House Passes Anti-Abortion Bill

[Principia Moderni]

What happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Anyway, Abortion is not all Republicans care about.

They also care about shifting the tax burden the poor and middle class. They care about mixing church and state. They care cutting aid to children and the elderly. They care about denying gays equal treatment.

Pretty much their only redeemable quality is that they are in favor of one's right to own a gun, and even that most Democrats have in common with them.

The poor will always whine about something. I don't want to mix church and state. I don't want to cut aid to children or the elderly. Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals do. They can both marry someone of opposite gender or not marry at all.

[Wilgrove]

If someone tried making killing people legal, wouldn't you try to end that?

Before anyone gets this started, this thread isn't a debate about abortion. It is about the effects that this bill will have on American politics.

Personally I just LOVE how the Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce are apparently in bed together and claim to be for small businesses, and yet....hehe....they do stupid shit like, I dunno, end tax credits for small businesses, or block measures that'd make it easier for small businesses to get a loan. Link

I bet you five bucks that come election time, the GOP will be using that same tired line again about how they're a friend to small business.

[Marcheria]

Ok....*sigh*.....How many bills have they even come up with so far? Because apparently they've only came up with three bills since taking office.

*sigh* There's really only one way to describe this failure.

(Image)

This.

Seriously, these Republican doofs really need to get the "god" thing out of their minds and look at the big picture.

[Principia Moderni]

If someone tried making killing people legal, wouldn't you try to end that?

Your analogy fails, a fetus is not a person, and abortion is not a murder.

Care to try again? [Y/N]

How is a fetus not a human? Does it somehow switch species or something?

[Wilgrove]

They also care about shifting the tax burden the poor and middle class. They care about mixing church and state. They care cutting aid to children and the elderly. They care about denying gays equal treatment.

Pretty much their only redeemable quality is that they are in favor of one's right to own a gun, and even that most Democrats have in common with them.

The poor will always whine about something. I don't want to mix church and state. I don't want to cut aid to children or the elderly. Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals do. They can both marry someone of opposite gender or not marry at all.

Yea, cutting programs that actually helps the poor tend to get their panties in a bunch. Face it, it's the Republicans who DO want to mix state and church, and they do want to cut funding to the elderly and children under the 'guise of "fiscal conservatism". What they DON'T tell you is that the REASON they're cutting those funds is that they have to pay for those tax breaks to Corporate America somehow. Also, gays and lesbians do NOT have equal rights to heterosexuals. They do NOT have the right to marry someone of their choosing.

[The Parkus Empire]

The poor will always whine about something.

It seems to me that the Republicans are mostly the ones whining about taxes.

They can both marry someone of opposite gender or not marry at all.

If only same-sex marriage were legal, then straights would have equal rights with gays? That makes no sense. A similar argument could be used to justify laws against mixed-race marriage.

[Takaram]

Your analogy fails, a fetus is not a person, and abortion is not a murder.

Care to try again? [Y/N]

How is a fetus not a human? Does it somehow switch species or something?

It is human, but it is not a person. We do not define a fetus as a person until it is able to live outside of it's mother's womb at least, and the usual line is drawn at birth.

[Wilgrove]

Your analogy fails, a fetus is not a person, and abortion is not a murder.

Care to try again? [Y/N]

How is a fetus not a human? Does it somehow switch species or something?

I'm not getting into an abortion debate with you on this thread, that'd be a threadjack. If you want to have an abortion debate, you need to create a new thread for it.

[Takaram]

The poor will always whine about something.

It seems to me that the Republicans are mostly the ones whining about taxes.

They can both marry someone of opposite gender or not marry at all.

If only same-sex marriage were legal, then straights would have equal rights with gays? That makes no sense. A similar argument could be used to justify laws against mixed-race marriage.

It was, in fact. The Supreme Court said it was BS.

[The Parkus Empire]

Your analogy fails, a fetus is not a person, and abortion is not a murder.

Care to try again? [Y/N]

How is a fetus not a human? Does it somehow switch species or something?

[Wilgrove]

How is a fetus not a human? Does it somehow switch species or something?

Republicans: We only care about you till you're born, after that, you're on your own until you turn 18.

[Principia Moderni]

The poor will always whine about something. I don't want to mix church and state. I don't want to cut aid to children or the elderly. Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals do. They can both marry someone of opposite gender or not marry at all.

Yea, cutting programs that actually helps the poor tend to get their panties in a bunch. Face it, it's the Republicans who DO want to mix state and church, and they do want to cut funding to the elderly and children under the 'guise of "fiscal conservatism". What they DON'T tell you is that the REASON they're cutting those funds is that they have to pay for those tax breaks to Corporate America somehow. Also, gays and lesbians do NOT have equal rights to heterosexuals. They do NOT have the right to marry someone of their choosing.

Maybe the cut programs are necessary. Maybe the poor should have worked harder in school. As for cutting funds for the elderly and the children, that's just stupid. I wouldn't cut programs for the same kids I'm saving from vacuum cleaners and iodine. I respect elders. Some people want to do bad things, like drugs. Should we let them? No, because it's self destructive.

[Mike the Progressive]

Because I consider myself pro-life.

Should a land lord be able to evict squatters?

Evict, yes. Murder, no. Though I hold a more blunt opinion towards abortion, I don't actually think it is murder, nor do I personally really care about it. I believe in God, yes, but I think in most cases he'd understand. My opposition to abortion is simply my belief that it is race suicide.

[Terishany]

If someone tried making killing people legal, wouldn't you try to end that?

Justifiable homicide should be legal.

My neighbor just stole my lawnmower. I think it's justified to kill him and take his stuff in retaliation...

[The Parkus Empire]

[Some people want to do bad things, like drugs. Should we let them? No, because it's self destructive.

Ban smoking and institute Prohibition. Derp.

[Principia Moderni]

How is a fetus not a human? Does it somehow switch species or something?

Congratulations. You found a bunch of unfertilized eggs and seeds. What is it AFTER it's fertilized?

[Seperate Vermont]

Hey, Democrats were promoting this Anti-Abortion measure. By the way, would you like to work with us on the deficit? Oh, you see, now they won't compromise with us.

[The Parkus Empire]

Congratulations. You found a bunch of unfertilized eggs and seeds. What is it AFTER it's fertilized?

A fertilized egg.

[Takaram]

Congratulations. You found a bunch of unfertilized eggs and seeds. What is it AFTER it's fertilized?

Well, the silkworm is a fertile organism. If anything, it's actually got more right to live than a fetus.

[Wilgrove]

Yea, cutting programs that actually helps the poor tend to get their panties in a bunch. Face it, it's the Republicans who DO want to mix state and church, and they do want to cut funding to the elderly and children under the 'guise of "fiscal conservatism". What they DON'T tell you is that the REASON they're cutting those funds is that they have to pay for those tax breaks to Corporate America somehow. Also, gays and lesbians do NOT have equal rights to heterosexuals. They do NOT have the right to marry someone of their choosing.

Maybe the cut programs are necessary. Maybe the poor should have worked harder in school. As for cutting funds for the elderly and the children, that's just stupid. I wouldn't cut programs for the same kids I'm saving from vacuum cleaners and iodine. I respect elders. Some people want to do bad things, like drugs. Should we let them? No, because it's self destructive.

So, instead of rolling back the tax cuts, and rolling back those corporate tax cuts, closing the loopholes in the tax codes that allow people to cheat the system....you'd rather you'd screw the poor under some stupid guise that everyone should pull themselves up by their own bootstrap. Because clearly, that's how rich people got rich, they did it themselves. It's not like they were BORN into a rich family, or through inheritance, nope EVERY rich person EVER made it up there on their own.



Then again, maybe not.

[Alien Space Bats]

I am convinced that women's rights are fundamentally incompatible with mainstream Republicanism. That vile party is beginning to stand for virtually everything that's politically wrong with the U.S.

This is why I think Obama ought to call for Congress pass the Equal Rights Amendment again and send it back to the States for ratification. It's one of those things that everyone ought to support (given our public rhetoric), but Republicans simply can't bring themselves to do (whatever they say about supporting equal rights for women).

For those who don't remember, the ERA was a relatively simple thing. Here is it's text, as written back in 1923 by Alice Paul (and passed by Congress in 1972):

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Back in the 70's, much of the opposition to this Amendment came from two sources: People who said that it would require the U.S. military to permit women to serve in combat, and people who said that it would force employers to provide equal pay for equal work. Today, women have served in combat and equal pay for equal work is the law of the land (as of the 111th Congress and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act). That means that the biggest counterarguments to the ERA, as voiced in the 1970's, are now moot.

Of course, we all know that the Republicans would choke on this, inventing new and creative reasons not to enact it. I'd love to see them have to do just that - and then I'd love to see the Democrats run attack ads asking: "What do Republicans have against finally making sure that women have the same rights as men?"

But then, I'm a bastard: I'm pushing for a landslide in '12.

[Principia Moderni]

Congratulations. You found a bunch of unfertilized eggs and seeds. What is it AFTER it's fertilized?

A fertilized egg.

Okay, now to be more specific. A human sperm fertilized a human egg. What do we have?

A fertilized HUMAN egg.

[Wilgrove]

Congratulations. You found a bunch of unfertilized eggs and seeds. What is it AFTER it's fertilized?

A clump of cells?

[Gauthier]

Not to mention the restriction of private business, which they tend to oppose.

Shh! They're for jobs! See! Private sector! Trickle-down economics! We like freedom, as long as it's our freedoms!
The thing is, they haven't done any more to fix the economy than the Democrats, so they have to find some way to inflame their base. Turn the conversation from the economy they've been talking about to something where everyone already knows where they stand.

Since when did McJobs count as job creation?

[Mosasauria]

A fertilized egg.

Okay, now to be more specific. A human sperm fertilized a human egg. What do we have?

A fertilized HUMAN egg.

The debate is whether it is a person.