Women's Rights in the U.S. in Jeopardy

Forget about the economy and foreign policy. Forget about race and gay rights. This country cannot look at those issues until these stupid politicians (mostly men) stop trying to hold back women from their parenthood rights. We're trying to support women's rights in the Middle East when Paul Ryan, Todd Akin, and Richard Mourdock are trying to do away with birth control and Roe vs. Wade?! If you don't support abortion that's one thing, but then don't act like it's not a big deal when young girls and women are attacked and forced to give birth to their rapist's child. Have people seriously lost their minds?!

Once we fix the economy, then we can talk.dave123321

And only this because none of what the OP even said is actually happening. Todd Akin isn't going to get elected(thankfully), and the GOP would be insane to pursue anything but measures to help the economy.

Once we fix the economy, then we can talk.dave123321

They want to reverse an existing law, shouldnt they be trying to fix the economy instead if this is your real view?

From what I gather, a lot of people on this board will dismiss you for factoring things other than the economy into your vote. Abbeten

Once we fix the economy, then we can talk.dave123321

They want to reverse an existing law, shouldnt they be trying to fix the economy instead if this is your real view?

tenaka2

Where's this proposed legislation?

[QUOTE="dave123321"]Once we fix the economy, then we can talk.airshocker

And only this because none of what the OP even said is actually happening. Todd Akin isn't going to get elected(thankfully), and the GOP would be insane to pursue anything but measures to help the economy.

I never understood this "lets not think of that until we've sorted this first" attitude. It's counterproductive and doesn't make any sense in this context.

oh lordy

Read it for yourself.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-candidate-god-intended-pregnancies-rape-061057785--abc-news-politics.html

My problem is that instead of looking forward by fixing the economy and gaining equal rights, there are some who are more concern with overturning a law that is over 30 years old.

I never understood this "lets not think of that until we've sorted this first" attitude. It's counterproductive and doesn't make any sense in this context.

toast_burner

Right, because focusing on healthcare really did this country a lot of good economically.

Why would you focus on something that doesn't have anything to do with the major problem this country is facing? That doesn't make any sense.

I never understood this "lets not think of that until we've sorted this first" attitude. It's counterproductive and doesn't make any sense in this context.

toast_burner

Read it for yourself.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-candidate-god-intended-pregnancies-rape-061057785--abc-news-politics.html

My problem is that instead of looking forward by fixing the economy and gaining equal rights, there are some who are more concern with overturning a law that is over 30 years old.

Fantasy721

Read the polls for yourself.

Read it for yourself.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-candidate-god-intended-pregnancies-rape-061057785--abc-news-politics.html

My problem is that instead of looking forward by fixing the economy and gaining equal rights, there are some who are more concern with overturning a law that is over 30 years old.

Fantasy721

I never understood this "lets not think of that until we've sorted this first" attitude. It's counterproductive and doesn't make any sense in this context.

toast_burner

Read it for yourself.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-candidate-god-intended-pregnancies-rape-061057785--abc-news-politics.html

My problem is that instead of looking forward by fixing the economy and gaining equal rights, there are some who are more concern with overturning a law that is over 30 years old.

Fantasy721

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]From what I gather, a lot of people on this board will dismiss you for factoring things other than the economy into your vote. Sajo7

Once we fix the economy, then we can talk.dave123321

[QUOTE="Fantasy721"]

Read it for yourself.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-candidate-god-intended-pregnancies-rape-061057785--abc-news-politics.html

My problem is that instead of looking forward by fixing the economy and gaining equal rights, there are some who are more concern with overturning a law that is over 30 years old.

airshocker

Read the polls for yourself.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

I never understood this "lets not think of that until we've sorted this first" attitude. It's counterproductive and doesn't make any sense in this context.

Sajo7

That's a different Republican. Though hopefully this one will cause him to lose as well.Engrish_Major

Both of them are probably going to lose, and it's their own fault. I have no sympathy for those who say such outrageous things.

[QUOTE="Fantasy721"]

Read it for yourself.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-candidate-god-intended-pregnancies-rape-061057785--abc-news-politics.html

My problem is that instead of looking forward by fixing the economy and gaining equal rights, there are some who are more concern with overturning a law that is over 30 years old.

Omni-Slash

And here is the problem when there are apologies for such things.. What they say is that it was a "poor choice of words" not that they don't still believe and support that view point.. This is more than a gotchya moment because those moments are used by mistakened words that go against their meaning.. These aren't.. They believe them.

[QUOTE="Fantasy721"]

Read it for yourself.

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-candidate-god-intended-pregnancies-rape-061057785--abc-news-politics.html

My problem is that instead of looking forward by fixing the economy and gaining equal rights, there are some who are more concern with overturning a law that is over 30 years old.

Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

They want to reverse an existing law, shouldnt they be trying to fix the economy instead if this is your real view?

airshocker

Where's this proposed legislation?

How the right plans to overturn Roe v. Wade

Slowly but surely, a Romney presidency would lay the groundwork to ban abortion

In January, two major events will take place within a day of each other: Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing women the right to an abortion, will turn 40, and a president will be sworn in who will likely determine the 1973 rulings fate. And if that president is Mitt Romney, anyone who cares about access to a safe and legal abortion should be very worried.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]That's a different Republican. Though hopefully this one will cause him to lose as well.airshocker

Both of them are probably going to lose, and it's their own fault. I have no sympathy for those who say such outrageous things.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]

I never understood this "lets not think of that until we've sorted this first" attitude. It's counterproductive and doesn't make any sense in this context.

sSubZerOo

How the right plans to overturn Roe v. Wade

Slowly but surely, a Romney presidency would lay the groundwork to ban abortion

In January, two major events will take place within a day of each other: Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing women the right to an abortion, will turn 40, and a president will be sworn in who will likely determine the 1973 rulings fate. And if that president is Mitt Romney, anyone who cares about access to a safe and legal abortion should be very worried.

tenaka2

ROFL. Yes, the sole purpose of electing Romney is to overturn Roe v. Wade.

YOU'VE FIGURED US OUT!

And you call us conspiracy nut jobs.

Here, this is just for you, tenaka:

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

How the right plans to overturn Roe v. Wade

Slowly but surely, a Romney presidency would lay the groundwork to ban abortion

In January, two major events will take place within a day of each other: Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing women the right to an abortion, will turn 40, and a president will be sworn in who will likely determine the 1973 rulings fate. And if that president is Mitt Romney, anyone who cares about access to a safe and legal abortion should be very worried.

airshocker

ROFL. Yes, the sole purpose of electing Romney is to overturn Roe v. Wade.

YOU'VE FIGURED US OUT!

And you call us conspiracy nut jobs.

Here, this is just for you, tenaka:

...:| Where did he say it was the sole purpose? But the fact of the matter its in the official republican platform and the next president is going to choose a new supreme court judge or two which could upset the balance.. Leading to Roe V Wade being struck down if neo cons upset the balance..

Yeah, I wouldn't think so :P Maybe it's just that politicians aren't quite used to the idea yet that every word of theirs is instantly available to everyone. I guess that's alright with me though, since we can see their true colors. But you would think that after one or two of their fellow party mates makes the mistake about seeming insensitive to rape, they would just avoid the issue. Or at least have a canned response ready so that they don't have to make something up in response that makes them look like an ass.Engrish_Major

You would think.

ROFL. Yes, the sole purpose of electing Romney is to overturn Roe v. Wade.

YOU'VE FIGURED US OUT!

And you call us conspiracy nut jobs.

Here, this is just for you, tenaka:

airshocker

lol when did I say this? Stop making stuff up.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

ROFL. Yes, the sole purpose of electing Romney is to overturn Roe v. Wade.

YOU'VE FIGURED US OUT!

And you call us conspiracy nut jobs.

Here, this is just for you, tenaka:

tenaka2

lol when did I say this? Stop making stuff up.

lol when did I say this? Stop making stuff up.

tenaka2

Why do you think the Romney admin. would even TOUCH Roe v. Wade?

Romney is a north-eastern Republican. It makes no political sense for him to pursue it. Not when he's campaigning on fixing the economy.

Gotta love that my state gave up Richard Lugar for a guy who says that rape babies are a gift from god.

Economy is #1.

But just to say, women have more rights than men in America. I honestly women's rights has gone to far. Just my opinion tho.

Economy is #1.

But just to say, women have more rights than men in America. I honestly women's rights has gone to far. Just my opinion tho.

ristactionjakso

Economy is #1.

But just to say, women have more rights than men in America. I honestly women's rights has gone to far. Just my opinion tho.

ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Economy is #1.

But just to say, women have more rights than men in America. I honestly women's rights has gone to far. Just my opinion tho.

Sajo7

Economy isn't the primary issue for everyone. Not everyone is hurting because of the economy. We are a loooooong ways way before a collapsing economy.

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Economy is #1.

But just to say, women have more rights than men in America. I honestly thinkwomen's rights has gone to far. Just my opinion tho.

dave123321

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Economy is #1.

But just to say, women have more rights than men in America. I honestly women's rights has gone to far. Just my opinion tho.

ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

I never understood this "lets not think of that until we've sorted this first" attitude. It's counterproductive and doesn't make any sense in this context.

airshocker

Right, because focusing on healthcare really did this country a lot of good economically.

Why would you focus on something that doesn't have anything to do with the major problem this country is facing? That doesn't make any sense.

About 99% of the time, in child court cases, women get the custody. Unless the woman is a hardcore drug addict. If the man does lose custody, he has to pay her A LOT more in child support than she would if he won. If a guy gets a girl pregnant, and if the guy doesn't want an abortion and she does, only her thoughts count. The guy cannot do a thing about it, even if the would be baby is his too. Just a few simple facts.

ristactionjakso

None of those are more rights/less rights issues, except maybe the abortion thing. And thats simply because shes the one carrying it and not the guy.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"] What do you have in mind when you say women have more rights than men?ristactionjakso

How is it that you've interpreted what I said to mean the exact opposite of what I meant?

toast_burner

Because it's the internet.

When it comes putting Liberal Judges on bench in Suprme Court you can always bank on the republicans. Also likelyhood of Willard being a fire breathing right winger is close to zillch. Why kill the golden goose that gets you lots of votes for nothing.

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

How is it that you've interpreted what I said to mean the exact opposite of what I meant?

airshocker

Because it's the internet.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Economy is #1.

But just to say, women have more rights than men in America. I honestly women's rights has gone to far. Just my opinion tho.

ristactionjakso

It's not 99% (that is a completely inflated figure), although it's true that mothers tend to get custody more often. However, that's usually because the primary caregiver is usually the one who gets custody, and the primary caregiver is, more often than not, the mother. If you want more men to get custody, then fight the cultural norms that discourage men from being primary or equal caregivers.

Regarding abortion, she is the one who is pregnant, so only she can decide to give birth or terminate the pregnancy. No one but her has the right to control her uterus. Deal with it.

It's kind of hard for me to believe that Republicans would actually try to repeal Roe v. Wade. It's been such a great wedge issue for them after all these years. -Sun_Tzu-