Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He hates women and wants to control their reproductive systems, like most Republicans. What do you expect from him?
And what a terrible thread this is. But thank you for playing.What an out of touch ignoramus he is!As soon as Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate, the common wisdom coalesced around the idea that Romney was trying to shore up support with the Tea Party base on economic issues. But Ryan's extreme social conservatism likely had something to do with the pick as well. As Michelle Goldberg notes at the Daily Beast, Ryan runs far to the right even of most Republicans on the issue of choice. Indeed, his statements and votes on the issue start to seem like Ryan sincerely believes that a fertilized egg has more rights than an actual woman with a real brain and feelings.
Goldberg looks over this lengthy piece written by Ryan explaining his views on reproductive rightsa piece where he never even bothers to mention womenand she concludes, "To him, a womans claim to bodily autonomy or self-determination doesnt merit even cursory consideration." Just in case he's left any doubt in the reader's mind that he simply doesn't acknowledge women as people, Ryan concludes that the reasons liberals are pro-choice is because we find children repulsive:
.At the core, todays pro-choice liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the futurefear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the pro-choice position implies that they are a burden. Despite the pro-choice label, liberals stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices
This paragraph makes no sense unless you approach it with the assumption that the categories "women" and "human beings" are mutually exclusive. In order for the system of mandatory childbearing that he proposes to not decrease choices, women must be creatures who can make people but cannot be people. Of course, his belief that support for abortion rights is about child-hating instead of support for women is easy enough to disprove with the facts. More than 60 percent of women having abortions are already mothers, and most of the rest wish to be someday. When women offer their reasons for having abortions, "I dislike children and don't want to be around them" doesn't even rate high enough to make it into the data. Mostly the women fear that it's not a good time in their lives, and about half of them don't want to end up as a single mother.
...
Link
From the party that brought you, "Stay out of my vagina" and "Leave the candidate's family out of it"
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.
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.
This is the type of really stupid hyperbole that assumes things that aren't true. Having an abortion is very traumatic and something most women consider to be a very diffucult decision. Most men don't realize that an abortion isn't as simple as they think both emotionally or technically. An abortion is almost the same on a woman's body as childbirth and after effects happen that are uncomfortable and sometimes damaging to her reproductive system. I'm sure no one looks upon an abortion (those who have them or are considering them) as getting rid of a parasiting blob of cells. Putting the onus on the woman with this type thinking and spewing is precisely what a lot of men want to do. It is about power and control of women very often and not about the child and what it might face if the woman can't provide a good life for it, etc. If men cared about life (and some women too who spew this garbage) they would consider the life of the woman AND the child after birth. Look up the statistics on failure in school and in life of children who are disadvantaged, who grow up without a father and so many other things and then decide if you really do care about that life enough to contribute to making life better for it or even to actually adopt him or her. Don't just say you would. Really look into your sould and answer honestly. These and a lot more go into deciding if a child has a decent chance in life and if a mother who is feeling burdened, at wits end and extremely frustrated is a good choice to raise a child. Very often an abortion is the humane thing to do for the child. But the bottom line for me is that it is the choice of the pregnant woman, not mine, not yours, not the church, etc.
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.
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.
Then why are you arguing it?
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.
Then why are you arguing it?
Beats watching Maury, and I missed high tide.
Then why are you arguing it?
Beats watching Maury, and I missed high tide.
Judge Judy is on, plus you always have your "black people can't swim" thread to fall back on.
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.
Then why are you arguing it?
Beats watching Maury, and I missed high tide.
Paul Ryan voted yes on HR 358, which would grant hospitals the right to refuse patients abortions, even if they were going to die without one.
Just felt that needed repeating
Do you deliberately lie, or are you just ignorant?Someone said eariler that Ryan was socially liberal. I was seriously taken aback. He's a guy who voted yes on a bill that would allow hospitals to deny dying women an abortion that could save their life.
Like I said, they don't care about women. Or babies, for that matter - which is why they never adopt any.
Beats watching Maury, and I missed high tide.
Judge Judy is on, plus you always have your "black people can't swim" thread to fall back on.
Yeah, but I have solved the mystery of why black people can't swim. I am now trying to figure out what makes them such shitty quarterbacks.
Btw Amy, don't tell my wife, but I have a crush on you. Not in a stalker type way, but in a " wish I could buy her panties from a vending machine" type of way.
Beats watching Maury, and I missed high tide.
Judge Judy is on, plus you always have your "black people can't swim" thread to fall back on.
Yeah, but I have solved the mystery of why black people can't swim. I am now trying to figure out what makes them such shitty quarterbacks.
Btw Amy, don't tell my wife, but I have a crush on you. Not in a stalker type way, but in a " wish I could buy her panties from a vending machine" type of way.
Paul Ryan voted yes on HR 358, which would grant hospitals the right to refuse patients abortions, even if they were going to die without one.
Just felt that needed repeating
Wouldn't that be awful. Catholics allowed to be Catholics. The horror.