RE: Women's Rights!

RE: Women's Rights! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/21/2010 3:07:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Oh for goodness sake. This is not a "step backwards" - a step backwards would require something to change. This is maintaining the status quo. Women have not lost any rights today. Our rights were not thrown away. Women still have the exact same right to get an abortion as they did yesterday. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I hope American woman are clear about what just happened ...their President and a few of their Democratic represenatives have just sold their rights down the river in order to advance the cause of Health Care Reform. As a woman, I can say that not only were no rights lost, but quite a few will be gained. The right to a mammogram The right to a pap smear The right to a gyno visit The right to treatment for breast and ovarian cancer The right to have your child in a hospital surrounded by trained staff, without a bill that equals a couple years of that child's higher education I'm sorry but really if you're saying that funding for abortion is more important than health care reform it might interest you to know that there are far more pressing issues regarding womens' health than what she does when and if she becomes pregnant. Sorry that you took that one post of mine(I am a rather prolific poster...I even appear on other threads...lol) and assumed that entailed my thinking on the subject in its entirety...but I will grant you I could have been clearer and more expansive....I allowed my anger to cloud my judgement on that post.In other posts I have expressed my belief that while this is a flawed bill.....and certain Democratic representatives bowed to either their fear of retribution at the polls ...or their own backwards religious dogma...it is a step forward.Hell it is my hope it is just the first step towards a single payer option.

RCdc -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 7:32:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phoenixpower quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius On that note, then you must surely believe anybody wanting an abortion for reasons other than rape or incest should be required to pay for it themselves (the whole 2 to tango thing)? It can be provided free of charge via the NHS but as far as I know it can take rather long to get to the appointment with the NHS...as usual... Incorrect. Abortions don't have 'waiting' lists like some other procedures. Depending on where it's carried out or the reason, you can even get an NHS appointment within 24 hours. Even vasectomies have no more than around a 4(6 at most depending on your area) week wait. You can pay private clinics for an abortion but the majority of women do not have to and couldn't afford to even if they wished. You can however, 'top up' your abortion, in the same way you can 'top up' your birth by paying extra for a private room etc. That can be done in some hospitals or clinics for around £10 per night, as my friend did recently. the.dark.

slvemike4u -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 8:25:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella Oh for goodness sake. This is not a "step backwards" - a step backwards would require something to change. This is maintaining the status quo. Women have not lost any rights today. Our rights were not thrown away. Women still have the exact same right to get an abortion as they did yesterday. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I hope American woman are clear about what just happened ...their President and a few of their Democratic represenatives have just sold their rights down the river in order to advance the cause of Health Care Reform. As a woman, I can say that not only were no rights lost, but quite a few will be gained. The right to a mammogram The right to a pap smear The right to a gyno visit The right to treatment for breast and ovarian cancer The right to have your child in a hospital surrounded by trained staff, without a bill that equals a couple years of that child's higher education I'm sorry but really if you're saying that funding for abortion is more important than health care reform it might interest you to know that there are far more pressing issues regarding womens' health than what she does when and if she becomes pregnant. You are of course right...and I'm happy to say so...I did ,when I made the earlier ill advised post misunderstand the particulars of the deal struck by the pro-life contingent of the Democratic Party....All that was agreed to was that the status quo was maintained where federal funds and abortion was concerned....The Hyde Ammendmant was maintained....a rider that has been attatched to appropriation bills since 1976.It would have been better had this not been necessary but...in the end the bill could not have been passed minus this agreement. Sorry for my error.

barelynangel -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 11:19:17 AM)
Fast Reply based on the OP and some of the posts -- I don't know if this has been said but PEOPLE don't have the right to do with their bodies as they will -- A person cannot legally commit suicide. A person cannot legally let someone else kill them. A person cannot consent to being beaten in many states now. You do not have the right to give your organs that you need to live away while you are alive. if you were to cut of a perfectly good limb and for some reason had to seek medical care because of same, the doctors are required by law to have you investigated either incident wise or emotionally. There are many things that people are not allowed to do freely with their bodies. Abortion simply is a procedure that as of now is allowed and only the female needs to consent. I think many people believe they have an all out right to do with their bodies what they will but there are many things that would have them either brought up on charges or held involuntarily for evaluation for doing same. angel

RCdc -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 12:01:42 PM)
Maybe not in the states. But in other countries some of those are perfectly legal. But then, whether it's legal or not, it doesn't matter for someone who makes the decision to take things away from the state or law and pay the consequence. the.dark.

Sanguinarian -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 12:10:45 PM)
I am just curious, but what about Human Parthenogenesis? ( In laymen's terms, a virgin pregnancy where no sperm or other male hormone has been introduced into the female's body whatsoever. ) Since the chick did keep her legs closed, but she still got pregnant. So.... can she have an abortion? ( And try to keep to the question and not bother with the fact that there has been no proven documented cases of Human Parthenogenesis. I am asking for the theory of abortion related to this non-sex-related pregnancy.)

slvemike4u -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 12:16:29 PM)
Okay...keeping to your hypothetical...I still will be forced to ask one little question...why go to the trouble of arranging to be impregnated...only to abort.It seems,on it's face,more than a little silly....even as a theoretical proposition.

heartcream -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 12:29:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel Fast Reply based on the OP and some of the posts -- I don't know if this has been said but PEOPLE don't have the right to do with their bodies as they will -- A person cannot legally commit suicide. A person cannot legally let someone else kill them. A person cannot consent to being beaten in many states now. You do not have the right to give your organs that you need to live away while you are alive. if you were to cut of a perfectly good limb and for some reason had to seek medical care because of same, the doctors are required by law to have you investigated either incident wise or emotionally. There are many things that people are not allowed to do freely with their bodies. Abortion simply is a procedure that as of now is allowed and only the female needs to consent. I think many people believe they have an all out right to do with their bodies what they will but there are many things that would have them either brought up on charges or held involuntarily for evaluation for doing same. angel Why caps "people"? I dont get it. People do have the all out right to do with their bodies as they will. Our legal system is not based in ultimate truth at all and to think it is is silly. Yeah like then you could write, PEOPLE do not have the right to have doggie style sex because in some states it is illegal. That is a stupid law and many of the laws are. Supporting the law as though it were God is really worrisome position and says so much about the person on the soap box supporting this wrong reality. Women used to have no right to vote, if they though they had an all out right to vote I would think these women had a brain not the shrill yelling at them that the law would not allow it. People have thought they have an all out right to freedom but the friggin law said otherwise and a black man running away from this ridiculous an damaging 'law' would 'lawfully' be gunned down, hung and so on and so forth.

Sanguinarian -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 12:32:17 PM)
Ah ah, I never said it was 'arranged'. In all of the species that have births via Parthenogenesis, it is not arranged. In humans, it is said that this cannot be medically arranged for, either, due to the complications of the imprint to the fetus genome that is supposed to come from two sources ( male and female parents) So, I ask again, but perhaps in a slightly different way. If this phenomenon happened just randomly, meaning that the female was practicing abstinence and not having any extra-curricular sexual activities, would she be able to have an abortion if she chose to? ( Or in another case, a child born with both sets of sexual organs and both sets are fertile, and so, can cause "Virgin Pregnancy" can this still be done?) My question is more for those who allege that a woman having sex is responsible for any child that comes of it and should not have the option of abortion like a rape/incest/medical necessary victim/person should have. Would a person who has never had sex, or done sexual activities but is pregnant for any reason, be able to make the choice for herself? Any takers?

heartcream -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 12:44:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanguinarian Would a person who has never had sex, or done sexual activities but is pregnant for any reason, be able to make the choice for herself? Any takers? [/color] Of course why wouldnt she be?

RCdc -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 12:49:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanguinarian I am just curious, but what about Human Parthenogenesis? ( In laymen's terms, a virgin pregnancy where no sperm or other male hormone has been introduced into the female's body whatsoever. ) Since the chick did keep her legs closed, but she still got pregnant. So.... can she have an abortion? ( And try to keep to the question and not bother with the fact that there has been no proven documented cases of Human Parthenogenesis. I am asking for the theory of abortion related to this non-sex-related pregnancy.) Ah great. Mary and the abortion debate.[;)] the.dark.

Jeffff -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 12:50:29 PM)
Madonna or Whore?

RCdc -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 12:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Madonna or Whore? I suppose for some, that would depend if she kept the baby or not.[8\|] the.dark.

mnottertail -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 12:52:12 PM)
Their right to be either or both, I expect. Susan B. Anthony

heartcream -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 12:57:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Madonna or Whore? Madonna or Heidi Fleiss?

Sanguinarian -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 1:01:29 PM)
: chuckles and offers Mike pats: Sorry Mike, I tried to use layman's terms. :P the.dark, Trust me, it isn't the Mary debate. I was just curious. But in my opinion, of some 'angel' came to visit Mary and then said Mary was pregnant and no one else knew, if I was Joseph, I would be asking some serious questions of that angel. So... I got one in favor of the abortion choice in the Parthenogenesis theory. Anyone else?

slvemike4u -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 1:18:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanguinarian : chuckles and offers Mike pats: Sorry Mike, I tried to use layman's terms. :P the.dark, Trust me, it isn't the Mary debate. I was just curious. But in my opinion, of some 'angel' came to visit Mary and then said Mary was pregnant and no one else knew, if I was Joseph, I would be asking some serious questions of that angel. So... I got one in favor of the abortion choice in the Parthenogenesis theory. Anyone else? And now you condescendingly pat me on the head(?)....and refer to talking in laymans terms ......sheeesh you're a cruel one [:D] I think I like you.

Marc2b -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 1:33:11 PM)
quote: PEOPLE do not have the right to have doggie style sex because in some states it is illegal. [sm=wtf.gif] Holy shit! Please tell me that you made this up and it's not true! Doggie style is my favorite. It's so God damn primal (especially if you do it out in the woods [sm=insane.gif]). Oh, who am I kidding? In this wacko country it probably is true.

slvemike4u -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 1:35:45 PM)
Will some mere law stop you from acting all primal and shit?

Marc2b -> RE: Women's Rights! (3/23/2010 1:38:24 PM)
quote: Will some mere law stop you from acting all primal and shit? Fuck no! In fact it will make it even sweeter. Stupid paternalistic/moralistic laws just piss the shit out of me.

Page: << < prev 35 36 37 [38] 39 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875