So according to rush limbaugh, the republican party stands for...

[Tungwagger]

How well has the "abstinence education" form of birth control worked over the past few years that it's been pushed by this administration?

The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. The Center for Disease control says that one-third of girls get pregnant before the age of 20. Teenpregnancy.org, a site managed by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, states that there are "750,000 teen pregnancies annually. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81 percent are to unmarried teens."

Teaching abstinence is fine, as PART of sexual education. Teaching only abstinence and no other forms of birth and STD control is ludicrous, dangerous, and ineffective.

Could it be that the "progressive" form of looking the other way, and the fact that sexuality is plastered all over our media lends itself to the high teen pregnancy rate? If Joe Camel can force kids to smoke, then shouldn't Hollywood bear a similar responsibility for the messages it sends out?

I have a daughter who is completely bambarded daily about what body type is acceptable, what attitudes are acceptable etc...

My response was originally to richard daily who seemed to advocate the simplicity of abstinence as a snide remark that if abortion was unwanted, don't fuck a woman.

I was merely pointing out that if it was indeed as simple as he stated, why not advocate abstinence to avoid pregancy altogether?


Seems like one argument lends itself to the other.

For the record, I believe that it is morally wrong to utilize abortion as a means of birth control.

That being said, I would prefer that our country move towards the concept (as BBW said) of it being the exception, rather than the norm.

It's intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge that the abortion industry exists, and that like other capitalist ventures, there is money to be had for others "mistakes".

I am NOT in favor of making it illegal, but In favor of making shame play a part in our lives again.

I ceased being a Democrat early on when I noticed an advocacy for "perceived rights" for the individual, and a responsibility for others.

 

[naughtycakes]

It's plain to see what the Democrats stand for, here is a well known Democrat activist apparently standing up for the constitutional requirement that one must be a "natural born" citizen in order to be president of the United States filing suit in federal court. Note, this is not an evil Republican doing this:

Obama Crimes
Philip J. Berg, Esq. Files Federal Lawsuit Requesting Obama Be Removed as a Candidate as he does not meet the Qualifications for President

For Immediate Release: - 08/21/08
Suit filed 08/21/08, No. 08-cv-4083

Contact information at the end of this press release. Documents filed with the court and a copy of this press release can be downloaded at the end of this press release.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 08/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate in Democratic Primaries; former Chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County; former member of Democratic State Committee; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA, filed a lawsuit in Federal Court today, Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083, seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States. Berg filed this suit for the best interests of the Democratic Party and the citizens of the United States.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire stated in his lawsuit that Senator Obama:

1. Is not a natural-born citizen; and/or

2. Lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia; and/or

3. Has dual loyalties because of his citizenship with Kenya and Indonesia.

Berg stated: “I filed this action at this time to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.

There have been numerous questions raised about Obama’s background with no satisfactory answers. The questions that I have addressed include, but are not limited to:

1. Where was Obama born? Hawaii; an island off of Hawaii; Kenya; Canada; or ?

2. Was he a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia and/or Canada?

3. What was the early childhood of Obama in Hawaii; in Kenya; in Indonesia when he was adopted; and later, back to Hawaii?

4. An explanation as to the various names utilized by Obama that include: Barack Hussein Obama; Barry Soetoro; Barry Obama; Barack Dunham; and Barry Dunham.

5. Illinois Bar Application – Obama fails to acknowledge use of names other than Barack Hussein Obama, a blatant lie.

Court pleadings and press release below:

http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/001_ObamaComplaint.pdf
http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/001_ObamaMemSupportTRO082108.pdf
http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/001_ObamaMotionforTRO.pdf
http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/001_ObamaTempOrder.pdf
http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/001_PressReleaseObama082108.pdf

Yeah, KarenKraft beat you to the punch on this one: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=609591

 

[unregistered]

 

[Tungwagger]

Having an abortion if you're not ready to care for and raise a child IS the responsible thing to do.

You might as well be saying "damn those filthy sluts for enjoying sex!"

See my response to ulaven...

It sums things up nicely...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Damn she's quick, that website was started yesterday according to Berg. His interview just aired this morning, it was taped yesterday. Oh well, she's pretty sharp.

Leave it to Karen to find a whackjob faster than you do.. Barely.

 

[John Doe]

Is it easier if you call it "reproductive freedom" than ,say, "murder", or "baby killing", or even "terminating a potential human life"?


A "yes" or "no" will do.

No. I support baby-killing. I think the hyphen makes it look cool.

I support euthenasia and eugenics too. I'm crazy like that.

 

[John Doe]

How well has the "abstinence education" form of birth control worked over the past few years that it's been pushed by this administration?

The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. The Center for Disease control says that one-third of girls get pregnant before the age of 20. Teenpregnancy.org, a site managed by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, states that there are "750,000 teen pregnancies annually. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81 percent are to unmarried teens."

Teaching abstinence is fine, as PART of sexual education. Teaching only abstinence and no other forms of birth and STD control is ludicrous, dangerous, and ineffective.

I'm suspicious...actually suspiciouser of statistical statements that don't even obey basic arithmetic rules.

I agree with you though.

Did you know you're more likely to get pregnant if you have buttsechs? Even if the boy is on the bottom.

 

[richard_daily]

There are practically a limitless number of human activities that can result in serious mistakes or accidents that may have moral, legal or personal consequences. Driving, building construction, frying greasy meat over an open flame.

That would be for situations where there is no solution to the "problem". For example, if there was a fire extinguisher right next to the person frying greasy meat over an open flame, and they caught on fire... should they then not be allowed to the tools at hand to extinguish themselves?

Are you seriously suggesting that a person's right to sex is so sacrosanct that he or she should be absolved from any negative consequences that might result from engaging in that activity?

There are plenty of negative consequences to sex... Some of the primary are guilt, shame, and ridicule in the form of all the negative words we have for women who enjoy it.

As I am certain you are aware, the government FORCES you and I to give it a specific percentage of OUR money in taxes and then uses that money to fund activities that you and I might find morally objectionable. Is there any serious question about the government's RIGHT to do that?

I think there's plenty of question as to the government's right to do that. Perhaps you've never heard of the concept of "protest"?

How about the draft? The government has in the past (and may in the future) required able bodied men to place themselves in harm's way and perhaps give their very LIVES irrespective of whether they believed in the specific political issues and causes for which they were fighting. Despite the history and tradition of war protests, I have never heard a groundswell of public opinion that suggests the government has no RIGHT to make that demand of its citizenry.

I'd oppose a draft.

And yet you're fine with the idea that the expectation of a woman carrying an unwanted baby to full term and putting it up for adoption may be swept aside by the "I-don't-wanna" defense.

So you're clearly stating then that a woman should be forced into carrying a baby to term... Which isn't much different from the genital mutilation, or foot binding that go on in some cultures. They are all ways to attempt to subjugate women, and you're perfectly ok with that.

I'm not.

Why are her rights to protect HER body from government intrusion, greater than my rights to protect MY money or MY body from that same intrusive government?

If you get pregnant, I will defend your right to an abortion too! Don't fret.

Answer: Because it is not an unwarranted intrusion to REQUIRE people to live up to those social responsibilities they lack the character to embrace on their own.

Yes it is an unwarranted intrusion. And no, they don't "lack the character"... you do.

 

[richard_daily]

See my response to ulaven...

It sums things up nicely...

not really.

 

[richard_daily]

Could it be that the "progressive" form of looking the other way, and the fact that sexuality is plastered all over our media lends itself to the high teen pregnancy rate? If Joe Camel can force kids to smoke, then shouldn't Hollywood bear a similar responsibility for the messages it sends out?

I have a daughter who is completely bambarded daily about what body type is acceptable, what attitudes are acceptable etc...

My response was originally to richard daily who seemed to advocate the simplicity of abstinence as a snide remark that if abortion was unwanted, don't fuck a woman.

I was merely pointing out that if it was indeed as simple as he stated, why not advocate abstinence to avoid pregancy altogether?


Seems like one argument lends itself to the other.

For the record, I believe that it is morally wrong to utilize abortion as a means of birth control.

That being said, I would prefer that our country move towards the concept (as BBW said) of it being the exception, rather than the norm.

It's intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge that the abortion industry exists, and that like other capitalist ventures, there is money to be had for others "mistakes".

I am NOT in favor of making it illegal, but In favor of making shame play a part in our lives again.

I ceased being a Democrat early on when I noticed an advocacy for "perceived rights" for the individual, and a responsibility for others.

When I stated that if you don't want a woman to have an abortion, don't fuck one, it speaks to the double standard that men have about what women should do or be... And yet all the while, men don't take responsibility, and will (generally) fuck just about any woman who will allow them. You can say "not me! not me!", but the percentages are there, and you know it.

Yet, the word we have for a male who is promiscuous is "stud", and the words we have for a female who is promiscuous are: "whore", "tramp", and "slut" among others...

THAT is the culture that we live in...

However, I do agree with you about the commercialization of sex, and using it as a means to sell product... I wonder why that is?

Oh, that's right... because people enjoy sex!

I suppose we should all just enjoy it at a distance, and not actually do it with one another... And pretend like we are abstinent creatures, even though we have biological desires which are completely counter to that.

I encourage you to teach your daughter about positive sexuality, not the negative stereotypes that she is bombarded with... On that point, I agree with you entirely.

However, if you just tell her to close her ears, eyes, and mouth towards sexuality, you have a fairly good chance of ending up with a pregnant daughter due to her not understanding or knowing anything about birth control... Would you then want her to carry it to term? All for your moral "highground"?

Your call.

 

[Tungwagger]

not really.

Sorry, you can't seem to comprehend an opposing point of view.

You obviously live under the delusion that if others don't see things through your eyes, they are completely lacking in a basic understanding of human principles.

You erroneously assume that those of us who oppose abortion as a means of birth control, do so only because of a knee jerk reaction rather than a well thought out, carefully considered approach to our beliefs.

It just so happens that my beliefs don't necessarily jibe with yours.

I can live with that.

 

[Tungwagger]

When I stated that if you don't want a woman to have an abortion, don't fuck one, it speaks to the double standard that men have about what women should do or be... And yet all the while, men don't take responsibility, and will (generally) fuck just about any woman who will allow them. You can say "not me! not me!", but the percentages are there, and you know it.

Yet, the word we have for a male who is promiscuous is "stud", and the words we have for a female who is promiscuous are: "whore", "tramp", and "slut" among others...

THAT is the culture that we live in...

However, I do agree with you about the commercialization of sex, and using it as a means to sell product... I wonder why that is?

Oh, that's right... because people enjoy sex!

I suppose we should all just enjoy it at a distance, and not actually do it with one another... And pretend like we are abstinent creatures, even though we have biological desires which are completely counter to that.

I encourage you to teach your daughter about positive sexuality, not the negative stereotypes that she is bombarded with... On that point, I agree with you entirely.

However, if you just tell her to close her ears, eyes, and mouth towards sexuality, you have a fairly good chance of ending up with a pregnant daughter due to her not understanding or knowing anything about birth control... Would you then want her to carry it to term? All for your moral "highground"?

Your call.

You are completely and utterly full of yourself aren't you?

The difference between us and animals is the ability to control our animal urges. Those who don't believe in controlling them are in prison, dead, or homeless drug/alcohol addicts etc... begging for change to get through the day. Or heading to an abortion clinic so as not to interrupt their lives.


Now you presume to be better equipped to know what is better for my daughter than I am?

Explains why you subscribe to Democrat ideology.

 

[John Doe]

You are completely and utterly full of yourself aren't you?

The difference between us and animals is the ability to control our animal urges. Those who don't believe in controlling them are in prison, dead, or homeless drug/alcohol addicts etc... begging for change to get through the day. Or heading to an abortion clinic so as not to interrupt their lives.


Now you presume to be better equipped to know what is better for my daughter than I am?

Explains why you subscribe to Democrat ideology.

Some of those selfish sluts even eat the baby.

 

[richard_daily]

Some of those selfish sluts even eat the baby.

[busybody]THOSE FILTHY FUCKING DUMBOCRAP MOOSLIMB WHORES[/busybody]

 

[richard_daily]

You are completely and utterly full of yourself aren't you?

The difference between us and animals is the ability to control our animal urges. Those who don't believe in controlling them are in prison, dead, or homeless drug/alcohol addicts etc... begging for change to get through the day. Or heading to an abortion clinic so as not to interrupt their lives.


Now you presume to be better equipped to know what is better for my daughter than I am?

Explains why you subscribe to Democrat ideology.

Your viewpoint of women who get abortions is pretty skewed and offensive.

You want to force your morality on others... That's not acceptable.

No one is forcing their moralities on you...

Don't like abortion? don't have one.

Simple.

 

[Slowlane]

How well has the "abstinence education" form of birth control worked over the past few years that it's been pushed by this administration?

The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. The Center for Disease control says that one-third of girls get pregnant before the age of 20. Teenpregnancy.org, a site managed by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, states that there are "750,000 teen pregnancies annually. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81 percent are to unmarried teens."

Teaching abstinence is fine, as PART of sexual education. Teaching only abstinence and no other forms of birth and STD control is ludicrous, dangerous, and ineffective.

An honest answer from UD. And one I agree with - will wonders never cease?

 

[Slowlane]

No. I support baby-killing. I think the hyphen makes it look cool.

I support euthenasia and eugenics too. I'm crazy like that.

There's nothing wrong with supporting what you believe in as long as you can call it what it is. That includes euthanasia (the killing of old people). Eugenics, of course, doesn't need to mean ending of anybody's life.

 

[Tungwagger]

Your viewpoint of women who get abortions is pretty skewed and offensive.

You want to force your morality on others... That's not acceptable.

No one is forcing their moralities on you...

Don't like abortion? don't have one.

Simple.

When did I state a willingness to force my morality on others? Forcing my morality would mean I was in favor of outlawing it. Or picket in front of abortion clinics.

In case you can't comprehend, I clearly stated I would rather see our country move to a point of not "seeking" an abortion to fix a "mistake", rather than outlaw it. You conveniently keep refusing to acknowledge this fact.


As evidenced by your entire arguments concerning this subject, seems you're pretty eager to throw around your own brand of morality.

And as such, it's no wonder that those of you who are in favor of abortions, get all riled up and leap to conclusions when an opposing point of view surfaces. Common ground is impossible to find when such a rigid desire to force words into the mouths of your opponents prevails.

Try reading and understanding before your fire off a shot from the hip.

 

[busybody..]

While "don't fuck" would work perfectly well for the older gentlemen on the board who can't get any without paying for it... most people, both men and women, enjoy sexual intercourse.

Pregnancy is a risk that is taken, but let's say your condom breaks, and some of that precious manseed makes it's way into a the woman and manages to impregnate the egg...

Should I somehow be expected to believe that we would be morally obligated to carry that mistake to term? ..............A mistake? A CHILD IS A MISTAKE??????????????????

And if so... What then? What are your solutions for the children that are born to mothers who were guilted into having a child that they didn't want? What are your solutions for that?

What about poor women who can't afford to have babies? I know how you republicans... excuse me... independents are on those horrible welfare mothers...

Are you then implying that a poor woman shouldn't be allowed to have sex?

Birth control and abortion are about fundamental sexual rights. You can scream and should "bloody murder", quite literally in fact, but that doesn't change that this is about controlling a woman and her choices... whether through pressuring her into not having sex, or through attempting to force her to carry a pregnancy to terms that she doesn't want

EVER HEAR OF ADOPTION???????????????

or is that NOT progressive enough for you?

 

[busybody..]

oh darling - governments have been killing babies for centuries. And I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find some simply horrific stories of botched abortions. Does not change the truth though... sadly enough.

1- What governments have been killing kids for centuries, name em

2- Are they STILL doing it?

3- Do you agree with that policy? Yes-No?

4- Botched jobs in all endevoers happen

5- What is THE TRUTH?

 

[Ishmael]

Just for some historical perspective.

Women have been performing birth control and abortions for centuries. That's just a matter of historical fact. During the days of the Roman Empire abortion was grounds for immediate divorce. I doubt that the Romans would have had such a law had they not recognized the fact of the need.

Nations and political bodies have also sanctioned infanticide over the centuries. Herods edict was historical fact. There is far too much historical record to even begin to dispute that fact. One can say that the Chinese are continuing that practice today. (Although it appears that in the eyes of some a state sanctioned abortion is merely the removal of unviable tissue matter without the womans permission. One can only wonder if the woman considers that infanticide.)

Because women will seek out abortion anyway if that is their choice, it only makes sense to make the procedure as safe as is medically possible. For that reason I am pro-choice WRT first trimester abortions. I make that choice with the full realization that it is infanticide, or homocide if you will. I choose to allow the individual making that decsion to live with the consequences.

Obama neatly side-stepped the question as to 'when does life begin?' We all know when life begins, if we didn't the contraception industry would be non-existant. If we didn't understand that life begins at conception, we wouldn't spend so much money, or time, protecting against it. Our very behavior in that respect argues against any other answer.

Limbaugh can argue whatever he wants. He won't be changing my mind. On the other hand I do have to cede to him the moral high ground even though I disagree with him. I choose not to accept his idealism on the subject.

And this whole thread about Limbaugh is more or less a strawman. Limbaugh isn't running for any high office, nor, to the best of my knowledge, does he have any intentiuon of doing so.

If you are a single issue voter and that issue is abortion, then it would seem to me that a discussion of Obamas vs. McCains views on the subject would be much more apropos. Their views on the subject might well be considered their views with regard to human life in general.

I understand that no matter what McCain believes on the subject is of no consequence because there is no way he's going to make abortion illegal. That just isn't in the political cards at anytime in the foreseeable future. What Obama believes on the subject is of even less consequence in that he is advocating no change at all. What is of concern in Obamas case is his advocation of infanticde. He is the only US Senator that is on record for voting for the withholding of medical care of a child that survived an 'induced labor' abortion procedure.

Regardless of the mothers, or the physicians intent, the child lived to defined as a 'live birth.' Someone who advocates just putting the infant on a shelf until it died makes me very uncomfortable. It elevates the disposability of life to a level that I cannot condone.

Ishmael

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

When did life end?






At what moment did the dawn become the day?






What's that flower you got on?
Could it be a faded rose from days gone by?

 

[nipple jewelry]

or rather against, abortion.

According to rush, that's the most important issue of the day, and the one that will decide if the GOP base will support or reject Mccain...

More proof that the republicans are ancient in their values, and out of step with progress and society.

Now that is antiquated thinking. Hey, I have an idea... Those that are Pro Life... lets hang the fuckers!

I think life begins at conception. I am sure glad for you Richard that your Mom did not chose to abort her child.

IMO one of the biggest issues the Right has about this topic is more and more women are using abortion as a "morning after" birth control. If we educated people better in using birth control and tell some of these girls that feeling pretty, being pretty and being liked DOES NOT MEAN they have to have sex, then there would be less a need for this.

And guys that get the girls pregnant, take some damn responsibility too.

And what about that Michael Phelps? what a great ASS and tummy.

Ok, I am off my soapbox and back in bed!

Hope I did not offend anyone. If I did, embrace it and get over it.

Have a great day.

N

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

I don't think it begins at conception because it doesn't end at egg...






chicken.
Egg.
Chicken.
Egg.
Chicken.
Egg.
Chicken.
.
.
.

 

[busybody..]

So DICK DAILY says if a BABY can survive on its own outside of its Mothers womb, it outa be protected!


Then when the KENYAN COLORED FOOL voted to throw LIVE BABIES that survived ABORTIONS in a CLOSET to die, he must mean BAM voted to MURDER BABIES


WIll DICK DAILY acknowledge this or will he launch an attack on BUSYBODY


DICK DAILY=EXTERMINATOR OF BABIES=NEW VALUES of DUMZ and PROGRESSIVES!