Sigh, you should not have taken that personal. I have taken the position that the so called "republicans are ATTACKING women" is an absurd stance. You seemed to have challenged me on that. You sited an article that seemed to infer to me that you have this school of thought and as such, the "While it might be hard for you to understand..." is a just statement. Notice the word "might". For all I know, you actually do understand that republicans wish women no harm and this is a debate about when life begins. Maybe not. You haven't made that clear. In all, grow a pair.
It's not an absurd stance when they continue to put out abortion bill after abortion bill after abortion bill, and also when the language tries to define rape, and then try to spout off some hoodoo about women's bodies throwing up a defense to kill unwanted sperm. They sponsor and cosponsor bills that take all abortions off the table. So basically, if you are for forcing women to have the chidlren that are the product of rape or incest, then the republican party is for you.
Do you know what you are talking about? The Bill only proposes to limit a Federal paid abortion. They can still go have an abortion… You are listening to the wrong people. I am not even saying this is right or wrong, but for fucks sake why do you write shit like this: “So basically, if you are for forcing women to have the chidlren that are the product of rape or incest, then the republican party is for you.” Here my friend: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3/text “Sec. 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother ‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 shall not apply to an abortion-- ‘(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or ‘(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. Here are The 301, 302, & 303 sections: Sec. 301. Prohibition on funding for abortions ‘No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion. ‘Sec. 302. Prohibition on funding for health benefits plans that cover abortion ‘None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. ‘Sec. 303. Limitation on Federal facilities and employees ‘No health care service furnished-- ‘(1) by or in a health care facility owned or operated by the Federal Government; or ‘(2) by any physician or other individual employed by the Federal Government to provide health care services within the scope of the physician’s or individual’s employment, may include abortion.
I'm with you, sort of. I get that the aim of the conservative position is not to limit women's freedoms, it is to protect the soon to be born. Limiting women's freedoms is just a byproduct and so be it. If you want to protect the fetus then it is irrelevant how it came to be, it still is. For me it is an issue of responsibility and abortions should only be allowed for medical reasons. But the whole " legitimate rape" and protection of zygotes is absurd.
while you dumb niggers argue about nonsense, i will tell you about an actual issue. obama favors a huge farm bill that is tremendously destructive and basically kills africa, while paulryan opposes it.
Farmers' kids are pretty exempt from being made to work, too. Well, all kids really but by "kids" I mean high school-age.
[quote="gumborue, post: 1276588, member: 4104"Limiting women's freedoms is just a byproduct and so be it.[/quote]It's a by-product that that will cost Romney millions of female votes.
I can tell you about "broke " farmers. I work for them everyday. The wives get a new Yukon or Tahoe at least every other year. They will deliver meals to farm hands at lunch and get to claim they're employees. Write off. The kids get new pickups and atvs and use them to drop off or pick up parts. Big salary to go with it. Write off. Purchase a few thousand acres off hunting land and "farm" it by planting food plots for ducks , turkey and deer. Subsidized. Taxpayers pay for flood control so farmer can make money leasing pits for duck hunting. Seed, fuel, fertilizer and labor all billed to the farm. The dad gives the sons a chunk of land to farm and name farm a different name, same people though, but qualifies for another subsidy check. Find aflotoxin in the corn, get an insurance check and have to disk it under. Just enough to get check but still allow deer and geese to feed though. Why not harvest that shit and sell to ethanol plants? Hundreds of thousands of acres. Sorry bout off the woman topic. I'm against taxpayer paid abortions by the way. It's a woman's body and she can do what she wants with it but taxpayers shouldn't be stuck with the bill on that either.
exactly. but this topic doesn't resonate. billions and billions wasted. unhealthy foods subsidized by the government. more calories for our stupid fat asses. almost every person in america could cut 500 calories a day and be healthier long term. and the food dumps on africa detroy them. african farmers throw thier farm equipment in a river and give up and say fuck it, why bother.