Women-- Republicans are attacking your Rights!

REDWAVE

Urban Jungle Dweller
Joined
Aug 26, 2001
Posts
6,013
The top article on today's NYT tells the story in more detail: emboldened by their success in the last two elections and their hammerlock on all three major branches of government, the Republicans are launching a frontal assault upon women's right to choose. The key element in Bush's mass constituency is the rabid religious right. Those woman-hating bigots want to restore the "good old days" when women were firmly under the thumb of men, and couldn't even do what they wanted with their own bodies unless they had the permission of some man. The opening wedge is a ban on "partial birth" abortions, but their long term objective is outlawing abortion altogether. Do you want to go back to the days of illegal back alley abortions? If so, vote Republican!

Even "partial birth" abortions are sometimes necessary for the health of the mother. At any rate, it should be a woman's right to choose what to do with her own damn body. Only she should make the decision whether to have a partial birth procedure, not Washington legislators or Supreme Court Justices (both of whom are mostly men, I might add).

In opposition to the Republican religious right women-hating bigots, I say: Free abortion on demand! Hands off women's bodies!

(Unless they want hands on them, of course, in which case-- carry on . . .)
 
Hunter S Thompson's take on the Republican party works for me.

Lance
 
Let's try using a little wisdom here. I am in favor of the choice a woman has to have a abortion. I do think that after the 1st trimester it should be a case of only if the life of the mother is in danger or there is some kind of other problem. For my part, I'd hate to see any girl I know have a back alley abortion. This is an area where I differ strongly with the Republicans.
 
REDWAVE said:


In opposition to the Republican religious right women-hating bigots, I say: Free abortion on demand! Hands off women's bodies!


This is not a trick question: Who pays for "free" abortions?
 
Redwave, shut the fuck up. You're squealing like a piglet caught in a leg trap.

You're running out of issues. Abortion laws will never be overturned. It isn't going to happen. period.
 
Re: Re: Women-- Republicans are attacking your Rights!

Ham Murabi said:
This is not a trick question: Who pays for "free" abortions?

Big business and rich white Republicans! Does everything have to be explained?

:rolleyes:
 
Re: Re: Re: Women-- Republicans are attacking your Rights!

miles said:
Big business and rich white Republicans! Does everything have to be explained?

:rolleyes:
But if big business and rich white Republicans are corrupt exploiters, how can they be responsible for footing the bill?
 
Classic redwave.

He's like the bad kid on the block who sets a house on fire, calls 911, then waits to see how many fire trucks respond.

I fell for it, too.
 
miles said:
Abortion laws will never be overturned. It isn't going to happen. period.

If you would be so kind as to make a list of all those things that are never going to change, you'd save a lot of bandwidth and time for everyone.

Ha!

Lance
 
miles said:
Classic redwave.

He's like the bad kid on the block who sets a house on fire, calls 911, then waits to see how many fire trucks respond.

I fell for it, too.

Wouldn't a more apt comparison be to the child who killed both his parents, then threw himself at the mercy of the court because he was an orphan?
 
I don't think I've ever replied to a REDWAVE thread...

time to correct that, I don't want to miss out on any facets of the complete Lit experience.
REDWAVE said:
The top article on today's NYT tells the story in more detail: emboldened by their success in the last two elections and their hammerlock on all three major branches of government, the Republicans are launching a frontal assault upon women's right to choose. The key element in Bush's mass constituency is the rabid religious right. Those woman-hating bigots want to restore the "good old days" when women were firmly under the thumb of men, and couldn't even do what they wanted with their own bodies unless they had the permission of some man. The opening wedge is a ban on "partial birth" abortions, but their long term objective is outlawing abortion altogether. Do you want to go back to the days of illegal back alley abortions? If so, vote Republican!

Even "partial birth" abortions are sometimes necessary for the health of the mother. At any rate, it should be a woman's right to choose what to do with her own damn body. Only she should make the decision whether to have a partial birth procedure, not Washington legislators or Supreme Court Justices (both of whom are mostly men, I might add).

In opposition to the Republican religious right women-hating bigots, I say: Free abortion on demand! Hands off women's bodies!
And I say no woman can just up and choose to have a partial birth abortion - and I doubt you'll run across any women who would claim that they ought to be able to. :p

I'm pro-choice myself: I think that women should have the right to choose, but that doesn't mean that they should have that right up until the very moment of birth - they have a couple of months before the fetus develops the capability of even the most primitive form of awareness, that's plenty of time for them to decide.

Partial birth abortions are only allowed when necessary to save the mother, or the fetus has such a sever defect that it would die very shortly after birth anyway (an example of a defect sever enough to fit the criteria would be a fetus missing all the bones in the head - it is untreatable, fatal, and one can only imagine how horrific the baby's experience of life is in the short time before its death).

I don't see Bush banning any sort of abortion under those circumstances. If he tried, then the women who have had to have them would get up and tell their stories to congress again, and give graphic accounts of exactly what that bill would have forced them and/or their unborn children to endure. That bill would be going nowhere fast.
 
Here's a solution Redrave is sure to endorse, since he loves the common folk and democracy: Have each state vote on whether or not abortion should be allowed within its borders.
 
Roe v. Wade in danger

Just a shift of one vote on the Supreme Court, and Roe v. Wade could be overturned. Bush will likely get to appoint two, maybe three Justices, replacing the ones who are very old. Pretty cozy arrangement, isn't it-- first they appoint him as President, and then he gets to appoint their replacements! Sort of a self-perpetuating oligarchy (rule of the few) in which the will of the people never comes into play.
 
Last edited:
Re: Roe v. Wade in danger

REDWAVE said:
Bush will likely get to appoint two, maybe three Justices, who are very old. Pretty cozy arrangement, isn't it-- first they appoint him as President, and then he gets to appoint their replacements! Sort of a self-perpetuating oligarchy (rule of the few) in which the will of the people never comes into play.

Why would Bush appoint two or three justices who are really old? It seems to me he would pick younger, qualified judges who understand that the constitution is not a malleable object, but one that means what it says.
As for the "appointment," you probably missed it, but Bush won the popular vote in Florida.
The will of the people, Redrave, would be served if residents of each state were allowed to vote as to whether or not abortion would be legal within the state's borders.
 
Um, RED? Do you actually think anyone hasn't tumbled to the fact that Republicans are anti-choice? In *this* crowd?

Now, of course, what people say to defend voting Republican may differ...

:devil:
RS
 
Redwave wants abortions legal til the 32nd trimester. Or until the price of private schooling is affordable for all.
 
RisiaSkye said:
Um, RED? Do you actually think anyone hasn't tumbled to the fact that Republicans are anti-choice? In *this* crowd?

Now, of course, what people say to defend voting Republican may differ...

:devil:
RS

A common error is to assume that a specific group is pro or con a certain issue. For example, the Catholic Church is staunchly anti-abortion, but many Catholics (we can safely presume they are women) have undergone the procedure.
Similarly, it would be absurd to state that all Republicans think abortion is bad, and just as absurd to state that all Democrats think that abortion is good.
My point is that Redrave would certainly endorse a vote by residents of every state to determine whether or not abortion should be allowed within the borders of that state. This is, after all, what Redrave refers to as the "will of the people."
As yet, Redrave has not responded to that point, though I'm sure he will do so in the affirmative.
As for abortion, I think that's a personal decision. But I also think we can all agree something is killed during the procedure.
 
HeavyStick said:
Redwave wants abortions legal til the 32nd trimester. Or until the price of private schooling is affordable for all.

Everytime I see your AV, I have to fight the urge to lick my hand and try to smooth down your hair.
 
Ham, it's a good point. I was speaking of the Party's official platform, not individual Republicans.

RS
 
RisiaSkye said:
Ham, it's a good point. I was speaking of the Party's official platform, not individual Republicans.

RS

Hope I didn't jump to any conclusions.
By the way, I'm still waiting for Redrave to tell us who will pay for "free" abortions. And I'm also waiting to find out if his "will of the people" extends to letting voters in each state decide if abortion should be allowed in their state.
 
Ham Murabi said:
Hope I didn't jump to any conclusions.
By the way, I'm still waiting for Redrave to tell us who will pay for "free" abortions. And I'm also waiting to find out if his "will of the people" extends to letting voters in each state decide if abortion should be allowed in their state.

Fredwave Rule #1: Redwave hates logic and never answers questions that prove he's suffering from Fucktard Nervosa.
 
Back
Top