War On Women Big Fail

[kaz]

What is the war on women in America?

The War on Women predates Obama. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Further, Obama is not up for reelection and the Republicans still don't have a plan and since they are the ones that are a part of the problem then it doesn't look good for them either.

By and large reproductive health and rights.

War on Women - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So you think women aren't people affected by all issues, they just want access to abortions and their birth control paid for. And it's Republicans waging a war on them. Yeah.

 

[Disir]

Part of the war on women, a big part, is the constant assault on women's reproduction rights, while legislatures do little to force men into paying there fair share when the women produces a child instead of obtaining an abortion. Republicans want to pressure the women into having the child not only don't want to pay for the child when it is born, they continue to protect the fathers from having to be more responsible. They don't want to pay for abortions, but they are willing to subsidize the fathers.

Not at all. Deadbeat Dads are contemptible. I don't know of anyone who's trying to protect them.

How unfortunate. Last time I checked, men don't have a uterus.

But they do have a pair of testes. Last time I checked, there would be no child without his sperm, thus the uterus and the egg contained within are useless. Meaning no abortion, and no reason to be outraged. There is a reason human sexual reproduction requires a male and a female, that's how we mammals were designed through evolution or what have you. Unless humans reproduce asexually, I think the man has just as much a right to decide the fate of the child, seeing as how he contributes one half of the genetic code for the child in the first place. A willing father and an unwilling mother will more than guarantee the child's fate.

Human Biology says both males and females share equal roles in reproduction. Therefore, it is easy to say that the woman shouldn't have all of the authority. Spare me the "it's her body" garbage. She chose to have unprotected sex, resulting in the subsequent abortion. So, both of them should be equal in the decision making process. But here's the fiat... if they don't wish to go through the rigors of that process, they need only not have sex (or have it with a condom) until they are fully prepared to handle the implications.

It's not rocket science.

Males have a role in the production of a zygote. They have no role in the development of the zygote into a fetus or the development of the fetus.

But they CAN for forced into indentured servitude for the next 18 years, on the whim of the woman.

Ya, a lot of men think like you. That's why tax payers have to pay for the kids of irresponsible fathers. And very few would agree that contributing to the cost of raising a child is indentured servitude. Most fathers in this country who pay child support pay a pitiful small amount. The medicaid and food stamp rolls are loaded with kids whose fathers pay only a fraction of what it cost to maintain them in shelter, health care, food and clothing. If fathers were made to pay the actual cost of those things the welfare rolls would be reduced by huge numbers.

Therein lies the rub. Yes, raising a child IS terrifically expensive. I know, I've raised two. In addition, any man who walks, runs, or slithers away from a child that he helped create is at best a contemptible human being. I champion efforts to make men assume their responsibilities in regard to their children. That being said, I believe that both the man AND the woman should lose their reproductive freedom if their sexual activity results in a pregnancy. At that point, there is a third human in the equation whose right to life should be accounted for.

The problem is, however, that as the law stands today, a man not only loses his reproductive freedom, but the woman can legally deny him fatherhood or legally force him to pay for the child's support until he/she reaches independence. That's not right.

The problem is that they do slither away.

Most women (because some are really not worth a damn) are the caregivers for kids. And there are many women that don't even try to get them to pay child support. And men are not prevented from seeing their children if they don't pay child support.
And it is women that will not be able to go out when they want or where they want or do what they want because they will be the primary care givers. So, it is the woman that has to make the choice. But, you know this.

This is the responsibility factor involved.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Part of the war on women, a big part, is the constant assault on women's reproduction rights, while legislatures do little to force men into paying there fair share when the women produces a child instead of obtaining an abortion. Republicans want to pressure the women into having the child not only don't want to pay for the child when it is born, they continue to protect the fathers from having to be more responsible. They don't want to pay for abortions, but they are willing to subsidize the fathers.

Not at all. Deadbeat Dads are contemptible. I don't know of anyone who's trying to protect them.

But they do have a pair of testes. Last time I checked, there would be no child without his sperm, thus the uterus and the egg contained within are useless. Meaning no abortion, and no reason to be outraged. There is a reason human sexual reproduction requires a male and a female, that's how we mammals were designed through evolution or what have you. Unless humans reproduce asexually, I think the man has just as much a right to decide the fate of the child, seeing as how he contributes one half of the genetic code for the child in the first place. A willing father and an unwilling mother will more than guarantee the child's fate.

Human Biology says both males and females share equal roles in reproduction. Therefore, it is easy to say that the woman shouldn't have all of the authority. Spare me the "it's her body" garbage. She chose to have unprotected sex, resulting in the subsequent abortion. So, both of them should be equal in the decision making process. But here's the fiat... if they don't wish to go through the rigors of that process, they need only not have sex (or have it with a condom) until they are fully prepared to handle the implications.

It's not rocket science.

Males have a role in the production of a zygote. They have no role in the development of the zygote into a fetus or the development of the fetus.

But they CAN for forced into indentured servitude for the next 18 years, on the whim of the woman.

Ya, a lot of men think like you. That's why tax payers have to pay for the kids of irresponsible fathers. And very few would agree that contributing to the cost of raising a child is indentured servitude. Most fathers in this country who pay child support pay a pitiful small amount. The medicaid and food stamp rolls are loaded with kids whose fathers pay only a fraction of what it cost to maintain them in shelter, health care, food and clothing. If fathers were made to pay the actual cost of those things the welfare rolls would be reduced by huge numbers.

Therein lies the rub. Yes, raising a child IS terrifically expensive. I know, I've raised two. In addition, any man who walks, runs, or slithers away from a child that he helped create is at best a contemptible human being. I champion efforts to make men assume their responsibilities in regard to their children. That being said, I believe that both the man AND the woman should lose their reproductive freedom if their sexual activity results in a pregnancy. At that point, there is a third human in the equation whose right to life should be accounted for.

The problem is, however, that as the law stands today, a man not only loses his reproductive freedom, but the woman can legally deny him fatherhood or legally force him to pay for the child's support until he/she reaches independence. That's not right.

The problem is that they do slither away.

Most women (because some are really not worth a damn) are the caregivers for kids. And there are many women that don't even try to get them to pay child support. And men are not prevented from seeing their children if they don't pay child support.
And it is women that will not be able to go out when they want or where they want or do what they want because they will be the primary care givers. So, it is the woman that has to make the choice. But, you know this.

In 2011, 32% of custodial dads received NO child support from the mother, while 25% of custodial mothers received no child support payments from the father.

The Surprising Facts about Payments of Child Support

Women are caregivers my arse.

 

[Misty]

Hard to take this out of context.

"On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

abortion on demand and free birth control are not reproductive health. They are a cop out because liberal women are unable to keep their legs together.

They are part and parcel of reproductive health.

black genocide was the original purpose of planned parenthood. its founder clearly stated that----look it up, you might learn something

No. It was taken out of context from what she said. You should look into that.

nope, you are wrong. I'm sorry if that busts your bubble of liberal love, but its a fact. Its also a fact the PP has aborted many more black than white fetuses.

No. You're claiming that black genocide was the original purpose of planned parenthood. You are lying. What you are referencing is taken from Sanger. You are lying.

You do realize that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, right?

Yes, I do. I am also aware that the pro life crowd has attempted on multiple occasions to take her out of context. You wish to do the same?

 

[Misty]

My point in putting up this thread is that women have been portrayed as victims by the left and that, in and of itself, says that the left believe women are pathetic and weak and need to be helped.

And I say fuck off. I am no victim.

 

[Misty]

Ever heard of a babysitter

Part of the war on women, a big part, is the constant assault on women's reproduction rights, while legislatures do little to force men into paying there fair share when the women produces a child instead of obtaining an abortion. Republicans want to pressure the women into having the child not only don't want to pay for the child when it is born, they continue to protect the fathers from having to be more responsible. They don't want to pay for abortions, but they are willing to subsidize the fathers.

Not at all. Deadbeat Dads are contemptible. I don't know of anyone who's trying to protect them.

But they do have a pair of testes. Last time I checked, there would be no child without his sperm, thus the uterus and the egg contained within are useless. Meaning no abortion, and no reason to be outraged. There is a reason human sexual reproduction requires a male and a female, that's how we mammals were designed through evolution or what have you. Unless humans reproduce asexually, I think the man has just as much a right to decide the fate of the child, seeing as how he contributes one half of the genetic code for the child in the first place. A willing father and an unwilling mother will more than guarantee the child's fate.

Human Biology says both males and females share equal roles in reproduction. Therefore, it is easy to say that the woman shouldn't have all of the authority. Spare me the "it's her body" garbage. She chose to have unprotected sex, resulting in the subsequent abortion. So, both of them should be equal in the decision making process. But here's the fiat... if they don't wish to go through the rigors of that process, they need only not have sex (or have it with a condom) until they are fully prepared to handle the implications.

It's not rocket science.

Males have a role in the production of a zygote. They have no role in the development of the zygote into a fetus or the development of the fetus.

But they CAN for forced into indentured servitude for the next 18 years, on the whim of the woman.

Ya, a lot of men think like you. That's why tax payers have to pay for the kids of irresponsible fathers. And very few would agree that contributing to the cost of raising a child is indentured servitude. Most fathers in this country who pay child support pay a pitiful small amount. The medicaid and food stamp rolls are loaded with kids whose fathers pay only a fraction of what it cost to maintain them in shelter, health care, food and clothing. If fathers were made to pay the actual cost of those things the welfare rolls would be reduced by huge numbers.

Therein lies the rub. Yes, raising a child IS terrifically expensive. I know, I've raised two. In addition, any man who walks, runs, or slithers away from a child that he helped create is at best a contemptible human being. I champion efforts to make men assume their responsibilities in regard to their children. That being said, I believe that both the man AND the woman should lose their reproductive freedom if their sexual activity results in a pregnancy. At that point, there is a third human in the equation whose right to life should be accounted for.

The problem is, however, that as the law stands today, a man not only loses his reproductive freedom, but the woman can legally deny him fatherhood or legally force him to pay for the child's support until he/she reaches independence. That's not right.

The problem is that they do slither away.

Most women (because some are really not worth a damn) are the caregivers for kids. And there are many women that don't even try to get them to pay child support. And men are not prevented from seeing their children if they don't pay child support.
And it is women that will not be able to go out when they want or where they want or do what they want because they will be the primary care givers. So, it is the woman that has to make the choice. But, you know this.

This is the responsibility factor involved.

 

[Disir]

My point in putting up this thread is that women have been portrayed as victims by the left and that, in and of itself, says that the left believe women are pathetic and weak and need to be helped.

And I say fuck off. I am no victim.

You didn't have a point. Your intention was to throw a bunch of shit at the wall to see if it sticks.

 

[Disir]

Hard to take this out of context.

"On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

They are part and parcel of reproductive health.

No. It was taken out of context from what she said. You should look into that.

nope, you are wrong. I'm sorry if that busts your bubble of liberal love, but its a fact. Its also a fact the PP has aborted many more black than white fetuses.

No. You're claiming that black genocide was the original purpose of planned parenthood. You are lying. What you are referencing is taken from Sanger. You are lying.

You do realize that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, right?

Yes, I do. I am also aware that the pro life crowd has attempted on multiple occasions to take her out of context. You wish to do the same?

Great then you will have no problem producing the paragraphs before and after those lines, right?

I'll wait.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

There are just sooooo many imagined "wars" on these progressive twits its hard to keep up with all the afflicted....

They must be clamoring for justice/tax dollars......BEGGARS

 

[Disir]

Part of the war on women, a big part, is the constant assault on women's reproduction rights, while legislatures do little to force men into paying there fair share when the women produces a child instead of obtaining an abortion. Republicans want to pressure the women into having the child not only don't want to pay for the child when it is born, they continue to protect the fathers from having to be more responsible. They don't want to pay for abortions, but they are willing to subsidize the fathers.

Not at all. Deadbeat Dads are contemptible. I don't know of anyone who's trying to protect them.

Males have a role in the production of a zygote. They have no role in the development of the zygote into a fetus or the development of the fetus.

But they CAN for forced into indentured servitude for the next 18 years, on the whim of the woman.

Ya, a lot of men think like you. That's why tax payers have to pay for the kids of irresponsible fathers. And very few would agree that contributing to the cost of raising a child is indentured servitude. Most fathers in this country who pay child support pay a pitiful small amount. The medicaid and food stamp rolls are loaded with kids whose fathers pay only a fraction of what it cost to maintain them in shelter, health care, food and clothing. If fathers were made to pay the actual cost of those things the welfare rolls would be reduced by huge numbers.

Therein lies the rub. Yes, raising a child IS terrifically expensive. I know, I've raised two. In addition, any man who walks, runs, or slithers away from a child that he helped create is at best a contemptible human being. I champion efforts to make men assume their responsibilities in regard to their children. That being said, I believe that both the man AND the woman should lose their reproductive freedom if their sexual activity results in a pregnancy. At that point, there is a third human in the equation whose right to life should be accounted for.

The problem is, however, that as the law stands today, a man not only loses his reproductive freedom, but the woman can legally deny him fatherhood or legally force him to pay for the child's support until he/she reaches independence. That's not right.

The problem is that they do slither away.

Most women (because some are really not worth a damn) are the caregivers for kids. And there are many women that don't even try to get them to pay child support. And men are not prevented from seeing their children if they don't pay child support.
And it is women that will not be able to go out when they want or where they want or do what they want because they will be the primary care givers. So, it is the woman that has to make the choice. But, you know this.

In 2011, 32% of custodial dads received NO child support from the mother, while 25% of custodial mothers received no child support payments from the father.

The Surprising Facts about Payments of Child Support

Women are caregivers my arse.

Over 82 % of custodial parents are mothers. And I'm not saying that father's don't have a case trying to collect child support from women.

 

[Jarhead]

There are just sooooo many imagined "wars" on these progressive twits its hard to keep up with all the afflicted....

They must be clamoring for justice/tax dollars......BEGGARS

It is a lot simpler than that.

Most progressives do not understand the conservative ideology....and the democratic politicians capitalize on that.

Conservatives do not believe in "special treatment" for anyone. All are born created equal and all are afforded with the same opportunity to make it in America. No one should be offered an advantage by the government and the government should not intervene in an attempt to level the playing field...for the playing field, in theory, is equal.

Sure, there are valid arguments as it pertains to geographical disadvantages and such.....but it still comes down to the parenting and making proper decisions so your children can achieve whatever success they desire.

Democratic politicians know this. But as opposed to educating their base, they prefer to keep them in the dark and "spin" the intentions of the conservative ideology.

Proof?

Watch how the liberals respond to this post!

 

[the_human_being]

There has always been a war on women by men. Even as a teenager I used aftershave, cologne, hair tonic, etc., and did my best to sweet-talk and coax as many of them into the sack with me as I possibly could. Won a few battles too.

 

[mudwhistle]

There are just sooooo many imagined "wars" on these progressive twits its hard to keep up with all the afflicted....

They must be clamoring for justice/tax dollars......BEGGARS

The war on Ebola!!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

There has always been a war on women by men. Even as a teenager I used aftershave, cologne, hair tonic, etc., and did my best to sweet-talk and coax as many of them into the sack with me as I possibly could. Won a few battles too.

PIG!!!

 

[jknowgood]

If you really want to be for woman's rights. Make it so they can buy birth control over the counter. Then they don't need to go to the doctor to get it. Total freedom.

 

[depotoo]

If you really want to be for woman's rights. Make it so they can buy birth control over the counter. Then they don't need to go to the doctor to get it. Total freedom.

The morning after pill already can be. One problem with the pill, hormone based, being available over the counter, is the possibility of ill effects to some women.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If you really want to be for woman's rights. Make it so they can buy birth control over the counter. Then they don't need to go to the doctor to get it. Total freedom.

Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), for example, recently introduced the so-called Preserving Religious Freedom and a Woman’s Access to Contraception Act, a bill that would urge the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to study whether to make contraceptives over the counter (OTC) — though for adults only.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Part of the war on women, a big part, is the constant assault on women's reproduction rights, while legislatures do little to force men into paying there fair share when the women produces a child instead of obtaining an abortion. Republicans want to pressure the women into having the child not only don't want to pay for the child when it is born, they continue to protect the fathers from having to be more responsible. They don't want to pay for abortions, but they are willing to subsidize the fathers.

Not at all. Deadbeat Dads are contemptible. I don't know of anyone who's trying to protect them.

But they CAN for forced into indentured servitude for the next 18 years, on the whim of the woman.

Ya, a lot of men think like you. That's why tax payers have to pay for the kids of irresponsible fathers. And very few would agree that contributing to the cost of raising a child is indentured servitude. Most fathers in this country who pay child support pay a pitiful small amount. The medicaid and food stamp rolls are loaded with kids whose fathers pay only a fraction of what it cost to maintain them in shelter, health care, food and clothing. If fathers were made to pay the actual cost of those things the welfare rolls would be reduced by huge numbers.

Therein lies the rub. Yes, raising a child IS terrifically expensive. I know, I've raised two. In addition, any man who walks, runs, or slithers away from a child that he helped create is at best a contemptible human being. I champion efforts to make men assume their responsibilities in regard to their children. That being said, I believe that both the man AND the woman should lose their reproductive freedom if their sexual activity results in a pregnancy. At that point, there is a third human in the equation whose right to life should be accounted for.

The problem is, however, that as the law stands today, a man not only loses his reproductive freedom, but the woman can legally deny him fatherhood or legally force him to pay for the child's support until he/she reaches independence. That's not right.

The problem is that they do slither away.

Most women (because some are really not worth a damn) are the caregivers for kids. And there are many women that don't even try to get them to pay child support. And men are not prevented from seeing their children if they don't pay child support.
And it is women that will not be able to go out when they want or where they want or do what they want because they will be the primary care givers. So, it is the woman that has to make the choice. But, you know this.

In 2011, 32% of custodial dads received NO child support from the mother, while 25% of custodial mothers received no child support payments from the father.

The Surprising Facts about Payments of Child Support

Women are caregivers my arse.

Over 82 % of custodial parents are mothers. And I'm not saying that father's don't have a case trying to collect child support from women.

Yes more mothers are custodial parents, but a non custodial father is more likely to pay his child support, Proven fact.

The term "dead beat dad" is hateful and ignores a real problem.

Oh, and do you really think that 82% of the mother is really the best parent? I don't.

 

[mamooth]

Hard to take this out of context.
"On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

Margaret Sanger - Wikiquote

According to wikiquote, Sanger didn't say that. Someone else writing an article in the magazine said it.

See what we mean about fake quotes constantly being attributed to Sanger? Thanks for allowing me to illustrate how common it is.

Oh, it is never a good idea to list a reference you haven't looked at yourself. That's just asking for trouble. If your source is a pro-life web page, that should be what you list as a source.

 

[mamooth]

First, if I han't quoted her words, you would have stated, once again, taken out of context. Secondly, I have read her, many years ago. And third, ummm, care to actually talk about the other 2 founders history or her being a guest speaker at a kkk event in 1926?

I'll gladly talk about the KKK event, since it shows how courageous Sanger was, and how shockingly dishonest the Sanger-haters are. If you're capable of shame, you should be feeling it after reading this.

From "Margaret Sanger, Autobiography"

Full text of Margaret Sanger an autobiography.
---
All the world over, in Penang and Skagway, in El Paso and Hel-
singfors, I have found women's psychology in the matter of child-
bearing essentially the same, no matter what the class, religion, or
economic status. Always to me any aroused group was a good group,
and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch
of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest
experiences I had in lecturing.

My letter of instruction told me what train to take, to walk from
the station two blocks straight ahead, then two to the left. I would see
a sedan parked in front of a restaurant. If I wished I could have ten
minutes for a cup of coffee or bite to eat, because no supper would be
served later.

I obeyed orders implicitly, walked the blocks, saw the car, found
the restaurant, went in and ordered some cocoa, stayed my allotted ten
minutes, then approached the car hesitatingly and spoke to the driver.
I received no reply. She might have been totally deaf as far as I was
concerned. Mustering up my courage, I climbed in and settled back.
Without a turn of the head, a smile, or a word to let me know I was
right, she stepped on the self-starter. For fifteen minutes we wound
around the streets. It must have been towards six in the afternoon.
We took this lonely lane and that through the woods, and an hour
later pulled up in a vacant space near a body of water beside a large,
unpainted, barnish building.

My driver got out, talked with several other women, then said to me
severely, "Wait here. We will come for you." She disappeared. More
cars buzzed up the dusty road into the parking place. Occasionally men
dropped wives who walked hurriedly and silently within. This went
on mystically until night closed down and I was alone in the dark. A
few gleams came through chinks in the window curtains. Even though
it was May, I grew chillier and chillier.

After three hours I was summoned at last and entered a bright
corridor filled with wraps. As someone came out of the hall I saw
through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated
crosses. I waited another twenty minutes. It was warmer and I did
not mind so much. Eventually the lights were switched on, the audi-
ence seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced,
and began to speak.

Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure
that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabu-
lary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my ad-
dress that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though
I were trying to make children understand.

In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accom-
plished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups
were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were
finally through it was too late to return to New York. Under a curfew
law everything in Silver Lake shut at nine o'clock. I could not even
send a telegram to let my family know whether I had been thrown in
the river or was being held incommunicado. It was nearly one before I
reached Trenton, and I spent the night in a hotel.
---