Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I actually disagree with this movement - I think there should be more abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods, not less. We need to find ways to make abortion for middle class women more difficult to obtain, especially the brightest and richest women. This doesn't do that though.The requirements at the heart of this legislation are similar to the reasons that liberal anti-human rights advocates use to force people to associate with those not of their choosing. If you use a public street then you lose your right to choose your own associations.
Well, if you want to offer an abortion then you have to jump through all of these hoops. Women still have a right to an abortion, just like a baker has a right to freely associate with whomever he chooses, it's just that if he wants to be a baker he has to forgo his rights and if a woman wants an abortion then she has to go to a mini-hospital.
This from another one who has never been pregnant, votes against children and women, and you're wrong.
You can close every abortion clinic in the country and abortions will still be done just as they always have.
GASP!
Who are YOU and what have you done with Rikurzhen?
The smartest thing we could do as a country is make birth control free to all men and women.
We can acknowledge the unborn offspring of any other animal in this world as being one of its own kind, but in regards to human offspring, it is not of it's own kind while in the womb, only when the birth occurs. I often hear the argument "it is just a clump of cells" well, we are a just as much a clump of cells now as we were when the cells were dividing in the ovum, if you think about it. The difference is, one isn't human, the other is. Even Human Biologists, who don't subscribe to political science, acknowledge the fetus is human.
Wrong again.
First, how DARE you compare a human fetus with any other mammal?
Second, its still none of your business.
You own your own body. You control your right to reproduce and no one can or should be able to take that very basic right away from you. So do women. You have no clue what it takes to decide to abort the child you dreamed of having and, because you live in the insulated world of a perpetual child, you never will. You're welcome to your opinion but you are not welcome to decide what rights women can keep and what they must give up.
MYOB
How dare I what? Perhaps you should study basic zoology. We are mammals. Warm blooded omnivorous vertebrates. A distinct genus within the mammalian species. You are quite uneducated. Anyhow, you acknowledge that the human fetus is indeed a human.
Grow up. Yes, she owns her own body, but she doesn't own the human being in the womb. Her body is different from the child's, other than DNA. Neither can a master can own a slave, nor can woman own the child in her womb. When that child becomes an adult and moves out on his or her own, that signals that there can be no ownership. No human owns another. Yes, there is authority when it is just, but no man or woman can own another. This is not the Jim Crow era.
As far as what rights can be dictated, these pro-choice advocates are asking the very government they demand give them their 'rights' is the one they are appealing to to dictate their rights. The irony is purely dumbfounding.
And when unsuspecting people must pay for a woman to have an abortion, it makes it my business. You speak of rights, yet you rob me and my fellows of the right to spend our money how we see fit, not how the government sees Speak. Perhaps I could tell you to do the same, mind your own business and keep my money out of it.
Why? There are women who in fact need abortions for their own safety, regardless of class, status or intelligence. In the sake of a neutral opinion, this would violate the 14th Amendment up and down. When you discriminate via the classes, you are playing the same class war the leftists are, and as a result are no better than they are.
True, but the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. We're experiencing a dysgenic trend right now. The least fit in society are having the most children while the best fit are having the fewest. These brilliant career women who have no children or maybe one child are actually harming society. The work they did in a business vanishes into irrelevance 10 years after she passes, but if she raises 3 brilliant children, because she herself is brilliant, then society benefits for centuries thereafter.
Crack whores having 7 kids doesn't do us any good.
Why? There are women who in fact need abortions for their own safety, regardless of class, status or intelligence. In the sake of a neutral opinion, this would violate the 14th Amendment up and down. When you discriminate via the classes, you are playing the same class war the leftists are, and as a result are no better than they are.
True, but the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. We're experiencing a dysgenic trend right now. The least fit in society are having the most children while the best fit are having the fewest. These brilliant career women who have no children or maybe one child are actually harming society. The work they did in a business vanishes into irrelevance 10 years after she passes, but if she raises 3 brilliant children, because she herself is brilliant, then society benefits for centuries thereafter.
Crack whores having 7 kids doesn't do us any good.
The Constitution is not a death sentence either. There is a woman in my church who has nine kids, yes nine. Is she a crack whore?
Not really wanting to get into a natural rights discussion but for practical purposes what rights a person anywhere has and where those rights end IS a function of government, the people demand it.Appealing bad rulings to higher courts is how politics gets done these days. It is the government's responsibility to clearly define the limits of our rights. As long as the government acts to expand the rights we have rather than curtail them then it's usually a good thing. Social conservatives are going the wrong way.A victory for the nanny state, literally.
Quite ironic, when the pro-choice movement is asking the government to enforce their right to have an abortion. So, how is the government a 'nanny state' when these women are begging the government to intervene? The very fact some of them take this matter to the courts in the first place is an acknowledgement that they want the government to decide what their right ultimately are.
Stop, just stop.
The government doesn't give us our rights.
GASP!
Who are YOU and what have you done with Rikurzhen?
The smartest thing we could do as a country is make birth control free to all men and women.
The smartest thing is to limit the reproduction of the poorest and prevent the smartest and richest women from obtaining birth control. I just don't have a clue how that could be accomplished for the rich and smart women.
As much as I oppose abortion, this is wrong. The very art of eugenics is wrong. Rikurzhen, sometimes you scare me.
I actually disagree with this movement - I think there should be more abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods, not less. We need to find ways to make abortion for middle class women more difficult to obtain, especially the brightest and richest women. This doesn't do that though.The requirements at the heart of this legislation are similar to the reasons that liberal anti-human rights advocates use to force people to associate with those not of their choosing. If you use a public street then you lose your right to choose your own associations.
Well, if you want to offer an abortion then you have to jump through all of these hoops. Women still have a right to an abortion, just like a baker has a right to freely associate with whomever he chooses, it's just that if he wants to be a baker he has to forgo his rights and if a woman wants an abortion then she has to go to a mini-hospital.
This from another one who has never been pregnant, votes against children and women, and you're wrong.
You can close every abortion clinic in the country and abortions will still be done just as they always have.
GASP!
Who are YOU and what have you done with Rikurzhen?
The smartest thing we could do as a country is make birth control free to all men and women.
We can acknowledge the unborn offspring of any other animal in this world as being one of its own kind, but in regards to human offspring, it is not of it's own kind while in the womb, only when the birth occurs. I often hear the argument "it is just a clump of cells" well, we are a just as much a clump of cells now as we were when the cells were dividing in the ovum, if you think about it. The difference is, one isn't human, the other is. Even Human Biologists, who don't subscribe to political science, acknowledge the fetus is human.
Wrong again.
First, how DARE you compare a human fetus with any other mammal?
Second, its still none of your business.
You own your own body. You control your right to reproduce and no one can or should be able to take that very basic right away from you. So do women. You have no clue what it takes to decide to abort the child you dreamed of having and, because you live in the insulated world of a perpetual child, you never will. You're welcome to your opinion but you are not welcome to decide what rights women can keep and what they must give up.
MYOB
How dare I what? Perhaps you should study basic zoology. We are mammals. Warm blooded omnivorous vertebrates. A distinct genus within the mammalian species. You are quite uneducated. Anyhow, you acknowledge that the human fetus is indeed a human.
Grow up. Yes, she owns her own body, but she doesn't own the human being in the womb. Her body is different from the child's, other than DNA. Neither can a master can own a slave, nor can woman own the child in her womb. When that child becomes an adult and moves out on his or her own, that signals that there can be no ownership. No human owns another. Yes, there is authority when it is just, but no man or woman can own another. This is not the Jim Crow era.
As far as what rights can be dictated, these pro-choice advocates are asking the very government they demand give them their 'rights' is the one they are appealing to to dictate their rights. The irony is purely dumbfounding.
And when unsuspecting people must pay for a woman to have an abortion, it makes it my business. You speak of rights, yet you rob me and my fellows of the right to spend our money how we see fit, not how the government sees Speak. Perhaps I could tell you to do the same, mind your own business and keep my money out of it.
Speak for yourself sir. myself I find limiting the number of stupid , welfare mooching liberals to be a wise investment.
Personally I'd make abortion illegal in all but emergency situations, then hand out free birth control to all, oh and as a last improvement , make it a crime to have a child while on welfare. Get pregnant, or get someone pregnant, better get off welfare.
I actually disagree with this movement - I think there should be more abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods, not less. We need to find ways to make abortion for middle class women more difficult to obtain, especially the brightest and richest women. This doesn't do that though.The requirements at the heart of this legislation are similar to the reasons that liberal anti-human rights advocates use to force people to associate with those not of their choosing. If you use a public street then you lose your right to choose your own associations.
Well, if you want to offer an abortion then you have to jump through all of these hoops. Women still have a right to an abortion, just like a baker has a right to freely associate with whomever he chooses, it's just that if he wants to be a baker he has to forgo his rights and if a woman wants an abortion then she has to go to a mini-hospital.
This from another one who has never been pregnant, votes against children and women, and you're wrong.
You can close every abortion clinic in the country and abortions will still be done just as they always have.
Why? There are women who in fact need abortions for their own safety, regardless of class, status or intelligence. In the sake of a neutral opinion, this would violate the 14th Amendment up and down. When you discriminate via the classes, you are playing the same class war the leftists are, and as a result are no better than they are.
True, but the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. We're experiencing a dysgenic trend right now. The least fit in society are having the most children while the best fit are having the fewest. These brilliant career women who have no children or maybe one child are actually harming society. The work they did in a business vanishes into irrelevance 10 years after she passes, but if she raises 3 brilliant children, because she herself is brilliant, then society benefits for centuries thereafter.
Crack whores having 7 kids doesn't do us any good.
The Constitution is not a death sentence either. There is a woman in my church who has nine kids, yes nine. Is she a crack whore?
GASP!
Who are YOU and what have you done with Rikurzhen?
The smartest thing we could do as a country is make birth control free to all men and women.
The smartest thing is to limit the reproduction of the poorest and prevent the smartest and richest women from obtaining birth control. I just don't have a clue how that could be accomplished for the rich and smart women.
I actually disagree with this movement - I think there should be more abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods, not less. We need to find ways to make abortion for middle class women more difficult to obtain, especially the brightest and richest women. This doesn't do that though.The requirements at the heart of this legislation are similar to the reasons that liberal anti-human rights advocates use to force people to associate with those not of their choosing. If you use a public street then you lose your right to choose your own associations.
Well, if you want to offer an abortion then you have to jump through all of these hoops. Women still have a right to an abortion, just like a baker has a right to freely associate with whomever he chooses, it's just that if he wants to be a baker he has to forgo his rights and if a woman wants an abortion then she has to go to a mini-hospital.
This from another one who has never been pregnant, votes against children and women, and you're wrong.
You can close every abortion clinic in the country and abortions will still be done just as they always have.
That's called negative eugenics. If that's what you believe, you should just throw in with the progressives now.
GASP!
Who are YOU and what have you done with Rikurzhen?
The smartest thing we could do as a country is make birth control free to all men and women.
The smartest thing is to limit the reproduction of the poorest and prevent the smartest and richest women from obtaining birth control. I just don't have a clue how that could be accomplished for the rich and smart women.
As much as I oppose abortion, this is wrong. The very art of eugenics is wrong. Rikurzhen, sometimes you scare me.
There are different forms of eugenics, so it's inaccurate to say that eugenics is wrong.
It's wrong when the State comes to you and grabs you and slaps you down on an operating table and sterilizes you against your will.
It's right when you choose for yourself to be sterilized or not to have a baby or choose, GATTACCA-like, to screen your child for diseases or choose a better mate for yourself because this improves the life of your child. All this too is eugenics.
GASP!
Who are YOU and what have you done with Rikurzhen?
The smartest thing we could do as a country is make birth control free to all men and women.
The smartest thing is to limit the reproduction of the poorest and prevent the smartest and richest women from obtaining birth control. I just don't have a clue how that could be accomplished for the rich and smart women.
So you want the poor to have more money and the rich to be poor.
I am frankly sickened by what I have just read on this thread. How can people advocate for population control?
GASP!
Who are YOU and what have you done with Rikurzhen?
The smartest thing we could do as a country is make birth control free to all men and women.
The smartest thing is to limit the reproduction of the poorest and prevent the smartest and richest women from obtaining birth control. I just don't have a clue how that could be accomplished for the rich and smart women.
So you want the poor to have more money and the rich to be poor.
Exactly. See how nicely we can close the income inequality gap.
You do want to close the income inequality gap, don't you? A poor family with 1 child now has more money at their disposal and they can invest all that money into their one child and give him a huge boost up in society. You think that's a bad outcome, for poor kids to have their parents invest in them?
I am frankly sickened by what I have just read on this thread. How can people advocate for population control?
GASP!
Who are YOU and what have you done with Rikurzhen?
The smartest thing we could do as a country is make birth control free to all men and women.
The smartest thing is to limit the reproduction of the poorest and prevent the smartest and richest women from obtaining birth control. I just don't have a clue how that could be accomplished for the rich and smart women.
So you want the poor to have more money and the rich to be poor.
Exactly. See how nicely we can close the income inequality gap.
You do want to close the income inequality gap, don't you? A poor family with 1 child now has more money at their disposal and they can invest all that money into their one child and give him a huge boost up in society. You think that's a bad outcome, for poor kids to have their parents invest in them?
Yeah, talk to the people of China. How's it working out for them?
