Abortion bills force both parties to ...

Abortion bills force both parties to rethink political calculus

There are 1168 comments on the The Washington Post story from Jul 6, 2013, titled Abortion bills force both parties to rethink political calculus. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

People gather outside the state legislature as Senate Republicans gave their final approval to legislation requiring additional rules surrounding abortions in North Carolina, even as hundreds of protesters against the bill watched from the gallery in Raleigh, N.C., Wednesday,July 3. As a member of the Wisconsin State Assembly years ago, Republican ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#105 Jul 10, 2013
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
Mass murder? flubs = 5,000 dead U.S. military over a phoney war. And how many iraqis did flubs murder over his phoney war? That was just evantalibanical collateral damage.
Total lie, what else do you want to pretend happened little boy.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#106 Jul 10, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
About what? Raw numbers? What's to agree, or disagree with there?
Again, for the stupid, I wasn't talking about the report, which is woefully incomplete. I responded to Susan's snarky comment only.
It was a simple yes or no answer. There I typed slower.
conservative crapola

Bethlehem, PA

#107 Jul 10, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
t-denial. Your inherent dishonesty will never allow a majority of voters to accept the reds as a legitimate WH condidate.

hahahahahahahahahaha

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#108 Jul 10, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>It was a simple yes or no answer. There I typed slower.
And you get the same answer. It's just raw numbers, what's to agree or disagree with? There, I used fewer words for you.
CBOW

Dover, PA

#109 Jul 10, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you feel about welfare? How do you feel about putting YOUR money where your mouth is??
If you are objected in any way then you need to take a giant step back and STFU. Don't be telling the women/girl that she has to cough it up when she already knows her circumstances.
Your excuses to force women/girls to bear unwanted pregnancies grow weaker all the time. This post is pathetic and reaching.
Actually you sound like the one reaching here. If you don't like being categorized by the polticos, then take responsibility for your actions. Your choices start at intercourse. Your decide to engage in it and then expect politicians to defend your choice with a law. You are the very one who wants politicians to keep their noses out of your crotch, unless they provide you with an out for your negligent behavior. NICE!!! Hysterical! If women have enough ability to find a sperm donor, why don't they have enough "ability" to raise their offspring?
CBOW

Dover, PA

#110 Jul 10, 2013
fingiswold wrote:
<quoted text>
Wonderful...I'm a 'slut' to you now? Your hatred spews like an open sewer drain.
NO one with self-esteem could post the filth you do. Apologize to me IMMEDIATELY for your vicious and nasty comments.
ps - I'm a guy, a--hole, not a woman. LOL!
Men can be sluts too. Promiscuity is not gender based.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#111 Jul 10, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
"Actually you sound like the one reaching here."

Actually, YOU sound like the one OVER-reaching HERE.

"If you don't like being categorized by the polticos, then take responsibility for your actions."

What constitutes responsible action regarding an unplanned pregnancy is a matter of opinion, not fact. And the fact is that the only opinion that matters is that of the pregnant woman.

"Your choices start at intercourse."

But they don't END there.

"Your decide to engage in it and then expect politicians to defend your choice with a law."

I don't see any woman expecting politicians to defend them for having sex.

"You are the very one who wants politicians to keep their noses out of your crotch, unless they provide you with an out for your negligent behavior."

They don't need to provide us with anything, we already have the right to make our own choice in the matter. They just need to stop trying to make it as difficult as possible for us to do so.

"Hysterical!"

Yes, you are. Take a chill pill, Drama Queen.

"If women have enough ability to find a sperm donor, why don't they have enough "ability" to raise their offspring?"

Why? There could be many reasons. The point is, those reasons are the woman's business. Not mine, not yours, and not the gov't's.
CBOW

Dover, PA

#112 Jul 10, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
"Actually you sound like the one reaching here."
Actually, YOU sound like the one OVER-reaching HERE.
"If you don't like being categorized by the polticos, then take responsibility for your actions."
What constitutes responsible action regarding an unplanned pregnancy is a matter of opinion, not fact. And the fact is that the only opinion that matters is that of the pregnant woman.
"Your choices start at intercourse."
But they don't END there.
"Your decide to engage in it and then expect politicians to defend your choice with a law."
I don't see any woman expecting politicians to defend them for having sex.
"You are the very one who wants politicians to keep their noses out of your crotch, unless they provide you with an out for your negligent behavior."
They don't need to provide us with anything, we already have the right to make our own choice in the matter. They just need to stop trying to make it as difficult as possible for us to do so.
"Hysterical!"
Yes, you are. Take a chill pill, Drama Queen.
"If women have enough ability to find a sperm donor, why don't they have enough "ability" to raise their offspring?"
Why? There could be many reasons. The point is, those reasons are the woman's business. Not mine, not yours, and not the gov't's.
The point is, those reasons are the woman's business. Not mine, not yours, and not the gov't's. Then why must Roe vs Wade continue? Abortions must be conducted by someone other than the pregnant woman, correct? Well, because of that fact, they have involved an outside party. There is the reason for the scrutiny. Intercourse is the beginning and it's where the woman has the most control. She IS the master of her own destiny. Accept that.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#113 Jul 10, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>The point is, those reasons are the woman's business. Not mine, not yours, and not the gov't's. Then why must Roe vs Wade continue? Abortions must be conducted by someone other than the pregnant woman, correct? Well, because of that fact, they have involved an outside party. There is the reason for the scrutiny. Intercourse is the beginning and it's where the woman has the most control. She IS the master of her own destiny. Accept that.
And, as master of her own destiny, if she is pregnant, and doesn't wish to remain so, she has every right to terminate that pregnancy.

Having sex is not automatic agreement to carry any resulting pregnancy to term. Just because she has the MOST control there, doesn't mean her control ENDS there.

And no, that was not the reason for RvW. It was to overturn the laws that the gov't had no business passing in the first place.
Cat74

United States

#114 Jul 10, 2013
Some of these people say, "Women are not stupid," then go on to explain why the state needs to protect them from reproducing. No. You prevent the reproduction. You know what you do to become pregnant, so either don't do it, or use birth control. It is not rocket science, and the bills in question give you 20 weeks, five months, to make the decision to kill it. Even the dimmest bulb can do that in 20 weeks.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#115 Jul 10, 2013
Cat74 wrote:
Some of these people say, "Women are not stupid," then go on to explain why the state needs to protect them from reproducing. No. You prevent the reproduction. You know what you do to become pregnant, so either don't do it, or use birth control. It is not rocket science, and the bills in question give you 20 weeks, five months, to make the decision to kill it. Even the dimmest bulb can do that in 20 weeks.
Only an even dimmer bulb would fail to realize that abortions legally performed after 20 weeks, are ALREADY performed only upon toxic or otherwise unhealthy pregnancies.

And only a sadist would want to legally obligate women to carry those to their death, incur permanent damage to her health, or deliver a severely/profoundly compromised infant. Especially, if you're opposed to paying for the care of that child after birth.
CBOW

Dover, PA

#116 Jul 10, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Only an even dimmer bulb would fail to realize that abortions legally performed after 20 weeks, are ALREADY performed only upon toxic or otherwise unhealthy pregnancies.
And only a sadist would want to legally obligate women to carry those to their death, incur permanent damage to her health, or deliver a severely/profoundly compromised infant. Especially, if you're opposed to paying for the care of that child after birth.
"nly an even dimmer bulb would fail to realize that abortions legally performed after 20 weeks, are ALREADY performed only upon toxic or otherwise unhealthy pregnancies." Tell that to the squirming babies Kermit Gosnell "snipped".
CBOW

Dover, PA

#117 Jul 10, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
And, as master of her own destiny, if she is pregnant, and doesn't wish to remain so, she has every right to terminate that pregnancy.
Having sex is not automatic agreement to carry any resulting pregnancy to term. Just because she has the MOST control there, doesn't mean her control ENDS there.
And no, that was not the reason for RvW. It was to overturn the laws that the gov't had no business passing in the first place.
"Having sex is not automatic agreement to carry any resulting pregnancy to term. Just because she has the MOST control there, doesn't mean her control ENDS there." Lack of control results in pregnancy. Since the dawn of the human race, pregnancy can be the result of sexual intercourse. To instill termination into the equation only serves to skew the facts. The human race believes itself to be so advanced, yet it can't even manage to prevent pregnancy, only stoop to eliminating the result of the primitive act of sex. Interesting, how far have we come???? Pathetic.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#118 Jul 10, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>"Having sex is not automatic agreement to carry any resulting pregnancy to term. Just because she has the MOST control there, doesn't mean her control ENDS there." Lack of control results in pregnancy. Since the dawn of the human race, pregnancy can be the result of sexual intercourse. To instill termination into the equation only serves to skew the facts. The human race believes itself to be so advanced, yet it can't even manage to prevent pregnancy, only stoop to eliminating the result of the primitive act of sex. Interesting, how far have we come???? Pathetic.
Your opinion. And no one has to care.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#119 Jul 10, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>"nly an even dimmer bulb would fail to realize that abortions legally performed after 20 weeks, are ALREADY performed only upon toxic or otherwise unhealthy pregnancies." Tell that to the squirming babies Kermit Gosnell "snipped".
Those abortions were already illegal - which is why Gosnell was successfully prosecuted.

In your zeal to make abortion illegal, you are advocating the end of sterile procedures, performed by licensed physicians, and encouraging the proliferation of crimes such as Gosnell committed.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#120 Jul 10, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Those abortions were already illegal - which is why Gosnell was successfully prosecuted.
In your zeal to make abortion illegal, you are advocating the end of sterile procedures, performed by licensed physicians, and encouraging the proliferation of crimes such as Gosnell committed.
Faulty logic.

Abortion IS legal, yet Gosnell flourished nonetheless.
CBOW

Dover, PA

#121 Jul 10, 2013
not a playa1965 wrote:
<quoted text>Those abortions were already illegal - which is why Gosnell was successfully prosecuted.
In your zeal to make abortion illegal, you are advocating the end of sterile procedures, performed by licensed physicians, and encouraging the proliferation of crimes such as Gosnell committed.
No, I'm for the bill in Texas that makes the clinics more safe and clean. I'm for no abortions in late term for the sake of the unborn. I am for not having tax dollars fund abortions. I am for use of contraception before conception. Common sense applications, not irresponsibility lack of accountability and emotional BS from pro choicers using "scenarios" of rape to justify the over-use of abortion.
CBOW

Dover, PA

#122 Jul 10, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Your opinion. And no one has to care.
Proof of your lack of evolution bitter. Have you chosen wicca because it supports your desire to abort? Just curious.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#123 Jul 10, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof of your lack of evolution bitter. Have you chosen wicca because it supports your desire to abort? Just curious.
I have no desire to abort. I never have.

“Truly Pro-Life”

Since: Nov 11

Proudly Pro-choice

#125 Jul 10, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Faulty logic.
Abortion IS legal, yet Gosnell flourished nonetheless.
Then the regulatory bodies, and investigative services failed to do their jobs. If the laws already on the books had been enforced, he would not have 'flourished'.

And if women were not denied access to legal abortions, via the inability to pay for them, or the unfeasibility of obtaining them (remember - no tax dollars will pay for an abortion, although nearly every other medical procedure is covered by taxpayer dollars) then women would not be left to patronize those who exploit those situations.

Laws denying, restricting, and eliminating, access to abortion, put the Gosnells in business.

More laws against abortion will increase the number of illegal abortions - they will not curtail abortions in general.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Pressure builds on Jeremy Corbyn as EU leaders ... 1 min kuda 2
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min President Trump 1,394,448
News Clinton hits Trump in 1st Spanish-language ad 2 min Earl 13
News Hopes dashed for millions of illegal immigrants... 3 min HOLLA ISABELLA 12
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 6 min Earl 9,686
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 11 min Brian_G 2,963
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 15 min Sara 79
News Donald Trump: Brexit is sign of independence de... 21 min serfs up 47
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Truth is might 199,175
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 hr Agents of Corruption 387,807
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 hr IND 228,389
More from around the web