I absolutely hate the "men shouldn't make decisions about women's health" argument. Do female senators recuse themselves from discussing how healthcare reform will impact men? Are people who didn't serve in the military barred from being commander in chief? Voting on a declaration of war? Should only muslims get to weigh in on the war on terror? Drug addicts only ones who see national drug policy?
I know of a family that had a 1.2 pound baby at around 24 weeks or so. They had no insurance. The baby survived and is now 2+ and thriving.
False choice. The "pro-choice" folks are hypocrites because they don't give the unborn child a choice...
not disagreeing in principle, but... there aren't that many female senators, so there is never a case that mostly women would discuss/decide men-only related healthcare president does so much more than just military; more appropriate would be should someone who never served in the military, or have any military training or education be elected Sec of Defense ? (yes i know we have had non-military SoD) yes, muslim should actually be asked to weight in on the war on islamic terrorism yes, drug addicts (that has come clean) should be consulted for national drug policies the point isn't to exclude or bar, but that when it come to women health, women voice should be given more power/consideration if you will since whose else would experience the impact and know 1st hand what women health is?
Stupid argument. To my knowledge there are no politicians with autism or downs syndrome so they need to recuse themselves from any discussions/legislation on those conditions. Only politicians that are cancer survivors should weigh in on how any bill would impact cancer. Blah blah blah. It's preposterous that abortion is the only issue in the entire public discourse where one side claims "if it can't impact YOUR body you should keep quiet!"
Being asked to weigh in on the issues is totally different than saying you should exclude everyone but. You hear it all the time with abortion. "This is a women's health issue! Men should stay out of it!" In this thread you had the old, tired refrain of "Old men making decisions about women's bodies!"
i actually have not heard of it in that way (deaf i guess) ; what i have heard is men are making all these decisions and laws on women health (which is mostly true) and women feel they don't get a voice (which is completely understandable) when you have abortion laws that make no medical sense with no medical basis and have restriction on women... of course women will feel like they have little voice and who are making those laws? make sensible laws and the complain would mostly go away
Republicans are against sex ed and contraception because if you had them and had less abortions, they would lose an issue to rally their base around. Lots of abortions are good for Republican fundraising efforts. Thats why they won't challenge Roe vs Wade even though they have the supreme court. The want abortions.
First of all, good for them. Any guesses how much money that cost? Any guesses who actually paid for that? I suspect that the local tax payers paid the bill. I also suspect that your friends would have a completely different experience in a third world country. You might note that the abortion restriction bills that states pass contain no monies to help pay this. The pro-life people are not putting their money where their mouth is.
You can have and voice your opinion. The weight of your opinion is another matter. Women generally know better than men what it means to make a 20 year commitment to raise a baby. I know the silver bullet that would kill the pro-life movement. Mandate that every birth certificate have a DNA certified listing for the father. The father will need to pay child support for the 20 years.
My point was two fold: to agree with CML as I was surprised that an evangelical conservative was stating that he is pro birth control. Lastly, the GOP is trying to do away with PP all together; An organization that is seeking to help reduce abortions through family planning and low cost birth control.
PP is not needed for that, plenty of other places to get it. PP is needed because they are an abortion mill. Their revenues reflect this demand. Also, the GOP offered to fund PP if they would stop doing abortions. They refused, which further gives the game away. Unless it is an abortifacient, I haven't heard of any viable movement to abolish birth control, yet that anti-birth control narrative gets pushed incessantly.
The GOP game is very clear. Get rid of all clinics that perform abortion. Hint: Abortion is legal in the US. You are all about attacking PP because you have a simple minded solution that doesn't work. PP has every right to perform abortion. Legal. And it's not going to give that up when it fully realize it is the last standing wall from GOP clear agenda of taking all choices away from women and family. Again, if you want to reduce abortion, go after unwanted pregnancies. That's where the most effective solution lies. All sides can at least agree on that, except for very religious zealots.
A viable movement? What on earth does that mean? My statement was in agreement with CML and to highlight that birth control is absolutely, unequivocally the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions. Making abortions illegal will not stop them nor will abstinence education and the KJV bible.
