Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'll just join the copy & paste train and leave this here:

Illinois Republican Rep. Joe Walsh is under fire for comments he made Thursday night in his final debate against Democrat Tammy Duckworth -- he said he opposes abortion "without exception," even when the life of the mother is at stake.

The trouble came when the Tea Partier doubled down on his position with the media afterward:

There's no such exception as life of the mother. And as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology, health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime under any reason.

The facts Walsh used to justify his position have been proven absolutely false. In fact, studies show that pregnancy-related deaths for women are on the rise.

This is also fun.

pregnancy related deaths are on the rise so we should have more access to abortions?

Also in pro-life land, abortion tends to refer to the elective procedure which is not done for any other medical reason. If a pregnant woman had chemotherapy and the unborn child died that wouldn't be considered abortion, nor would the removal of an ectopic pregnancy.

However his comment about no one dying in childbirth is asinine to say the least.

 Phototoxin wrote:
pregnancy related deaths are on the rise so we should have more access to abortions?
However his comment about no one dying in childbirth is asinine to say the least.

Um, yes?

Im sick of reading about these freaks, why are there so many of them in charge in the States?

We have Religious weirdos over here as well, but nobody would bloody vote for them.

Tony Blair is a apparently pretty devout, he didn't mention it when he was running though the lying little toad!

 Phototoxin wrote:
pregnancy related deaths are on the rise so we should have more access to abortions?

Yes?

Unborn children have no intrinsic value, but pregnant women do. Let the child die and save the person who can become a producer in a shorter time span.

It isn't like we shy away from letting children die.

 mattyrm wrote:
Im sick of reading about these freaks, why are there so many of them in charge in the States?

We have Religious weirdos over here as well, but nobody would bloody vote for them.

Tony Blair is a apparently pretty devout, he didn't mention it when he was running though the lying little toad!

We unfortunately still have a Puritanical streak in this country, and a lot of Americans belong to extremist Christian sects.

There's also polling out there that shows a convicted child molester would have as much chance of getting elected to something as an avowed atheist would in America - which is to say, hardly any chance at all.

Nuke him from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

 mattyrm wrote:
Im sick of reading about these freaks, why are there so many of them in charge in the States?

We have Religious weirdos over here as well, but nobody would bloody vote for them.

Tony Blair is a apparently pretty devout, he didn't mention it when he was running though the lying little toad!

Well... we have ALOT of Religious weirdos...

AND, in the current political environment, the Democrats aren't exactly popular as they were...

Case in point: By all accounts, Akins should be clobbered by now...
Don't be surprised if he wins the Senate over McCaskill.

Well, sometimes to preserve the sanctity of life, you have to let pregnant women die.

Isn't this the same guy that was trying to claim that his opponent had no right to talk about her military service?

I live in a religious family, and im more pro-choice(Its more that i think abortion is deplorable, but i realize that things can get worse), But I do give to Pro-life that work towards providing support to mothers with unplanned children, and not illegalizing it.I think if we truly want to stop abortions, we need to make it a world where not child is unwanted and all can be taken care of, that that is utopian.
But living in a religious family and being a guy who is pro-choice and your family you have right wing nutters is kinda like how i think abortions are. They treat you as if you have no moral compass, as if you are deplorable, and that you live only for yourself.

I am a fairly conservative guy, and by Thor's might beard am I tired of 'conservative' becoming 'religious nutjob' in this country. I can't in good conscience back the democrats, as I get older I realize that a lot of the libertarian ideals I used to support are untenable... and good heavens what the republicans have become is ridiculous.




I really don't have a point or any solutions or anything.... gods this sucks.

Well...we start with the politicians first...then the lawyers...

Launch Unit 001.

You'd think Republicans would look at who wants to have abortions and start backing it whole heartedly, just throw buckets of money at opening abortion clinics, and then encourage all thier little evangelist daughters and sons to breed like rabbits...

The fun part is, even though Republican politicians SAY they are against abortion, they never ACT on a nation level to outlaw it.

They had a really good opportunity back under Bush 2.0, when they controlled both houses of Congress and had an nice tame conservative Supreme Court.

But then, if they actually outlaw abortion, they loose the ability to use it as a divisive issue to run on...

Not to mention that if they were really serious about reducing the incidence of abortion, they would logically wholeheartedly support free universal access to contraception.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Not to mention that if they were really serious about reducing the incidence of abortion, they would logically wholeheartedly support free universal access to contraception.

If Republicans were serious about reducing abortions... they'd advocate all boyz pre-High School to get Vasectomy.

Then. the kidz can feth like bunnies w/o consequence... 'cuz, they'll feth anyways.

But contraception doesn't require doing surgery on other people's kids.

 Mannahnin wrote:
But contraception doesn't require doing surgery on other people's kids.

Right... it was said in a tongue in cheek way...

Back to OP: I still contend that all this bruhah is political, rather than difficulties of accessing contraceptives.

 Vulcan wrote:
The fun part is, even though Republican politicians SAY they are against abortion, they never ACT on a nation level to outlaw it.

Well, it depends on which part of the party you're talking about.

The "liars for Jesus" part would gladly outlaw abortion, along with a lot of other things on their conservative religious agenda.

The "rich get richer" part doesn't care about anything that doesn't involve making life even more awesome for rich people, so they just pretend to care about abortion long enough to get the idiot social conservatives to check the "R" box on election day.

The main reason that not much gets done on a national level is that the "rich get richer" branch is more powerful than the "liars for Jesus" branch (I guess focusing on accumulating wealth and power works?) and gets to determine the national party agenda. If you look at the state level you see a lot of restrictions on abortion, with the intent of creating a ban in all but name, and the people responsible would be perfectly happy to do it at a national level if they had the chance.

 Phototoxin wrote:
pregnancy related deaths are on the rise so we should have more access to abortions?

Also in pro-life land, abortion tends to refer to the elective procedure which is not done for any other medical reason. If a pregnant woman had chemotherapy and the unborn child died that wouldn't be considered abortion, nor would the removal of an ectopic pregnancy.

However his comment about no one dying in childbirth is asinine to say the least.

It really doesn't matter why women want to have abortions. They can have them for the lulz as far as I'm concerned. It's also one of the only easy ways of getting excommunicated, for people who convert to sanity. The Catholic Church is so crazy about it that they excommunicated a nine year old girl for having an abortion after being raped by her grandfather. These people just want the fetus high and abortion centers tightly closed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:
Im sick of reading about these freaks, why are there so many of them in charge in the States?

We have Religious weirdos over here as well, but nobody would bloody vote for them.

Tony Blair is a apparently pretty devout, he didn't mention it when he was running though the lying little toad!

It's because there's too many weird religious people here. They only vote for other religious weirdos, and only want them to march in spirit within our ranks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, sometimes to preserve the sanctity of life, you have to let pregnant women die.

LOL, that's about how they think. They would rather see women dead than have fetuses aborted by the red front and reactionaries.

Ok lets look at this from a the perspective of various social conservatives.
Many social conservatives are concerned with but one thing, families, primarily their own. And they believe that there is only one type of way for a family to survive, the social conservative way. Which tends to align a little with christian faiths, such as no sex before marriage, sex is for the making of children only, and you shouldn't be having it unless you want one. So families perpetuate to create more families it is reasonable to conclude. The way to create new families is babies, so you cant get rid of babies.
That is why i think abortion is so highly contested, many believe it is a breakdown of the family. Same to why Contraceptives are so highly debated topic. Breakdown of familes.

Why are social conservatives so concerned about other people's families?

Well, because it affect their families, like abortion, they think that it will destroy the carfully constructed world view they made for themselves.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well, because it affect their families, like abortion, they think that it will destroy the carfully constructed world view they made for themselves.

Well worded. Exalted.

As a warning: I have experience working in the women's centers that allegedly exist to help women have an option besides abortion. Often their true goal is to close Planned Parenthood locations and little else. I talked to a fairly rich, powerful guy who is on the board for a couple of such centers who offered someone I know a position as director of one. His plan was to open it up next to a PP and close it immediately after they had made them fold, leaving all of the women screwed. The general banter in the two I've been around is more of complaining about what ahs to be done for women, but "at least they're not supporting Planned Parenthood (which is a synonym for 'getting an abortion')." There are newsletters and prolife magazines that run somewhat underground and they get stacks of them every month with headlines like "We closed another one!" and little to no content about actually helping women. I'm not accusing everyone who's ever helped at a women's center of being heartless and scheming, but I am saying many of them are. Quote one higher up: "With Obamacare even children can get healthcare! It's ridiculous." There's also lots of inter-denominational conflict and competition between centers, often to the detriment of the women who are supposed to be getting help.

FWIW, I don't shop at their resale shops anymore and won't donate to one unless I know their real stance. Much of the money that may be donated to help with supplies or training women is going towards shutting down other places that help women, which is horrible in my book. If you are more concerned about "souls" than reality, please donate willy-nilly because your ends are being served :/

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why are social conservatives so concerned about other people's families?

In the best of cases, because they think that all people should have a healthy, prosperous, and dignified life. Surely it's not far-fetched to believe that a two-parent household (consisting of both biological parents) not subject to the sort of financial and social pressures that lead many women to have abortions is the proper template for that? Now that the individual is often considered outside of the context of her or his family relationships, thanks at least in part to the break down of that template, I suppose the correlation is harder to see or rather that we've become very sensitive to the way this template might in exceptional cases create injustices to the individual that we have forgotten how much good it does. Seeing divorces and custody cases in a professional capacity has led me to not forget one while thinking of the other.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok lets look at this from a the perspective of various social conservatives.
Many social conservatives are concerned with but one thing, families, primarily their own. And they believe that there is only one type of way for a family to survive, the social conservative way. Which tends to align a little with christian faiths, such as no sex before marriage, sex is for children only, and you shouldn't be having it unless you want one. So families perpetuate to create more families it is reasonable to conclude. The way to create new families is babies, so you cant get rid of babies.
That is why i think abortion is so highly contested, many believe it is a breakdown of the family. Same to why Contraceptives are so highly debated topic. Breakdown of familes.

No fault divorce shattered that little fairy tale a couple decades back. If they want to perserve the sanctity of marriage, they should look into that.

Especially since most gay and lesbian couples I've met tend to be much more committed to each other than the average straight couple.