Indiana senate candidate Richard Murdock

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Well then since abortion was made legal then God must have intended it to happen so Joey and the rest of his religious zelots should STFU and let God have his way and quit wasting our tax dollars on fighting something that God let happen.

yeah, people always want god on their side.

it used to be that free will was considered blasphemy. that everything had been pre-ordained. well, if that was the case, then why did the criminal have to serve time, since god pre-ordained he commit the crime? how could the thief be held to blame? god had decided..
it was questions like those that helped lead to free will gradually becoming the accepted teaching. but then, i've been told by exercising my free will 'in the wrong way' i was going to hell. i told the woman who said that to me, that god was definitely a sneaky fellow. if it's free will, but there are rules about how you use it, it's not so free, is it?
at any rate, the contortions by pro-lifers to somehow still tie things into god's big plan can become rather comical at times. but then, not quite so comical when you know they are completely serious about changing everyone's rules to how they feel things should be.
and i'm sure they can show you passages in the bible to support the view that women should do as they're told. cause that's how god wants it. why else would the bible say it? (probably because men in positions of power decided what was included in the 'holy book'????).

on another note...i really wish that people would stop quoting others. perhaps you could say 'to so and so'. that way i don't have to read such drivel as 'not a date rape' from a poster i have on ignore. wtf is that supposed to mean? rape is rape is rape. i don't care if you effing know the guys name-if you say 'no', and he forces you-hello, that's a crime. it's an assault.
after all, if sandusky molested his nephew instead of a camp kid, does that lessen the crime?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, people always want god on their side.

it used to be that free will was considered blasphemy. that everything had been pre-ordained. well, if that was the case, then why did the criminal have to serve time, since god pre-ordained he commit the crime? how could the thief be held to blame? god had decided..
it was questions like those that helped lead to free will gradually becoming the accepted teaching. but then, i've been told by exercising my free will 'in the wrong way' i was going to hell. i told the woman who said that to me, that god was definitely a sneaky fellow. if it's free will, but there are rules about how you use it, it's not so free, is it?
at any rate, the contortions by pro-lifers to somehow still tie things into god's big plan can become rather comical at times. but then, not quite so comical when you know they are completely serious about changing everyone's rules to how they feel things should be.
and i'm sure they can show you passages in the bible to support the view that women should do as they're told. cause that's how god wants it. why else would the bible say it? (probably because men in positions of power decided what was included in the 'holy book'????).

on another note...i really wish that people would stop quoting others. perhaps you could say 'to so and so'. that way i don't have to read such drivel as 'not a date rape' from a poster i have on ignore. wtf is that supposed to mean? rape is rape is rape. i don't care if you effing know the guys name-if you say 'no', and he forces you-hello, that's a crime. it's an assault.
after all, if sandusky molested his nephew instead of a camp kid, does that lessen the crime?

If there is a God and he is an omnipotent God, then he is capable of controlling everything. He can do whatever he wants. That doesn't mean that he does in fact control everything. It just means that he is capable of controlling everything. If he doesn't want something to happen, he can stop it from happening. But that doesn't mean that he constantly intervenes in every situation. At times he may intervene and at other times he may not.

If I am an evil person and I kill someone, I would argue that God could have stopped me if he wanted to. If he is omnipotent, he could do anything. That is the definition of omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent, then what is so great about God? But assuming that he is omnipotent and he didn't stop me from killing someone, that still would not affect my culpability for the crime. There is a big difference in saying "he didn't stop me" vs saying "he forced me to do it". Just because God allows something to happen, that doesn't mean he forced it to happen. There is a big difference.

With regard to my quote about date rape vs being raped by a stranger, you misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that most people would be sickened by the thought of carrying the baby of some homeless guy (or some psycho off the street that raped them). I think most people would find it repulsive. They may or may not have the same level of disgust if they were raped by a friend or by someone that they were romantically interested in.

If a girl was pretty religious and she was against abortion, she might be able to make a case to herself to carry the baby to term if she was raped by a friend or by a one-time romantic interest. I would have to think it would be impossible to make a case for carrying the baby of some psychopath off the street.

By the way, I think it is hilarious that you have me on "ignore". I had no idea you had me on "ignore". I get along with every person on this board, regardless of their politics.

[Cannon Shell]

There is no chance Roe vs Wade gets overturned regardless of who is elected. It is simply a Democratic scare tactic.

[Crown@club]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There is no chance Roe vs Wade gets overturned regardless of who is elected. It is simply a Democratic scare tactic.

Originally Posted by Riot

The time for people to be "up in arms" about men trying to take women's rights away is right now - during the electoral process. That's why Mourdock was asked at the rally about his thoughts on women's rights and abortion - so people can choose to never, ever for for him, an American Taliban that wants to introduce his religious law into our government.

Democracy takes work. These people are very dangerous. Again - any woman who votes for a candidate that looks you in the face and says he wants to take away your current freedoms and rights - he's not joking. He's dead serious, no matter how extreme and silly you think he sounds. Run for your life. Vote and defend your freedom.

Problem is Joe Donnelly is against abortion also.....but then he could flip-flop like he always does anyways.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

Problem is Joe Donnelly is against abortion also.....but then he could flip-flop like he always does anyways.

Good point. I totally forgot that both candidates in that race are pro-life.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There is no chance Roe vs Wade gets overturned regardless of who is elected. It is simply a Democratic scare tactic.

You haven't been following abortion rights, or lack of them, in state legislatures, then. Abortion is already, for all intents and purposes, illegal in some states, because of restrictions passed on clinics' operations. And yet women's rights groups aren't pursuing cases against them- not because they don't feel the laws are violating Roe v. Wade, but because they are terrified of Roe v. Wade being overturned. In addition, several states have already passed laws that would make abortion immediately illegal in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned, so they've already prepared for it.

And of course, it's not really about abortion; it's about women's freedom, as the fight over whether a company has more religious rights than an individual when it comes to women's contraception, shows. Women who do not have control over their reproductive lives are not free. They aren't. I had a wanted pregnancy, and it still takes over your life and body, and, in my case, was in danger of killing me at the end- I had to be induced early because my blood pressure hit seizure levels and I was at risk of stroke. A friend of mine did have a stroke after having a baby. Another died last year on the operating table delivering twins. Pregnancy and childbirth are f*cking dangerous.

And these were all wanted pregnancies, and, in the case of my friends, everything was fine, right up until delivery, so there was no sense that their lives or health were at risk. The GOP proposes forcing women to risk their lives and health, in fact, give them up, for pregnancies they don't want. And that will leave thousands of children without mothers, because the majority of women seeking abortion ALREADY HAVE AT LEAST ONE CHILD. It's not all teenagers who didn't use condoms. One out of three women have an abortion before the age of 45. Most, if not all of us know someone who has had one.

This isn't a scare tactic; this is a genuine possibility and it's really scary. Women will die. And it's right there in the national GOP platform- no abortion under any circumstances. That's what they support. Look it up.

This is what happens when religious zealots get into government. Freedom goes away.

The Democrats are using this as a scare tactic because women should be scared.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

You haven't been following abortion rights, or lack of them, in state legislatures, then. Abortion is already, for all intents and purposes, illegal in some states, because of restrictions passed on clinics' operations. And yet women's rights groups aren't pursuing cases against them- not because they don't feel the laws are violating Roe v. Wade, but because they are terrified of Roe v. Wade being overturned. In addition, several states have already passed laws that would make abortion immediately illegal in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned, so they've already prepared for it.

And of course, it's not really about abortion; it's about women's freedom, as the fight over whether a company has more religious rights than an individual when it comes to women's contraception, shows. Women who do not have control over their reproductive lives are not free. They aren't. I had a wanted pregnancy, and it still takes over your life and body, and, in my case, was in danger of killing me at the end- I had to be induced early because my blood pressure hit seizure levels and I was at risk of stroke. A friend of mine did have a stroke after having a baby. Another died last year on the operating table delivering twins. Pregnancy and childbirth are f*cking dangerous.

And these were all wanted pregnancies, and, in the case of my friends, everything was fine, right up until delivery, so there was no sense that their lives or health were at risk. The GOP proposes forcing women to risk their lives and health, in fact, give them up, for pregnancies they don't want. And that will leave thousands of children without mothers, because the majority of women seeking abortion ALREADY HAVE AT LEAST ONE CHILD. It's not all teenagers who didn't use condoms. One out of three women have an abortion before the age of 45. Most, if not all of us know someone who has had one.

This isn't a scare tactic; this is a genuine possibility and it's really scary. Women will die. And it's right there in the national GOP platform- no abortion under any circumstances. That's what they support. Look it up.

This is what happens when religious zealots get into government. Freedom goes away.

The Democrats are using this as a scare tactic because women should be scared.

i read that over 100 bills were introduced by republicans over the country this year, attempting to put limits on reproductive rights. it's scary when you read and hear what some of the people in positions to force change have to say.

[Patrick333]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i read that over 100 bills were introduced by republicans over the country this year, attempting to put limits on reproductive rights. it's scary when you read and hear what some of the people in positions to force change have to say.

I've never seen that. Do you have a link for that article?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Patrick333

I've never seen that. Do you have a link for that article?

i've seen in various articles from various sources how many new bills have been introduced. could have been slate magazine, or msnbc, or yahoo news...who know?


but here's a link to this one. doesn't say over 100 for this year, but over 1000 since 2010.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/opinio...ion/index.html


But don't think for a second that social issues -- particularly abortion -- are not in the GOP's sights. Since the tea party helped pull the GOP back into power in 2010 -- under the guise of controlling government spending -- close to 1,000 anti-abortion bills have been introduced across the country.


if you click on the link in that excerpt, it takes you to the Guttmacher institue page, but from 2011.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente...ends12012.html

the above is more current.


this is an excerpt from wikipedia (which references the guttmacher institute):

2011 and 2012 have seen an unprecedented rise in the passage of provisions related to women's health and reproductive rights.[32][33] State legislatures across the United States introduced 1100 provisions restricting women's reproductive rights in 2011.[32][34] The first quarter of 2012 saw an additional 944 provisions introduced in state legislatures, half of which would restrict access to abortion.

in the u.s. congress alone, since 2011, 54 bills were introduced by republicans attempting to restrict abortion rights.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ed-on-abortion

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

You haven't been following abortion rights, or lack of them, in state legislatures, then. Abortion is already, for all intents and purposes, illegal in some states, because of restrictions passed on clinics' operations. And yet women's rights groups aren't pursuing cases against them- not because they don't feel the laws are violating Roe v. Wade, but because they are terrified of Roe v. Wade being overturned. In addition, several states have already passed laws that would make abortion immediately illegal in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned, so they've already prepared for it.

And of course, it's not really about abortion; it's about women's freedom, as the fight over whether a company has more religious rights than an individual when it comes to women's contraception, shows. Women who do not have control over their reproductive lives are not free. They aren't. I had a wanted pregnancy, and it still takes over your life and body, and, in my case, was in danger of killing me at the end- I had to be induced early because my blood pressure hit seizure levels and I was at risk of stroke. A friend of mine did have a stroke after having a baby. Another died last year on the operating table delivering twins. Pregnancy and childbirth are f*cking dangerous.

And these were all wanted pregnancies, and, in the case of my friends, everything was fine, right up until delivery, so there was no sense that their lives or health were at risk. The GOP proposes forcing women to risk their lives and health, in fact, give them up, for pregnancies they don't want. And that will leave thousands of children without mothers, because the majority of women seeking abortion ALREADY HAVE AT LEAST ONE CHILD. It's not all teenagers who didn't use condoms. One out of three women have an abortion before the age of 45. Most, if not all of us know someone who has had one.

This isn't a scare tactic; this is a genuine possibility and it's really scary. Women will die. And it's right there in the national GOP platform- no abortion under any circumstances. That's what they support. Look it up.

This is what happens when religious zealots get into government. Freedom goes away.

The Democrats are using this as a scare tactic because women should be scared.

The fact that 1 in 3 American women have had an abortion by age of 45 is troubling news. I guess I didn't realize that we have gotten so cavalier about safe sex. Regardless of your position on Roe v Wade there is something missing in the education of our society when 1/3rd of women in this country have had an abortion. While understanding that a womans reproductive issues are her own business and there is of course two sides to this equation doesn't that number seem to be way higher than it should be considering the safe sex information that is seemingly very much available? I get that unwanted pregnancy isnt completely avoidable but the sheer numbers seem to point to a lack of responsibility on the part of our society when it comes to sex or at least the unprotected kind?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The fact that 1 in 3 American women have had an abortion by age of 45 is troubling news. I guess I didn't realize that we have gotten so cavalier about safe sex. Regardless of your position on Roe v Wade there is something missing in the education of our society when 1/3rd of women in this country have had an abortion. While understanding that a womans reproductive issues are her own business and there is of course two sides to this equation doesn't that number seem to be way higher than it should be considering the safe sex information that is seemingly very much available? I get that unwanted pregnancy isnt completely avoidable but the sheer numbers seem to point to a lack of responsibility on the part of our society when it comes to sex or at least the unprotected kind?

I guess you didnt see my post from the other day with abortion stats. They are no more common now then in pre-roe days. Also, another article i read about birth rates being down also said abortion rates are down and bc use is up. Perhaps sex ed that included bc education is doing better than just saying 'dont have sex'? Considering that women can get pregnant for almost half their life span, im not surprised that one in three women has had an abortion.