|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 9, 2012 15:41:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 9, 2012 20:03:04 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with women in America. Unless you consider Gabby. She is a Democrat, so maybe you've got your wires crossed.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 12, 2012 19:25:56 GMT -5
Because there is no war on women in America. Sheesh!  |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 12, 2012 20:17:59 GMT -5
This is an act of violence based on "religious principles." Which brings up the issue of America's men on the right telling women how they are to live, and what they can and can't do with their bodies.
For the most part, it's not a violent war here in the US, except for Gabby. Her assailant is a right-wing radical who places his religious values above the rights of humanity.
Sound familiar? It should.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 12, 2012 20:19:19 GMT -5
On the issue of this girl, she and her entire family should be given asylum and a new life in a country where a young person who isn't afraid to assert themselves can live and flourish. Pakistan obviously isn't that nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 13, 2012 9:48:07 GMT -5
Based on your premise, there is a war on men in America with the government, as well, telling men what they can or cannot do with their body.
Try being a male who refuses to accept responsibility for the ramificaitons of his sexual behavior. You'd be suprised how invasive the government will get by depriving liberties, forfeiture of assets, public humiliation and invading the privacy of a man's body to force him to be responsible for his acts. How dare he not take responsibility for his role in making a baby?
Women on the other hand, here's $600.00, take care of your indiscretion. No need to take responsibility for your actions. If it costs the life of a baby, so be it.
I disagree with you that it is a violent act tied to "religion." It's cultural; its about power and the supression of the rights of women in society.
Taking a bullet to the head and being denied birth control by the government are not in the same realm when it comes to waging war on the fairer sex.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 13, 2012 11:12:21 GMT -5
No? They aren't the same? They are the same. It's just the degree of how active an attack again it is against women, and their rights.
The killings by anti-abortion supporters is absolutely no different except in the minds of those who wish to feel there is a difference, because it fits into their own personal agenda/beliefs.
The anti-abortion push is religious, and like it or not, so are the actions of the Taliban.
Since I'm anti-abortion as to my own opinion, but still believe women should have the right to choose their own options, I find the issue being pushed by both the Taliban, and Christian faiths as intolerable, because both are directed against women, and their right to make their own choices.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 13, 2012 18:03:51 GMT -5
PC's Position:
Women be responsible for their reproductive behavior. Men be responsible for their reproductive behavior.
OR
Women are not responsible for their reproductive behavior. Men are not responsible for their reproductive behavior.
TW's Postion:
Men are responsbile for their reproductive behavior.
Women aren't responsible for anything and shouldn't be 'cause it's just so gosh darn mean.
Either men and women are responsible for their reproductive actions or Government should let them both skate on their responsibilities as a matter of social policy and law.
Can you imagine this country if the Government accepted that men had the exact same rights as women to not be responsible for making a kid? There'd be carnage.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 13, 2012 19:06:17 GMT -5
You talk about no abortion and contraception, yet at the same time, you talk about people not getting welfare, etc.
The funny part of the damned argument is that those who can't afford children are having them at an alarming rate.
Obviously your thinking, and that of the hard right, is totally f-ing flawed!
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 13, 2012 20:33:59 GMT -5
Is this the part where I snicker and laugh at your absurd comment?
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 13, 2012 21:18:46 GMT -5
Do what you want. I am against abortion, but that's my personal belief. I don't believe I have a right to force my personal belief on women.
If that makes you laugh... be my guest.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 14, 2012 9:25:39 GMT -5
*Snicker with a WTF look* as taught to me at the
"Joe Biden School for Debating."
Do you support laws that expect men to be responsible for their reproductive behavior?
I suspect you do and if you do, then that kinda blows your whole, "I don't believe in forcing my beliefs onto others" mantra.
If you don't then you are forced to agree that women celebrate greater liberty over their reproductive behavior which undermines the value of equal justice of the law for men.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 14, 2012 10:57:16 GMT -5
It's amazing. When a man has sex with a woman, the Republicans believe she's responsible for getting pregnant, and the man has no responsibility.
Then the Republicans go so far as to tell the woman that even though the theory that "A stiff dick has no conscience," exists, it's the woman's "problem" if she gets pregnant, not the man's.
If those two ascertained facts aren't enough, the right then goes so far as to not support women's rights by insisting that the woman needs to face the "responsibility," while the man takes that stiff dick somewhere else to repeat the process.
After that, the right spends their time finding ways to humiliate the woman by avoiding legislation that forces more consistent support payments on wayward fathers. That not being enough, the right turns on the woman even more, by calling her a leech on society, if she needs welfare assistance. Blaming her for being a "drain" on society.
Oh, I totally understand what the Republican position is, and it's the reason I will be voting a straight Democratic ticket in less than a month. I'm sick of the asses who think they have no obligation to their fellow man/woman.
Now, think what you want. That's what I've seen happen way too often.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 14, 2012 13:06:01 GMT -5
Are you kidding me? A dick with no concience? *chuckle, big grin* as taught to me by "Crazy Joes Dink and Dunk Debate School."
I agree that there are men out there like that, but they can't run away from the responsibiliy of their reproductive actions. Society will see to that by assigning paternity.
Now, on the other hand, if a woman chooses not to accept the responsibility, she can do away with the genetic material that is not exclusively hers in the name of civil liberty. Its called abortion on demand or abortion being used as a form of birth control
I am curious. I already know what you call men who play fast and loose with their reproductive actions.
What do you call a woman who has a girl thingy with no conscience?
Don't want to go there do you? Its not politcally correct to do so. It's taboo.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 14, 2012 14:43:23 GMT -5
The female is only half of the equation. When you stop trotting out the morons like Akins, who will win a Senate seat in Missouri, and the rest of the in-bred morons that control the right, you might have something of value. You keep harping about "rights being violated," and you turn on roughly half the population of the US, by telling them you'll take care of things for them. I keep looking at that bunch of old men who the Republicans put together to "discuss" womens issues, and offer their "advice." A bunch of old bastards who probably couldn't keep their pants zipped until they got too old to do the deed. I keep seeing Newt Gingrich having carried on such a supported campaign, and being the #2 man on the right in the primaries, and know he's a total ass-heel, who finds he needs to "prove himself" by finding younger, and healthier women, one after another, while abandoning those that are ill, because they're "defective." Oh... I know what the right stands for, and if you stand for them, you're not really supporting what an American who believes in the Constitution should be. But that's just my opinion. If Romney does get in, and you find your ass out on the street without a job, and count on it happening, when there's a loss of money from the fed to support your profession, just remember... you asked for it, and don't be a burden on society by getting UC, or any other benefit. After all, that's not what a "good Republican" does. They tough it out, on their own. They aren't part of the "47%."  |
|
