Yes; that is the whole point. It has nothing to do with their fictional concern over the “unborn”; it has everything to do with the desire to harm and oppress women. The anti-abortion movement is a movement about the hatred of women.
Oh? Where else do we hijack people’s bodies? Making abortion illegal is the moral equivalent of a state enforced 9 month rape.
Once again I support abortion in the case if it threatens the life of the mother.
I was talking about America.
I think you’re asserting a lot of bad faith on the part of the anti-abortion crowd.
Well, for one, you can’t sell your body. (Either prostitution, or your organs) So, we’ve restricted your right to make a profit off what is most fundamentally “yours”.
We have age restrictions on who can get a tattoo.
We regulate the disposition of dead bodies.
Ultimately, outside rape, pregnancy results from a voluntary act, so why is it tyranny to regulate the treatment or disposal of the results of that act?
And equating it to a nine month rape? Really? If you accept that human life begins at conception, how is it different from making a burglar accept the penalty for his acts? Or a speeder that has to pay a fine?
But her health and freedom are expendable.
A nation which is the aggressor quite often.
I consider them a hate movement on the order of white supremacy.
Prostitution should be made legal, and selling organs is illegal to keep people from being more valuable dead than alive. You can GIVE organs, you just can’t sell them.
And the proper analogy here is not forbidding organ transplants, but mandating them. And not forbidding prostitution, but mandating it. Would you support a law that mandated the forceful implantation of human organs into your body? How about a law requiring you work as a prostitute?
Women aren’t children - and by comparing them you help demonstrate my point about oppression.
Corpses aren’t people, and can spread disease. Not the same.
Because forcing a woman to act as a walking womb, to legally declare that she is subordinate to a blob of tissue, to sacrifice her health and freedom IS TYRANNICAL. You are declaring her to be subhuman, you are endangering her life and health and inflicting suffering upon her.
The only reason to define life as starting at conception is to oppress women. It makes no logical sense, it ignores the way we treat the definition of human life in other situations; it is a definition that exists only as an excuse to oppress, humiliate, hurt and kill women.
You might as well start out a sentence with “If you accept that blacks are less than human…”
Well, now I understand your position re: tyranny.
I’d love to continue this, but would rather not completely hijack the thread. I’d be happy to continue the discussion in another thread if you’d like though.
With respect to the original OP, I agree that the issue of abortion coverage shouldn’t hold up the healthcare bill, but from a tactical standpoint, this is probably the best chance they have of ultimately stalling the bill. General opposition has been consistently de-railed, but if you can rile the pro-life crowd sufficiently it might provide stronger grounds to oppose the bill in general.
Only when the life of the child is at stake. Also it is ridiculous to say pro-lifers are like white supremacists. For one many women are pro-life but I haven’t seen any blacks or Hispanics in the KKK. :rolleyes:
Mostly pre-emptive operations that improved things like Panama or Grenada.
Yeah, those Cuban construction workers were DANGEROUS!
Self hating people aren’t all that rare, nor are people who hate the groups they belong in. And “anti abortion” women are typically only against abortion for other women.
Improved by whose definition? Preemptive of what?
Grenada had been seized by Marxist-Leninists in a coup who had executed a Prime Minister and taken American medical students hostage. Plus in Grenada the invasion day is celebrated and if the people of Grenada are themselves greatful than what are you to say?
I think most pro-life women would refuse an abortion if say they were poor.
Improved by overthrowing dictatorships and establishing relatively free governments.
I see no reason to believe that. “The only moral abortion is my abortion” is notoriously common.
We’ve never cared about democracy outside our own borders. We’ve never hesitated to overthrow democracies or install dictatorships.
Keep this in mind: We are NOT the “good guys”. Not even close. We aren’t especially well meaning, we aren’t pro-freedom or pro-democracy or pro-human rights or anti-tyranny. We are - at best - motivated by short sighted self interest and ego. And it goes downhill from there.
What they are really doing is manipulating the whole budget so that it looks like the deficit is lower. That has no bearing on SS’s solvency.
Imagine that you mother invested in US Govt bonds. If the govt did some weird trick to claim that her bonds lowered the US deficit, would you say that means she doesn’t really have that asset?
The deficit is out of control because we spend too much and tax too little, but that has nothing to do with SS and Medicare.
Oh really? I suggest you look up the following:
Augusto Pinochet
Operation Ajax
United Fruit Company
School of the Americas
Anastasio Somoza García (the Somoza family in general, actually)
Rafael Trujillo
Jacobo Arbenz
The 1954 Guatemalan coup d’état
Fulgencio Batista
Manuel Noriega
Roberto D’Aubuisson
Leopoldo Galtieri
Then come back and tell me we were “overthrowing dictators and establishing free governments.” No, if anything, we were doing the exact opposite.
Need I go on? (Just to give you an idea, we supported a regime that passed out leaflets saying, "Be a Patriot!!! Kill a Priest!!! The same ones who were behind the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero)
FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO IRAQ: A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS
(Note: I am NOT stating that ALL were unjustified!)
I don’t think the US is morally perfect-no person, entity, nation, or organization is. But it is FAR better than the alternatives and has generally been good with many mistakes and outright evil in a few cases.
Many of these cases (such as Chile in 1973) had signs that the President (Allende) in this case was in the danger of becoming a dictator (like Chavez or Morales nowadays) and going the path of Castro. Also every single American installed dictatorship in Latin America has fallen yet the single Communist one-Cuba still stands.
(Emphasis Added)
So, we’re justified in invading another nation over what might happen?
Not what actually does happen, or what has happened, but a mere possibility is sufficient to create just circumstances for war?
You have got to be joking.
I bet if you poked him on it, Curtis would try to justify Iraq, too.
Oh? And it what way has it been better than the alternatives? Is being oppressed or tortured or raped or murdered by Americans or their tools somehow nicer than suffering the same at the hands of some other faction?
“The scum we installed to rule over them were overthrown, so that makes it OK that we put them there”? Is that really what you want to argue? As for Allende, how does replacing someone you think posed a “danger of becoming a dictator” with an actual dictator count as an improvement? And what makes you think that Allende or Morales is as bad as our boy Pinochet? Thousands of people tortured and murdered, with our help - that’s what you call “good”.
Perhaps I didn’t properly contain my phrasing. Although I would oppose pre-emptive warfare generally, my immediate concern when I wrote that was in consideration of the mere possibility of someone becoming a dictator being sufficient to warrant invasion.
I suppose you might make a stronger case based upon provocation or threat of WMDs (I’m not suggesting that was the actual case in the lead up to Iraq, but I think you might make a more effective thought experiment) but either way, a “just” war based off a prediction of future behavior is just stupid.
Let’s get back to healthcare, shall we? I agree that we should take it one step at a time – does Planned Parenthood work with those who don’t have a way to pay for an abortion?
(stupid editing time limit!)
I meant to say: don’t hold up health care on one aspect, as we need to start somewhere. That and I wanted to ask about Planned Parenthood.
Gah. (That’s what I get for trying to post while flipping back and forth between the Penguins game AND the Steelers game!)