The real reason why the righties are shouting Abortion is killing & its supporters are murderers:
So people, including our lazy-ass media will ignore the many ways in which the righties are trying to kill us.
Just to name a few -
*Wanting to deny a woman a right to terminate her pregnancy even if it will take away her life.
*Taking away healthcare from those that have no other opportunity to purchase healthcare.
*Taking away food stamps from those that are hungry.
*Taking away free school breakfasts or lunches from those that may not eat anything else all day.
*Poisoning our water and our air. Poisoning the animals that are used as a food source.
*Chemically Altering our food supply.
*Sending our children to die or be disabled in endless wars & so what if we kill innocent people in other countries.
*Ignoring the scientific fact that climate change is real & it is causing people & animals to lose their shelters & food supplies.
*Ignoring every single humanitarian crises that is outside of our borders - except when it crosses into our borders, such as children escaping violence or ebola.
*Using military style tactics to defend themselves for murdering people in the streets.
And it is all being done in the name of Christianity and Profits.
Isn't time we start calling these people what they really are? Isn't it time WE take control of the messaging?
These people aren't Pro-Life. These people govern by being Pro-Death.
I guess Matthew McConaughey better fire up a sequel to Dallas Buyers' Club.
Because if the "IT'S A GAY DISEASE" wingnuts get their way... we're going to need another one in real life so that innocent people don't start dying again like they did under Reagan. And that's...
NOT ALL RIGHT, NOT ALL RIGHT, NOT ALL RIGHT!
Hobby Lobby opened up a can of flesh-eating worms. Now, if your employer believes that you sinned and God gave you AIDS to punish you, he has no obligation to cover the EXORBITANT COST of those AIDS medications that you need to stay alive.
Fred Phelps is laughing maniacally in the fires of hell. He's so evil he's freaking the devil out.
serve as incubators.
pregnancy and childbirth are a major cause of death in women in that age bracket. you cant make a person give a pint of blood to a dying person. but they think it is fine to make a woman risk her life for a baby that she doesnt want.
And, (Horrors!) enjoying it without wanting babies.
They think sex is the first (and worst) original sin. Well, OK, it's possible to get pregnant without having sex (IVF), but they oppose that too as it's "a violation of God's will."
So make up your minds then, fundies -- that is, if you have any at all and didn't just, well, make them up.
I always found it funny too how fundies hate the thought of women having sex with men. Yet they hate even more the thought of women having sex with women or men having sex with men!
They're afraid everyone but them is having crazy wild sex and they're not or they're stuck with maybe one other GOPer (shudder).
waiting for Obama to veto, then blame him and the Democratic party for what may be a stagnant economy by the 2016 election.
because they actually believe that life begins at conception.
Do you actually know any anti-abortion people, or do you base all your info on the stereotypes you see on DU?
It's when the child draws its first breath.
Will also tell you that NO exceptions for "life of the woman" will kill WOMEN. For WHAT? No, you cannot remove an embryo from a fallopian tube and re-implant it in the uterus, just to save it's life. No, medicine is not concerned with "saving" these persons because it needs to find ways to saving the ALREADY BORN. You CAN prevent a woman from a rupture, internal hemorrhaging, and death with an "abortion".
Apparently, they think women's lives are disposable, even when there is no hope at all for a fetus survival to birth.
actually believe in NO exceptions for the life of a woman?? I have pro-life/anti-abort friends, and I know that NONE of them, not a single one, actually advocates that women should die just for some anti-abortion principle. And I doubt that any of them knows anyone who does.
This is just stereotyping as a scare tactic.
As their policy (fact). You are not entitled to dismiss facts. These people are on record and have the power to vote to take away rights for the life of a woman.
I have seen R candidates who have made asinine statements, like "legitimate rape," but that person (Todd Akin) was not elected. If there is an actual Senator or Representative who has been elected, while believing that there should be NO exceptions, I'd like to know who.
And judging by the activities in the state legislatures of Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Indiana, Wisconsin and Missouri, I'd say they're not alone by any means.
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion.
Congressional Summary: Prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for any abortion.
Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and health plans must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)
Disallows any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion.
Provides exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest; or life-endangering maternal condition.
SIOUX CITY, Iowa (AP) Republican candidate Joni Ernst defended her opposition to abortion rights during Thursday's final debate between her and Iowa Democrat Bruce Braley in their neck-and-neck race for a U.S. Senate seat, but she said for the first time that she might support a legal exception to save the life of the mother.[/blockquote]
When she was pinned down during a debate and had to give an answer, for the first time ever, she "might" go for an exception. You think that reflects her true position, and will control her actions in the Senate? I have a bridge to Brooklyn I can sell you. Got the deed right here.
And yes, Gardner also went stealth during his Senate campaign, but when he was in the House, he co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act. Now, what do you suppose reflects his true feelings, and what do you suppose he'll be supporting in his new job? If you think he's suddenly going to forget his own career, then maybe you have a case. I'm far more inclined to think that he'll stick with his own statement from the page you linked to (but which passage you neglected to quote for some reason) that he will sponsor and support legislation that protects life "at all stages." Since Gardner has previously sponsored a bill called the Life at Conception Act, when do you suppose he thinks life begins?
You're intrepidly (if a bit dishonestly) trying to make a "no true Scotsman" argument, but the fact is that officials elected for their pro-life or anti-abortion positions are indeed trying to legislatively harm women's health.
Or watch nothing but faux spews you know damn well there are several who support the most extreme view.
Either way they can't be pro life but pro starving children, tAking healthcare from people, sending others to war when you people are to scared to go yourselves. That pro life meme is such a load of crap.
Asked about her policy on abortion, Stefanik said, Im pro-life with exceptions -- rape, incest and life of the mother. Thats my personal belief. I understand abortion is a heartfelt issue, and I respect those that have differing issues. But Im pro-life.
I think you will find that this is the position that most of them take.
The scumbags who make and change laws to hurt women. And your anti - abortion friends vote them into office. So your argument is pure BS.
The scumbags who make and change laws to hurt women. And your anti - abortion friends vote them into office. So your argument is pure BS.
Had to have emergency operation. And she didn't even know she was pregnant so wasn't far enough for it to live. So does that mean both woman and embryo are to die? Is that what they want?
They are nuts!
who believe that a heartbeat and brain waves indicate that a fetus is aliven for awhile, even if it dies before birth.
where murder and killing have become acceptable.
If someone is going to be pro-life then they need to be pro-life from conception all the way thru natural death.
You don't get to pick and choose when life is important and when it's not.
And as far as your snark in your last sentence - was that really necessary to try and insult my intelligence just because I believe that caring about children that do not have enough to eat is also a form of being pro-life?
I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence; I am seriously wondering if you have ever had a conversation with anyone who believes that life begins at conception. I have. It hasn't changed my mind about abortion being legal, but I don't spout ridiculous stuff about wanting women to die.
There are many pro-life people who do value all life, are anti-capital punishment, believe in the safety net, donate to charities to provide in ways the government does not, and are anti-war. Those same people wonder how some of us can grieve when perpetrators of child murders are put to death, yet seem to celebrate the killing of the unborn (their terminology, not mine.) I know some of these people. I respect their right to hold opinions that differ from mine. Don't know if they respect my opinon, but I consider that their problem, not mine.
that only covers one aspect of the OP's point. What about the actual needs of the POST-BIRTH life? Actually caring for mothers and children? You know - like actually ensuring those post-birth infants and their mothers have the things that human beings need to survive. Like essential health care, for example. Like clean air and water. Like healthy food. If they were actually pro-life they'd care about actual - you know - life. But because they ACTUALLY don't, they should keep their laws out of other people's lives.
in vitro fertilization.
My lasting image of her was standing in front of my father's casket, a cigarette in her hand. The long ash threatened to fall into the casket. She was a real jerk.
and a real mental case.
You know she doesn't represent a majority of pro-life people, right?
She ran a phony "pregnancy crisis center." Her daughter in law turned her into the authorities because there were no doctors or nurses involved. The state closed it down.
Family reunions were very tense if both showed.
As someone who myself is the product of loony-toons parents who, I believe, should have been sterilized by law (a walking excuse for eugenics in and of myself), I agree with the idea in theory... BUT if this is the same organization I'm thinking of, they are way too heavy on the Jesus crap and too biased against poor WOMEN, most of whom are women of minority background (who, statistically, also happen to be the majority of low-income women in general).
If low-income women on drugs shouldn't be giving birth to "crack babies", then Charlie Sheen (white, male, with oodles of $$$ coming out his behind and going up his nose -- and father of 5 KIDS since the age of 19) needs a vasectomy, stat, so that he doesn't father any potential "crack babies" out in Beverly Hills. Same for Rob "Crackhead Canuck" Ford, whether or not they operate in Canada.
I'm walking proof that your genes (and whatever messes them up, namely drugs/alcohol) are your destiny. Nature has a lot to do with nurture; i.e. if your father's a drunk, chances are you have a susceptibility to become a drunk yourself and probably grew up in a stressful environment that lowers your tolerance for setbacks, and leads you to drink as a form of escape. Hence, the self-perpetuative cycle: I've made a promise to myself that I won't ever, and I mean EVER, take a sip of anything you have to present ID to buy; nevertheless, that doesn't mean I'm not still a basket case (I am) because of both genes and environment. My mother has always been a little "moody" herself. I'm therefore what you might call a self-loathing eugenicist because of how I grew up and what I've become.
If this is the same organization I'm thinking of, I can't say I don't agree with them in theory. They just need to expand their movement to include rich coke-addled movie stars and Adderall-popping soccer moms, and kick all the scripture crap to the curb. Eugenics is sound science; it just has bad PR.
If destiny is in the genes, then there is an evolutionary reason for it. Let it play out.
...for mental illness, substance abuse, and genetic abnormalities like Down syndrome and autism?
They may have been some advantage 10,000 years ago. I've heard this about ADHD being a trait of hunters who had to look in multiple directions and multitask out in the killing fields; that what we consider "schizophrenic delusions" now were actually the visions of tribal shamans, and what we call autism was also a trait of secluded monks who didn't socialize very often and were more in tune with their "inner world." Dyslexia, I've heard, is only a disadvantage because we force people to read left-to-right scripts (this I doubt, because it's more than just reading the wrong direction or transposing letters). I don't know what advantage synesthetes had 10,000 years ago besides maybe also being thought of as having some sort of mystical gift. Down syndrome children were probably sacrificed 10,000 years ago, although maybe that wasn't the case because aren't most cases born to mothers over 40, and back then most people didn't even live that long? Plus, weren't "women" becoming mothers right from about the time they hit puberty? So maybe Down syndrome didn't even exist 10,000 years ago because of conditions that didn't exist then either.
Regardless, since we're not an agricultural nomadic hunter-gatherer society that ascribes high rank to fortune tellers, mead drinkers, mushroom-eaters, and people who have "visions" and talk to imaginary beings that no one else can perceive, why haven't those conditions or tendencies gone away if they're now considered detrimental rather than positive adaptations? The answer is because people who have those DNA markers and traits still continue to reproduce. And also because we have modern medicines that prevent nature from taking its course and weeding out those with congenital heart ailments, and diabetes, and childhood cancers, and other maladies that would have knocked you or your child dead once upon a time. We're probably seeing a negative trade-off in that we're allowing defective people to reproduce whom nature would have prevented from doing so otherwise, and creating new mutations and epidemics of illnesses that, if we had let "nature run its course," probably wouldn't even exist today.
The only solution I guess, if you want to let the nutters continue breeding (and create more nutters such as myself), is to give the born nutters carte blanche to do themselves in if they want to. I'm going OT here, but AFAIC just allowing abortion doesn't go far enough. I'm not a believer in the special-snowflake stuff that everyone has "gifts to give." I know I'm a nutter; my parents shouldn't have had me, but they did, and now I have to find a way to mitigate the circumstances before I become a burden upon society. Especially now that we've got fascists in both houses of Congress who are going to make circumstances even more of a living hell for people who don't "fit in."
I still am a believer in eugenics simply because nature didn't weed me out. And I believe that a "snip" of prevention is worth a lot of cure in terms of averting needless suffering.
create it and control it.
I see the chaotic nature of humanity a plus. A natural, seemingly chaotic pasture is better suited to endure than a monoculture lawn.
We all have the power to suffer or to end suffering. As far as I'm concerned, my suffering made me a better, smarter man. It taught me compassion. I still have twinges of self loathing, but they are few and far between. Life is good.
Last edited Sat Nov 8, 2014, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)
that's above my pay grade.
But caring for that life does not end once the child is born into a family that does not have enough to eat.
That's all I am saying.
as if real lives aren't involved. Either we are our brothers keeper ABSOLUTELY or we are not. To them we are only responsible to the dictates of the Southern Baptists. Not our brothers and sisters.
Can we at least dispense of the asinine notion that life begins at conception?
Zygotes are naturally aborted all the time. It's what happens when a woman is not at the proper point of her cycle and the zygote/embryo fails to implant. It has no nervous system. It has no organs. It's essentially a clump of stem cells yet to differentiate into their proper functions.
Why not go back a couple of steps and say every single sperm cell and every single egg cell is a life?
So these people who believe life begins at conception are basing their arguments from a false premise. This makes them what rational people would refer to as "wrong", or "incorrect", or "not right", or as I like to say - "batshit crazy".
Now let's try to form a valid argument so we don't waste time.
And endless votes from them as well. It is a fundraising and vote getting tool.
The Republicans don't give a damn about any of these things. They only care about $$. The leaders of the forced birth brigade are the churches: Catholics, Evangelicals, and conservative Christians. We cannot fight it in the political sphere until these churches, acting like political entities, are taxed and exposed for frauds. These religious leaders have infiltrated the Democratic Party as well, and so you hear things like "pro-life Democrat" which implies by its very name that abortion is murder.
Isn't it time we start calling these people what they really are? Yes!!!!
Roe Vs Wade reinforced the opinion that there are aspects of our life that are should be beyond the prying eyes of the government (griswold vs connecticut). It is pro family.
hideous of creatures, "The Vaginal Vampire!" Copyrighted definition below.
Any person, group of people, or organization that through their speech, writings, and/or actions are implicitly attempting to control, direct, and/or subjugate a womans inherent rights to the control of her body, her mind, her sexuality, and medical choices made between her and her doctor. Most of these Vaginal Vampire attacks are veiled in authoritarian religious dogma and conservative political rhetoric in an attempt to steal and control the power of the Womb and/ or Woman. This is accomplished through the demonizing of birth control, abortion, Planned Parenthood, the dumbing down and/or elimination of sexual education, the defining down of the violent crime of rape, the propagation of abstinence only, and the theft of a womens rights of equality. The tactics employed to accomplish these goals run the gamut from intimidation, fear, propaganda, terror, violence, and murder/assassination.
As with imaginary vampires, these Vaginal Vampires gain their power, wealth, notoriety, and prestige among their peers and the media by employing deceit, propaganda, and out right lies to suck the lifeblood from women who are making their own religious, moral, and heart wrenching decisions based on their individual medical and health circumstances.
VagVamps consider no measure of action to be too vile or contemptible, not even terrorism or murder, to attain their most reprehensible ends. It also appears that those most concerned with a womans womb are way at the back of the pack in the caring and support after that child is born. This manifests itself in their unrelenting promotion of the cutting of early child health care, pre-natal care, head start, education, Planned Parenthood, and food programs, just to mention a few.
Thumbs up at Urban Dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Vaginal+Vampire
How many pro-lifers have adopted a crack baby resulting from its mother being unable to get help/contraception/ an abortion? I really feel that if you are pro-life you should be a strong advocate of adoption, maybe have some foster kids, and adopt rather than produce your own DNA. So many kids need homes. People worry more about rescuing dogs than children. Don't breed! Adopt!
PS: I have no children at all, but I'm pro- choice. I think birth control pills were the most important invention of the twentieth century. Seriously, of ,course, I believe pro-choice means just that: it is your choice to have kids, adopt kids, or go kidless like me. Special blessings to the people who take on the challenge of raising adopted kids.
Those pregnancy crisis centers guides poor and vulnerable women towards adoption facilitators and/or agencies, because there is big business in infants. These type of people prey on poor and vulnerable women for their infants. This, imo, is some of their motivation in supporting government policies that harm women. They fight tooth and nail against assistance for poor and/or struggling families, but support tax breaks for adoption. They don't want their tax dollars going to help children, but hold bake sales to pay for a church member to pay $20,000+ for an infant.
Most adoptions are not a result of a crack-mother. This stereotype is insulting and a flat out lie. Most adoptions occur because of poverty or economic situations. Infants are a commodity to forced birthers (and some others as well). Improving a woman's economic security would harm the forced-birthers chances they have at infants
clump of cells is a life that has value. He also said that a child is a child before it is born. I told him that according to his stupid statements that he must also believe that a woman is pregnant before she is pregnant. He went back to the clump of cells being a valuable life crap.
you have to be pro-life from the time you think birth begins all the way until the natural death.
These people who call themselves pro-life can't pick and choose when life matters and when it doesn't.
If someone thinks that life matters inside the womb, they have to think it also matters when that child doesn't have enough to eat.
Or when that child is sick but can't go to the doctor.
It drives me nuts!!
Democrats try to lift poor people out of poverty. Republicans try to kill them off. They are taking the war part literally.
I think a solid case can be made that the Republican party is a terrorist organization. For the reasons itemized by Jillan and more, they are serial mass murders. They have done more damage to us and the planet than any terrorist organization. If there was a truth in advertising law for political party names, the Republican party would be called SPECTRE and we have no James Bond to save us.
But they believe life begins earlier than you. That makes them morally superior.
If it was just about pure numbers, they'd want nonwhites to have as few children as possible, if not none at all whatsoever.
Racism is definitely at play, but not in the eugenic sense like it was before. The real reason they want to keep minority women barefoot in the kitchen is so that they can keep producing more fodder for the prison system. They can't keep all that slave labor going with just good ol' boys sleeping off a moonshine hangover in the county jail.
You're right though in that they definitely don't want white women being allowed to "sacrifice" the spawn of the "pure race." Hitler outlawed abortion for German women while mandating it for non-"Aryans." Eventually he got impatient and just had Mengele cut out everyone's inner parts. Then he got even more impatient that they weren't dying out fast enough, and just threw all of them in ovens.
Because it's not. I was poking around and found this:
10 things you cant do while following Jesus
That's a succinct executive summary of my view of Christianity.
If you're a follower of Christ, you cannot hate people, exclude people, or use the church to hurt people. Jesus did none of those. Either start living and doing as Christ did, or GTFO.
Thanks for sharing. I also read the post he links to at the bottom. The comments are worth a look see.
...so they can point to the evil "Demoncrats" and claim they are offering blood sacrifices to Satan.
Rabid anti-Semite who kept saying over and over again that Margaret Sanger was Jewish (she wasn't) and there are "millions" of Jewish doctors who "sacrifice Christian children at the altar of their barbaric demon gods."
It was either an on-air preacher or some nutcase posting on a conspiracy forum. Apparently there was some controversy in Oregon where a company was using fetal tissue in biowaste containers (as well as other biowaste) as some sort of clean energy source or something. Whoever this lunatic was, he kept saying that it was all the fault of Jewish doctors and scientists involved in a Masonic conspiracy to use Christian children as human sacrifice for their "sun god" of solar energy. Kept referring to solar energy as an element of some pagan cult of Lucifer and Sol Invictus, promoted (of course) by "the New World Order." And of course, typical of wacko right-wing conspiracy nuts, he dragged Jews and abortion into it.
I'm convinced that when Fox talks about "liberal media" it's a dog whistle, indicative of how Goebbels hated Hollywood movies because he (like Mel Gibson) believed that Hollywood was a sinister propaganda cabal run by godless Jews. Except for the AIPAC hawks, Jews tend to vote liberal/Democrat, to have sympathy (actually empathy) for the downtrodden and persecuted (for obvious reasons), and yes, many of them do work in show business and the media -- because for the longest time they were effectively barred from working anywhere else. "War on Christmas" sounds like an anti-Semitic dog whistle too (not surprisingly, a meme promoted by the guy who wrote "Killing Jesus" . It's not far off to suggest that Jesus freaks elsewhere would move to compare abortion to blood libel.