Heck yeah! Fair is Fair!

1. 76

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   “If pregnant women should have to get an ultrasound before having an abortion, men should have to undergo additional medical procedures before getting a prescription for erectile dysfunction,”  Sen. Jill Vogel (R) noted, and introduced an amendment to the ultrasound bill, requiring that men “undergo a digital rectal exam” for pills like Viagra:"
   
   Same way as that bill proposing to make welfare recipients be drug-tested went down after Indiana state Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) called for members of Congress to be drug tested too.
   
   LOVE IT! Real fairness in sausage-making!

   replyreport
   1. 81

      WillStarrposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Women seeking an abortion quite often change their minds after they see their child in a sonogram.
      
      Abortion is big business, and abortionists don't want moms to change their minds, so they resist presenting them with such evidence. Do you think we should keep women ignorant?

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Xenonlitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes! colonoscopes all around, too!

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ha ha!!

         replyreport
   3. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I totally agree with this premise.  A woman's body is HERS.   No one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.   She has the freedom of reproductive choice.   Narrowminded and atavistic conservatives always voice if a woman becomes pregnant, she should keep the baby whether she wants it or not.   However, these same narrowminded, atavistic conservatives criticize and penalize the women if she is unable and unwilling to care for the child and child for being born in less than "ideal" circumstances.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      According to what I found, it's not Republican Senator Vogel who proposed the viagra tests, it's Democrat Senator Janet Howell, in response to the very legitimate proposal of Vogel's which says women should have an ultrasound.
      
      Your post made it seem otherwise.
      
      And...comparing a baby to erectile dysfunction is just silly.
      Unless, of course, one wants to blame only the man for impregnation and then leave him out of the choice of having the baby.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, thank you....I was going to fix it, but actually, I was so happy to think a Republican woman could stand up for woman's rights...I left it.
         
         It's about deciding your own health and well-being Brenda. Not letting the State force it on you.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Then why would people want to force the State to get rid of their unwanted babies?  If a woman wants to kill "her" baby, then she has no right to force other people to help her with that, nor to sanction it.
            
            Me, I'm very happy to know that Republican women stand up for an innocent child's life.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. It is there as a medical and personal choice. You want to remove that choice, and have the state force a woman to give birth against her will. Get it right please.

               replyreport
      2. 81

         WillStarrposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Once pregnant women actually see their baby in a sonogram, they are far less inclined to have it killed, and that is why abortion supporters are so adamantly opposed to it. They want those women to go through with it, and so they want to keep them in the dark!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Absolutely.

            replyreport
         2. 76

            lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Actually--I think the church wants to keep women in the dark....as in Ages.
            
            No sex
            No sex
            NO SEX. 
            
            Reminds me of the old canard during the immigration flux in the lower east side of Manhattan:
            
            Wife and mother: "Doctor,please help me... how do I stop from getting pregnant all the time?"
            
            Doctor: "Tell your husband to sleep on the roof."

            replyreport
   5. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The metaphor doesn't really work.
      
      It should probably be something like "if a woman has to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion, then the man that made the baby happen should also have to see it".
      
      See, metaphors. They have to make sense.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well, how about this one:
         
         "If men had the babies, abortion would be cheap, available and frequent": Lady Di.

         replyreport
2. 76

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   Big business my butt! It's fraught with danger: stalking and death threats.
   
   I think we should stay out of women's personal lives. Particularly their uterus!They know what a fetus is.
   
   And people would FORCE this on them....all the while blathering on about freedom.

   replyreport
3. 60

   Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years ago

   Men trying to get an erection often change their minds after Nurse Helga rams her latex fist up their rectums.
   
   Erections are big business, and erectionists don't want impotent old men(who seemingly have nothing better to do with their time than to tell women what health procedures the state will allow them to acquire) to change their minds, so they resist presenting them bound and prostrated to Helga.  Do you think the anti-choice crowd should remain ignorant?

   replyreport
4. 0

   Longhunterposted 12 years ago

   What would be the purpose of a woman having to have an ultrasound before receiving an abortion? Is it to somehow be used to change the woman's mind? Sort of like "Scare Tactics 101"?

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly.

      replyreport
5. 81

   WillStarrposted 12 years ago

   "They know what a fetus is."
   
   Until they see that it is a real, living human baby, and their own child. Then they often change their minds.
   
   Why do you object to that? Do you hate babies?

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      A fetus is a real, living baby?????
      
      I object to that statement!
      
      The real living ones are the ones we kill in "war"....or the ones who starve to death due to lack of food, or die due to lack of medical care...because "we can't afford it".
      
      Do you hate them?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         lmc - I'm really shocked by this response from you, because it's you. I would have thought you'd consider a fetus a real baby.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It grows into a real baby if I allow it to. It is not a real baby for some time.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Do you honestly believe, that a pregnant women would not know what a foetus is?

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I don't think it really sinks into some young teens. For example, I've had students who had had an abortion, and they said they really didn't realize what they had done until after they actually delivered and reared a baby. Several regretted their earlier decision as a result.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It's a difficult issue. I can understand that their are young girls who don't realise the enormity of having an abortion or child. I once worked with teenage mothers who had a criminal record (in the main the offences were of a "welfare nature" shop lifting food, that kind of thing.) And just as you say some young women do not realise what is involved in terminating a pregnancy, many were just as naiive when it came to caring for their babies. They're expectations of how motherhood would be were completely unrealistic. It's difficult all round.

            replyreport
   3. 59

      recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What a foul comment to make to a woman, you are some shining star of a proponent for your cause, I don't think !

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Typical religious "Love".

         replyreport
6. 81

   WillStarrposted 12 years ago

   "A fetus is a real, living baby?????
   
   I object to that statement!"
   
   See? They deny the obvious, which is why women change their minds when they see that it really is a living human being, and their own child!

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No offense, but you really don't know what you are talking about.
      
      I, as a female, do!
      
      Should I attempt to lecture you on the male reproductive organs?
      
      When you have mammaries, get back to me!

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That can often be why they opt for a termination, also. As a woman, if you know that you are not in a position to provide for your child completely. By completely, I mean food, a home and not to mention education, why would you allow a child to suffer in this world. Having visited these forums, I find it frightening that some would shout "life" and then are only to willing to take the bread from a babies mouth. Have a look at what some of you would do to a child that is born into the family of the unemployed, or an illegal. Shameful

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         How do you feel about adoption as a choice for women in that position?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            If there were guarantees that a child could be adopted into a family that would care for a child, then absolutely. However, my previous experience ( I used to work for the government, young offenders and upwards) I know that this is rarely the case. So many children that are taken into care ( I mean a significant proportion) are doled from foster home to children's home, adoption doesn't happen. Never able to make any real attachments, with devastating consequences. Those that are born to young mothers unable to emotionally,( as well as all the other necessary factors involved in caring for a child, although admittedly not all) often meet a similar fate. Not pleasant, not fair. If a child could be given to vetted, prospective adoptive parents, then great. My experience is that this is rarely the case.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Just to butt in here - the record of world-wide social services regarding the care of children is absolutely abysmal,  also adoptive parents have been shown to be unsafe with high levels of abuse.
               
               Adoption does not mean a warm cuddly home for your unwanted child, it might and it might not.
               
               The unwarranted interference in other peoples business by conccerned people does not translate into the outcomes these people think they espouse.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you! And let's not forget about selling babies on the black market, or into sex slavery, etc etc.
                  
                  You will never convince me that that's a part of the agenda.

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  That's exactly my point. Adoption into a secure loving, family environment is rare, not the norm. Most kids end up in foster care and children' homes.

                  replyreport
            2. 92

               habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I'm surprised. My best friend and her hubby were on a waiting list for ten years to adopt a baby in the US. They finally gave up and adopted from China and Cambodia. Another friend and his wife, a doctor, also stayed on a waiting list for a baby and finally gave up. Instead, they adopted two older kids. I think the kids were 4 and 6.
               
               I don't think abortion should be illegal, by the way. I do think, however, it should occur less often than it does. I hate abortion, but I agree with Hillary on the subject: it should be safe, legal, and rare.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Those kids were the lucky ones. Unfortunately, not all have the same fate. All those babies given to social services, why so few adopted? Why?

                  replyreport
                  1. 92

                     habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     There definitely needs to be some revamping of those programs. If the babies are there, and people want them, why so much red tape? My friends jumped through all the hoops and were still on a waiting list for a decade. Shameful!

                     replyreport
               2. 60

                  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I didn't think that you were opposed to abortion.  But I completely understand why so many women feel that that is the best option. I find it sickening that in my country, probably yours, too, that so may kids who are given to social services, spend their lives in institutions or foster homes. Is it any surprise that they become so institutionalised that prison or a young offenders institution becomes a natural progression for them?
                  
                  The red tape is scandoulous. Do you smoke, drink, are you overweight, what are your political leanings? While I can see that their is some sense behind these questions, it's taken to the extremes. I think it would be perhaps worth some further investigation as to which couples end up with the " babies" I can't help but wonder if there is something more sinister behind it.

                  replyreport
      2. 76

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, and consider what just happened yesterday...when that contraceptive company said that there may be faults with the pills, and you may end up pregnant.
         Now, suppose a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, suppose she can't afford a baby? If she were forced by law to carry that pregnancy to term, should SHE be responsible, when it was the company's fault? And shouldn't the company be forced to pay for the care of that child throughout his or her life?
         
         Or should the woman be forced to go through the pregnancy and give birth and then give the baby up to the state? I can't think of anything more cruel. Having given birth 3 times, I can tell you--it was torture. Horrible unending unendurable pain.
         
         And to force that on a woman, who is not ready, who can't afford it, who will have to bond with it and then let it go....JUST to serve your personal beliefs....it's as cruel as you can get if you ask me.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I'm in favour of abortion and a woman's right to choose. I don't believe any woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy she does not what.

            replyreport
7. 60

   logic,commonsenseposted 12 years ago

   Extraordinary measures are being taken to keep alive a fetus that fit in the palm of a doctors hand.  Is that a child or a fetus?  Who decides if it should live or die?  It is out of the womb, so who makes the choice?
   Every individual should have the choice to do with their body as they choose, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. 
   An informed choice is always the best choice.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      When a woman has a mis-carriage, do we call that murder? It's an act of Nature...no more no less.
      Sorry to tell you that an abortion is the same. Nature gave me the responsibilty of carrying life, not until nor unless. Ergo, it is my choice whether to do so.
      
      If you don't like it---take it up with the creator.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No, I would not call it murder. Never said it wasn't your choice, merely stated that an informed choice was the best choice, do you not agree with being informed?
         You are assuming that there is a creator, some people would choose not to believe that there is.  They have that choice as well.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            OK...then let's show a soldier exactly what is is to kill someone. Let them know the after-effects of it mentally that they will carry for the rest of their lives.
            Let's have them see pictures of dead children that have been killed by  soldiers--up close and personal. Make them watch the families cry in horror and pain.
            How about we show a movie of disabled children, or vets with no arms and legs...is this necessary?
            
            Women are informed, believe me...I am one! We don't need your state gvt people forcing their male leaders' so-called morality on us!
            
            We can make up our own minds, with our own doctors and families, thank you.

            replyreport
      2. 92

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         A planned abortion is an act of Nature?? That's quite a stretch!

         replyreport
         1. 76

            lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            So is saying that a fertilized egg is a human being.

            replyreport
            1. 92

               habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               At what point do you think it becomes a "real baby"? Just curious. I consider it a real baby when it can feel pain and react to its surroundings. That's why I'm against late-term abortions, unless the mother's life is at risk.

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't consider it my business until and unless it happens to me! I don't think child-birth is a public issue at all.

                  replyreport
      3. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, that argument didn't make any sense.
         
         Sorry.
         
         LCS: "Killing babies is murder!"
         
         LMC: "No it's not, because some of them die naturally"
         
         LCS: "... ... dude, what?"

         replyreport
         1. 76

            lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Nature rules. Females are the life-carriers.
            Miscarriage, abortion..the result is the same.
            
            One is demonized, the other accepted as part of life.

            replyreport
8. 81

   WillStarrposted 12 years ago

   "No offense, but you really don't know what you are talking about.
   
   I, as a female, do!"
   
   Then you are way behind the times. Abortion supporters long ago gave up the ludicrous position that a fetus is not a living human being, since it so obviously is. Now they claim it is not a person, which is perhaps even more absurd.
   
   Abortion is the killing of a living human being. That is now beyond denial.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Oh please...here:
      
      I deny it! There, you see?
      
      And, get the lingo right....it's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Sometimes it is the right thing to do.
      
      With or without your approval...and btw, do I know you, for you to be butting in my life like that?
      
      dint think so.

      replyreport
9. 59

   recommend1posted 12 years ago

   "Susan G. Komen for the Cure just cut all its funding to Planned Parenthood for breast health screenings, bowing to anti-choice pressure and making breast health care suddenly inaccessible to many women"
   
   I think this is mentioned in another thread but I can't find it.  It appears that one right wing christian woman has removed the funding from a US charity that supplies mammography free testing (to those who can't afford it) to a total of 20% of those screened - because the organisation that performs that essential work also believes in the freedom of a woan to choose an abortion.
   
   Will this witch get challenged in court by those who have contributed charitable funds to that organisation expecting it to be used properly ?

   replyreport
10. 81

    WillStarrposted 12 years ago

    When those who oppose the murder of innocent human babies in the womb are depicted as the monsters, and the supporters of that murder are considered saints, the world is truly upside down.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Ummm, forgive my naivite, but aren't we all born in sin? Is there such thing as an innocent baby? And aren't they better off not coming here, as the real joy lies in Heaven?
       
       Just wondering at the logic of all these statements.

       replyreport
11. 81

    WillStarrposted 12 years ago

    "Ummm, forgive my naivite, but aren't we all born in sin? Is there such thing as an innocent baby? And aren't they better off not coming here, as the real joy lies in Heaven?"
    
    Ah, the twisted 'logic' of the left...finding a way to excuse their murderous ways by declaring the babies unworthy to live. God help us.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Excuse me, but your good book says that we are all born in sin....how can there be an innocent baby?

       replyreport
12. 81

    WillStarrposted 12 years ago

    So why don't you want women to see a sonogram of their baby, lovemychris? Why do you insist on keeping them in the dark?
    
    Explain.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Because I think it's cruelty added on to cruelty.
       I think if a woman is not ready to have a baby, and can't afford it, she should abort it and wait for another time. I think it is none of anyone elses business, and I think you want to torture her with guilt...as if she doesn't have enough already.
       
       You seem to be saying that women are heartless monsters who need to be showm the error of their ways. I think they already know what's involved, and don't need more heartache making it anymore diffecult for them than it is.
       
       Because then we should all be forced to watch what happens when babies are bombed to death and burned with white phosphorous, knowing that our tax dollars fund it.
       
       And we should all be force to watch the execution of a prisoner.
       
       You pick and choose your judgements and your humanity, And you discriminate against women IMHO.
       
       I love women, and I love babies...neither one should suffer. It's a cold world, and your policies don't make it any warmer. Unless you are prepared to care for these babies...how is it your concern?

       replyreport
13. 81

    WillStarrposted 12 years ago

    "Because I think it's cruelty added on to cruelty"
    
    Translation:
    
    I want to keep them in the dark, because if mothers actually see their babies and decide to keep them, it defeats the whole idea of abortion and exposes it as the murder it is.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Ask me to explain and then just ignore my explanation!
       
       You really don't seem to have much regard for my words, do you?
       
       So why ask?

       replyreport
14. 81

    WillStarrposted 12 years ago

    Should taxpayers be forced to fund abortions if they are morally opposed to the murders of innocent children?

    replyreport
    1. 76

       lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       They don't.
       
       Hyde Amendment...1973. Year of Roe v Wade.
       
       Now it's your turn...
       
       If we are all born in sin, how are children innocent?

       replyreport
15. 76

    lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

    And...should tax-payers be forced to pay for an apartheid regime if they are morally opposed to it?
    
    Answer please.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       No - but you're a liberal, so the answer is yes.
       
       Many millionaires don't support the war, but you want them to be taxed further.
       
       I don't support the welfare state, but you've said that to even think such a though is evil-incarnate (not an actual quote).
       
       Your argument here is HIGHLY hypocritical of other comments you've made on the forums.

       replyreport
       1. 76

          lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          How so? Taxes don't pay for abortion...that was outlawed in 1973.Yet, we DO pay for an apartheid regime.
          
          These people are trying to outlaw something they have absolutely NOTHING to do with...just because they don't like it.
          
          And that includes Mr. Freedom, Ron Paul.

          replyreport
16. 81

    WillStarrposted 12 years ago

    "Because I think it's cruelty added on to cruelty"
    
    How is showing a mother the truth about what is in her womb 'cruel'? And on top of what other cruelty?
    
    Women control sex because they are the receivers and the ones who will become pregnant. That is universally recognized and protected by law, and any man who forces sex on a woman can go to prison for a long, long time, just as it should be!
    
    So if a woman gets pregnant by consenting to sex, why is it that feminists insist that she bear no responsibilty, and that her pregnancy is 'cruel'? Why is it that feminists now insist that a woman is consequence free and no longer responsible for the results of her own actions?
    
    And yes, I do hold the man equally responsible.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       If we are all born in sin, how is anyone innocent?
       
       Should we be forced to pay for a foreign gvt we disagree with on moral grounds?
       
       Answer please...since I gave you the courtesy of answering you!

       replyreport
17. 81

    WillStarrposted 12 years ago

    "...I gave you the courtesy of answering you!"
    
    But you didn't. My questions go unanswered

    replyreport
    1. 76

       lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       "So why don't you want women to see a sonogram of their baby, lovemychris? Why do you insist on keeping them in the dark?
       
       Explain."
       
       I answered, and then you told me what I meant. Remember?
       
       Your turn.

       replyreport