Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?
Comments
-
Nice to see you be so dismissive of a woman’s right to control her body. Why am I not surprised? Men don’t have to protest, particularly white men. They haven’t given up any rights. I’m also not surprised that you hadn’t heard of it.PJPOWER said:
Um, where are the massive protests and outrage? From what I’ve read, it was largely ignored. She tried to make a point and no one cared. Thanks for the links, though, I hadn’t even heard of it...again making me think it was a big nothing political ploy that didn’t even gain much attention.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kentucky-bill-wives-permission-viagra/PJPOWER said:
Whataboutism...meh, you would have posted a link if it was relevant to this subject...but it isn’t.Halifax2TheMax said:
Read up on the outrage when a woman legislator introduced a bill to strip health plans from covering viagra prescriptions.PJPOWER said:
I don’t agree, but this hypothesis is obviously impossible to conclude and is merely an opinionated assumption.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sure, there'd be debate about when life begins but there wouldn't be any debate about restricting or banning and certainly no laws to those effects would be passed.PJPOWER said:
Oh, I think there would still be different opinions on what constitutes a life and what does not.Halifax2TheMax said:If men could conceive, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/hero-kansas-lawmaker-introduces-bill-requiring-men-to-get-permission-from-spouse-for-viagra-20170221-guhlep.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/want-viagra-s-c-bill-would-make-men-go-through-n480741
Ask and ye shall receive, in threes, seeing how it seems to be the flava of the day.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Hey, you were the one talking about the “outrage”. I just pointed out that there did not seem to be much outrage at all. Dismissive of a woman’s right to control her body, really? You are truly the king of projecting around here. My point was that people against abortion are often against a woman’s right to destroy what they deem is ANOTHER person’s body, but you see what you want apparently.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nice to see you be so dismissive of a woman’s right to control her body. Why am I not surprised? Men don’t have to protest, particularly white men. They haven’t given up any rights. I’m also not surprised that you hadn’t heard of it.PJPOWER said:
Um, where are the massive protests and outrage? From what I’ve read, it was largely ignored. She tried to make a point and no one cared. Thanks for the links, though, I hadn’t even heard of it...again making me think it was a big nothing political ploy that didn’t even gain much attention.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kentucky-bill-wives-permission-viagra/PJPOWER said:
Whataboutism...meh, you would have posted a link if it was relevant to this subject...but it isn’t.Halifax2TheMax said:
Read up on the outrage when a woman legislator introduced a bill to strip health plans from covering viagra prescriptions.PJPOWER said:
I don’t agree, but this hypothesis is obviously impossible to conclude and is merely an opinionated assumption.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sure, there'd be debate about when life begins but there wouldn't be any debate about restricting or banning and certainly no laws to those effects would be passed.PJPOWER said:
Oh, I think there would still be different opinions on what constitutes a life and what does not.Halifax2TheMax said:If men could conceive, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/hero-kansas-lawmaker-introduces-bill-requiring-men-to-get-permission-from-spouse-for-viagra-20170221-guhlep.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/want-viagra-s-c-bill-would-make-men-go-through-n480741
Ask and ye shall receive, in threes, seeing how it seems to be the flava of the day.
Where was the “outrage” that you suggested?
0 -
Busy day at work so I don’t have much time to look up stats. However, it’s certainly not unusual for women to not know for sure about a pregnancy until close to the end of the first trimester. About 30% of women have irregular menstrual periods, are used to skipping one or two months of periods, and would not even start to think about a pregnancy test until well past two months. A good chunk of women get spotting in early pregnancy and can assume it’s their period instead of abnormal bleeding. One stat I did read said that one in about 450 pregnant women don’t realize they are pregnant until past 20 weeks, which is half way through a full term gestation. Given about 4 million births in the US per year, one in 450 is a lot of women, and obviously the percentage who don’t confirm a pregnancy by 12 weeks is a lot higher.mace1229 said:
What do you define as "many?"oftenreading said:
Really?Bentleyspop said:
A major step step backward for women’s health, especially given that many women don’t even know they are pregnant until close to that mark. I can’t help but assume that Mississippi also puts a bunch of roadblocks in the way that makes it even harder to access abortion prior to the deadline.
I really don't think it is that common. I haven't looked up any stats on what percentage of women that would be, but we're talking 2-3 weeks into the second trimester. I think very few wouldn't know several weeks prior to that deadline that is well into the second trimester.
This is not even mentioning inequities, which include the cost involved with buying a pregnancy test, which may be out of reach for low income women and delay a confirmation. Of course, defunding of Planned Parenthood makes it all so much worse, too.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
I did not intentionally misconstrue your point, I may have misunderstood it.oftenreading said:
No, you’ve totally misunderstood and misconstrued my post. The “placate” comment clearly referred to giving up on fighting for access to health care I’m order to try to get concessions elsewhere. It doesn’t say that’s the reason people may be anti-choice.mace1229 said:
If that is your view on pro-choice vs pro-life then you have missed the mark on this one. I've mentioned it before, and this is one of my biggest pet peeves about this debate. How pro-choicers misrepresent the pro-life side (I know it happens on both sides. But seems to be more common one way).oftenreading said:
Abortion is one of the major dividing issues, it’s true, though I’m not sure I agree with your assessment here. But if it were true, are you suggesting that “let them have it” is a preferred option? Because if you are, you’re willing to give up on a major feature of women’s health and women’s rights just to placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society. And I agree with Halifax, it would not end there.MayDay10 said:There will still be a large number of people clinging to guns and bibles, and will eat up when someone like Donald Trump pretends to be a holy roller.... but if the issue of abortion was removed, it would kick the legs out enough where Republicans (as they currently stand) would never win a National election, and also flip a lot of congressional seats.
I have never met anyone who is pro-life because they are to restrict women's right. That person does not exist. Which is why there is not a big gender bag in pro life vs pro choice.
To suggest pro-life exists because "placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society." then I would think you have never really listened to a single pro-life argument, ever. But probably just get your pro-life impressions from liberal politicians. I've never heard those accusations more than from liberal politicians who just want to make you believe I am pro-life because I hate women. So why are so many women pro-life then?
I would recommend that everyone seriously sit down and talk with someone from a different point of view, and really listen to them. No matter what the topic is. You can learn a lot from talking to other people. Anyone who thinks pro-life is about restricting women has never done that, or listened to what they have to say.
And I’ve certainly spoken with people who are anti-choice whose reasons centre around controlling women’s reproductive options, so don’t try to argue that those people aren’t out there.
And finally, I didn’t use the term “hate women”. That’s your term, don’t try to project that as my argument.
I didn't say we "hate women," but said that is a common accusation among politicians pushing their pro-choice agenda, they want everyone to believe we are pro-choice because we mistreat women. Instead of focusing on the real reasons and focus on the science behind life, they just accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being sexist.
I would not call someone anti-choice, just like I wouldn't label someone anti-life. That gives me the impression that you are not really open to other's opinions, the only reason to give a negative label like that is to try and dismiss them. Which is in line with my example of politicians and their labels. I could be entirely wrong about that, (and I'm not even trying to say that is really the case) that is just the impression I get from the language used. I mean, would you think anyone was really sincere if they called everyone else anti-life? Probably not.
And of course there are those trying to control women's reproductive organs, that's the whole point being pro-life. But it is the motivation behind it. How many do it because they feel women are inferior, and how many because they want to preserve life. I think the latter reason is much, much more common. The first group would be an insignificant portion. The fact that there are as many pro-life women as men would tend to back that statement up, otherwise it would be completely lopsided (even more women according to many polls)..0 -
Clearly my point was lost upon you. I’m not surprised.PJPOWER said:
Hey, you were the one talking about the “outrage”. I just pointed out that there did not seem to be much outrage at all. Dismissive of a woman’s right to control her body, really? You are truly the king of projecting around here. My point was that people against abortion are often against a woman’s right to destroy what they deem is ANOTHER person’s body, but you see what you want apparently.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nice to see you be so dismissive of a woman’s right to control her body. Why am I not surprised? Men don’t have to protest, particularly white men. They haven’t given up any rights. I’m also not surprised that you hadn’t heard of it.PJPOWER said:
Um, where are the massive protests and outrage? From what I’ve read, it was largely ignored. She tried to make a point and no one cared. Thanks for the links, though, I hadn’t even heard of it...again making me think it was a big nothing political ploy that didn’t even gain much attention.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kentucky-bill-wives-permission-viagra/PJPOWER said:
Whataboutism...meh, you would have posted a link if it was relevant to this subject...but it isn’t.Halifax2TheMax said:
Read up on the outrage when a woman legislator introduced a bill to strip health plans from covering viagra prescriptions.PJPOWER said:
I don’t agree, but this hypothesis is obviously impossible to conclude and is merely an opinionated assumption.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sure, there'd be debate about when life begins but there wouldn't be any debate about restricting or banning and certainly no laws to those effects would be passed.PJPOWER said:
Oh, I think there would still be different opinions on what constitutes a life and what does not.Halifax2TheMax said:If men could conceive, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/hero-kansas-lawmaker-introduces-bill-requiring-men-to-get-permission-from-spouse-for-viagra-20170221-guhlep.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/want-viagra-s-c-bill-would-make-men-go-through-n480741
Ask and ye shall receive, in threes, seeing how it seems to be the flava of the day.
Where was the “outrage” that you suggested?
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
You have no point, as usual. I’m not surprised.Halifax2TheMax said:
Clearly my point was lost upon you. I’m not surprised.PJPOWER said:
Hey, you were the one talking about the “outrage”. I just pointed out that there did not seem to be much outrage at all. Dismissive of a woman’s right to control her body, really? You are truly the king of projecting around here. My point was that people against abortion are often against a woman’s right to destroy what they deem is ANOTHER person’s body, but you see what you want apparently.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nice to see you be so dismissive of a woman’s right to control her body. Why am I not surprised? Men don’t have to protest, particularly white men. They haven’t given up any rights. I’m also not surprised that you hadn’t heard of it.PJPOWER said:
Um, where are the massive protests and outrage? From what I’ve read, it was largely ignored. She tried to make a point and no one cared. Thanks for the links, though, I hadn’t even heard of it...again making me think it was a big nothing political ploy that didn’t even gain much attention.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kentucky-bill-wives-permission-viagra/PJPOWER said:
Whataboutism...meh, you would have posted a link if it was relevant to this subject...but it isn’t.Halifax2TheMax said:
Read up on the outrage when a woman legislator introduced a bill to strip health plans from covering viagra prescriptions.PJPOWER said:
I don’t agree, but this hypothesis is obviously impossible to conclude and is merely an opinionated assumption.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sure, there'd be debate about when life begins but there wouldn't be any debate about restricting or banning and certainly no laws to those effects would be passed.PJPOWER said:
Oh, I think there would still be different opinions on what constitutes a life and what does not.Halifax2TheMax said:If men could conceive, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/hero-kansas-lawmaker-introduces-bill-requiring-men-to-get-permission-from-spouse-for-viagra-20170221-guhlep.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/want-viagra-s-c-bill-would-make-men-go-through-n480741
Ask and ye shall receive, in threes, seeing how it seems to be the flava of the day.
Where was the “outrage” that you suggested?
Bye Felicia!Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
Anti-choice is accurate, since the defining feature of the argument is removing the choice of abortion for women. I don’t agree with that side identifying themselves as pro-life, because that attempts to claim the moral high ground and define the pro-choice side as anti-life, which it is not.mace1229 said:
I did not intentionally misconstrue your point, I may have misunderstood it.oftenreading said:
No, you’ve totally misunderstood and misconstrued my post. The “placate” comment clearly referred to giving up on fighting for access to health care I’m order to try to get concessions elsewhere. It doesn’t say that’s the reason people may be anti-choice.mace1229 said:
If that is your view on pro-choice vs pro-life then you have missed the mark on this one. I've mentioned it before, and this is one of my biggest pet peeves about this debate. How pro-choicers misrepresent the pro-life side (I know it happens on both sides. But seems to be more common one way).oftenreading said:
Abortion is one of the major dividing issues, it’s true, though I’m not sure I agree with your assessment here. But if it were true, are you suggesting that “let them have it” is a preferred option? Because if you are, you’re willing to give up on a major feature of women’s health and women’s rights just to placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society. And I agree with Halifax, it would not end there.MayDay10 said:There will still be a large number of people clinging to guns and bibles, and will eat up when someone like Donald Trump pretends to be a holy roller.... but if the issue of abortion was removed, it would kick the legs out enough where Republicans (as they currently stand) would never win a National election, and also flip a lot of congressional seats.
I have never met anyone who is pro-life because they are to restrict women's right. That person does not exist. Which is why there is not a big gender bag in pro life vs pro choice.
To suggest pro-life exists because "placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society." then I would think you have never really listened to a single pro-life argument, ever. But probably just get your pro-life impressions from liberal politicians. I've never heard those accusations more than from liberal politicians who just want to make you believe I am pro-life because I hate women. So why are so many women pro-life then?
I would recommend that everyone seriously sit down and talk with someone from a different point of view, and really listen to them. No matter what the topic is. You can learn a lot from talking to other people. Anyone who thinks pro-life is about restricting women has never done that, or listened to what they have to say.
And I’ve certainly spoken with people who are anti-choice whose reasons centre around controlling women’s reproductive options, so don’t try to argue that those people aren’t out there.
And finally, I didn’t use the term “hate women”. That’s your term, don’t try to project that as my argument.
I didn't say we "hate women," but said that is a common accusation among politicians pushing their pro-choice agenda, they want everyone to believe we are pro-choice because we mistreat women. Instead of focusing on the real reasons and focus on the science behind life, they just accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being sexist.
I would not call someone anti-choice, just like I wouldn't label someone anti-life. That gives me the impression that you are not really open to other's opinions, the only reason to give a negative label like that is to try and dismiss them. Which is in line with my example of politicians and their labels. I could be entirely wrong about that, (and I'm not even trying to say that is really the case) that is just the impression I get from the language used. I mean, would you think anyone was really sincere if they called everyone else anti-life? Probably not.
And of course there are those trying to control women's reproductive organs, that's the whole point being pro-life. But it is the motivation behind it. How many do it because they feel women are inferior, and how many because they want to preserve life. I think the latter reason is much, much more common. The first group would be an insignificant portion. The fact that there are as many pro-life women as men would tend to back that statement up, otherwise it would be completely lopsided (even more women according to many polls)..
No time to respond to the other points right nowmy small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
How original Stewart.PJPOWER said:
You have no point, as usual. I’m not surprised.Halifax2TheMax said:
Clearly my point was lost upon you. I’m not surprised.PJPOWER said:
Hey, you were the one talking about the “outrage”. I just pointed out that there did not seem to be much outrage at all. Dismissive of a woman’s right to control her body, really? You are truly the king of projecting around here. My point was that people against abortion are often against a woman’s right to destroy what they deem is ANOTHER person’s body, but you see what you want apparently.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nice to see you be so dismissive of a woman’s right to control her body. Why am I not surprised? Men don’t have to protest, particularly white men. They haven’t given up any rights. I’m also not surprised that you hadn’t heard of it.PJPOWER said:
Um, where are the massive protests and outrage? From what I’ve read, it was largely ignored. She tried to make a point and no one cared. Thanks for the links, though, I hadn’t even heard of it...again making me think it was a big nothing political ploy that didn’t even gain much attention.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kentucky-bill-wives-permission-viagra/PJPOWER said:
Whataboutism...meh, you would have posted a link if it was relevant to this subject...but it isn’t.Halifax2TheMax said:
Read up on the outrage when a woman legislator introduced a bill to strip health plans from covering viagra prescriptions.PJPOWER said:
I don’t agree, but this hypothesis is obviously impossible to conclude and is merely an opinionated assumption.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sure, there'd be debate about when life begins but there wouldn't be any debate about restricting or banning and certainly no laws to those effects would be passed.PJPOWER said:
Oh, I think there would still be different opinions on what constitutes a life and what does not.Halifax2TheMax said:If men could conceive, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/hero-kansas-lawmaker-introduces-bill-requiring-men-to-get-permission-from-spouse-for-viagra-20170221-guhlep.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/want-viagra-s-c-bill-would-make-men-go-through-n480741
Ask and ye shall receive, in threes, seeing how it seems to be the flava of the day.
Where was the “outrage” that you suggested?
Bye Felicia!09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Bye Felicia...Halifax2TheMax said:
How original Stewart.PJPOWER said:
You have no point, as usual. I’m not surprised.Halifax2TheMax said:
Clearly my point was lost upon you. I’m not surprised.PJPOWER said:
Hey, you were the one talking about the “outrage”. I just pointed out that there did not seem to be much outrage at all. Dismissive of a woman’s right to control her body, really? You are truly the king of projecting around here. My point was that people against abortion are often against a woman’s right to destroy what they deem is ANOTHER person’s body, but you see what you want apparently.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nice to see you be so dismissive of a woman’s right to control her body. Why am I not surprised? Men don’t have to protest, particularly white men. They haven’t given up any rights. I’m also not surprised that you hadn’t heard of it.PJPOWER said:
Um, where are the massive protests and outrage? From what I’ve read, it was largely ignored. She tried to make a point and no one cared. Thanks for the links, though, I hadn’t even heard of it...again making me think it was a big nothing political ploy that didn’t even gain much attention.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kentucky-bill-wives-permission-viagra/PJPOWER said:
Whataboutism...meh, you would have posted a link if it was relevant to this subject...but it isn’t.Halifax2TheMax said:
Read up on the outrage when a woman legislator introduced a bill to strip health plans from covering viagra prescriptions.PJPOWER said:
I don’t agree, but this hypothesis is obviously impossible to conclude and is merely an opinionated assumption.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sure, there'd be debate about when life begins but there wouldn't be any debate about restricting or banning and certainly no laws to those effects would be passed.PJPOWER said:
Oh, I think there would still be different opinions on what constitutes a life and what does not.Halifax2TheMax said:If men could conceive, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/hero-kansas-lawmaker-introduces-bill-requiring-men-to-get-permission-from-spouse-for-viagra-20170221-guhlep.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/want-viagra-s-c-bill-would-make-men-go-through-n480741
Ask and ye shall receive, in threes, seeing how it seems to be the flava of the day.
Where was the “outrage” that you suggested?
Bye Felicia!0 -
Hello Stewart.PJPOWER said:
Bye Felicia...Halifax2TheMax said:
How original Stewart.PJPOWER said:
You have no point, as usual. I’m not surprised.Halifax2TheMax said:
Clearly my point was lost upon you. I’m not surprised.PJPOWER said:
Hey, you were the one talking about the “outrage”. I just pointed out that there did not seem to be much outrage at all. Dismissive of a woman’s right to control her body, really? You are truly the king of projecting around here. My point was that people against abortion are often against a woman’s right to destroy what they deem is ANOTHER person’s body, but you see what you want apparently.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nice to see you be so dismissive of a woman’s right to control her body. Why am I not surprised? Men don’t have to protest, particularly white men. They haven’t given up any rights. I’m also not surprised that you hadn’t heard of it.PJPOWER said:
Um, where are the massive protests and outrage? From what I’ve read, it was largely ignored. She tried to make a point and no one cared. Thanks for the links, though, I hadn’t even heard of it...again making me think it was a big nothing political ploy that didn’t even gain much attention.Halifax2TheMax said:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kentucky-bill-wives-permission-viagra/PJPOWER said:
Whataboutism...meh, you would have posted a link if it was relevant to this subject...but it isn’t.Halifax2TheMax said:
Read up on the outrage when a woman legislator introduced a bill to strip health plans from covering viagra prescriptions.PJPOWER said:
I don’t agree, but this hypothesis is obviously impossible to conclude and is merely an opinionated assumption.Halifax2TheMax said:
Sure, there'd be debate about when life begins but there wouldn't be any debate about restricting or banning and certainly no laws to those effects would be passed.PJPOWER said:
Oh, I think there would still be different opinions on what constitutes a life and what does not.Halifax2TheMax said:If men could conceive, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/hero-kansas-lawmaker-introduces-bill-requiring-men-to-get-permission-from-spouse-for-viagra-20170221-guhlep.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/want-viagra-s-c-bill-would-make-men-go-through-n480741
Ask and ye shall receive, in threes, seeing how it seems to be the flava of the day.
Where was the “outrage” that you suggested?
Bye Felicia!09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
-
Brings me back to my earlier comment. you don't understand the views of pro-life if you think the defining feature is removing choice. It is not. The defining feature is preserving life. That argument seems to get lost in every abortion discussion. And if you truly believe the defining feature is just removing choice and restricting rights to women then you do not understand that passion or motivation and logic behind anyone who is pro-life. Why else would women make up half of the pro-life group?oftenreading said:
Anti-choice is accurate, since the defining feature of the argument is removing the choice of abortion for women. I don’t agree with that side identifying themselves as pro-life, because that attempts to claim the moral high ground and define the pro-choice side as anti-life, which it is not.mace1229 said:
I did not intentionally misconstrue your point, I may have misunderstood it.oftenreading said:
No, you’ve totally misunderstood and misconstrued my post. The “placate” comment clearly referred to giving up on fighting for access to health care I’m order to try to get concessions elsewhere. It doesn’t say that’s the reason people may be anti-choice.mace1229 said:
If that is your view on pro-choice vs pro-life then you have missed the mark on this one. I've mentioned it before, and this is one of my biggest pet peeves about this debate. How pro-choicers misrepresent the pro-life side (I know it happens on both sides. But seems to be more common one way).oftenreading said:
Abortion is one of the major dividing issues, it’s true, though I’m not sure I agree with your assessment here. But if it were true, are you suggesting that “let them have it” is a preferred option? Because if you are, you’re willing to give up on a major feature of women’s health and women’s rights just to placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society. And I agree with Halifax, it would not end there.MayDay10 said:There will still be a large number of people clinging to guns and bibles, and will eat up when someone like Donald Trump pretends to be a holy roller.... but if the issue of abortion was removed, it would kick the legs out enough where Republicans (as they currently stand) would never win a National election, and also flip a lot of congressional seats.
I have never met anyone who is pro-life because they are to restrict women's right. That person does not exist. Which is why there is not a big gender bag in pro life vs pro choice.
To suggest pro-life exists because "placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society." then I would think you have never really listened to a single pro-life argument, ever. But probably just get your pro-life impressions from liberal politicians. I've never heard those accusations more than from liberal politicians who just want to make you believe I am pro-life because I hate women. So why are so many women pro-life then?
I would recommend that everyone seriously sit down and talk with someone from a different point of view, and really listen to them. No matter what the topic is. You can learn a lot from talking to other people. Anyone who thinks pro-life is about restricting women has never done that, or listened to what they have to say.
And I’ve certainly spoken with people who are anti-choice whose reasons centre around controlling women’s reproductive options, so don’t try to argue that those people aren’t out there.
And finally, I didn’t use the term “hate women”. That’s your term, don’t try to project that as my argument.
I didn't say we "hate women," but said that is a common accusation among politicians pushing their pro-choice agenda, they want everyone to believe we are pro-choice because we mistreat women. Instead of focusing on the real reasons and focus on the science behind life, they just accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being sexist.
I would not call someone anti-choice, just like I wouldn't label someone anti-life. That gives me the impression that you are not really open to other's opinions, the only reason to give a negative label like that is to try and dismiss them. Which is in line with my example of politicians and their labels. I could be entirely wrong about that, (and I'm not even trying to say that is really the case) that is just the impression I get from the language used. I mean, would you think anyone was really sincere if they called everyone else anti-life? Probably not.
And of course there are those trying to control women's reproductive organs, that's the whole point being pro-life. But it is the motivation behind it. How many do it because they feel women are inferior, and how many because they want to preserve life. I think the latter reason is much, much more common. The first group would be an insignificant portion. The fact that there are as many pro-life women as men would tend to back that statement up, otherwise it would be completely lopsided (even more women according to many polls)..
No time to respond to the other points right now
I mean no disrespect towards anyone who is pro-choice. I wouldn't ever call them murderers, I know there are some who do, but that isn't helpful or honest. But I recognize that the difference is almost always when does life start. The few suggestions for other reasons like that abortion should be allowed for population control if nothing else is honestly disgusting (which someone suggested a page or two back).
That is why I think it is as accurate to say anti-choice as it is to say anti-life.0 -
The defining feature is very specifically preserving life by removing choice when it comes to a person's own body........ and then ditching the whole obsession about preserving life when the fetus becomes a person, in a lot of cases.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
They may not think that removing a woman's choice is the defining feature of their belief but that is the ultimate end result, I don't know how that can be argued. What someone believes or is their intent is irrelevant, it is the result that matters.mace1229 said:
Brings me back to my earlier comment. you don't understand the views of pro-life if you think the defining feature is removing choice. It is not. The defining feature is preserving life. That argument seems to get lost in every abortion discussion. And if you truly believe the defining feature is just removing choice and restricting rights to women then you do not understand that passion or motivation and logic behind anyone who is pro-life. Why else would women make up half of the pro-life group?oftenreading said:
Anti-choice is accurate, since the defining feature of the argument is removing the choice of abortion for women. I don’t agree with that side identifying themselves as pro-life, because that attempts to claim the moral high ground and define the pro-choice side as anti-life, which it is not.mace1229 said:
I did not intentionally misconstrue your point, I may have misunderstood it.oftenreading said:
No, you’ve totally misunderstood and misconstrued my post. The “placate” comment clearly referred to giving up on fighting for access to health care I’m order to try to get concessions elsewhere. It doesn’t say that’s the reason people may be anti-choice.mace1229 said:
If that is your view on pro-choice vs pro-life then you have missed the mark on this one. I've mentioned it before, and this is one of my biggest pet peeves about this debate. How pro-choicers misrepresent the pro-life side (I know it happens on both sides. But seems to be more common one way).oftenreading said:
Abortion is one of the major dividing issues, it’s true, though I’m not sure I agree with your assessment here. But if it were true, are you suggesting that “let them have it” is a preferred option? Because if you are, you’re willing to give up on a major feature of women’s health and women’s rights just to placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society. And I agree with Halifax, it would not end there.MayDay10 said:There will still be a large number of people clinging to guns and bibles, and will eat up when someone like Donald Trump pretends to be a holy roller.... but if the issue of abortion was removed, it would kick the legs out enough where Republicans (as they currently stand) would never win a National election, and also flip a lot of congressional seats.
I have never met anyone who is pro-life because they are to restrict women's right. That person does not exist. Which is why there is not a big gender bag in pro life vs pro choice.
To suggest pro-life exists because "placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society." then I would think you have never really listened to a single pro-life argument, ever. But probably just get your pro-life impressions from liberal politicians. I've never heard those accusations more than from liberal politicians who just want to make you believe I am pro-life because I hate women. So why are so many women pro-life then?
I would recommend that everyone seriously sit down and talk with someone from a different point of view, and really listen to them. No matter what the topic is. You can learn a lot from talking to other people. Anyone who thinks pro-life is about restricting women has never done that, or listened to what they have to say.
And I’ve certainly spoken with people who are anti-choice whose reasons centre around controlling women’s reproductive options, so don’t try to argue that those people aren’t out there.
And finally, I didn’t use the term “hate women”. That’s your term, don’t try to project that as my argument.
I didn't say we "hate women," but said that is a common accusation among politicians pushing their pro-choice agenda, they want everyone to believe we are pro-choice because we mistreat women. Instead of focusing on the real reasons and focus on the science behind life, they just accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being sexist.
I would not call someone anti-choice, just like I wouldn't label someone anti-life. That gives me the impression that you are not really open to other's opinions, the only reason to give a negative label like that is to try and dismiss them. Which is in line with my example of politicians and their labels. I could be entirely wrong about that, (and I'm not even trying to say that is really the case) that is just the impression I get from the language used. I mean, would you think anyone was really sincere if they called everyone else anti-life? Probably not.
And of course there are those trying to control women's reproductive organs, that's the whole point being pro-life. But it is the motivation behind it. How many do it because they feel women are inferior, and how many because they want to preserve life. I think the latter reason is much, much more common. The first group would be an insignificant portion. The fact that there are as many pro-life women as men would tend to back that statement up, otherwise it would be completely lopsided (even more women according to many polls)..
No time to respond to the other points right now
I mean no disrespect towards anyone who is pro-choice. I wouldn't ever call them murderers, I know there are some who do, but that isn't helpful or honest. But I recognize that the difference is almost always when does life start. The few suggestions for other reasons like that abortion should be allowed for population control if nothing else is honestly disgusting (which someone suggested a page or two back).
That is why I think it is as accurate to say anti-choice as it is to say anti-life.0 -
Exactlydignin said:
They may not think that removing a woman's choice is the defining feature of their belief but that is the ultimate end result, I don't know how that can be argued. What someone believes or is their intent is irrelevant, it is the result that matters.mace1229 said:
Brings me back to my earlier comment. you don't understand the views of pro-life if you think the defining feature is removing choice. It is not. The defining feature is preserving life. That argument seems to get lost in every abortion discussion. And if you truly believe the defining feature is just removing choice and restricting rights to women then you do not understand that passion or motivation and logic behind anyone who is pro-life. Why else would women make up half of the pro-life group?oftenreading said:
Anti-choice is accurate, since the defining feature of the argument is removing the choice of abortion for women. I don’t agree with that side identifying themselves as pro-life, because that attempts to claim the moral high ground and define the pro-choice side as anti-life, which it is not.mace1229 said:
I did not intentionally misconstrue your point, I may have misunderstood it.oftenreading said:
No, you’ve totally misunderstood and misconstrued my post. The “placate” comment clearly referred to giving up on fighting for access to health care I’m order to try to get concessions elsewhere. It doesn’t say that’s the reason people may be anti-choice.mace1229 said:
If that is your view on pro-choice vs pro-life then you have missed the mark on this one. I've mentioned it before, and this is one of my biggest pet peeves about this debate. How pro-choicers misrepresent the pro-life side (I know it happens on both sides. But seems to be more common one way).oftenreading said:
Abortion is one of the major dividing issues, it’s true, though I’m not sure I agree with your assessment here. But if it were true, are you suggesting that “let them have it” is a preferred option? Because if you are, you’re willing to give up on a major feature of women’s health and women’s rights just to placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society. And I agree with Halifax, it would not end there.MayDay10 said:There will still be a large number of people clinging to guns and bibles, and will eat up when someone like Donald Trump pretends to be a holy roller.... but if the issue of abortion was removed, it would kick the legs out enough where Republicans (as they currently stand) would never win a National election, and also flip a lot of congressional seats.
I have never met anyone who is pro-life because they are to restrict women's right. That person does not exist. Which is why there is not a big gender bag in pro life vs pro choice.
To suggest pro-life exists because "placate those who want to continue to restrict women’s “place” in society." then I would think you have never really listened to a single pro-life argument, ever. But probably just get your pro-life impressions from liberal politicians. I've never heard those accusations more than from liberal politicians who just want to make you believe I am pro-life because I hate women. So why are so many women pro-life then?
I would recommend that everyone seriously sit down and talk with someone from a different point of view, and really listen to them. No matter what the topic is. You can learn a lot from talking to other people. Anyone who thinks pro-life is about restricting women has never done that, or listened to what they have to say.
And I’ve certainly spoken with people who are anti-choice whose reasons centre around controlling women’s reproductive options, so don’t try to argue that those people aren’t out there.
And finally, I didn’t use the term “hate women”. That’s your term, don’t try to project that as my argument.
I didn't say we "hate women," but said that is a common accusation among politicians pushing their pro-choice agenda, they want everyone to believe we are pro-choice because we mistreat women. Instead of focusing on the real reasons and focus on the science behind life, they just accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being sexist.
I would not call someone anti-choice, just like I wouldn't label someone anti-life. That gives me the impression that you are not really open to other's opinions, the only reason to give a negative label like that is to try and dismiss them. Which is in line with my example of politicians and their labels. I could be entirely wrong about that, (and I'm not even trying to say that is really the case) that is just the impression I get from the language used. I mean, would you think anyone was really sincere if they called everyone else anti-life? Probably not.
And of course there are those trying to control women's reproductive organs, that's the whole point being pro-life. But it is the motivation behind it. How many do it because they feel women are inferior, and how many because they want to preserve life. I think the latter reason is much, much more common. The first group would be an insignificant portion. The fact that there are as many pro-life women as men would tend to back that statement up, otherwise it would be completely lopsided (even more women according to many polls)..
No time to respond to the other points right now
I mean no disrespect towards anyone who is pro-choice. I wouldn't ever call them murderers, I know there are some who do, but that isn't helpful or honest. But I recognize that the difference is almost always when does life start. The few suggestions for other reasons like that abortion should be allowed for population control if nothing else is honestly disgusting (which someone suggested a page or two back).
That is why I think it is as accurate to say anti-choice as it is to say anti-life.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
I think we were hearing something today about how the anti-choice crowd are no less in favour of women's rights than the pro-choice crowd. Not surprisingly, it really isn't true, according to information in this article (which is about Trump but includes information on a recent survey of the attitudes of pro- and anti-choice individuals). Copying here the relevant bit:
In January, communications and public opinion research firm PerryUndem released The State of the Union on Gender Equality, Sexism, and Women’s Rights, a study that shows voters who want to see Roe v. Wade overturned have markedly different views on gender roles than voters who do not. Nearly two-thirds of anti-Roe voters agreed they were “more comfortable with women having traditional roles in society, such as caring for children and the family.” Only 31 percent of pro-Roe voters agreed with that statement. Two-thirds of anti-Roe voters agreed that “male politicians can represent the interests of women as well as female politicians can.” Only 27 percent of pro-Roe voters agreed with that statement.
There’s more. Nearly two-thirds of anti-abortion voters disagreed with the statement that “men should not have a say in legislating what women do with their bodies” and almost half of them disagreed with the statement that “the country would be better off with more women in political office.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-matson-roe-abortion-sexism_us_5ab11146e4b0697dfe1ab76c
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
FAKE NEWS!!! I got a friend that says different.oftenreading said:I think we were hearing something today about how the anti-choice crowd are no less in favour of women's rights than the pro-choice crowd. Not surprisingly, it really isn't true, according to information in this article (which is about Trump but includes information on a recent survey of the attitudes of pro- and anti-choice individuals). Copying here the relevant bit:In January, communications and public opinion research firm PerryUndem released The State of the Union on Gender Equality, Sexism, and Women’s Rights, a study that shows voters who want to see Roe v. Wade overturned have markedly different views on gender roles than voters who do not. Nearly two-thirds of anti-Roe voters agreed they were “more comfortable with women having traditional roles in society, such as caring for children and the family.” Only 31 percent of pro-Roe voters agreed with that statement. Two-thirds of anti-Roe voters agreed that “male politicians can represent the interests of women as well as female politicians can.” Only 27 percent of pro-Roe voters agreed with that statement.
There’s more. Nearly two-thirds of anti-abortion voters disagreed with the statement that “men should not have a say in legislating what women do with their bodies” and almost half of them disagreed with the statement that “the country would be better off with more women in political office.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-matson-roe-abortion-sexism_us_5ab11146e4b0697dfe1ab76c0 -
Abortion rates go down when countries make it legal: report
Countries with stricter abortion laws have higher abortion rates
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n8584760 -
If this moronic country of mine ever overturns Roe v Wade I'm fucking out of here, for real0
-
Jose, I think you misinterpreted my position - I’m 100% in agreement that to have an abortion is a woman’s right.josevolution said:It’s her choice and her choice only
That’s not even debatable ! I don’t agree with bjens assessment ..'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10
https://youtu.be/71PNZH1OaW0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help