Women need birth control because "they can't control their libido"

[TemplarKormac]

Mert, you're spewing talking points. When your party fights for women's rights, only abortion comes up. Not once do you hear them saying "hey, let that woman have that child!" They get mad if someone insists the woman carry the child.

That's freaking insane. Democrats don't push women to have abortions....they defend women's right to have one if that is what they want, and within the perimeters set by current laws. When Republicans quit their crusade to end all abortions, then maybe it won't seem like that's all we talk about, because there will always be times when an abortion is necessary, to save the life of the woman....and if you have done away with it, the woman dies....that's not pro-life in anybody's book.

I'm not going to get into a marathon debate with you tonight, nor will I stay here and be derided. But your party clearly favors one half of the choice over the other. Choice means abortion, and only abortion. That's it, that's all.

I know that is what it looks like to you, but from my perspective, your party wants to end all abortions, and even though I don't support elective abortions after the first tri-mester, I don't want abortions to be illegal for women whose life are at risk, for women that have been raped, or for young girls who have been raped in incest. Choice means, the woman can choose. To you pro-life means the fetus is more important than the mother...and that is no pro-life, no matter how much lipstick you put on it.

I know that is what it looks like to you, but from my perspective, your party wants to end all abortions, and even though I don't support elective abortions after the first tri-mester, I don't want abortions to be illegal for women whose life are at risk, for women that have been raped, or for young girls who have been raped in incest. Choice means, the woman can choose. To you pro-life means the fetus is more important than the mother...and that is no pro-life, no matter how much lipstick you put on it.

Lets put it this way. All those whining about not being able to have an abortion (thank you Ronald Reagan) are the ones who've already been born. How is it fair to deny a child the chance at life that your parents gave you? Hmm? If the woman's life is at risk, that's a whole nother ballgame, same with rape and incest. Although I've heard of rape victims going through with it anyways. However, if she's perfectly healthy, all bets are off.

That's freaking insane. Democrats don't push women to have abortions....they defend women's right to have one if that is what they want, and within the perimeters set by current laws. When Republicans quit their crusade to end all abortions, then maybe it won't seem like that's all we talk about, because there will always be times when an abortion is necessary, to save the life of the woman....and if you have done away with it, the woman dies....that's not pro-life in anybody's book.

"Defend." Name one case in which the Democrats have fought for a woman to have the baby instead of aborting him/her. Name one instance where Democrats fight for the life of the child instead of the so-called choice of the mother.

I'll be waiting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"This [actual attacks on women by male GOP candidates] will allow them, of course, to avoid actually discussing that issue openly and honestly, which is the point of their intellectually dishonest, destructive strategy"

There is no issue to be discussed, honestly or not. Women will not tolerate the insensitivity.

That's the problem. Learn to phrase the message better, Mac, to the intended audience, because the female audience will kick utterances such as the one by Huck up the collective candidate ass.

I, as a strong capable and independent woman. Hates being patronized.

Being insensitive doesn't bother a truly strong woman

Well, that settles it: Jake is wrong about Women.




Who would have guessed?

It's called "The Pixie Stix Syndrome." It's her right, but 55% of all women and 65% of single women disagreed with our party's stupid voice about women in the election of 2012.

Because of language like Huck's and despite the few like Pixie, it ain't gonna get better for us, if the dummies keep violating women in language.

 

[Mertex]

"Defend." Name one case in which the Democrats have fought for a woman to have the baby instead of aborting him/her. Name one instance where Democrats fight for the life of the child instead of the so-called choice of the mother.

I'll be waiting.

What? Are you serious? Choice means women get to choose. Why would Democrats, who advocate "choice" then insist that the woman who wants to have an abortion, not have one.

Really, you don't know what you are talking about. Show me where Republicans whom you claim are for women, have ever fought for a woman's right to choose. Their only demand is that the woman go ahead with the pregnancy. And then, on top of that, after it is born, they don't give a damn about it, and want to cut their food stamps and welfare.

I'll be waiting too.

 

[koshergrl]

Mert, you're spewing talking points. When your party fights for women's rights, only abortion comes up. Not once do you hear them saying "hey, let that woman have that child!" They get mad if someone insists the woman carry the child.

That's freaking insane. Democrats don't push women to have abortions....they defend women's right to have one if that is what they want, and within the perimeters set by current laws. When Republicans quit their crusade to end all abortions, then maybe it won't seem like that's all we talk about, because there will always be times when an abortion is necessary, to save the life of the woman....and if you have done away with it, the woman dies....that's not pro-life in anybody's book.

I'm not going to get into a marathon debate with you tonight, nor will I stay here and be derided. But your party clearly favors one half of the choice over the other. Choice means abortion, and only abortion. That's it, that's all.

I know that is what it looks like to you, but from my perspective, your party wants to end all abortions, and even though I don't support elective abortions after the first tri-mester, I don't want abortions to be illegal for women whose life are at risk, for women that have been raped, or for young girls who have been raped in incest. Choice means, the woman can choose. To you pro-life means the fetus is more important than the mother...and that is no pro-life, no matter how much lipstick you put on it.

Another example of an entire argument built upon false premise.

RvW was not needed to legalize medically necessary abortions. Women were able to get abortions when their health was jeopardized before RvW,and the right to life movement has never argued that women should die from..whatever conditions the left thinks are brought on by childbirth that can only be cured by abortion. There really are no such conditions, but at any rate, the right to life movement has never maintained that women who are injured or have been diagnosed with a disease for which the treatment precludes pregnancy should be denied whatever medical care is needed.

That is just a false stance assigned to the right to lifer's by the baby killers, who otherwise can find no good reason to advocate killing babies, and making abortion readily available to all women right up through the child's high school graduation.

 

[Samson]

I, as a strong capable and independent woman. Hates being patronized.

Being insensitive doesn't bother a truly strong woman

Well, that settles it: Jake is wrong about Women.




Who would have guessed?

It's called "The Pixie Stix Syndrome." It's her right, but 55% of all women and 65% of single women disagreed with our party's stupid voice about women in the election of 2012.

Because of language like Huck's and despite the few like Pixie, it ain't gonna get better for us, if the dummies keep violating women in language.

What exactly do you think the Republican Party's "stupid voice about women" was? Please cite the exact plank in the 2012 Republican Party Platform about which you refer.





You do realise; Women may vote based on issues that have nothing to do with their vaginas?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Women were not able to get abortions for any reason in many states before RvW.

kg got her butt kicked on that argument about two years ago.

The far right wing nuts' stance is that women should not have an abortion, period, regardless of her life, her health, or rape incest.

Never going to happen.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

"This [actual attacks on women by male GOP candidates] will allow them, of course, to avoid actually discussing that issue openly and honestly, which is the point of their intellectually dishonest, destructive strategy"

There is no issue to be discussed, honestly or not. Women will not tolerate the insensitivity.

That's the problem. Learn to phrase the message better, Mac, to the intended audience, because the female audience will kick utterances such as the one by Huck up the collective candidate ass.

I didn't find Huckabee's comments insensitive. But I listened to them several times, in their proper context, while you didn't and are guzzling the Kool Aid of media spin and propaganda.

He told the truth about the condescending attitude of the Democrat Party toward women and you know it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Defend." Name one case in which the Democrats have fought for a woman to have the baby instead of aborting him/her. Name one instance where Democrats fight for the life of the child instead of the so-called choice of the mother.

I'll be waiting.

What? Are you serious? Choice means women get to choose. Why would Democrats, who advocate "choice" then insist that the woman who wants to have an abortion, not have one.

Really, you don't know what you are talking about. Show me where Republicans whom you claim are for women, have ever fought for a woman's right to choose. Their only demand is that the woman go ahead with the pregnancy. And then, on top of that, after it is born, they don't give a damn about it, and want to cut their food stamps and welfare.

I'll be waiting too.

I can do you better.

There are Republican women. Palin, Rice, Bachmann, Mia Love, Deneen Borelli and company. And once the woman has the child, you suddenly "don't give a damn" and incentivize them by putting them on Welfare. Welfare isn't a boon, it is a ball and chain. Should your party resume caring, you'll make the parents find ways to support their children instead of keeping them on the government dole. Hey, you're pro-choice until the child is born, and pro entitlement afterwards.

Oh, and how can we not "give a damn" when Democrats haven't even extended unemployment benefits yet? I though they "cared"? Nobody has a choice when they're under the thumb of government.

 

[Mertex]

Mert, you're spewing talking points. When your party fights for women's rights, only abortion comes up. Not once do you hear them saying "hey, let that woman have that child!" They get mad if someone insists the woman carry the child.

That's freaking insane. Democrats don't push women to have abortions....they defend women's right to have one if that is what they want, and within the perimeters set by current laws. When Republicans quit their crusade to end all abortions, then maybe it won't seem like that's all we talk about, because there will always be times when an abortion is necessary, to save the life of the woman....and if you have done away with it, the woman dies....that's not pro-life in anybody's book.

I'm not going to get into a marathon debate with you tonight, nor will I stay here and be derided. But your party clearly favors one half of the choice over the other. Choice means abortion, and only abortion. That's it, that's all.

I know that is what it looks like to you, but from my perspective, your party wants to end all abortions, and even though I don't support elective abortions after the first tri-mester, I don't want abortions to be illegal for women whose life are at risk, for women that have been raped, or for young girls who have been raped in incest. Choice means, the woman can choose. To you pro-life means the fetus is more important than the mother...and that is no pro-life, no matter how much lipstick you put on it.

Another example of an entire argument built upon false premise.

RvW was not needed to legalize medically necessary abortions. Women were able to get abortions when their health was jeopardized before RvW,and the right to life movement has never argued that women should die from..whatever conditions the left thinks are brought on by childbirth that can only be cured by abortion. There really are no such conditions, but at any rate, the right to life movement has never maintained that women who are injured or have been diagnosed with a disease for which the treatment precludes pregnancy should be denied whatever medical care is needed.

That is just a false stance assigned to the right to lifer's by the baby killers, who otherwise can find no good reason to advocate killing babies, and making abortion readily available to all women right up through the child's high school graduation.

And you will provide some links to back your statement, or will you do like TK and say it is not pertinent, because we are supposed to take everything you say at face value, since we all know how much you lie?

 

[BobPlumb]

"Jane Roe", Norma McCorvey, later became a prolifer. Hmmmmmmmm.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not going to prove or disprove statements and stances that were never made or taken.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"This [actual attacks on women by male GOP candidates] will allow them, of course, to avoid actually discussing that issue openly and honestly, which is the point of their intellectually dishonest, destructive strategy"

There is no issue to be discussed, honestly or not. Women will not tolerate the insensitivity.

That's the problem. Learn to phrase the message better, Mac, to the intended audience, because the female audience will kick utterances such as the one by Huck up the collective candidate ass.

I didn't find Huckabee's comments insensitive. But I listened to them several times, in their proper context, while you didn't and are guzzling the Kool Aid of media spin and propaganda.

He told the truth about the condescending attitude of the Democrat Party toward women and you know it.

You got it wrong, Helena.

They were insensitive and most women will find it so and act accordingly.

Tunnel vision will not help you grow on these matters.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

"This [actual attacks on women by male GOP candidates] will allow them, of course, to avoid actually discussing that issue openly and honestly, which is the point of their intellectually dishonest, destructive strategy"

There is no issue to be discussed, honestly or not. Women will not tolerate the insensitivity.

That's the problem. Learn to phrase the message better, Mac, to the intended audience, because the female audience will kick utterances such as the one by Huck up the collective candidate ass.

I didn't find Huckabee's comments insensitive. But I listened to them several times, in their proper context, while you didn't and are guzzling the Kool Aid of media spin and propaganda.

He told the truth about the condescending attitude of the Democrat Party toward women and you know it.

You got it wrong, Helena.

They were insensitive and most women will find it so and act accordingly.

Tunnel vision will not help you grow on these matters.

I got it right. I listened to Huckabee's comments in full.

You got the media Kool Aid.That is evident with each and every one of your bungling posts.

And you should quit speaking for women, or anyone else for that matter. From what I've seen, you have a considerable amount of trouble speaking for yourself.

 

[Mertex]

I can do you better.

There are Republican women. Palin, Rice, Bachmann, Mia Love, Deneen Borelli and company.

What? None of those women are in favor of women being able to choose. Now you're just flat out lying.

And once the woman has the child, you suddenly "don't give a damn" and incentivize them by putting them on Welfare. Welfare isn't a boon, it is a ball and chain. Should your party resume caring, you'll make the parents find ways to support their children instead of keeping them on the government dole. Hey, you're pro-choice until the child is born, and pro entitlement afterwards.

We don't put anyone on welfare. If the people aren't able to work or can't make enough money, they put themselves on welfare. Quit lying.

Oh, and how can we not "give a damn" when Democrats haven't even extended unemployment benefits yet? I though they "cared"? Nobody has a choice when they're under the thumb of government.

If your party gave a damn they would not have suggested such huge cuts to Food Stamps, Welfare and other programs that help the poor. But your claim that Democrats have not extended unemployment benefits is either ignorance on your part or willful dishonest. Republicans are the ones that are keeping the unemployment benefits bill from passing.



The White House said it was disappointed in the development, blaming Republicans. President Barack Obama and Democrats have been pressing for an extension of the recession-era program that expired in December.

"We will continue to work with both sides to find a solution because the cost of inaction is simply too high," White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Proponents argue that leaving long-term jobless Americans without a safety net was unacceptable and would also harm the economy since there would be less money for them to spend on goods and services.

According to a Quinnipiac University survey released last week, voters supported by a 58%-37% margin extending unemployment benefits for three months.

There was a partisan divide: Support was 83%-13% among Democrats and 54%-41% among Independent voters, with Republicans opposed 54%-42%.

Extending unemployment benefits stumbles in Senate ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs


Democrats slam Republicans for not extending Emergency Unemployment Compensation Fund - NY Daily News

And don't bother to respond if you're going to be posting lies.

 

[Mertex]

I'm not going to prove or disprove statements and stances that were never made or taken.

Because you can't. You can't prove crap that you make up.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Yes, PP has been getting government money none of which, by federal law, is used for abortion.

Their report claimed otherwise. You'd have to incredibly stupid to believe that they didn't use ANY of that money for abortion.

We could do something crazy like end the funding to PP and see if the abortion rate they provide drops.

 

[koshergrl]

It's a waste of time to prove/disprove what are blatant lies by people who refuse to discuss the issue truthfully.

The truth is, women were able to get medical abortions before RvW. Do you really maintain that isn't true? Because if you do, you're a dolt.

The truth is, there is no proposed pro-life legislation that makes it illegal to perform abortions necessary for the health/life of the mother. None.

 

[Mertex]

It's a waste of time to prove/disprove what are blatant lies by people who refuse to discuss the issue truthfully.

The truth is, women were able to get medical abortions before RvW. Do you really maintain that isn't true? Because if you do, you're a dolt.

The truth is, there is no proposed pro-life legislation that makes it illegal to perform abortions necessary for the health/life of the mother. None.

Sure they were.....but you just can't get your hands on a link to prove it.....Gotcha....

 

[thereisnospoon]

The yearly cost of religious tax emptions is $71,000,000. Seventy-one BILLIION dollars.

Not all religions have tenets that specify no birth control. In fact, I think there is only one, so only one type of Christian, Catholics, can reasonably protest about this. Hypothetically, every taxpayer in the US can say they are against something their tax dollars are spent on. I am against war. A whole lot of my tax dollars go toward supporting wars. I don't get to say I shouldn't have to pay taxes because of that. No one gets to pick and choose what their taxes go for. As an American, you do get to vote, on specific laws and on the people who represent you. If the vote doesn't go in your favor, too bad. If the representatives you vote for don't do what you want, vote against them in the next election. That's how it works. Everybody knows that, of course, just reminding you. If you are not a Catholic, you have no religious stance to hold against birth control being paid by the State. If it is your personal feelings that are offended, you can vote for the representative who supports your same values. That's all you get to do. You don't get to say you shouldn't have to support something you don't agree with, like war.

Umm. Here's where you expose your limited mental capacity which goes to prove you are making an emotional, hysterical argument.
First, you typed in numerals, 71,000,000...Which is not BILLION....It's MILLION...
Next, religious tax exemptions are part of one the left's favorite pet rights...Separation of Church and State....Once again, you want it both ways.
Now, you will offer those examples of religions that do not 'specify' birth control.....Have at it.
BTW, NO religion is opposed to 'birth control'... It is birth control by artificial means, which is taught by the Church to be in violation of God's law. Even Catholics teach birth control. Ever hear the term "Vatican Roulette"?

"I am against war. A whole lot of my tax dollars go toward supporting wars. I don't get to say I shouldn't have to pay taxes because of that."
I find this tactic quite amusing...
Look, honey it is ingrained into the human species that we are aggressive. We will take advantage of the weak at the slightest opportunity. Some cultures are just more civilized in their approach. That said, peace is assured by the barrel of a gun. Period. A potential aggressor will invariably be deterred by the strong possibility of defeat. When two opponents both believe they are the stronger, conflict is inevitable. This is who we are.
The very fact that war exists is the main reason you and I are not speaking German or Japanese right now. Or for that matter, a subject of the Queen of England...
No one "likes" war. However, it is sometimes necessary for a nation to blow up shit and kill people to protect their people and assets.
"If the vote doesn't go in your favor, too bad. If the representatives you vote for don't do what you want, vote against them in the next election. That's how it works. "
Ah. Good point. Here's your problem. You want elections to ALWAYS go your way. And when the vote does not, you scream "CHEATED!!!!"....

I'm not your 'honey' or your 'sweetie', so take all that crap pouring out of your warped, self important mind and shove it right back down your throat. Assholes like you are not worth engaging in adult conversation.

And this was a typo.

The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions: $71,000,000,000 The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions: $71,000,000,000

You have proven by your entire post you are unable to think in terms outside your narrow minded conservative view of the world, which is anything you don't personally like or approve. You are unable to percieve the world other than in sterotypes and simple minded visions. You are against anything you have not personally experienced, and against anything you cannot imagine because you have no imagination. People like you are dinosaurs. You expect everyone to think like you, to live like you, to be like you, and yet the idea of doing so would repulse at the deepest level most human beings on Earth. You are the one who is hysterical, sweetie.

Kitten, those are not terms of endearment.
I see you are now angry with me. It figures. Look, sweet tits, you're out gunned and out of ammo.
Your emotionally charged reply proves that out. You have no substantive rebuttal other than to lash out.
Just for the fun of it I want you to point out my "narrow minded view".
Then. please give examples of a simple minded idea of mine.
Then, you may provide an example of where I am "against anything you( I )have not personally experienced".
"You expect everyone to think like you, to live like you, to be like you,"...Please provide any example where I either stated or implied that.
Typos?
You misspelled....Perceive and stereotype...Grammar violations....Instead of ending a sentence, you placed a comma then used "and" as a conjunction.....
You keep up with the emotional comebacks....Meanwhile your entire existence here circles the bowl...
Go get your Smart car and drive the **** out of here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mertex has treated thereisnospoon like her *****, man handled him, bent him over, and made him cry Uncle.

tisns has plenty of allegations, suggestions, wonders, etc., but no facts or figures or evidence.

Tuff on that.