I disagree, did you read the latest poverty increases leading to homelessness? Where are all those "public and private charities"? Dont see them running to the rescue.
The problem with your, and the GOPPPERS, arguement- is you all love to preach no abortions, but are not around to pick up the pieces when these out of wedlock, poor mothers give birth to yet another unwanted child. The GOP preaches no abortions, yet they want to cut all the "entitlement programs" that will help support these poor, women with their baby, can't have it both ways.

What a culture of death you suppor. The kid isn't wanted, so lets kill it. Here is a nice stat for ya. Did you what the largest risk factor for childhood poverty is? Yeah, single mothers. But we have TV and celebrities glorifying what is a horrible thing.

Here is a newsflash for women who still can't seem to figger this out. If you don't want to get pregnant, close your fucking legs and stop being a whore. Pretty simple if you ask me.

And before you throw out the "what about the man" line, unless you are willing to give him veto power over an abortion, then he is just an innocent victim taking advantage of your sluttiness.

 

[Man For All Seasons]

Abortion has been around for ages, most likely longer than the churches who rail against it. Back then, with less mouths to feed, they probably preached against it to increase their numbers. That isn't necessary now.

What about that noted Bible-thumper, Hippocrites?

Yep, you've made a fool out of yourself again!

 

[Man For All Seasons]

Seeriously MFAS, so you don't think a mom who has chosen to keep a child might view that pregnancy and child more positively than someone forced to give birth to a child? The study design biases it beyond any ability to provide a conclusion AND the conclusion does not provide percentages of results. All it says is that not every single solitary case of someone keeping the child of rape is completely, totally negative. That is hardly a case to stand on to outlaw abortion in the case of rape.

And no, women have not had access to safe abortions through the ages. But there have been abortions through the ages. In the US, abortions were not deemed illegal prior to 'quickening' until the later 1800s. Prior to Roe v Wade, it has been estimated that over a million abortions per year were performed in the US. Wealthy women had relatively easy access and many other women had 'D and Cs'. It wasn't until 1972 that the supreme court supported the right of couples to use contraceptives! There is strong evidence the number of abortions in the US today is the same or less than the number prior to Roe v Wade but the incidence of death or severe injury from the abortion has significantly improved.

There is also data to suggest that abortion is safest AND used least in countries with greatest access to both abortion and contraceptives.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/4/gpr100402.html

There are far more important things to talk about for the upcoming elections.

You are the one who staked out a hysterical and extreme position claiming that it was beyond consideration that women be forced to carry children conceived in rape to term. I merely proved that it could be done and that it was not a universally negative experience. Just this alone, pretty much devastates your position and your attitude.

Feelings change over time, so whether or not the study, as by necessity only included women who didn't opt to abort is of no bearing. Again, how else to do a study of this type?

It is entirely reasonable, whether you agree with it or not, to forbid abortion even in cases of rape. If the woman can't bear to look at the child because it is to painful of a reminder of the rape, she can give it up for adoption as soon as she delivers. Who knows maybe maternal feelings will kick in. The fact remains that the child of rape, like any child, can or cannot wind up being wanted and loved.

You are entitled to your opinion on this topic, but not your own facts and the fact is that women can bear the children of rape within devastating themselves. To the contrary, it they may feel it is a blessing in the end. End of story. Now we are back to the moral and logical argument of why an innocent child should have to die for the sins of it's father? That is the logical and moral hurdle that you can't morally or rationally overcome.

 

[Vagitarian]

What about that noted Bible-thumper, Hippocrites?

Yep, you've made a fool out of yourself again!

What about him? He's responsible for the term 'hypocrit'. Hippocrates offered abortion to his patients despite being opposed to pessaries and potions which he considered too dangerous. He is recorded as having instructed a prostitute to induce abortion by jumping up and down. This is certainly safer than some other methods, but rather ineffective. It is also believed that he used dilation and curettage to induce abortions as well (note 5). Abortion opponents often use the Hippocratic Oath of physicians as an argument against abortion per se, but the opposition had only to do with patient safety.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion.htm

You lose this round studmuffin.......

 

[Vagitarian]

Here is a novel idea, instead of giving your money to the gobblemnet and hoping that it will magically turn into a big pile why not just take care of your own retirement

As Ron Paul said that is what freedom is all about.

Well, with all due respect - that's exactly what I've done and I don't need Social Securty for my retirement. Do I want it? Well hell yes - either give me what I was forced to sign up for (keyword is forced) or just give me my money back - that would be fine.Besides myself we have millions of people who haven't been responsible, probably aren't smart enough to invest properly or disciplined enough to save. It would feel real good to say, "Fuck 'em!" but then we'd have a situation like the Barbarians presented when Rome fell - gazillions of unruly, unfed mobs roaming and just waiting. And sure, I could buy a place in the hills anmd lock n load but - that's not the lifestyle I'd like to live.

I think we need something, I think their needs to be a way to privatize it, I have some ideas.

 

[I Love America]

Well, with all due respect - that's exactly what I've done and I don't need Social Securty for my retirement. Do I want it? Well hell yes - either give me what I was forced to sign up for (keyword is forced) or just give me my money back - that would be fine.Besides myself we have millions of people who haven't been responsible, probably aren't smart enough to invest properly or disciplined enough to save. It would feel real good to say, "Fuck 'em!" but then we'd have a situation like the Barbarians presented when Rome fell - gazillions of unruly, unfed mobs roaming and just waiting. And sure, I could buy a place in the hills anmd lock n load but - that's not the lifestyle I'd like to live.

I think we need something, I think their needs to be a way to privatize it, I have somwe ideas.

A couple of points. The federal gobblement has argued before the US Supreme court and it agreed that what you paid in is a tax. Nothing more. Nothing less. They also successfully argued that they owe you nothing.

These unruly, unfed mobs you speak of will be in their 60s, how much trouble can they cause.

Yes, you were forced, that is why this is worse than a ponzi scheme. Charles couldn't fore you

 

[jasmin]

You are the one who staked out a hysterical and extreme position claiming that it was beyond consideration that women be forced to carry children conceived in rape to term. I merely proved that it could be done and that it was not a universally negative experience. Just this alone, pretty much devastates your position and your attitude.

Feelings change over time, so whether or not the study, as by necessity only included women who didn't opt to abort is of no bearing. Again, how else to do a study of this type?

It is entirely reasonable, whether you agree with it or not, to forbid abortion even in cases of rape. If the woman can't bear to look at the child because it is to painful of a reminder of the rape, she can give it up for adoption as soon as she delivers. Who knows maybe maternal feelings will kick in. The fact remains that the child of rape, like any child, can or cannot wind up being wanted and loved.

You are entitled to your opinion on this topic, but not your own facts and the fact is that women can bear the children of rape within devastating themselves. To the contrary, it they may feel it is a blessing in the end. End of story. Now we are back to the moral and logical argument of why an innocent child should have to die for the sins of it's father? That is the logical and moral hurdle that you can't morally or rationally overcome.

You cannot grasp the issue because you have never carried a child and will never hear any one else's viewpoint unless it echoes yours. You completely miss that the reality of empowering a woman with the choice to carry or not to carry the child is what gives her something back after a rape. Your ridiculous premise of adoption shows just how little you understand of what pregnancy means to a woman, her mind, body, health, and who she is. I know, you will just dismiss it again because you know all. While you harp on the differences of men and women when it is convenient to your statements, you dismiss them entirely when women know something men cannot possibly understand - ever. Thank God our courts have given women the control over their bodies.

Let's ask the board: Women, would you want to be forced to carry a child created through rape? Men: Would you take in this child as your own?

 

[jasmin]

Thanks for proving my point about you pro killing crowd. You merely use rape as a distraction.


Like I have said before, outside of rape if women could make the right choices and control their bodies there would be no need for abortion.

You just want an easy out for your poor choices. At least have the ovaries to admit what you support don't hide behind something as horrific as rape. You are a coward

You use rape as a phony baloney premise for an answer. You do understand what a woman goes through to prove rape or incest, and that few cases see court, right? Much more importantly to the abortion issue is the time involved to go to court and rule on the case. Therefore, your premise is impossible in application. And you know it.

 

[I Love America]

You cannot grasp the issue because you have never carried a child and will never hear any one else's viewpoint unless it echoes yours. You completely miss that the reality of empowering a woman with the choice to carry or not to carry the child is what gives her something back after a rape. Your ridiculous premise of adoption shows just how little you understand of what pregnancy means to a woman, her mind, body, health, and who she is. I know, you will just dismiss it again because you know all. While you harp on the differences of men and women when it is convenient to your statements, you dismiss them entirely when women know something men cannot possibly understand - ever. Thank God our courts have given women the control over their bodies.

Let's ask the board: Women, would you want to be forced to carry a child created through rape? Men: Would you take in this child as your own?

Yes, I would take the child as my own. It is no less a human being than a child conceived by two people in love does it.

For all I know that child could grow up to be like attorney Rebecca Keissling whose mother was raped and gave birth to this wonderful woman who contributes greatly to our society. Would you tell her she should have neen aborted just becasue she was conceived through a rape? Would you?

It is interesting that in our so called "progressive" society, when a woman is raped she has a constitutional right to kill a baby,the rapist has a constitutional right to life, but an unborn baby has no rights whatsoever.

Now that your argument has been trounced, would you please stop hiding behind rape to support your untenable position.

One last question. Is the unborn a human being? Yes or no

 

[I Love America]

You use rape as a phony baloney premise for an answer. You do understand what a woman goes through to prove rape or incest, and that few cases see court, right? Much more importantly to the abortion issue is the time involved to go to court and rule on the case. Therefore, your premise is impossible in application. And you know it.

I am beginning to question your intelligence. You are the one who is using rape as the premise to support murder. Maybe you don't know what premise means.


Are you actually arguing that because it is hard to prove rape that that is the reason you should be allowed to murder your child?

You are twisted

 

[Breakingnews]

I am beginning to question your intelligence. You are the one who is using rape as the premise to support murder. Maybe you don't know what premise means.


Are you actually arguing that because it is hard to prove rape that that is the reason you should be allowed to murder your child?

You are twisted

I may disagree with SPN on most issues, but she is far from twisted.

SPN is one of the more intelligent posters on this site.

I would invite her to a party at my house anytime. You could park the cars.

 

[jasmin]

I am beginning to question your intelligence. You are the one who is using rape as the premise to support murder. Maybe you don't know what premise means.


Are you actually arguing that because it is hard to prove rape that that is the reason you should be allowed to murder your child?

You are twisted

No, but you are really twisting in the wind. So tell me, you said you would go along with abortion in cases of rape. Now this has to be applied to the real world, so how exactly would this work, hmm?

I may disagree with SPN on most issues, but she is far from twisted.

SPN is one of the more intelligent posters on this site.

I would invite her to a party at my house anytime. You could park the cars.

Thanks BN.