Ryan Doesn't Even Use the Word "Women" In his Views on Reproductive Rights

[squeeze berry]

this republican volunteers ..............

 

[koshergrl]

Better that he emulate the left and refer to women as "vaginas".

 

[Pho_King]

The overwhelming number of abortions are sought in order to protect the woman's lifestyle. No wonder men's respect for women is on the decline. Thank god I found one of the few decent women that finds abortion as simple birth control abhorrent.

That's simply not true. Women are very often left with the task of paying for and raising a child. Men can protect their lifestyles by disappearing and walking away leaving a fatherless child who very often misses the influence of a father in their lives and has many problems and disadvantages because of that. If you define "lifestyle" as not being able to let's say work on a lower salary than a man and raise a child (most women's paycheck is significantly impacted by childcare), then I suppose you are correct. Women for the most part are also thinking of the child and the obstacles and disadvantages it will face. And if republicans really believe in personal responsibilty, they will allow a woman to take personal responsibility in deciding whether to raise the child or have an abortion. But simplistic thinking coming from most republicans like your comment above is no surprise!

Assuming all you have said is true, and it is not, what you are describing are lifestyle choices. Women that get abortions for lifestyle reasons are not thinking of the child that will have.....life, but of themselves, and the impact the child will have on their lives.

Women have recourse to get help through the courts from the fathers. Every state has family courts.

And our understanding of personal responsibility simply does not include killing another human life to avoid the natural consequences of ones actions. That is a distinctly liberal understanding of personal responsibility.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

But if he did you would feel totally different about him right? I get a good laugh out of people who nip pick some little some about a candidate who in all likely hood they would never support or even consider supporting under any circumstances into a big deal.

Anyone who thinks this issue is not a big deal is as out of touch as the R party is.

Believe me, it IS a very big deal. For people who have or want or don't want children, its a deal breaker. For women and the people who love them, its EVERYTHING.

THAT is how important a CHILD is.

 

[Pho_King]

But if he did you would feel totally different about him right? I get a good laugh out of people who nip pick some little some about a candidate who in all likely hood they would never support or even consider supporting under any circumstances into a big deal.

Anyone who thinks this issue is not a big deal is as out of touch as the R party is.

Believe me, it IS a very big deal. For people who have or want or don't want children, its a deal breaker. For women and the people who love them, its EVERYTHING.

THAT is how important a CHILD is.

I agree. So why do you OWS parasites hate women and children so much? Which is to say nothing of your disdain for fathers...

 

[martybegan]

Try to keep up. I'm not the one who said Ryan hates women. Ryan did say very stupidly that people who have abortions and are pro choice hat children.

I see him saying pro choicers see children as a burden, and uses the term denigrate life. I dont see the word hate anywhere.

Try to think as a pro lifer does. To them life starts at conception. Even eliminating a desire to ban abortion, wouldnt that make abortion immoral?

And lets look at one of the arguments a pro-choicer often uses. Isnt one of the arguments pro-choicers use is that a woman cant afford/is not read for a/another child? Wouldnt that translate to the child being a "burden"?

As for the denigrate life angle, Ive seen plenty of pro-choicers use the "mass of tissue" defense when called on the percived immorality of abortion on demand, and not for reasons of healht. Isnt that denigrating life, if you belive a fetus is life?

Someone else characterized Ryan as hating women. I think he is clueless as to why women seek abortion and to say it is because women find children repulsive is terribly wrong. I think pro lifers are mostly correct in their thinking about life of the fetus FOR THEMSELVES. But I draw the line at deciding FOR someone else through legislation about choice. I do agree with putting a resonable timeframe on abortion and cutting it off at a certain point but I also think 20 weeks might be a little too early when you consider that some women still have a period and might not know they are pregnant until sligtly beyond that time. I'd say maybe 28 weeks or something.

I'd also say that Ryan is a typical male chauvanist not having respect for women or thinking they are human enough to make their own choices.

You can only consider ryan a chauvanist if you follow the logic that any oppoistion to the liberal position on things like abortion, health care, and parental rights makes you a de facto chauvanist. There are plenty of women who hold the exact same positions he does.

To me if abortion was placed on a ballot, i probably wouldnt ban it. I am in NY however and we tend to have a more "liberal" view on things. I dont however, agree with Roe v Wade and its creation of a right to abortion. I say let the states hash it out.

The current situation has led to a non-clauswitzian resolution of the pro-life, pro-choice conflict, which is to say no resolution at all.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Women have recourse to get help through the courts from the fathers. Every state has family courts.

Tell that to the wife of teepot, Joe Walsh.

He STILL hasn't paid his more than $100K past due child support.

He even said he would vote against ObamaCare because it would leave his kids without health insurance because they're on his wife's plan - which SHE pays for.

He's ignoring the court's order to pay up.

Perfect R candidate.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

But if he did you would feel totally different about him right? I get a good laugh out of people who nip pick some little some about a candidate who in all likely hood they would never support or even consider supporting under any circumstances into a big deal.

Anyone who thinks this issue is not a big deal is as out of touch as the R party is.

Believe me, it IS a very big deal. For people who have or want or don't want children, its a deal breaker. For women and the people who love them, its EVERYTHING.

THAT is how important a CHILD is.

I agree. So why do you OWS parasites hate women and children so much? Which is to say nothing of your disdain for fathers...

Bullshit.

 

[Pho_King]

Women have recourse to get help through the courts from the fathers. Every state has family courts.

Tell that to the wife of teepot, Joe Walsh.

He STILL hasn't paid his more than $100K past due child support.

He even said he would vote against ObamaCare because it would leave his kids without health insurance because they're on his wife's plan - which SHE pays for.

He's ignoring the court's order to pay up.

Perfect R candidate.

If he is 100k in arrears, hold him in contempt. Like I said. Every woman has recourse through the courts.

 

[Pho_King]

Anyone who thinks this issue is not a big deal is as out of touch as the R party is.

Believe me, it IS a very big deal. For people who have or want or don't want children, its a deal breaker. For women and the people who love them, its EVERYTHING.

THAT is how important a CHILD is.

I agree. So why do you OWS parasites hate women and children so much? Which is to say nothing of your disdain for fathers...

Bullshit.

That's about as substantive as anything else I have seen you post. God help any child in your womb. Or should I say tomb?

 

[koshergrl]

Women have recourse to get help through the courts from the fathers. Every state has family courts.

Tell that to the wife of teepot, Joe Walsh.

He STILL hasn't paid his more than $100K past due child support.

He even said he would vote against ObamaCare because it would leave his kids without health insurance because they're on his wife's plan - which SHE pays for.

He's ignoring the court's order to pay up.

Perfect R candidate.

So if he doesn't pay $100,000 in child support, his kids don't get medical?

That's a bunch of bs. $100,000 in child support over what period of time? Sometimes there's a whole story behind child support/custody cases that isn't apparent to the average monkey. And since you aren't even average, I think you probably shouldn't be making any judgment calls on this situation.

 

[Some Guy]

That's simply not true. Women are very often left with the task of paying for and raising a child. Men can protect their lifestyles by disappearing and walking away leaving a fatherless child who very often misses the influence of a father in their lives and has many problems and disadvantages because of that.

Couldn't a woman, theoretically, just leave a baby behind as well after it's born? Leave it on the doorstep of a firestation, give him/her up for adoption? Or, just kill the baby after having it? Would that really be any different than sucking it out in pieces through a tube before it has a chance to exit through the vagina naturally?

Women for the most part are also thinking of the child and the obstacles and disadvantages it will face.

Hmmmm...

And if republicans really believe in personal responsibilty, they will allow a woman to take personal responsibility in deciding whether to raise the child or have an abortion.

So. If a woman gets pregnant, has a child, is able to provide a nice life for the child for a year until she loses her job... does she still maintain the right to terminate the life of the child if she decides she no longer wants to raise the child?

I think the fundamental difference in opinion between pro-lifers and pro-choicers is what the definition of life is. If you think a fetus isn't a human life until it actually exits the woman's body then sure, what's the big deal? It's just like chopping down a tenderloin into medallions. If you think a fetus is human life from conception then there is no difference between eviscerating the fetus inside the womb vs. delivering the baby directly into a wood chipper.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So, $5,000,000,000,000 new debt in 3 years, first U.S. credit downgrade in history, sinking $, housing markets in the shitters, $700,000,000,000 cuts to Medicare, 40+ months of double digit real unemployment, record numbers of Americans on public assistance and you guys are whining about this stupid shit again?

Asshats.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I agree. So why do you OWS parasites hate women and children so much? Which is to say nothing of your disdain for fathers...

Bullshit.

That's about as substantive as anything else I have seen you post. God help any child in your womb. Or should I say tomb?

Common perception here on USMB is that luddly is borderline mentally retarded...

 

[lukelk]

So I don't care about babies because I haven't adopted any? You are full of hogwash!

I think it goes further than that.

If you guys were serious about wanting to reduce the number of abortions, you'd support a whole lot of policies you currently oppose.

Paid medical and family leave, universal health care, comprehensive sex education...

You guys just want to ban abortion, which never works. Countries where abortion is illegal, women still manage to get them.

I used to be "Pro-Life", until I realized it was more about misogyny than caring about what happens to the babies.

You are a misogynist. Suddenly deciding abortion is a wonderful thing didn't change that. Most of us prolife men love and respect women and greatly admire their reproductive abilities. And we love children too. That is what informs our prolife position.

You know the problem with this, and the thing that no one here has mentioned. is WHAT WILL LOWER ABORTION RATES. Now Everyone here knows that weather abortion is legal or not, women WILL still get them. So now that we have that out of the way. What is the best way to lower the abortion rates, Some examples to look at Italy, Brazil, Germany, Sweden. In EVERY case when women are told NO abortions at all the rate actually goes up(I am quoting from statistical data taken from Harvard/Prinston/Oxfords combind studies in social science)What actually makes rates go down IS make it legal, regulate it, educate women, offer counsling, offer free visits to the MD. It really is simple

 

[LogikAndReazon]

"reproductive rights" ?????????? lol


Whats that, the right to have someone else pay for your contraception and abortions.........comical

 

[Pho_King]

I think it goes further than that.

If you guys were serious about wanting to reduce the number of abortions, you'd support a whole lot of policies you currently oppose.

Paid medical and family leave, universal health care, comprehensive sex education...

You guys just want to ban abortion, which never works. Countries where abortion is illegal, women still manage to get them.

I used to be "Pro-Life", until I realized it was more about misogyny than caring about what happens to the babies.

You are a misogynist. Suddenly deciding abortion is a wonderful thing didn't change that. Most of us prolife men love and respect women and greatly admire their reproductive abilities. And we love children too. That is what informs our prolife position.

You know the problem with this, and the thing that no one here has mentioned. is WHAT WILL LOWER ABORTION RATES. Now Everyone here knows that weather abortion is legal or not, women WILL still get them. So now that we have that out of the way. What is the best way to lower the abortion rates, Some examples to look at Italy, Brazil, Germany, Sweden. In EVERY case when women are told NO abortions at all the rate actually goes up(I am quoting from statistical data taken from Harvard/Prinston/Oxfords combind studies in social science)What actually makes rates go down IS make it legal, regulate it, educate women, offer counsling, offer free visits to the MD. It really is simple

Some women will get abortions, whether they are legal or not. But making them illegal will reduce the numbers. As will a general societal disdain for abortion as a legally evil act. Social stigmas work to an extent. Parental notification and/or consent would have an impact.

Keeping it legal, having schools take the place of parents in sex education, and free, subsidized visits while seeking abortion actually encourage it. But far more encouraging, is the way the left has made a sacred cow out of abortion. Counseling is already offered.

What you think will lead to a decrease in behavior makes no sense, and is really just an attempt to get everyone to embrace abortion the way you lefties do.

 

[courseofhistory]

That's simply not true. Women are very often left with the task of paying for and raising a child. Men can protect their lifestyles by disappearing and walking away leaving a fatherless child who very often misses the influence of a father in their lives and has many problems and disadvantages because of that.

Couldn't a woman, theoretically, just leave a baby behind as well after it's born? Leave it on the doorstep of a firestation, give him/her up for adoption? Or, just kill the baby after having it? Would that really be any different than sucking it out in pieces through a tube before it has a chance to exit through the vagina naturally?

Women for the most part are also thinking of the child and the obstacles and disadvantages it will face.

Hmmmm...

And if republicans really believe in personal responsibilty, they will allow a woman to take personal responsibility in deciding whether to raise the child or have an abortion.

So. If a woman gets pregnant, has a child, is able to provide a nice life for the child for a year until she loses her job... does she still maintain the right to terminate the life of the child if she decides she no longer wants to raise the child?

I think the fundamental difference in opinion between pro-lifers and pro-choicers is what the definition of life is. If you think a fetus isn't a human life until it actually exits the woman's body then sure, what's the big deal? It's just like chopping down a tenderloin into medallions. If you think a fetus is human life from conception then there is no difference between eviscerating the fetus inside the womb vs. delivering the baby directly into a wood chipper.

I am for CHOICE because every woman's circumstance is different. Sure women can leave the child at a firestation or whatever up to a certain age as one choice, but I want all options on the table. It is very difficult to give up a child once it is born and the entire burden of the pregnancy, health problems, emotional and financial problems almost always falls on the woman. If it were possible for men to bear children, I'd feel the same way for them Let them decide for themselves with as few restrictions as possible.

 

[AmyNation]

Does arguing abortion every sway anyone in either direction? ever?

 

[Pho_King]

Does arguing abortion every sway anyone in either direction? ever?

No. Those that view emerging human life as a parasitic blob of cells to be destroyed, and a woman's womb makes a good tomb, are never going to change their mind. Neither will us normal people.