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

[JakeStarkey]

Uh, look at those numbers again, Sporky, 53% favor restrictions on abortion that preclude "I just feel like it."

Only 42% supported abortion on demand at any stage of the pregnancy.

Which is less important than "78% believe in abortion with some sort of limitation"

Your assertions, my friend, are less important than the facts. Willpower alone does not win arguments.

You are making no point of significance. You and I both agree that abortion on demand and no abortion at all are idiotic.

The question is only this: to what extent do we limit abortions. I am most conservative on this: only in cases of rape, incest, and the life/health of the mother.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're confused. My party believes in letting women choose. Your party would have a raped woman bear the child of a rapist.....defend that.

republicans would prefer to allow a woman to arm and protect herself so she never has to go through the trauma of rape in the first place.

Seriously?

Ask any cop how long it takes to draw, aim and fire accurately and how far the perp has to be away from you for that to be an effective deterrent. Now let's take a look at a "date rape" situation and see how that is going to work in reality. Oh, and let's not forget that in most of these instances there is alcohol involved.

So we have someone who is not sober trying to reach her bag, pull out a gun and try to shoot someone at point blank range. Meanwhile the rapist will be trying to get the gun away from her. What are the odds he will get the gun away from her and then use it against her? What started as a rape is now a murder and the would be rapist can claim self defense because she pulled the gun on him.

Guns are not the solution to every problem.

I'm sorry. Did you just say that in most instances of rape, the woman is drunk?

I tell you what, honey. When it becomes as epidemic for MEN to be grabbed, have their pants pulled off in an alleyway, and then get raped up the ass, you feel free to defend yourself however you like. Until then, I don't recall asking you what the solution I choose to the epidemic that already affects ME should be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All the defense skills in the world does not necessarily mean you will be able to defend yourself. Remember, TK, timing is crucial. You have to pull that gun out and fire at exactly the right time - and you have to be damned sure that the person is a real threat, and not someone you don't like being near.

That's an awful lot of fallacious boundaries you've put on the situation.

Not according to the cops I know. They won't pull their own guns out unless there is sufficient time, space and an identifiable threat.

I don't recall an epidemic of people assaulting and raping cops, so I fail to see why it's relevant what they do or don't do. Talk about your apples and oranges comparisons.

 

[Cecilie1200]

republicans would prefer to allow a woman to arm and protect herself so she never has to go through the trauma of rape in the first place.

Seriously?

Ask any cop how long it takes to draw, aim and fire accurately and how far the perp has to be away from you for that to be an effective deterrent. Now let's take a look at a "date rape" situation and see how that is going to work in reality. Oh, and let's not forget that in most of these instances there is alcohol involved.

So we have someone who is not sober trying to reach her bag, pull out a gun and try to shoot someone at point blank range. Meanwhile the rapist will be trying to get the gun away from her. What are the odds he will get the gun away from her and then use it against her? What started as a rape is now a murder and the would be rapist can claim self defense because she pulled the gun on him.

Guns are not the solution to every problem.

No, but they can solve some issues before they get out of hand.

Besides, date-rape isn't usually life-threatening. A knee to the nuts usually works best.

My approach to preventing date rape usually involves not being alone with people I don't know well. Amazing how it works.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not having a gun DOES mean you will not be able to defend yourself.

Noomi doesn't need a gun to defend herself.

But not everyone knows Karate either.

I for one learned to use a gun safely and effectively a hell of a lot faster than I could ever have learned a martial art. And I really doubt I'm all that unique among women in this regard.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ok then, why this?

Democrats draw criticism for platform supporting abortion without exceptions | Fox News

1. Nothing whatsoever to do with women's sex drive.

2. Deliberate obfuscation by the right. Nowhere did the Dems advocate overturning the existing restrictions imposed by RvW.

1. This was your request:

The onus is now on you to prove that Huckabee is correct that the Dems are "evangelizing" to the women of America that "they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government.”

Please provide the exact "verses and hymnals" used by the Dems and explain exactly how they conflate the control of women's sex drive to government assistance.

2. You asked for the "verses and hymnals" and I gave them to you. Maybe this will help:

The Democratic platform reads:

The President and the Democratic Party believe that women have a right to control their reproductive choices. Democrats support access to affordable family planning services, and President Obama and Democrats will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers. The Affordable Care Act ensures that women have access to contraception in their health insurance plans, and the President has respected the principle of religious liberty. Democrats support evidence-based and age-appropriate sex education.

Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose.

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

Standing up for Women’s Rights Around the Globe

President Obama and the Democratic Party are committed to supporting family planning around the globe to help women care for their families, support their communities, and lead their countries to be healthier and more productive. (author's note, this is where the argument that federal money doesn't go to fund abortions falls flat on it's face)That’s why, in his first month in office, President Obama overturned the “global gag rule,” a ban on federal funds to foreign family planning organizations that provided information about, counseling on, or offered abortions. And that is why the administration has supported lifesaving family planning health information and services.

If you want further proof, you can look no further than the 2008 and 2012 DNC where the head of NARAL Nancy Keenan was allowed to speak, Cecile Richards President and CEO of Planned Parenthood, with Sandra Fluke. It rejected any attempt by pro life Democrats to speak at the convention. It was an ode to abortion. Like a Pastor and his congregation...

Will the Dem convention be Abortion-palooza? « Hot Air

Still stuck on abortion?

Did you miss the significance of the terms "legal abortion" and "foreign"?

Nowhere have you linked any of that to women's "sex drive".

Nowhere have you demonstrated that this fits the definition of "evangelizing".

 

[Derideo_Te]

But not everyone knows Karate either.

I hold the rank of Master in Kung Fu San Soo. It took me 30 years to reach that level.

I can teach a person to be proficient with a firearm in a single day.

At 6 feet away, the person with the firearm and a single day of training can easily defeat me.

Martial Arts are great fun, great exercise, and full of great people. But for self-defense, get a gun.

If you are dumb enough to stand dead still square on to someone at that range you deserve to get shot. But that isn't how it happens in real life scenarios. Moving targets are notoriously difficult to hit. Handguns are inaccurate because people in stressful situations aren't trained to use them properly. No way, no how are you going to teach anyone in a single day how to defend themselves with a gun under all circumstances. Cops want at least 20'+ between themselves and a perp in order to draw, aim and fire and they practice constantly. A gun in a handbag will take longer to draw and aim. A perp will be all over the victim from 6' away before she even gets her hand on the gun. This all happens in milliseconds in real life. Hollywood is not real life.

 

[Derideo_Te]

republicans would prefer to allow a woman to arm and protect herself so she never has to go through the trauma of rape in the first place.

Seriously?

Ask any cop how long it takes to draw, aim and fire accurately and how far the perp has to be away from you for that to be an effective deterrent. Now let's take a look at a "date rape" situation and see how that is going to work in reality. Oh, and let's not forget that in most of these instances there is alcohol involved.

So we have someone who is not sober trying to reach her bag, pull out a gun and try to shoot someone at point blank range. Meanwhile the rapist will be trying to get the gun away from her. What are the odds he will get the gun away from her and then use it against her? What started as a rape is now a murder and the would be rapist can claim self defense because she pulled the gun on him.

Guns are not the solution to every problem.

I'm sorry. Did you just say that in most instances of rape, the woman is drunk?

I tell you what, honey. When it becomes as epidemic for MEN to be grabbed, have their pants pulled off in an alleyway, and then get raped up the ass, you feel free to defend yourself however you like. Until then, I don't recall asking you what the solution I choose to the epidemic that already affects ME should be.

Your apology is accepted for deliberately distorting what I actually posted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That's an awful lot of fallacious boundaries you've put on the situation.

Not according to the cops I know. They won't pull their own guns out unless there is sufficient time, space and an identifiable threat.

I don't recall an epidemic of people assaulting and raping cops, so I fail to see why it's relevant what they do or don't do. Talk about your apples and oranges comparisons.

More bizarre distortions and deflections!

/sigh!

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you are dumb enough to stand dead still square on to someone at that range you deserve to get shot. But that isn't how it happens in real life scenarios.

So, you've never fired a gun in your life, I understand.

At 6 feet, it's almost impossible to miss, even if the person is in motion.

Most of us practice at 25 to 50 YARDS with a handgun.

Moving targets are notoriously difficult to hit. Handguns are inaccurate because people in stressful situations aren't trained to use them properly. No way, no how are you going to teach anyone in a single day how to defend themselves with a gun under all circumstances. Cops want at least 20'+ between themselves and a perp in order to draw, aim and fire and they practice constantly. A gun in a handbag will take longer to draw and aim. A perp will be all over the victim from 6' away before she even gets her hand on the gun. This all happens in milliseconds in real life. Hollywood is not real life.

You've clearly never held, much less fired a handgun.

 

[koshergrl]

It's hard to miss a target at 6 feet. It doesn't matter if it's moving or not. If it's moving, it's probably moving towards you, which makes it even easier to hit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[Did you just say that in most instances of rape, the woman is drunk?

He wrote, "So we have someone who is not sober trying to reach her bag," and you translated that into "most instance of rape the woman is drunk?"

Either you did not read carefully, or you are deliberately being dishonest.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's hard to miss a target at 6 feet. It doesn't matter if it's moving or not. If it's moving, it's probably moving towards you, which makes it even easier to hit.

Derideo played Duck Hunter on the Nintendo. The dog kept laughing at him, so he thinks that shooting at 6 feet is really hard...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Which is less important than "78% believe in abortion with some sort of limitation"

Your assertions, my friend, are less important than the facts. Willpower alone does not win arguments.

You are making no point of significance. You and I both agree that abortion on demand and no abortion at all are idiotic.

The question is only this: to what extent do we limit abortions. I am most conservative on this: only in cases of rape, incest, and the life/health of the mother.

"78% believe in abortion with some sort of limitation" is about as pointless as it comes, Jake.

 

[High_Gravity]

I suspect the dems are getting laid a lot, and it makes me very angry.

 

[Spoonman]

I suspect the dems are getting laid a lot, and it makes me very angry.

but I heard it was mostly gay sex

 

[koshergrl]

Your assertions, my friend, are less important than the facts. Willpower alone does not win arguments.

You are making no point of significance. You and I both agree that abortion on demand and no abortion at all are idiotic.

The question is only this: to what extent do we limit abortions. I am most conservative on this: only in cases of rape, incest, and the life/health of the mother.

"78% believe in abortion with some sort of limitation" is about as pointless as it comes, Jake.

Time for a courtesy flush:

Today, 12:19 PM JakeStarkey This message is hidden because JakeStarkey is on your ignore list.

It's amazing how much one doesn't miss when one puts JS on ignore.

 

[candycorn]

Thinking women will find that if Huck said, "that he believes Democrats think that women cannot control their libido's", the women will say "what a ******* doofus, and he works for the GOP."

This is a lose lose for the GOP, period.

It's bizarre the way that the next republican will, at break neck speed, crawl over the cadavers of all of the political careers of his confederates who were destroyed by this topic; all too eager to suffer the same fate. As if they think, "I know how to charm the little ladies" into giving up their reproductive rights...

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's bizarre the way that the next republican will, at break neck speed, crawl over the cadavers of all of the political careers of his confederates who were destroyed by this topic; all too eager to suffer the same fate. As if they think, "I know how to charm the little ladies" into giving up their reproductive rights...

You have a "right" to force the Catholic church to pay for your contraceptives?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your assertions, my friend, are less important than the facts. Willpower alone does not win arguments.

You are making no point of significance. You and I both agree that abortion on demand and no abortion at all are idiotic.

The question is only this: to what extent do we limit abortions. I am most conservative on this: only in cases of rape, incest, and the life/health of the mother.

"78% believe in abortion with some sort of limitation" is about as pointless as it comes, Jake.

No it is not but your comment is worthless. Almost 80% of Americans want some form of regulation. The only question is how much?

How much do you believe it should be?