POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

Maybe some women feel the rights of the unborn fetus are more important than the mother? I'm just another ignorant conservative but I don't see where that is such an extreme/evil view. I would think you can have that view but still feel women should be treated better and want to move the cause forward.

That's fine. But then that's a woman imposing her beliefs on someone else. The whole point of pro-choice is that you leave it up to the woman to decide. Not the government. Not anyone else.

That "small government" conservatives believe anything else makes them complete hypocrites. You can have varied opinions, but if you don't believe in staying out of people's business, don't claim that's you do.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

You cannot claim to be completely in favor of women's rights and be against their right to choose. Full stop.

Yes, you can. Depends on if you think the fetus (or insert whatever term) also has rights.

It's messy. Very messy. Whose rights trumps (sincerely sorry about word selection) whose? It's a moral dilemma. I won't even delve into the religious angle.

My main point is, the marches denied a group, because that group disagreed with a portion of the main message. I don't like that.

 

[geezer]

You cannot claim to be completely in favor of women's rights and be against their right to choose. Full stop.

Unless you're using a broad definition of women to include female humans of any age. The right to life is a pretty important one. If you're saying older women count more than young girls, then yeah.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most Trump supporters were at work yesterday and couldn't attend. All snakiness aside, what I read, and makes sense, was that most of the people that go are local and there obviously aren't a lot of Trump supporters in that area.

I'm not a huge Trump guy but I do think he was far superior to Hillary.

Ah yes the argument that his crowd was smaller because people were at work. What a crock

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

Unless you're using a broad definition of women to include female humans of any age. The right to life is a pretty important one. If you're saying older women count more than young girls, then yeah.

I get that. But the distinction is a religious one. One person may believe in the Christian definition of life. Being that it begins at conception. Or you can take the secular approach and believe that religious people don't get to impose their definition of life on the medical and scientific community.

I appreciate the opinions of Christians and other pro-life activists. I just don't agree with their need to impose their beliefs on someone else.

 

[Stauber1]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

The article makes it quite clear from the quotes pro life women didn't feel they were welcome and weren't going to attend. Obviously some attended anyway. One person running a twitter account now counts as a good source? That's pretty flimsy evidence to say the least.

Considering it's the official twitter account of the group in question, I think it's probably worth something in trying to determine what their experience was.

The women quoted in the article who said they weren't attending said they were choosing not to do so because they didn't agree with the pro-choice portion of the platform.
Brent, any outrage about all or nothing?

 

[Drew S.]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

That's fine. But then that's a woman imposing her beliefs on someone else. The whole point of pro-choice is that you leave it up to the woman to decide. Not the government. Not anyone else.

That "small government" conservatives believe anything else makes them complete hypocrites. You can have varied opinions, but if you don't believe in staying out of people's business, don't claim that's you do.

So if a woman decides she wants to kill her whole family other people should stay out of it because that's 'her business'? It has nothing to do with imposing beliefs and everything to do with protecting an unborn child.

 

[geezer]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

The reason abortion is never a morally defensible right is BECAUSE it completely strips away ALL of another person's rights, choices, future happiness, etc etc. You can't make that "choice" for a different person (morally, that is. Legally you can)

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

I'll post the same thing I did on Facebook about my onpinions on abortions when I said it was gross that congress introduced a heartbeat law.


"Let me preface this by saying that I'm not "in favor" of abortions.

Perhaps gross is the wrong word, but here's why I used it. It's gross because it's a group of lawmakers, the vast majority of which are men, making decisions on behalf of women when no one is asking the women why they are considering having this procedure. It's gross because this is one step in a long journey during which women have been subjected to transvaginal ultrasounds to make her decision that much more impossible, which is tantamount to government assaulting them. It's gross because we have settled case law that stretches back to 1972, but also recently with these so-called heartbeat laws being ruled unconstitutional.

Medically, it's not even considered a fetus at 4-6 weeks. It's still considered an embryo. A miscarriage at this stage of development may be mistaken for a heavy period. Which reminds me, a heartbeat could start before a woman even realizes she's missed her period. A woman may not have the faculties or means to carry full term and she should have the option to have a medical procedure ending the pregnancy.

We can debate and yell until we're blue in the face as to whether an abortion for a viable fetus should be allowed. But we aren't talking about a viable fetus at this stage. We are talking about a small clump of cells that medically can't be classified as a baby or even a fetus. Even a heartbeat isn't a perfect indicator that an embryo will develop into a fetus.

And frankly, that's all that matters in this. What medical science tells us and what the woman believes. If she doesn't believe in the Christian definition of life, who are we to tell her that part of her body can't be removed because a group of people in Washington think she should believe in their religious tenets.

None of these bills address the well-being of the mother. I'm not talking only about physical well-being, but also mental well-being. This is the thing I find the most disgusting about these bills. They are intended to harass the woman and subject her to near mental torture.

The decision making process that goes into getting an abortion is likely the most difficult decision a person may make. It's also none of the government's business what she decides.

I wish there were less abortions. I wish there wee none at all. There isn't a person alive who wishes there were more abortions. But what I feel about abortions bears no relevancy on what someone in Toledo thinks as she's contemplating the most difficult decision in her life."

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

So if a woman decides she wants to kill her whole family other people should stay out of it because that's 'her business'? It has nothing to do with imposing beliefs and everything to do with protecting an unborn child.

No, because her family is no longer part of her body. Do you not understand that distinction?

 

[Drew S.]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

No, because her family is no longer part of her body. Do you not understand that distinction?

What if they're an inconvenience or a financial burden to her? Shouldn't her rights trump theirs?

 

[Drew S.]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

I'll post the same thing I did on Facebook about my onpinions on abortions when I said it was gross that congress introduced a heartbeat law.


"Let me preface this by saying that I'm not "in favor" of abortions.

Perhaps gross is the wrong word, but here's why I used it. It's gross because it's a group of lawmakers, the vast majority of which are men, making decisions on behalf of women when no one is asking the women why they are considering having this procedure. It's gross because this is one step in a long journey during which women have been subjected to transvaginal ultrasounds to make her decision that much more impossible, which is tantamount to government assaulting them. It's gross because we have settled case law that stretches back to 1972, but also recently with these so-called heartbeat laws being ruled unconstitutional.

Medically, it's not even considered a fetus at 4-6 weeks. It's still considered an embryo. A miscarriage at this stage of development may be mistaken for a heavy period. Which reminds me, a heartbeat could start before a woman even realizes she's missed her period. A woman may not have the faculties or means to carry full term and she should have the option to have a medical procedure ending the pregnancy.

We can debate and yell until we're blue in the face as to whether an abortion for a viable fetus should be allowed. But we aren't talking about a viable fetus at this stage. We are talking about a small clump of cells that medically can't be classified as a baby or even a fetus. Even a heartbeat isn't a perfect indicator that an embryo will develop into a fetus.

And frankly, that's all that matters in this. What medical science tells us and what the woman believes. If she doesn't believe in the Christian definition of life, who are we to tell her that part of her body can't be removed because a group of people in Washington think she should believe in their religious tenets.

None of these bills address the well-being of the mother. I'm not talking only about physical well-being, but also mental well-being. This is the thing I find the most disgusting about these bills. They are intended to harass the woman and subject her to near mental torture.

The decision making process that goes into getting an abortion is likely the most difficult decision a person may make. It's also none of the government's business what she decides.

I wish there were less abortions. I wish there wee none at all. There isn't a person alive who wishes there were more abortions. But what I feel about abortions bears no relevancy on what someone in Toledo thinks as she's contemplating the most difficult decision in her life."

This is very reasonable, and close to how I feel, but I completely understand and respect that some people feel differently. It's a contentious issue and I think the organizers of the march took the low road instead of respecting the fact that not everyone has the same opinion. There is no right or wrong.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

What if they're an inconvenience or a financial burden to her? Shouldn't her rights trump theirs?

So the answer is no. You don't understand the distinction.

An unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus is part of a woman's body. If she chooses to have part of her body removed, I am in no position to tell her no.

I may not like it, but it's not my choice.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

So the answer is no. You don't understand the distinction.

An unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus is part of a woman's body. If she chooses to have part of her body removed, I am in no position to tell her no.

I may not like it, but it's not my choice.

He's not going to get it. Don't waste your time.
It's sad that this argument will never be fair. Cause if good ole drew could get pregnant his argument would likely sound different.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

This is very reasonable, and close to how I feel, but I completely understand and respect that some people feel differently. It's a contentious issue and I think the organizers of the march took the low road instead of respecting the fact that not everyone has the same opinion. There is no right or wrong.

I completely respect other people's opinions on the matter. I do. I also don't believe their opinion should matter tomorrow than the woman's.

You don't get to oppose a woman's right to control her body and say you want to keep the government out of a person's home, much worse interjecting itself into her uterus.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Exhibit A.

Agree with ALL that I say, or p* off.

No Brent, that's not it. I'm calling you dense because you're allowing a political/personal bias get in the way logic and common sense.

The March was funded and organized largely by Planned Parenthood, an organization with a strong belief in a woman's right to an abortion. The March was going to be attended by a large majority of people who agree with that belief. The group in question focuses mainly on the antithesis to that belief.

To go with that, abortion and abortion rights is a very controversial, passionate, and very personal subject. Given the already heightened tensions and mood surrounding the event, it was a sensible judgment to not have that group as official partners.

 

[Drew S.]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

He's not going to get it. Don't waste your time.
It's sad that this argument will never be fair. Cause if good ole drew could get pregnant his argument would likely sound different.

Ha, I'm more pro-choice, but I understand and respect that some people aren't. That is the point I am trying to make.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

I'll post the same thing I did on Facebook about my onpinions on abortions when I said it was gross that congress introduced a heartbeat law.


"Let me preface this by saying that I'm not "in favor" of abortions.

Perhaps gross is the wrong word, but here's why I used it. It's gross because it's a group of lawmakers, the vast majority of which are men, making decisions on behalf of women when no one is asking the women why they are considering having this procedure. It's gross because this is one step in a long journey during which women have been subjected to transvaginal ultrasounds to make her decision that much more impossible, which is tantamount to government assaulting them. It's gross because we have settled case law that stretches back to 1972, but also recently with these so-called heartbeat laws being ruled unconstitutional.

Medically, it's not even considered a fetus at 4-6 weeks. It's still considered an embryo. A miscarriage at this stage of development may be mistaken for a heavy period. Which reminds me, a heartbeat could start before a woman even realizes she's missed her period. A woman may not have the faculties or means to carry full term and she should have the option to have a medical procedure ending the pregnancy.

We can debate and yell until we're blue in the face as to whether an abortion for a viable fetus should be allowed. But we aren't talking about a viable fetus at this stage. We are talking about a small clump of cells that medically can't be classified as a baby or even a fetus. Even a heartbeat isn't a perfect indicator that an embryo will develop into a fetus.

And frankly, that's all that matters in this. What medical science tells us and what the woman believes. If she doesn't believe in the Christian definition of life, who are we to tell her that part of her body can't be removed because a group of people in Washington think she should believe in their religious tenets.

None of these bills address the well-being of the mother. I'm not talking only about physical well-being, but also mental well-being. This is the thing I find the most disgusting about these bills. They are intended to harass the woman and subject her to near mental torture.

The decision making process that goes into getting an abortion is likely the most difficult decision a person may make. It's also none of the government's business what she decides.

I wish there were less abortions. I wish there wee none at all. There isn't a person alive who wishes there were more abortions. But what I feel about abortions bears no relevancy on what someone in Toledo thinks as she's contemplating the most difficult decision in her life."

I will say what I said on FB. This post is one of the most intelligent posts I have read.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

He's not going to get it. Don't waste your time.
It's sad that this argument will never be fair. Cause if good ole drew could get pregnant his argument would likely sound different.

I know. If I were a woman and found out I was pregnant, I don't know if I could go through with an abortion. I'm not sure I'm mentally strong enough or able to reconcile my beliefs* with that decision. However, i will say it again, I do not believe my personal opinion has any business coming into the room where a woman and her doctor make that same decision.

I'm also not going to condemn an entire movement like some on here are so quick to do, just because they find a single inconsistency between their personal beliefs and.thr movements. This wasn't about drawing battle lines. This wasn't about finding faults. This was about supporting women. This was about protesting even more than that.


* - I'm not sure what I believe anymore. I'm not an atheist but I'm not an ardent Christian either. I'm somewhere in between. My morals are derived partially from religion and party from my upbringing, which could probably be described as a mix of Christianity and secularism.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.0: It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.

No Brent, that's not it. I'm calling you dense because you're allowing a political/personal bias get in the way logic and common sense.

The March was funded and organized largely by Planned Parenthood, an organization with a strong belief in a woman's right to an abortion. The March was going to be attended by a large majority of people who agree with that belief. The group in question focuses mainly on the antithesis to that belief.

To go with that, abortion and abortion rights is a very controversial, passionate, and very personal subject. Given the already heightened tensions and mood surrounding the event, it was a sensible judgment to not have that group as official partners.

My point is now proven again. Don't agree 100%? You're out. How about trying to bridge that gap? To allow someone of a different opinion join you for the greater good? If you disagree on ONE issue, does that really mean you won't associate yourself with that person/group for a bigger message? Really?